California's SUV Ban... | FerrariChat

California's SUV Ban...

Discussion in 'General Automotive Discussion' started by Schatten, Aug 5, 2004.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Schatten

    Schatten F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Apr 3, 2001
    11,237
    Austin, TX
    Full Name:
    Randy
    http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2104755&

    snipplet:
    I fully endorse this measure. Also keep in mind, prohibiting such heavy vehicles on certain roads are due to the fact that those roads are not built up, nor can they support those heavy loads, even when travelling in motion. Driving the uber-heavy SUVs will simply tear up those roads which will need further maintenance and repairs more so than roads that were specifically built for them.
     
  2. Kds

    Kds F1 World Champ

    As a car nut for decades I have no problem with the concept of this proposal. And.....I also like SUV's.....especially the H2 and G-wagens.
     
  3. matterhorn762

    matterhorn762 Formula Junior

    Apr 19, 2004
    340
    Tennessee
    With the amount of money that luxury SUV drivers pay in California every year in registration taxes, they should be allowed to drive along with everybody else.

    The argument that luxury SUVs are louder than other vehicles in nonsense, besides being totally irrelevant. The argument that a 6000 pound vehicle is somehow more dangerous to a civilian than a 3000 pound vehicle is also ridiculous.

    If California needs to fix its tax code, then it wouldn't be the first time. But using it as a cover for people who don't like big cars is a bit amateurish in my opinion.
     
  4. Z0RR0

    Z0RR0 F1 Rookie

    Apr 11, 2004
    3,470
    Montreal, Canada
    Full Name:
    Julien
    Cool. Use the law vs common sense to annoy everyone. How clever. I do not own a mosnter SUV, but I just can't stand the people who would like to see them banned just because they dislike them ... which is what this whole thing is about, endorsed by detouring a common law.

    Did you know in the state of NY, if you scare a horse, you have to hide your car behind bushes, and take it apart if needed? Enforce that law. Doesn't make any sense? Neither does the SUV ban.

    Sorry, but this kind of BS gets my blood boiling.
     
  5. Schatten

    Schatten F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Apr 3, 2001
    11,237
    Austin, TX
    Full Name:
    Randy
    Some laws are still in the system from a hundred years ago. This does not make them valid nor enforced, especially since no one is taking adavantage of a scenario where you'd scare a horse. That is more red herring than the actual issue with SUVs.

    Can you provide a little more information as to what amount of money they are shelling out that is any different than other sticker prices?
     
  6. matterhorn762

    matterhorn762 Formula Junior

    Apr 19, 2004
    340
    Tennessee
    No more or less as far as I know. What I said was that they pay enough in my opinion to have earned the right to drive on public streets. Not exactly a radical notion.

    And besides, SUV drivers pay a lot more in taxes in the form of the huge gas tax, since they spend more money on gas per mile.

    By the way, I'm not an SUV fan, nor do I own one. But I think it's pretty ugly to try to ban other people's vehicles just because one has a dislike to them or complaints it uses too much gas, and I think these two are the underlying motivations.
     
  7. Schatten

    Schatten F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Apr 3, 2001
    11,237
    Austin, TX
    Full Name:
    Randy
    They pay the same amount as everyone else. Just because they go through gas more frequently than others does not mean they pay any more. With that argument, I could pay less taxes in gas if I didn't want to rev to 9000rpms every now and then. But I also drive a ULEV which gets pretty darned good gas milage at that.

    I'm not an owner/fan either, but the arguments seem to be quite valid when it comes to guzzler tax / tax credits and then not abiding by the laws for which they were intended.
     
  8. matterhorn762

    matterhorn762 Formula Junior

    Apr 19, 2004
    340
    Tennessee
    I agree, but then the answer is to fix the tax code, not to ban SUVs. Anybody who clouds his true motivation with irrelevant arguments gets an F in my book.
     
  9. Z0RR0

    Z0RR0 F1 Rookie

    Apr 11, 2004
    3,470
    Montreal, Canada
    Full Name:
    Julien
    An F and gets kicked out with no other warning.
     
  10. jwfisher

    jwfisher Rookie

    Jul 17, 2004
    1
    Austin, TX
    Full Name:
    Jeff Fisher
    C'mon guys - wake up. This is the same type of thinking that they will use against performance cars some day in the near future. As soon as they decide that hi-po cars don't fit into their social ideas, we're all out.

    If you want behavior changed, you have to change the thinking. You can't legislate mindset.

    -Jeff
     
  11. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Personally this is a good idea. SUV's are not a required form of transport ... but this is not the right way to do it.

    A poster earlier in this thread before made a rediculous comment that he cannot understand why a heavy car is a danger ... think car dynamics my friend. Unnecessarily heavy SUV's are way more dangerous on our roads because they have a high centre of gravity, poor chassis rigidity, poor tyre and suspension design for tarseal road driving ... and this all adds up to a car that has trouble avoiding accidents.

    The answer IMO is to make the driver of an SUV require a special heavy vehicle license. This will mean that they people that buy these cars are atleast aware that there is huge mass involved and they need special driving and control ... just like trucks.

    Thus if you really want one of these things ... or oh my God, actually need one (and don't simply have a small penis OR naively think they are safer ... again read what I stated above, and also have a look at the crash test statistics ... separate chassised vehicles do very poorly in accidents) then get the special license and atleast the rest of us will feel a little better in the knowledge that you might actually be able to handle the truck ;)

    Pete
    BTW: One day the population will realise that the car manufacturers have pushed these recreational vehicles on to the gullable public because by doing so they created another market. Thus most families now have the little family car and yep they need a SUV for going on holiday or towing that tiny little trailer. Mr manufacturer is over the moon because now he has sold 2 vehicles and one which is expensive and costs a fortune to keep on the road (again refer to running costs statistics).

    When I was a child we used to tow a caravan off on our yearly holidays. We did this in a little 2000cc Triumph. It did this fine and so will most family cars ... heck my Toyota Tarago of 2.4ltrs tows perfectly. Also in most countries we have the wonderful work vehicle called the UTE. Many of these only have normal little efficient motors and they tow fantastic. You do not need a fncken 5 ltr + gas wasting v8 to tow, etc.

    Australia is going through the motion to do something about these huge SUV's and the statistics regarding their involvement with accidents is huge against the SUV. The FACTS are many whio buy these vehicles do not know how to handle them, they waste gas, they pollute and because they have the road dynamics of a 1950's car they cannot avoid accidents, and when they do hit something they fall to bits (as any separate chassised vehicle does).

    Do manufacturers care? ... ofcourse not, they are laughing all the way to the bank. Manufacturers really only care about the number of units they move out their factories ... their attitude to safety is simply to add the safety features that some other company is designing, like airbags, etc. Again some company is making bucks out of it, and the car manufacturer simply adds the cost of this to the price and uses it as a 'feature' ... lazy, uncaring bastards.


    Regarding the performance car ... yep same issues but companies like Ferrari, etc. have not created another market ... though they would if they wanted to ... again it is all about moving units. The thing that is on the side of the performance car ... is they are designed to handle and be light and efficient, thus in the end probably safer in a city environment than a SUV truck. Also they do not stick to 1950's engineering with the separate chassis, etc. so they probably prang better.

    BUT I have no problem with a driver requiring a special license to drive a car over a certain performance level ... makes sense to me, I'd just do the training and get one.
     
  12. Erich

    Erich Formula 3

    Sep 9, 2003
    1,190
    Poway CA
    Full Name:
    Erich Coiner
    Pete,

    I'm not sure about Australia, but the US has some mighty big mountains.
    The Rockies have several passes over 10,000 feet.
    There are many climbs that are 6% for over 30 miles.
    A 2.4l is not going to tow 4000 pounds at anything over a crawl. And like Australia, things are mighty far apart in the Western half of this country.

    Speaking of Utes, my neighbor has a right hand drive UTE from Australia.
    It is a 1954 Ford. A pickup bed in the back, but built on a passenger car chassis. It has been repowered with a 351 Cleveland.

    Erich
     
  13. Hubert

    Hubert F1 Rookie

    Jan 3, 2002
    2,642
    The Left Coast
     
  14. imperial83

    imperial83 F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    May 14, 2004
    2,893
    While we are at it lets ban all cars too. Nature has given us two feet. We can walk everywhere. That will create no wear and tear on the roads whatsoever. Let us also ban motorbikes, cycles and shoes too. It will completey minimize road wear and tear. The nature loving people will be satisfied too. We will stop polluting the air.

    HECK!!! Why stop there, lets even ban people from walking. Just sit in your home all day and pray to the heavens for food and money. That will protect the roads for sure!!!

    OR we could develop the technology to build better roads that are upto standard to deal with the daily use from all types of vehicles! Some people actually study engineering at school. No but that would be way too easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  15. Z0RR0

    Z0RR0 F1 Rookie

    Apr 11, 2004
    3,470
    Montreal, Canada
    Full Name:
    Julien
    Indeed. Neither is a Ferrari. Neither is a car, after all. You can walk. It won't be as convenient ... but driving a car instead of an SUV just makes things less convenient the same way.

    This statement is stupid. ;)

    BTW, they are heavy ... indeed, but so are everyday cars! Look at today's cars, say, a Maranello. 1800kgs. Porsche, 1600kgs?, Benz S ... 2 tons. Why? Because of safety regulations (ironic, isn't it). Same goes for height, in order to protect pedestrians when you run them over, cars will have to be taller and taller. Another irony that shows that SUVs are NOT going to disappear, and the created market isn't a gimmick!

    Example(s) :
    Cruised Utah last year for 2 weeks. Rented a Trailblazer. Roomy for 4 happy campers and their gear (enough to drive 3k miles in 12 days), yet it brought us pretty much anywhere into national parks on trails where no one was to be seen ... for days. Could have never done it with a Taurus!

    I ride dirtbikes. So, every weekend or so, me and my buds go out for a camping weekend out in the woods. A buddy has a Ram 1500 with the drinker 5.9 V8. 4 of us get in the truck, with our stuff, 2 bikes in the bed, and 2 in a trailer (or 4 or 6, dpeending on other's rides). Then this useless truck brings us through muddy bumpy trails to some remote riverside camping spot, where we can ride our bikes all day without bothering anyone and seeing terrific scenery. A car wouldn't do that.

    Of course, this isn't 100% of the time, but does everyone here actually have a car that will do it all, and a Prius? Hardly so.

    It's just a different lifestyle. I don't understand all of the yo-yo blingy bling rappers, yet I won't try to find a deviated way to prohibit 26" rims because I do not understand it.

    Imperial, great idea. You forgot to add that when walking is prohibited, we must all whine about our butts getting to fat to fit on a sofa. :)


    Think japanese. When the first Walkmans came out, people came in whining because they dropped it and it didn't work anymore. They did not prohibit dropping walkmans, they simply made them shock resistant. They got it right.
     
  16. imperial83

    imperial83 F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    May 14, 2004
    2,893
    Yes, you are right! Lets ban people from walking or driving cars. Lets save the roads! GOD FORBID THE ROADS ACTUALLY GET USED AND HAVE WEAR AND TEAR ON THEM!

    Instead of complaining that your stupid road is being used why don't people get off their lazy butt, stop complaining and work towards developing new technology that would prevent that. NO THAT WOULD BE TOO PRODUCTIVE!

    So instead lets sit here and whine! Ban the SUVS, Ban the cars, Ban the Sports cars and ban people from using any vehicle whatsoever.

    People need to start being part of the solution and STOP BEING PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!!
     
  17. Schatten

    Schatten F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Apr 3, 2001
    11,237
    Austin, TX
    Full Name:
    Randy
    This has got to be the worst argument of the day. You are generalizing transportation to distract from the issue brought to the table. In this case of basic basic basic logic in your noggin: if a person walks, then a person should be able to drive a 6000lb. SUV down any street created, or any path created for that matter, which includes the insides of shopping malls and escalators. Sorry, it doesn't add up, nor do your distractions fumed from your emotions on this topic.

    I agree with you here PSk, it's a very valid point. The manufacturers are definately cashing in big time on selling trucks and this isn't going away anytime soon. As soon as some sort of bill would be introduced to enforce any kind of profit-cutting measures, there will be lobbying against it and we'll never see it. Everything is nickel and dimes when it comes to manufacturing a car or truck or anything else out there. Reengineering an entire chassis costs quite a bit of money. Porsche/VW/Volvo all share on. But it's new, modern and handles extremely well, regardless of it's weight. Same goes for the M-B SUV. At least they put the bumper down low for the mian reason of that front bumper hitting another vehicle at that level instead of mowing over it.

    This is the main problem, because it all comes down to cost/implimentation/enforcement. While people will gripe at getting another license, especially due to an extra fee of ~$10 USD + training and testing, which both need to be administered, the amount of revenue flowing through the state DOTs, it would be very difficult to justify from a business perspective.

    Once the safety of others overshadows the importance of revenue, then a policy like this can be implimented. But I think it will take some pretty hefty convincing.
     
  18. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Sorry, I was born and breed in New Zealand ... that is one hilly place, and yes this Triumph used to slow ... but it still got there :)

    I love my v8's too, but I can also see that powering an everyday car by one is stupid. Save the power and fuel wasting stuff for play.

    Pete
     
  19. imperial83

    imperial83 F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    May 14, 2004
    2,893
    As I said before, instead of banning certain vehicles, why not find a solution by developing technology to build better roads. Certainly with all the budget and resources we have in this nation we ca develop durable roads that can withstand the "heavy" SUVs.

    You don't just ban a technology without trying to find a solution!
     
  20. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    You unfortunately did not read all my post. Here is my answer to the performance car issue, which is a similar issue:

    Also my wife DOES walk or catch public transport everywhere. I am a car nut, but she is not and has chosen to NOT get a license and get the exercise instead ... She is perfectly happy with this situation and is fit and trim on top of that. Interestingly many of her friends think she is crazy and are always offering to give her a lift ... in some cases we are talking less than a 5 minute walk ... so who is the lazy one, really :)


    Lets analyse what I said:

    What I was saying is that you do not need a 4WD, 300 hp 6 ltr v8 to successfully, comfortably and safely take the kids to school ... for example. Maybe you do not live in a city, but go have a look. It is amazing to watch these parents drive their lazy kids to school in these monsters ... a little efficient car would do just as well.

    If you need the 4WD because you own and run a farm ... fair enough, get the license and buy the 4WD. City drivers do not need them! ... hire them for the weekend when you do.

    Yes it is a shame, that misguided safety boards are pushing, for example air bags into every car ... when the air bag was invented for idiots that refused to wear a safety belt. A safety belt is a cheap and effective thing ... but ofcourse been around for a long time and the air bag and other new stuff sounds so much better as a feature on the new car ad. If you think they add this stuff to cars because they care and because they honestly think it is safer ... er, you are naive IMO ... it is all about moving units, and marketability, etc.

    The SUV is a gimick. 4WD utes and trucks have been around for years. The modern 4WD truck is marketed at city uses ... not required. 4WD uses more power to drive and does nothing much for safety in a huge truck anyway. Subaru and Audi cars with 4WD ... yes they probably do help the average idiot driver.

    And yes you guys NEED a 4WD truck. Again go and have a look at most SUV owners ... they are suits and the cars NEVER, EVER see dirt!

    Pete
     
  21. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Yes unfortunately you are right ... Australia is trying at the moment I believe, and it would be easier to grass the centre desert of the country.

    Pete
     
  22. LAfun2

    LAfun2 Three Time F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    39,248
    California
    Full Name:
    Ryan
    You forgot to realize how Americans don't have patience and its a culture of instant gratification. ;) Also the sense of "my neighbor has a v8, so I must have a v10" blah blah blah.


    We don't live in a society Pete, where its enough to just get there. We live in a society where we want to be the first to get there, the fastest while getting there, and look the best while doing it. Thus we want to tow up the hills at 80mph in our Lincoln Navigators, AC cranked full blast, sipping our icy cold Starbucks drinks, staring at our Prada Shoes, squeezing the wifes plastic boobs in the next seat, having the kids watch DVD in the back seat, so we don't have to interact with the little rascals, getting 8 miles to the gallon, towing the huge boat, and be the first to get to the lake on the long weekend. Then we can come back to the office on Monday morning, and gloat about our quality time spent with the family.

    Then after consuming all this gas, we are the first to complain about paying 3 dollars for our gallon of gas, and blame the Saudis for screwing us..blah blah blah.


    Pete's lesson from this post: Us Americans are never happy. ;)
     
  23. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Imperial,

    I think you are missing atleast my point if not Schatten's. My point is that for around town and city driving you do not need a SUV. I am not saying ban them entirely because some people DO need them for offroad fun or to run a farm, etc.

    They should have to get a special license and learn how to control these monsters. This extra license will stop city people from getting them because they are 'so cool'.

    Again I have nothing against the 4WD truck, when it is used for what it is ... ie. a 4WD truck ... but driving around town and taking kids to school is just a rediculous miss-use of the vehicle. They are not safer than a little car, they waste fuel (for that use), they are dangerous, take up too much road space, are hard for Mum to drive (sorry girls, but when my sister inlaw got one she crashed it twice before she got used to the size of the thing) and crash badly.

    Thus CITIES do not need these vehicles!
    Pete
     
  24. Z0RR0

    Z0RR0 F1 Rookie

    Apr 11, 2004
    3,470
    Montreal, Canada
    Full Name:
    Julien
    How would you know? This buddy has a couple retail stores, and only one car (truck, actually, the above mentioned RAM ... wife doesn't drive). You'll see him muddy to the head on friday, with a rather clean and classy suit driving to the mall to make a deal happen on tuesday, or drive his kid to the nanny on wednesday. And he cleans the car accordingly.
    So if you saw him at the mall, he'd be another city yuppy with a street SUV ... but you would be wrong. Same for the couple dropping the kids at school ... how do you know they do not tow jet skis to the sea on weekends? Or just go out there with camping gear?

    I wouldn't know. Hence wouldn't judge. If you people enjoy judging others based on fractional information, fine.

    Another point I forgot to mention is that the city SUVs like the rented Trailblazer are actually capable of bringing you very far, even though they are marketed towards soccer moms. The problem is not the truck, it's the use that it gets. And you can't put a law on that.
     
  25. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    I didn't know Jimmy was married and had kids ... ;) :D

    Pete
     

Share This Page