[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Proposed Government Driving Restrictions!



Terry J. Harris (terry.harris@jhuapl.edu) wrote:
: cvc411@aol.com (CVC411) wrote:
: >Attention Motorists!
: >
: >Big Brother is about to tell you what you can drive, how far, and most
: >important, how much more you’ll have to pay for it!
: >
: >Did you know that your taxes are paying for a Presidential advisory
: >committee that is trying to force Americans into smaller cars and to drive
: >them less.  Even though fewer than two percent of the public buys
: >high-mileage sub-compacts and most people rely on a motor vehicle for a
: >variety of reasons, your government wants to change that.  

: And for a variety of reasons, my government is right. Contrary to the 
: strong language posted in those introductory paragraphs, the remainder of 
: the posting shows what is being discused are mostly mild incentives and 
: disincentives

I don't think making automobiles lighter and less crash resistant, in 
order to reduce fuel consumption, resulting in more serious injuries (who 
is likely to be injured worse, someone in a car with lighter (thus less 
resisting) body panels or one with heavier ones (more resisting)?), or 
higher numbers of deaths, is "mild disincentives".

A higher chance of death or injury or more serious injury is hardly "mild".

: to encourage more efficient and less environmentally destructive 
: automobile transportation.

What is your evidence to show that automobile transportation is 
"environmentally destructive."  Yes, automobiles generate pollution.  
This does NOT mean they are destructive to the environment.  

The problem with polution in most areas has been the reliance on the IC 
and Diesel stroke engines, because of the government restrictions placed 
on alternative technology development, plus the high amount of sunk costs 
into current technology.

One can't develop alternative technology without government permission, 
and no automobile company is going to invest in unusual technology given 
the more serious requirement of reducing the amount of fuel used per mile 
under CAFC.

Let's stop looking at the amount of gasoline used, that's a red herring 
to ignore the real problem.

If the idea was to reduce pollution, charge cars by tailpipe emissions,
this would mean old clunkers, owned by poor people and heavily polluting,
would be hit with the highest taxes, while the efficient expensive
automobiles such as a Mercedes Benz would see lower taxes, which is
politically unacceptable. 

: Many are already in place in one 
: form or another. For international business competitiveness,

International business competitiveness means you fight on strengths and 
not on weaknesses.  Japan has a very competitive market internationally, 
and extreme protectionist internally, same as the U.S.  But with the high 
taxes and cost of living, the average family lives in 1/3 the space one 
does in the U.S.

I doubt we want "sardine packing" as a way of life here.

: for the public  health, for local traffic relief, 

You want local traffic relief, stop penalizing those who want to build or 
operate alternative transportation.  What would it take for a private 
company to build another underground system?  Buy the tunnel space from 
the owners, start digging and run the trains?  Hell no: try an 
environmental impact report, and environmental impact hearing, 
permissions from every government in the area, federal and state 
permission, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

DC could use a freeway running right through the middle of town to allow 
better service through it for people who might commute there.  And with 
the high taxes, it encourages people to move out, and encourages 
businesses to move out too, leaving exactly what you have: a hollowed 
out, bankrupt shell consisting of a huge number of government service 
consumers, and a small number of rich who can fight to keep from being 
hit by too much taxes.

: and for the global environment it makes sense to be efficient about 
: our use of fossil fuels. 

Why?

If a gallon of gasoline costs $1.40 a gallon and the driver gets 10 miles 
per gallon, it costs them 14c a mile to drive.  If it gets 20 mpg, it 
costs 7c a mile.  Those who need to pay less will move toward more 
efficient cars.

And if we are supposed to reduce use of fossil fuels, whom are we 
reducing them for?  I can presume that our descendants are supposed to 
also reduce their use, so who exactly are they saving these fuels for?

: For example:

: >•	Road Use Pricing:  New taxes on motorists and businesses based on
: >how much they use public streets and highways.

: Seems like a great free-market idea. Pay for what you use rather than have 
: the taxpayer pick up the tab uniformly.

We already have this.  It's called gasoline taxes.  Those who drive pay 
according to how much gasoline they use. 

In the above scenario, the car that does 100,000 miles a year when doing 
25 mpg (4000 gallons/year) would pay more than the car doing 50,000 miles 
a year at 10mpg (5000 gallons a year).

: >•	Congestion Pricing: additional taxes for use of highways during
: >peak rush-hours.

: Another free-market idea -- supply and demand pricing. Utilities have been 
: doing this for years.

But do these taxes then get more freeway capacity to make up for the 
congestion?  Hell no!  Thus they become permanent means of imposing taxes 
on people solely on the basis of when they go to work or go home.  And 
the problem doesn't get solved, because leaving the roads congested means 
it's an automatic moneymaker for the state.

: >•	VMT-Based Registration Fees: registration fees based on Vehicle
: >Miles Traveled -- how much a particular vehicle is driven.  (The more you
: >drive, the higher the fee.)

Again, the tax is not being based on what is being consumed (driving on a 
road doesn't "consume" anything) a road is either in use or empty, and 
like computer time, it's a "wasting asset" which means that if it isn't 
used, it is simply wasted. 

What is consumed is gasoline.

: >One of the most devastating policies in this group is the least understood
: >by the general public: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. 
: >CAFE standards were originally enacted to reduce reliance on foreign oil
: >and save consumers money.

: But in reality the CAFE standards have been a great success.

In making cars harder to get into, smaller and less comfortable, not to 
mention more dangerous.

: Car manufacturers will haul out their lobbyists, lawyers, and ad 
: agencies to tell you it can't be done (as they always do -- remember 
: air bags?)

The chemicals used to inflate air bags in a hurry are poisonous, 
dangerous to contact, and except for use in automobiles, illegal to 
transport in interstate commerce.  Does this say something about the 
desirability of using them on people?

Further, one of the claims on the patent for the air bag included use as 
a means of painless execution by breaking the convict's neck.

: but in reality, the technology exists and ought to be encouraged to be 
: put to use. 

Fine.  But let's not prevent people from developing alternatives, either,
which is a common practice.  Or rig the laws to make it impossible to do
so. 

--
Ask me about Listmgr - the first PC-Based mailing list manager for E-Mail.
Find out about "The Gatekeeper: The Gate Contracts" - Write to address below.
Paul Robinson - paul@tdr.com / tdarcos@MCIMail.com 
"The Greatest Philosopher in the World, maybe the Greatest who ever lived."


Follow-Ups: References: