Kill the infidel!! Err, I mean, the SUV-drivers!! [Archive]

AntiochusIII

11-01-2007, 01:22

Now people will have to suffer financially due to a politician who has jumped on the bandwagon of the latest environmental fad.. the funny thing is real impact SUVs have on both carbon emissions and oil usage(minimal at best) - and how many cars get terrible gas milage! Lets tax Farraris into extinction next! :shame:Because everybody and their soccer moms have Ferrari's. :dizzy2:

You know as well as I do rich people (you know, really rich people. The type to have Ferrari's) are a privileged class. ~;)

Me, I just want the damn things off the street because they're obstructing my view. lol

Governments use the power to tax as a regulatory tool all the time. Tobacco industry anyone?

ajaxfetish

11-01-2007, 01:29

I agree with the lead time issue. It's not fair to start taxing people at such high rates for something they never knew would be a problem. Give them a year or two to plan for a new car and make a smaller purchase next time.

Ajax

CrossLOPER

11-01-2007, 01:52

PanzerJaeger

11-01-2007, 02:02

Well, Farraris were just the first thing that came to my mind. There are plenty of more normal cars on the market with deceptively high gas milage compared to SUVs.

The price of oil already killed the SUV craze a few years ago, this tax just makes life harder on people who already own them and will have :daisy: for resale value now while they are desperately trying to dump their SUV before these taxes are put in place.

Tribesman

11-01-2007, 09:35

Now people will have to suffer financially due to a politician who has jumped on the bandwagon of the latest environmental fad.. the funny thing is real impact SUVs have on both carbon emissions and oil usage(minimal at best) - and how many cars get terrible gas milage! Lets tax Farraris into extinction next!
Since the variable charges are being based on the variable VED which are already based on emmissions for cars as well as SUVs it appears that point is irrelevant . In case you don't get it that mens cars with bad efficiency get charged the same as SUVs with bad efficiency .

I am surprised that more central Londoners havn't bought Taxi licences to get round the charge .

Mikeus Caesar

11-01-2007, 10:45

I completely support trying to kill off SUV's through high taxes - not because of the damage they do to the environment (i couldn't care less for the environment) but because of just how stupid they are - when you live in a city like London, with good public transport and fairly small distances to cover, do you really need an absurdly huge vehicle that takes up most of the road to ferry your precious darlings about? Especially a vehicle so big that it guarantees a fatility to any pedestrians it hits, which in London is very dangerous on account of all the pedestrians.

The stupid things make even less sense up here in Yorkshire - if one of those juggernauts is cruising down a country lane and then encounters traffic coming the other way, it's typically the smaller cars that will have to reverse down the entire lane, on account of the fact that the people who usually drive SUV's are typically aggressive, mindless jackasses with no thought for anyone but themselves.

HoreTore

11-01-2007, 10:52

PJ, as tribesey said, the tax is on engine size. Put a small 1,6l engine in your SUV, and everything is fine....

Ronin

11-01-2007, 13:46

The price of oil already killed the SUV craze a few years ago,

it did?

*looks around*

doesn´t look like it to me.

I hate SUVs....I say we hunt these people down.....:laugh4:

Husar

11-01-2007, 14:04

Am I the only one who thinks that SUVs look pretty cool? :inquisitive:

HoreTore

11-01-2007, 14:08

Am I the only one who thinks that SUVs look pretty cool? :inquisitive:

You can't seriously say that you think they look cooler than the other cars you can get in that price range.

Like a Porsche or an Alfa Romeo... Heck, even the Nissan 200SX is way cooler.

PanzerJaeger

11-01-2007, 16:58

First SUVs because they're wasteful and unnecessary.... then what? Who needs a BMW with their big engines? Who needs an Aston Martin!?

This is the future, and its not pretty!!! :shame:

http://gizmodo.com/assets/2006/06/prius.jpg

In all seriousness, cars have always been an avenue of personal expression, and it seems lately there is more of a war on cars than carbon. Read the autoblogs, unnecessary regulations are ripping the heart out of the industry. Some crazy EU poli recently wanted to cap horsepower in the name of the environment.. :no:

Don Corleone

11-01-2007, 17:33

I'm curious how much Japanese auto manufacturers are paying to the Ken Livingstones of the world (and their campaign funds). It's clear (to me) that this push is being driven by auto manufacturers that want to be able to get a higher margin on crap cars like the Yaris.

Tribesman

11-01-2007, 17:44

In all seriousness, cars have always been an avenue of personal expression
Only by people with little personality , hence the well known term "penis extension" .

Husar

11-01-2007, 19:05

Only by people with little personality , hence the well known term "penis extension" .
:laugh4:

And yes, I'd prefer a Hummer over a Porsche, I mean the hummer can drive over the Porsche, it has more seats, more room, can drive on bad roads without needing repair and can transport a lot more stuff. You try buying some shelves at ikea using a Porsche. :dizzy2:

edit: the women should also love it because it shows you're prepared for lots of kids. ~;)

PanzerJaeger

11-01-2007, 19:12

Only by people with little personality , hence the well known term "penis extension" .

Don't worry, you'll be able to afford a nice car some day. :2thumbsup:

Tribesman

11-01-2007, 20:51

Don't worry, you'll be able to afford a nice car some day.
Yes Panzer:dizzy2:
And there was me thinking of wasting my money on some more houses instead , but hey thanks for your worthless advice:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What I really want is a car like the richest man in Galway :2thumbsup: complete with baling twine reinforcement , super rust effect and coathanger arial .

Bob the Insane

11-01-2007, 21:29

Living in the US at the moment I started to understand the SUV... One vehicle you can load the whole family and their luggage in and drive a long distance (like 12 hours plus, not even possible back in the UK) in relative comfort across a variety of road types (and road quality)...

But taken out of this setting it quickly starts looking a bit silly. I live and work in Baltimore and seeing someone try to manuevor their Hummer or Expedition or extended pickup into a parking garage is just plain funny...

However the targeting of the SUV is in-appropriate I think. We should be targeting any large vehicles in city environments, which includes the bigger people carriers (caravans in US). I mean look at the Honda Odyssey, not an SUV but that thing is huge!

Personally I have an old Jeep Cherokee. It's easy to drive, the 4WD is useful in winter, it can go anywhere their is a road or track (it is stock, no mods). I take great pains to explain that it is both shorter and narrower than a Ford Focus so works well in the city...

PanzerJaeger

11-01-2007, 21:30

Yes Panzer:dizzy2:
And there was me thinking of wasting my money on some more houses instead , but hey thanks for your worthless advice:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What I really want is a car like the richest man in Galway :2thumbsup: complete with baling twine reinforcement , super rust effect and coathanger arial .

Riiiight tribesy, you buy those houses. Remember 4 houses plus another gets you a hotel, and updating Boardwalk isn't worth it. :laugh4:

Labeling all of us who enjoy driving dynamics and performance as needing an ego boost makes you look slightly jealous and/or poor. :yes:

Bob the Insane

11-01-2007, 21:35

There are two reasons to like nice cars... One is to show off and the other is to drive it... I love driving, I always have, ever since I got my license I was the driver not the passenger...

I look at a ferrari and I don't think, "wow, sexy, can't wait for people to see me in this", I do think "wow, I bet that is going to be fantastic to drive"...

PanzerJaeger

11-01-2007, 21:40

HoreTore

11-01-2007, 21:45

Labeling all of us who enjoy driving dynamics and performance as needing an ego boost makes you look slightly jealous and/or poor. :yes:

Performance. And you said you wanted an SUV...?

You can get a lot of cars with both great performance and low emissions. Just stay clear of the american ones, and you're mostly good.

And for that BMW, as far as I know, every model they make comes with different engine sizes. So you can still drive the coolest looking(not saying much though, BMW is crap) BMW, just pick the cheaper engines.

And if you can't get any performance with a 2l engine, you should whack your car producers for being incompetent. I had an old Audi 80 with a 1.8l engine with 160-ish hp, weighing under 900kg. That's more than enough pull. And certainly more than most, if not all, SUV's around.

I won't classify those enjoying a good, fun engine as people needing an ego boost, but I will most certainly label those driving around in an SUV when they're living in a city as such. And I can't see how that would make me look poor either, because it's not about the money, it's about choices. Look at the price of an SUV. Now take a look around and see what else you get for the same money. I'll happily label the guy who still goes for the SUV an idiot.

Ser Clegane

11-01-2007, 21:47

I guess generally referring to large/expensive cars as "penis extensions" and generally assuming that people who oppose fuel gorgeing cars are just "jealous" or "poor" rank pretty much on the same level of childishness.

If you like a big, expensive car - that's pretty much your business. Some people simply have fun driving powerful cars (I personally don't), some have fun doing sports etc. - no reason to generally insult either IMHO (BTW, driving a small car can also be a way of "personal expresson" some people just have fun driving a beetle or a 2CV).
If you have to pay higher taxes or have other increasing expenses for driving a car that uses more fuel, pollutes more and/or tends to clog the crowded streets of a city more than a small car - tough luck. Of course you have the right to complain, but calling it entirely unreasonable or unfair is quite a stretch.

Driving smaller care also does not necessarily have something to do with not being able to afford one. Personally I have no fun driving a car and rather see it as a tool to get from A to B - if I had a larger family to drive around I would probably buy a larger car, but currently we are "dinks" and I rather spend my money on other things.

PanzerJaeger

11-01-2007, 22:24

Performance. And you said you wanted an SUV...?

I dont want an SUV, Im just saying people should be able to buy what they want and not have to face completely outrageous taxes like this. Ive driven Range Rovers which are fun and all, but I'm a car guy now.. actually in an S4 now. Audi's are great cars, did you like yours?

Tribesman

11-01-2007, 22:28

Riiiight tribesy, you buy those houses. Remember 4 houses plus another gets you a hotel
Well that would be a bit silly Panzer , the tax concessions on hotels ran out at the start of the year , only a muppet would want to invest in one now .:stupido2:
Oh I get it , you were trying to be funny ...oh well it looks like you need more practice .

HoreTore

11-01-2007, 22:35

I dont want an SUV, Im just saying people should be able to buy what they want and not have to face completely outrageous taxes like this.

If you drive a big car in a cramped city, you should pay for your behaviour. Same goes for driving a car who eats gas. Oil is running out, if you use many times what you need, you should be penalized.

Ive driven Range Rovers which are fun and all, but I'm a car guy now.. actually in an S4 now. Audi's are great cars, did you like yours?

I liked mine 'till my wheel fell off on the highway...
Don't like the new Audi's(95+) though, they're basically an aluminium box with little of interest inside. I'd much rather drive an Alfa for the same price.

Heck, I'm not even sure I'd trade my 626 for one of them.

English assassin

11-01-2007, 22:47

Im just saying people should be able to buy what they want

Why? Why should people be able to buy what they want? Why should I have to put up with wannabe bad boys and yummy mummies blocking up the freaking roads and turning right without checking their mirrors? Why, in fact, should I be reminded that I walk this earth with the sort of dribbling moron who buys a 60K range Rover sport to use in central london? What about MY rights?

You want performance and self expression? Buy a motorbike.

PanzerJaeger

11-01-2007, 22:52

Well that would be a bit silly Panzer , the tax concessions on hotels ran out at the start of the year , only a muppet would want to invest in one now .:stupido2:
Oh I get it , you were trying to be funny ...oh well it looks like you need more practice .

shhhh :quiet:

I liked mine 'till my wheel fell off on the highway...
Don't like the new Audi's(95+) though, they're basically an aluminium box with little of interest inside. I'd much rather drive an Alfa for the same price.

Heck, I'm not even sure I'd trade my 626 for one of them.

They don't import them here.. :sweatdrop:

Don Corleone

11-01-2007, 22:53

Why? Why should people be able to buy what they want? Why should I have to put up with wannabe bad boys and yummy mummies blocking up the freaking roads and turning right without checking their mirrors? Why, in fact, should I be reminded that I walk this earth with the sort of dribbling moron who buys a 60K range Rover sport to use in central london? What about MY rights?

You want performance and self expression? Buy a motorbike.

Okay, fair enough. As long as we're talking about exerting our rights at the expense of somebody else, I'm tired of cell-phones. People that speak on them annoy me and disturb my sense of tranquility in public. They're bad for the environment, and you don't really need them, so let's just ban those too. And anything else I choose to take offense to, eh?

PanzerJaeger

11-01-2007, 22:54

Why? Why should people be able to buy what they want? Why should I have to put up with wannabe bad boys and yummy mummies blocking up the freaking roads and turning right without checking their mirrors? Why, in fact, should I be reminded that I walk this earth with the sort of dribbling moron who buys a 60K range Rover sport to use in central london? What about MY rights?

You want performance and self expression? Buy a motorbike.

Why should my purchases be limited to your tastes? It works both ways.

If you're so put out by people who don't drive what you think they should.. walk?

seireikhaan

11-01-2007, 23:00

Okay, fair enough. As long as we're talking about exerting our rights at the expense of somebody else, I'm tired of cell-phones. People that speak on them annoy me and disturb my sense of tranquility in public. They're bad for the environment, and you don't really need them, so let's just ban those too. And anything else I choose to take offense to, eh?
Ehh, not really a good comparison. SUV's are potentially dangerous, especially in extremely large, crowded cities. Cell phones, on the other hand, are potentially very useful in case of emergencies. I myself was bailed out last weekend by my cell phone when me and my dad(who, like you, dislikes them, but my mother gave me it) were rather in a pickle and needed a ride due to multiple malfunctions from both our vehicle and the local government. If not for the cell, we would've been stuck in Wisconsin for much longer than we would like, and I probably wouldn't have gotten back in time for school on monday. I fail to see how, in extremely large urban centers like London, SUV's can serve any sort of potential service like that.

Oh, but I do agree that cell phones CAN be extremely annoying as well. But like many things, it can be quite nice and useful in moderation.

Husar

11-01-2007, 23:24

Cell phones confuse bees, I'd give mine away should they get banned.
Though I doubt it will happen anytime soon, until then, I'll be potentially available almost everywhere(even though hardly anyone ever calls me on the thing :sweatdrop: ).

HoreTore

11-02-2007, 00:27

Banquo's Ghost

11-02-2007, 08:23

Ever heard of quiet carriages...?

Yep, those places where the standards of illiteracy in Europe are demonstrated every day by people bellowing into their mobiles "I'M ON THE TRAIN! HELLO? HELLO?"

HoreTore

11-02-2007, 14:27

Yep, those places where the standards of illiteracy in Europe are demonstrated every day by people bellowing into their mobiles "I'M ON THE TRAIN! HELLO? HELLO?"

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

atheotes

11-02-2007, 15:03

If you have to pay higher taxes or have other increasing expenses for driving a car that uses more fuel, pollutes more and/or tends to clog the crowded streets of a city more than a small car - tough luck. Of course you have the right to complain, but calling it entirely unreasonable or unfair is quite a stretch.

Thats my take on this too...
Another point to ponder is that very tall/heavy set people prefer SUVs for the space it offers...

HoreTore

11-02-2007, 15:22

Thats my take on this too...
Another point to ponder is that very tall/heavy set people prefer SUVs for the space it offers...

Now you're confusing "outside size" with "inside size"...

For example, the new tiny electrical cars have a lot more room for the driver than my car, even though it's more than twice its size.

Fragony

11-02-2007, 15:51

Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww decadence RAWKS

http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/phantomhummer.jpg

In case you guys are wondering, 20 march is my birthday.

Kralizec

11-02-2007, 16:07

If you drive a big car in a cramped city, you should pay for your behaviour. Same goes for driving a car who eats gas. Oil is running out, if you use many times what you need, you should be penalized.

For bigger cities with little parking space, it might be a good idea to expect fiscal compensation for using enormous cars.
However penalizing a car owner for his mileage as such is ridiculous - gas is already taxed, if you use more you pay extra :idea2:

Besides, I have issues with taxes that are aimed at discouraging something but wich income isn't actually spent on tackling the underlying problem. Unless the London council would actually spend the money on planting forests or something like that, you have to wonder if if the plans are rooted in a genuine desire on the governments part to counter global warming or if it's just another tax increase that's easy to sell to the public.

Ser Clegane

11-02-2007, 16:15

Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww decadence RAWKS

In case you guys are wondering, 20 march is my birthday.

OMG - what a hideous box :help:

I sure hope it looks better from the inside that it does from the outside.

Must be quite handy if you intend to run over some elephants or hippos...

HoreTore

11-02-2007, 17:06

OMG - what a hideous box :help:

I sure hope it looks better from the inside that it does from the outside.

Must be quite handy if you intend to run over some elephants or hippos...

This one, however...

http://www.supercars.dk/images/products/picture-alfa-romeo-159.jpg

Quite simply porn. And, it can use it's engine to make the car accelerate quickly too, instead of using 500hp simply to make the car go forward...

Fragony

11-02-2007, 17:52

OMG - what a hideous box :help:

Doesn't stop the Borg from pwning. Common it's a tank :2thumbsup:

HoreTore

11-02-2007, 17:53

Doesn't stop the Borg from pwning. Common it's a tank :2thumbsup:

Yes. And boy do we need a tank to be able to drive to the grocery store...

Fragony

11-02-2007, 17:58

Yes. And boy do we need a tank to be able to drive to the grocery store...

Well this tank needs a boy come along.

Don Corleone

11-02-2007, 18:26

Ehh, not really a good comparison. SUV's are potentially dangerous, especially in extremely large, crowded cities. Cell phones, on the other hand, are potentially very useful in case of emergencies. I myself was bailed out last weekend by my cell phone when me and my dad(who, like you, dislikes them, but my mother gave me it) were rather in a pickle and needed a ride due to multiple malfunctions from both our vehicle and the local government. If not for the cell, we would've been stuck in Wisconsin for much longer than we would like, and I probably wouldn't have gotten back in time for school on monday. I fail to see how, in extremely large urban centers like London, SUV's can serve any sort of potential service like that.

Oh, but I do agree that cell phones CAN be extremely annoying as well. But like many things, it can be quite nice and useful in moderation.

Cell-phones are dangerous. Look at the increased rates of brain cancer caused by the electromagnetic fields of holding a medium powered radio pressed against your ear for 4 hours a day. Come on, Kamikhaan, think of the children! Save them from the brain-destroying death rays that come out of the cell-phones! :whip:

And I have every bit as much conclusive scientific proof on the cancer inducing properties of cell phones as people do that automobile emissions have caused global warming.

HoreTore

11-02-2007, 18:40

And I have every bit as much conclusive scientific proof on the cancer inducing properties of cell phones as people do that automobile emissions have caused global warming.

But do you have as much info on cancer as we have on the other pollution from vehicles, like roads running through wildlife, that nice grey layer of dust you see beside the road, the traffic clogs in cities, the non-existant parking space, asthma induced by living in polluted cities, lung cancer from the same, etc?

Ser Clegane

11-02-2007, 18:48

Doesn't stop the Borg from pwning. Common it's a tank :2thumbsup:

Ok, I give you that - for a tank it's actually elegant (also, if you get stuck in a traffic jam it probably enables you to just go over the other cars and crush them :smash: )

PanzerJaeger

11-02-2007, 20:39

@PJ: they don't import Alfa Romeo in the US??

No.. well yes and no. You can import them, but their are no dealers - which is what I meant, which makes ownership impractical unless you're a collector or something. :sweatdrop:

If you have to pay higher taxes or have other increasing expenses for driving a car that uses more fuel, pollutes more and/or tends to clog the crowded streets of a city more than a small car - tough luck. Of course you have the right to complain, but calling it entirely unreasonable or unfair is quite a stretch.

But is this reasonable? A jump from several hundred to several thousand pounds? Is it right for the government to raise taxes to such an extreme simply for coercive reasons? Slippery slopes abound..

Kralizec

11-02-2007, 20:57

Changing your name, eh? I almost didn't recognize you, sneaky ~;)

Ser Clegane

11-02-2007, 21:32

But is this reasonable? A jump from several hundred to several thousand pounds? Is it right for the government to raise taxes to such an extreme simply for coercive reasons? Slippery slopes abound..

No - the extent is not reasonable IMHO. Tripling the daily toll might be acceptable (although I think such a significant increase should be taken in several steps) - the the potential scrap of residents' exemption as described in the article is out of line, as it would basically force car owners to mothball or sell their vehicles.
Such drastic changes do IMO require a lead time of 5-10 years to allow citizens to prepare for it without being financially hit in a very disproportionate manner.

seireikhaan

11-02-2007, 22:29

Cell-phones are dangerous. Look at the increased rates of brain cancer caused by the electromagnetic fields of holding a medium powered radio pressed against your ear for 4 hours a day. Come on, Kamikhaan, think of the children! Save them from the brain-destroying death rays that come out of the cell-phones! :whip:

And I have every bit as much conclusive scientific proof on the cancer inducing properties of cell phones as people do that automobile emissions have caused global warming.
Guess I'm being dense(once again:wall: ). Is that supposed to be a smack against global warming?

Crazed Rabbit

11-02-2007, 23:17

It seems that the very basis of this new tax is misguided.

SUVs are big, yeah, but so what? If they use more gas per mile, they're already taxed for that simply by taxes on gas. It's also a tax on the size of their vehicle, since generally bigger cars get worse mileage.

For all those people complaining that they're big and unnecessary; how in the world does that affect you? It seems selfish to want to tax someone real heavily just because you don't like the style of their automobile.*

*Yes, I can see how they'd be a pain in small European streets, but how big of a problem is that really?

CR

Tribesman

11-03-2007, 01:11

*Yes, I can see how they'd be a pain in small European streets, but how big of a problem is that really?

Well for somewhere like Richmond that is introducing the variable parking rates the main problem is width .
It like many of the boroughs round there has that early 20th century suburbia layout , the roads were not designed for on street parking they were designed for two way traffic ,the big problem is now when you have two cars parked opposite each other its a tight fit for single lane traffic , if the two cars are instead large SUVs that tight fit is even tighter . its a problem for single cars to get past , when it comes to fire-trucks getting past it means delays and lots of dents .
Though actually it is quite entertaining to watch people get upset when their car is smashed .

Don Corleone

11-03-2007, 02:50

Guess I'm being dense(once again:wall: ). Is that supposed to be a smack against global warming?

No, the fact that the average global temperature has risen over the past 20 years is indisputable. What I was taking a swipe at was the unproven assumption that it's man's activities that are the primary cause. If man's activities are causing global warming, why was the Earth warmer during the Middle Ages? All those SUVs the knights used to joust with?

seireikhaan

11-03-2007, 12:38

No, the fact that the average global temperature has risen over the past 20 years is indisputable. What I was taking a swipe at was the unproven assumption that it's man's activities that are the primary cause. If man's activities are causing global warming, why was the Earth warmer during the Middle Ages? All those SUVs the knights used to joust with?
Hmm, now this I find interesting. I've always heard, from numerous different sources, that the medieval ages were actually colder than most times in history, part of the reason why it eventually became too rigourous for viking explorers to continue their voyages to Greenland and America(although certainly their political situation had some to do with this as well), and also as a theory as to why the Mayan civilization dissapeared(lack of rainwater for many years).

Don Corleone

11-03-2007, 13:10

No. By most estimates using tree rings, ice cores and coral skeletons, the Middle Ages were for the most warmer then modern times. It was the abrubt end of that warm period around 1500 that caused the European migrations.

I'm not arguing that the Earth isn't getting warmer. It is. And I'm not arguing that man's activity hasn't impacted it. It has, somewhat. But we could all return to paleolithic levels of technology tomorrow and the globe would continue to get warmer. There's larger forces at play: increased solar activity, proximity to the sun, tidal patterns, etcetera. The earth's temperature has never been stable and it never will be. Banning automobiles is just a feel-good measure.

seireikhaan

11-03-2007, 17:07

Hmm, okay. Here's one source I've found regarding this. I think we may possibly have been at odds over semantics, as for example, this piece throws what I refer to as the dark ages in with the middle ages.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/determining_climate_record.html

I think its quite likely that what I heard was a reference to smaller period of the medieval age, as it seems to me, based on at least this, that it was, generally, at least slightly warmer than the period from 1500-1750. However, to say that it was warmer than modern times, I believe, would be in error.

HoreTore

11-03-2007, 17:43

SUVs are big, yeah, but so what? If they use more gas per mile, they're already taxed for that simply by taxes on gas. It's also a tax on the size of their vehicle, since generally bigger cars get worse mileage.

Look at the popularity of the SUV, it's quite obviously not enough. The gas tax here is supposed to encourage people getting greener cars and avoid unnecessary driving(for example, by walking to the grocery shop instead of driving), but not by too much so we avoid crippling the transport business and those living outside the population centers. In the case of SUV's however, more is needed. If you take it through a gas tax though, then you'll cripple those who rely on their car, so that's not something you'd want to do.

A special tax/toll for those driving big cars in big cities sounds very reasonable. Our streets are very thight, and as someone else mentioned, it's barely suitable for two normal cars to pass by each other.

Then again, why anyone would drive a car in a big city in the first place is beyong me, unless they're going to transport something big. Traffic jams are frequent, and the public transport systems are generally very good. In fact, I've never driven in the capitol here once, I've always taken the train/bus/subway. Goes much faster than driving.

English assassin

11-04-2007, 14:25

We could avoid all this debate about SUVs, mobile phones, and the rest, by simply taxing stupidity, and lack of consideration for others.

One advatnage is that I fear we would never run out of things to tax.

Meneldil

11-06-2007, 00:26

We could avoid all this debate about SUVs, mobile phones, and the rest, by simply taxing stupidity, and lack of consideration for others.

Agreed.
I don't really care about the fact they might - and probably do - pollute more than many other cars, but I still think people who drive SUVs deserve jail.
Such comportement clearly show a total lack of respect for other people. Like "alright guys, I've got money, I drive my huge car and I don't give a crap about all of you. In fact, I don't even see you from there."

And before anyone bring the cellular phone argument : yeah, people who listen music all loud with their cellular phones deserve jail aswell. Nothing annoys me more than the average scum sharing his crappy music with his friends and the 100 other people that were unfortunate enough to get in the same bus.

Do any kind of crap in private if you want, but when you enter a public area, you have to live with and respect other people.

Louis VI the Fat

11-06-2007, 00:33

I don't really care about the fact they might - and probably do - pollute more than many other cars, but I still think people who drive SUVs deserve jail.
Such comportement clearly show a total lack of respect for other people. Like "alright guys, I've got money, I drive my huge car and I don't give a crap about all of you. In fact, I don't even see you from there."I am thinking the exact same thing. SUV's are raised middle fingers on wheels. Bah.

If you live in the country buy a tractor. If you live in the city, get a normal car. The use for huge SUV's is for carrying hugely inflated ego's.

PanzerJaeger

11-06-2007, 00:51

I am thinking the exact same thing. SUV's are raised middle fingers on wheels. Bah.

If you live in the country buy a tractor. If you live in the city, get a normal car. The use for huge SUV's is for carrying hugely inflated ego's.

Thats not always true, especially in the US and other places with a bit more space. My family buys Rangies because we have a place in the country that is not entirely paved, and can be difficult to reach in a car during the winter. Seclusion from the nasty city is worth it though.

A lot of people who live in cities participate in activities in the country in which those vehicles are suited for.

On a completely unrelated note.. the complete lack of decent station wagons led many growing families to the SUV. Who wants a mini-van? :no:

I don't know of anyone who has bought an SUV as a "middle finger" gesture to the world. BMWs are far more suited for the task.

TevashSzat

11-06-2007, 01:08

I think a big reason why SUVs are still so popular in the US is that although the gas prices has been at record highs in the US, it is nothing compared to the prices in Europe.

If a gallon of gas was to suddenly become like $6 a gallon, I doubt alot of SUVs are gonna be sold

Fragony

11-06-2007, 03:17

I think they are popular because they happen to be awesome, if someone likes big machines why take offense?

Don Corleone

11-06-2007, 03:47

Well, there's this... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html)

And this... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html)

And on the webpage for the official UN global warming scare crew that keeps writing all the global warming reports (sorry, too lazy to go look it up again tonight) they have a graph of global temperature showing that the average planetary temperature in 1100 AD was warmer than it is now. By the way, I'll give you the rebuttall... the way to respond to it is the sharpness of the temperature flucuation... it took about 200 years for the temperature to reach its peak in 1100, rather bell shaped. The current temperature spike has a sharper curve (larger derviative).

Hmm, okay. Here's one source I've found regarding this. I think we may possibly have been at odds over semantics, as for example, this piece throws what I refer to as the dark ages in with the middle ages.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/determining_climate_record.html

I think its quite likely that what I heard was a reference to smaller period of the medieval age, as it seems to me, based on at least this, that it was, generally, at least slightly warmer than the period from 1500-1750. However, to say that it was warmer than modern times, I believe, would be in error.

seireikhaan

11-06-2007, 04:24

Well, there's this... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html)

And this... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html)

And on the webpage for the official UN global warming scare crew that keeps writing all the global warming reports (sorry, too lazy to go look it up again tonight) they have a graph of global temperature showing that the average planetary temperature in 1100 AD was warmer than it is now. By the way, I'll give you the rebuttall... the way to respond to it is the sharpness of the temperature flucuation... it took about 200 years for the temperature to reach its peak in 1100, rather bell shaped. The current temperature spike has a sharper curve (larger derviative).
Well, to start off with, those are the same source. But whatever, I'll run with it. First off, I'd like to see the charts and actual numbers that they've found. Not that I'm saying their necessarily wrong, because they certainly seem to have gotten credible people(professors and such) to back them up, but merely that I'd like to see the actual numbers, as opposed to them just saying they've got it.

In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."
I think it should be pointed out that the plague also hit Europe in I believe 1346, so to say that a drop in temperature was solely responsible is ignoring some of the facts. He seems to have ignored the rather signficant impact the plague had. Additionally, I think that 'economic collapse' may also be attributed in part due to the now strenuous wars that were constantly being fought, especially with the French and English.

Crazed Rabbit

11-06-2007, 06:41

Look at the popularity of the SUV, it's quite obviously not enough. In the case of SUV's however, more is needed.

Why? Not enough to prevent anyone from buying them? You don't care about pollution, you just hate the automobile because it goes against your tastes.

But that's not the bad part. The bad part is you want to force other people to live according to your tastes. And that is disgusting.

Funny how Europeans are supposed to be so enlightened and tolerant.

CR

HoreTore

11-06-2007, 08:13

Thats not always true, especially in the US and other places with a bit more space. My family buys Rangies because we have a place in the country that is not entirely paved, and can be difficult to reach in a car during the winter. Seclusion from the nasty city is worth it though.

A lot of people who live in cities participate in activities in the country in which those vehicles are suited for.

You really haven't looked at the variety of cars available. I'm 99.9% sure that a Suzuki Sx4 is more than able to get to your secluded cottage. Heck, even a Daihatsu Sirion would probably be enough. Subaru outbacks, Suzuki's and volvo's get where you want them to, generally. There are very few people with an actual need for more.

On a completely unrelated note.. the complete lack of decent station wagons led many growing families to the SUV. Who wants a mini-van? :no:

Lack of decent station wagons...?

Producers of quality station wagons, some with large engines too:

- Audi
- VW
- Mercedes
- Subaru
- Volvo
- Alfa Romeo

@ Crazed Rabbit: The answer to your question is the parts of what I said that you didn't quote. Funny that. How you managed to put so many words in my mouth however, is quite beyond me.

Husar

11-06-2007, 12:30

Funny how Europeans are supposed to be so enlightened and tolerant.
That's generalisation and blatant anti-europeanism! :whip:

If you go a few posts back you will see that I like SUVs and I'm european, I'm very tolerant of big cars, I never discriminated against SUVs and I even have a few SUVs as friends. :dizzy2:

Ser Clegane

11-06-2007, 12:39

I like SUVs and I'm european, I'm very tolerant of big cars, I never discriminated against SUVs and I even have a few SUVs as friends. :dizzy2:

Please leave this continent. Now.
Your possessions will be confiscated and sold on ebay.
The proceeds will be used to compensate for physical damages and psychic traumas caused by SUVs (and of course to fight global warming)

:stare:

Louis VI the Fat

11-06-2007, 15:00

My family buys Rangies because we have a place in the country that is not entirely paved, and can be difficult to reach in a car during the winter. Fair enough. If you have an actual use for them, by all means drive utility vehicles.

If you go a few posts back you will see that I like SUVs and I'm european, I'm very tolerant of big cars, I never discriminated against SUVs and I even have a few SUVs as friends. :dizzy2:Yeah right, now you people are suddenly all European and tolerant of SUV's. But it takes more than just a few friendly words to mend relations, I'm afraid.

I remember all too well how you people tried to replace all SUV's by tiny, identical Volkswagens. :no:

Funny how Europeans are supposed to be so enlightened and tolerant. We are, we are! And we manage to stay that way by banning big car, gun and megachurch culture. :smash:

Don Corleone

11-06-2007, 17:10

Come on, CR. Don't you realize what this is all about? Our European friends aren't shmucks, and they don't care a rat's ass about the environment. They know better than we do how badly our public transportation sucks. They don't want to expand their work schedule beyond 25 hours a week with 50 days of vacation. So what else can they do to remain competitive? Shut down our transportation network. Ban the automobile! Laugh as Americans look for trains to take to work that don't exist. Muhahahaha. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

11-06-2007, 17:16

@ Crazed Rabbit: The answer to your question is the parts of what I said that you didn't quote. Funny that. How you managed to put so many words in my mouth however, is quite beyond me.

Oh, I know you put up reasons like the environment and size as the cause behind your dislike, but those are just charades. We both know it.

Look at the other comments - SUV drivers are raising a middle finger to everyone else, they deserve jail, they should have their possessions taken for auction and be deported, etc., etc. Am I to believe that you really only dislike SUVs (more than any other similarly wide and gas chugging vehicle) based purely on principle?

Louis...LoL @ your comment.

CR

Ser Clegane

11-06-2007, 17:19

they should have their possessions taken for auction and be deported,

Wow - I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that that was tongue in cheek ... :juggle2:

(no wonder my colleagues give me irritated looks when I try to make a joke ~;))

Louis VI the Fat

11-06-2007, 18:05

Oh, might as well work on Don's blood pressure a bit: :balloon2:

https://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8624/suv2mr5.gif

https://img116.imageshack.us/img116/880/suv3zl2.jpg

https://img64.imageshack.us/img64/4889/suvny6.gif

CRUISE MISSILES AREN'T THE ONLY WAY TO KILL 10,000 PEOPLE A YEAR....Enough of all this war talk. Let's talk about SUVs instead.

Apparently SUVs really are killing machines. We've known for a long time that SUVs are unusually effective at killing people in other cars — something their owners and makers have long shown little concern about — but now the automakers themselves have finally admitted that, in fact, they are dangerous to their occupants as well:

http://members.cox.net/kdrum/Blog_SUV_Safety.jpg

Until now, auto companies have carefully cited statistics to suggest that SUVs are safer than cars. But in a briefing for reporters, the alliance released numbers showing that the death rate in accidents was 3.5% higher for people in SUVs than for those in passenger cars. The numbers were for 2001, the most recent year available.

And the response of our Republican Congress? Why, to call the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on the carpet to explain his statement last month that he wouldn't buy his children an SUV that has been determined to be a rollover risk "if it was the last one on Earth"

Giant Utility Link (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/monthly/2003_02.php) - solely for practical purposes of course...

Crazed Rabbit

11-06-2007, 18:20

Wow - I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that that was tongue in cheek ... :juggle2:

(no wonder my colleagues give me irritated looks when I try to make a joke ~;))

I know, and I'm pretty sure the post calling for them to be jailed wasn't entirely serious either, but I felt like quoting both of you guys to make a point.

CR
PS - Louis, the price is closer to $3 a gallon or more now.

Fragony

11-06-2007, 18:27

https://img64.imageshack.us/img64/4889/suvny6.gif

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

PanzerJaeger

11-06-2007, 19:22

You really haven't looked at the variety of cars available. I'm 99.9% sure that a Suzuki Sx4 is more than able to get to your secluded cottage. Heck, even a Daihatsu Sirion would probably be enough. Subaru outbacks, Suzuki's and volvo's get where you want them to, generally. There are very few people with an actual need for more.

I agree, and now I use Quattro. However, I have gotten it stuck once on a backroad. :help:

Lack of decent station wagons...?

Producers of quality station wagons, some with large engines too:

- Audi
- VW
- Mercedes
- Subaru
- Volvo
- Alfa Romeo

Well, remember Alfa isn't over here. People won't put down Audi money for a wagon here, and the same goes for Mercedes, which is a purely luxo nameplate in the USA. The whole concept of a wagon is different in the US, I've noticed. They definitely aren't cool, and most people buying Audi or Merc want a cool car.

The Volvo wagon was pretty popular during the 90s, but they don't advertise them at all, same for VW.You never see Avants on the VW/Audi lots.

You do see some outbacks around though, however I believe sales are down on that model too.

The new craze is smaller, car based, compact SUVs like the X3 and LR2 crossovers.

HoreTore

11-07-2007, 09:55

I agree, and now I use Quattro. However, I have gotten it stuck once on a backroad. :help:

Well, remember Alfa isn't over here. People won't put down Audi money for a wagon here, and the same goes for Mercedes, which is a purely luxo nameplate in the USA. The whole concept of a wagon is different in the US, I've noticed. They definitely aren't cool, and most people buying Audi or Merc want a cool car.

The Volvo wagon was pretty popular during the 90s, but they don't advertise them at all, same for VW.You never see Avants on the VW/Audi lots.

You do see some outbacks around though, however I believe sales are down on that model too.

The new craze is smaller, car based, compact SUVs like the X3 and LR2 crossovers.

You yanks sure miss out on the good cars ~;)

Audi, mercedes and BMW costs a lot over there? Here they are slightly more expensive than cars in the Mondeo price range, but not by much. Like 40-50k or so NOK(8-10k USD) more for the starter engine(the larger ones adds to that of course, but the cheaper cars also come with more expensive engines..). They're a little more pricey, but certainly not enough to be labeled "expensive" and no way am I going to call them "luxury cars". They're in the same price range as Volvo for heaven's sake!

On the "station wagon concept thing"... Not really sure why we're so fond of station wagons here, must be a subconscious fear of that one time in your lifetime you're going to transport a big refrigerator... But the station wagon is at least as popular as the sedan here, if it's not the most popular.

But the "not available here"-thing... What exactly does that mean? That they don't sell them over there at all, or just that they don't try to sell them? For example, can you go to a dealer and ask him to import a car of model X, version Y?

BTW, if you're still afraid of the hybrid future of the Prius, you should have a look at another hybrid car made by Toyota - the Lexus ls600h. V8, 445hp and uses about the same amount of gas as a Peugeot 307. And there's no way you can complain about the looks either. The price however, that's something you could complain about :laugh4:

Oh, and don't believe what the advertising says about the Quattro models. The 4x4 in them is for greater acceleration and as a basis for building, not terrain drivng..

Oh, I know you put up reasons like the environment and size as the cause behind your dislike, but those are just charades. We both know it.

Look at the other comments - SUV drivers are raising a middle finger to everyone else, they deserve jail, they should have their possessions taken for auction and be deported, etc., etc. Am I to believe that you really only dislike SUVs (more than any other similarly wide and gas chugging vehicle) based purely on principle?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take that as a tounge-in-cheek comment.