Should SUV's be banned?

[okiemax]

Who determines what is a "unnecessarily large vehicle"? So, we should just ban or discourage vehicles that are "unnecessarily large" for the particular person buying it? I have an idea, let's just create another department within goverment who will go around interviewing each person who wants to buy a SUV to see if they really need it. I can see it now, "I'm sorry Mr. JSE, you don't need the Chevy Tahoe, you really need the Toyota Matrix. Granted, your knees will be jammed into the dash at all times, your head will be crushed into the roof and you will feel like your being crammed into a jar but hey, that's what we feel you need."

While we're at it, let's cut horsepower down in all vehicles as well. Does anyone really need 300 HP? Does anyone really need a car that can do 0-60mph in under 5 seconds. Oh, and what about the street racers. They convert primarily foreign cars into street racing KILLING MACHINES! Let's just be safe and ban cars made by Honda, Toyota, Mitts, Nissan, etc.

I hate to be harsh or rude, but GET OVER IT! Drive your small a$$ car and deal with it. It ain't gonna change! SUVs are never going to be banned. They may be held to the same rules in the furture but then it will be my choice if I want one.

JSE

You have misread me, but you aren't alone. I have never said SUVs should be banned. I believe the use of unneccesarily large vehicles should be discouraged. I will make an addition to the base post to clarify things.

[okiemax]

okiemax, what's the maximum square footage that you feel should be allowed to a family of three? How about a family of four? or a single person living alone (perhaps it would be best if we had government "recommended" living laws) Maybe only allow those with heart conditions to own and run air conditioning in hot climates. Or better yet...require them to move to a cooler climate. If they choose not to move to a cooler climate (because of their heart conditions) then their government funded health insurance would be denied.


What size home do you feel is in excess of living comfortably?

It's easy enough to discuss the ramifications of owning/building/maintaining a large home. So what size is too big? Let's think about the trees used to produce the lumber...the toxins used to make and clean the various chemicals used to make the building materials...the coal or nuclear power used to produce the electricity for the materials to be built to build the house of excess...and the power used to heat/cool the "too large home"...the oils used to make the building materials...the oils burnt up while workers at each individual factory use while driving to and from their jobs...to make the materials. The homes that they live in. Not to mention that union laborers are usually paid better than non union workers...so it's very possible that the workers at the factories, where your getting your building supplies from, are also living in excess.

What size house do you own?

Do you own a furnace or air conditioner? Do you use them?

Do you own a second home?


Do you keep your house clean?

What do you clean it with?

How many (and what type) of vehicles do you own?


Do you use fertilizers on your lawn shrubs or garden?

What crops do you plant in your garden?

How far do you drive to work?


How many miles do you put on your vehicles (all) each year?

(I'd be willing to bet that your burning more fuel per year than my family (full size truck and mini-van). We actually moved close to where we work. Would you suggest that a family moves closer to their employment to save on the amount of fuel used per year? )

(when talking about fuel usage) Isn't that what it really comes down... not so much how much fuel a vehicle uses...but how much fuel the owner requires that vehicle to use per year)

I think my base post may have led you to believe I am in favor of banning SUVs. I have never said SUVs should be banned. I believe the use of unneccesarily large vehicles should be discouraged. I will make an addition to the base post to clarify things.

[okiemax]

I'm not for banning SUVs, but the title of my base post may have suggested I favor banning. I am for government policies that discourage people from using motor vehicles that are larger than they need. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

While I don't favor a ban, I detest large SUVs. But when I analyze my feelings, I realize it is the drivers of large SUVs that anger me. There were always drivers who were rude, inconsiderate, or incompetent, but driving a big high-profile vehicle seems to make their behavior even worse. A jerk tailgating me with a Lincoln Navigator is more of a menace than a jerk doing it with a Porsche. A driver who needs two attempts just to get a small car parked properly may need four or five with a large SUV, while others are waiting to get past. Cell phone use while driving(bad enough in a small car) adds to the problems.

I'm sure many people are good at rationalizing their need for a large SUV. "I need it for those times I carry heavy cargo and large numbers of passengers over dirt roads and across fields and creeks." Yea sure, and how freqently is that? You sure it's not for image?

Don't get me wrong. If I lived in rural Alaska, I would consider buying one of the things. But I think large SUVs for the most part are a case of social responsibilty and practicality taking a back seat to fashion.

[RGA]

Maybe it's just the end of the day and my mind in fried but, Huh? Are you talking about the tax breaks being done away with? Please clarify how this will help the deficit if other than SUV tax reform.

JSE

That poster might be Canadian. in Canada the gas is taxed by the federal and possibly the provincial governent which is basically 60% of the price of gas here. We pay 96.5-99.5cents CDN right now per litre. Though there is a bit of a difference with our metric system more or less litres fill a gallon or something can't recall off hand.

So he is saying if we add $3.00 a litre in tax then SUV owners will help us pay for social programs or highway construction etc. I don't necessarily mind such a proposition because the owner of said vehicle STILL has the choice as to what he or she can buy. Butt after it costs more in gas than the lease payment they may decide to make another purchase. It's like a SIN tax. Smoking here is subject to government taxes - the government claims that the HIGH cost of medical care and cancer should be paid by smokers who know it's bad but do it anyway so that's fine you can if you want to but bloody hell you are going to pay through the nose for those smokes. Alcohol tax pay to to scoop up drunk drivers and victims from the highways and AA support.

The car population and oil reserves are in an inverse near exponential rate which some suggest could be gone as early as 2050. I was taking an Environmental science course last semester which was interesting. Of course there is debate on these numbers but some arguemnts that we're ok speak of Canada's supply of oil in the tndra or some such nonsense which cannot be feasibly accessed so I don't buy those oil company we're ok nonsense.

I'm not a big Green Peacer by any stretch but each person does leave a foot print on this planet - and where possible it would be nice if we could take care to at least TRY and do a bit to lessen that impact. It's not practical for everyone to become a tree hugging Vegan - it would probably destroy the economy. But if buyers were united the folks at GM and Ford and Honda etc could certainly build Hybrid SUV's that get 80Mpg - they don't because the demand isn't there - and the oil suppliers would not make as much profit.

I don't think you can ban such things - people need cargo vehicles. My folks have a Kia Sedona which is horrible on gas but it was the cheapest vehichle that could also pull a tent trailer - they're retired and that's what they do. They used to have a V10 Dodge Ram and a big fifth wheel - people learn to downsize and it's not the end of the world.

We've all got it to easy in cushy ol North America - and the mentality of screw everyone and everything it's my right because it's written in a constitution 200 years ago is a cop out. I don't rely on a 200 year oild Doctor for my surgery or to build me a stereo so why do people continually site the constitution - for heaven sake let's THINK in modern times. But then hay people rely on the Bible for everything as well - so what am I thinking,.

[topspeed]

I'm not for banning SUVs, but the title of my base post may have suggested I favor banning. I am for government policies that discourage people from using motor vehicles that are larger than they need. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

Okie, let me tell you what I'm in favor of: The government keeping their damn hands off my freedom of choice. Define "unnecessarily large." While your at it, why don't you define "art" vs. "pornography" too, or would rather commence with the book burnings? "No brainer"...amazing, that's what I was thinking too!

While I don't favor a ban, I detest large SUVs. But when I analyze my feelings, I realize it is the drivers of large SUVs that anger me. There were always drivers who were rude, inconsiderate, or incompetent, but driving a big high-profile vehicle seems to make their behavior even worse. A jerk tailgating me with a Lincoln Navigator is more of a menace than a jerk doing it with a Porsche.

Are you sure it was the tailgating Navigator that got you flustered or the maniac in the Porsche that just cut in front of you going 30mph faster then traffic?

A driver who needs two attempts just to get a small car parked properly may need four or five with a large SUV, while others are waiting to get past.

Two attempts?! Learn how to drive. I feel sorry for the wife of anybody that can't get their car in on one try. Seriously, if you f*#k like you park, you'll never get it in.

Cell phone use while driving(bad enough in a small car) adds to the problems.

Driving an suv and talking while driving are completely unrelated. Personally, I detest people talking on cell phones while driving. Your phone came with a free ear bud, use it and keep both hands on the wheel. While they're at it, they can stop putting on their make-up, reading the paper, putting creme in their coffee, and unwrapping their taco. Until cars drive themselves (coming soon to a highway near you), the lugnut behind the wheel is in charge. Act like it.

I'm sure many people are good at rationalizing their need for a large SUV. "I need it for those times I carry heavy cargo and large numbers of passengers over dirt roads and across fields and creeks." Yea sure, and how freqently is that? You sure it's not for image?

I'm quite sure. In fact, I'm so damn good looking I could drive a Hyundai and still be better looking than Pierce Brosnan. Lemme ask you a question as you deem yourself the omniscient one, how exactly would you like me to tow my boat with my sports car? I know it carves thru mountain passes like Woochifer wants it to, but with a 20' boat and trailer, umm not so much. Ya know, another problem is squeezing the car seats and related kid gear into the convertible and still have room for luggage, strollers, portable cribs, beach chairs, etc.. But you're right, I can fit all that into a Prius and I'm sure the electric motor won't have a problem pulling it up Boyd Grade. What was I thinking!!! That's me, Topspeed the planet killer and most disrespectful human on the face of mother Earth.

Don't get me wrong. If I lived in rural Alaska, I would consider buying one of the things. But I think large SUVs for the most part are a case of social responsibilty and practicality taking a back seat to fashion.

That's called freedom of choice. If you don't like it, there are any number of countries that I'm sure would be more to your liking. I hear Turkey is nice...North Korea should be beautiful this time of year. In the mean time, you can keep your big government to your self.

Now if y'all excuse me, I'm going to go run over an endangered plant species in my SUV (maybe twice so I can use more gas), go eat an 18oz Porterhouse, and maybe take up smoking just for the helluva it.

[Woochifer]

Now if y'all excuse me, I'm going to go run over an endangered plant species in my SUV (maybe twice so I can use more gas), go eat an 18oz Porterhouse, and maybe take up smoking just for the helluva it.

Hey ts -

I think you need to ease up on this low carb thing! Go ahead and eat some pasta, and maybe your local Toyota dealer can bump you up to the top of the waiting list for that Prius you were eyeballing before Mr. Atkins got a hold of you.

[topspeed]

Hey ts -

I think you need to ease up on this low carb thing! Go ahead and eat some pasta, and maybe your local Toyota dealer can bump you up to the top of the waiting list for that Prius you were eyeballing before Mr. Atkins got a hold of you.

Atkins can kiss my round ass! I'm in "The Zone" baby!

[Mash]

RGA posted "That poster might be Canadian. in Canada the gas is taxed by the federal and possibly the provincial governent which is basically 60% of the price of gas here. We pay 96.5-99.5cents CDN right now per litre. ..........."

3.8 litre = 1 gallon, so 96.5-99.5cents CDN averages 3.72 CDN/gal or US$2.70/gal .... somewhat more than USA

UK ran 79 pence/liter or about $5.51/gal.......... I saw VERY FEW SUV in UK. Heck, I had a harrowing time fitting a Montero into a Cardiff 6-floor parking building........

[okiemax]

Because fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource and burning them pollutes the air, discouraging their needless use is a no-brainer. What is needless use? I say put a use tax on gas guzzlers and let the drivers of these vehicles decide. A tax would be fair. Those who are not interested in conservation and clean air would still have the freedom to drive road hogs(albeit not as cheaply) and the rest of us, including future generations, would receive some compensation for this behaviour.

Yes, under my plan to make the world a better place, everyone would get something. Except topspeed, who probably should be tied in a chair and force-fed tofu until he promises to change his ways.

[Bryan]

I'm rather surprised there aren't hybrid boats out yet or ones that take full advantage of solar panaling in addition to either sails or gas/desiel engines for power. Seems the boat market is a little slow to catch on.

[topspeed]

I'm rather surprised there aren't hybrid boats out yet or ones that take full advantage of solar panaling in addition to either sails or gas/desiel engines for power. Seems the boat market is a little slow to catch on.

Ain't that the truth! It was only through local guidelines mandating 4 stroke PWC's that forced the manufacturers to start really innovating on the 4 stroke side. I don't see hybrid boats ever coming to market simply because their function would be lost on the way boats work. In cars, under light loads the electric motor powers the car with the combustion engine only coming online when extra power is need, such as hard acceleration, passing, steep grades, etc. or to recharge the batteries. With boats, particularly ski boats, you just nail the sucker right out of the blocks which would bypass the electric motor alltogether. Still, electric motors are suppossed to have tons of torque so you never know...

Taxes being applied as a detriment/penalty, huh? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this philosophy? Okie, congrats on making your inability to recognize satire so painfully obvious.

[okiemax]

Ain't that the truth! It was only through local guidelines mandating 4 stroke PWC's that forced the manufacturers to start really innovating on the 4 stroke side. I don't see hybrid boats ever coming to market simply because their function would be lost on the way boats work. In cars, under light loads the electric motor powers the car with the combustion engine only coming online when extra power is need, such as hard acceleration, passing, steep grades, etc. or to recharge the batteries. With boats, particularly ski boats, you just nail the sucker right out of the blocks which would bypass the electric motor alltogether. Still, electric motors are suppossed to have tons of torque so you never know...

Taxes being applied as a detriment/penalty, huh? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this philosophy? Okie, congrats on making your inability to recognize satire so painfully obvious.

Topspeed, you got me confused with this satire thing. I don't know what to make of your following statement: "Taxes being applied as a detriment/penalty, huh? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this philosophy?" Is that intended as satire? I'm going to guess it's not, and answer straight.

Whether you like it or not, tax has been an instrument of public policy for centuries and likely will continue to be used that way. It's the carrot/stick approach.Tax incentives for buying hybrid cars are an example of the former, and the so-called "sin tax" on alcohol and tobacco is an example of the latter.

I'm sorry I overlooked the satire in your other post. Perhaps it was a case of subtlity concealing wit. Good satire ain't easy to do, but don't give up. Now that I know what you are up to, I'll look forward to your future efforts.