Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)

I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL

In other words, you are saying you can not afford to buy and operate one of the larger safer vehicles right? LOL

Much of that information is available. Young men like sports cars, so they have higher accident rates. Corvettes are more for older guys, so Corvettes have lower accident rates.

-- Ron

I see. Ridicule instead of argue the point. Let's try again for the stupid. If everyone keeps getting bigger cars because they're safer, where does it stop? If your safer car kills me where does it stop? If your safer car burns our oil faster and endangers our economy and forces us to work with dictators, where does it stop?

What part of that needs a foil hat? And I believe the helmet wars should be confined to the bicycle newsgroups anyway.

I think big cars are helping to destroy the planet. I certainly could afford to buy and operate one, but I choose to keep my 1991 Accord because it works well, gets me where I need to go, and because I think that people who buy big cars are nasty, pushy, obnoxious, and inconsiderate of everyone else. I think it's likely that you fit in all four categories. You might occupy two slots in nasty.

Also, I realize that my 1991 Accord is not particularly fuel efficient. However, I don't drive very much and all in all it would have a greater impact on the environment to junk it and buy a new car than just keep this one running.

This is one area where governments really do need to get involved in order to break the vicious cycle of larger and larger vehicles. Far too many self-centered greedy people that care nothing about the planet or the others on the road. That's the American Way. Or it was before the Republican party self-destructed.

People have different needs, so how would you write the regulations? What would be the purpose of those regulations?

-- Ron

For one thing, change the method of registration fees. I know when I was growing up in Florida, they charged the fees based on the vehicle weight not value. Not sure if it's still done this way, but in California the fees are based on value. They need to change this so there's more of an incentive to buy smaller cars. I.e. as of now, the VLF in my county is

0.65% of the value (and the value goes down each year). What they should do is to change the formula so that vehicles under a certain weight get a reduction for every pound under that weight, while vehicles over a certain weight get an increase.

For example, charge an extra $1 per pound per year for every pound in excess of 3500, and refund an extra $0.50 per pound for every pound under 3500. So a Ford Crown Victoria with a curb weight of 4127 pounds, would pay an extra $627 per year in fees, while a 2723 pound Toyota Corolla would get a reduction of $388.50 (actually getting a refund). A Toyota Camry at 3263 pounds get a reduction of $118.50. A Ford Explorer at 4460 pounds would pay an extra $960 per year. 3500 pounds is just an example, maybe it should be set at 3250, which is around what the most popular mid-size cars weigh. It's got to be a significant penalty to get people to change their behavior, not just $100-200.

Or instead of basing it on weight, base it on MPG, i.e. for every mpg under 25 mpg city charge an extra $50/year, and for every mpg under 30 highway charge an extra $50 per year. So , a Crown Victoria at 26/18 would pay an extra $550 per year. A Toyota Camry I4 at 31/21 would pay an extra $150 per year, while a Camry Hybrid at 34/33 would get a $600 credit, and a Prius Hybrid at 45/48 would get a $1900 per year credit.

To make it financially advantageous to purchase smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

1. weight doesn't mean shit when a vehicle collides with a solid object. and a vehicle with a high roll propensity or that's hard to stop is much more likely to do that.
2. yet again, what matters in a collision with another vehicle is how the occupants collide with the rest of the car. to minimize injury, they want a vehicle whose passenger cell remains intact and whose exterior absorbs the blow.
3. i've avoided collisions in my civic that i couldn't in larger cars because it's light and agile and stops quickly. and frankly i reverted to an 89 civic from a 2000 because the 2000 was so much heavier it handled like crap. the damned thing wouldn't stop fast either.

deliberate suggestio falsi.

er, listen "dummy", your so-called "third crash" is predicated by the deceleration rate. deceleration rate is determined by energy absorption. energy absorption is predicated by deformation. thus you want a car which bends, not some hunking great lump of detroit crap that remains rigidly undeformed. duh.

not as many as big heavy suv's and trucks!

that's because they can't. if you have 100% more weight on the road but only 50% more rubber [if that], it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out which vehicle can be best stopped or maneuvered. [hint - it's not the suv.]

this is something that blows my mind - modern engines are /way/ more efficient than old ones, yet because modern cars have all this "safety weight", their fuel consumption is actually /worse/ than older vehicles. check out the fuel consumption on the crx hf vs. the fit or civic hybrid.

What is wrong with a gas tax? Registration fees, once paid, don't discourage anyone from driving.

-- Ron

iirc, they do _two_ such things in europe:

1. heavily tax gas.

1. tax based on engine size or vehicle weight.

such a policy here would have a much the same effect as there you have to suppose - many more smaller more fuel efficient vehicles.

The gas tax is such a distributed expense that it's of limited value in changing behavior. Also, the chances of getting a gas tax that is high enough to change behavior is highly unlikely at either the federal or state level given the influence of the oil companies. The big 3 automakers have a lot less money to purchase influence these days, and the other automakers might not be against weight or MPG based vehicle license fees.

When you get hit with a $500 extra fee for registration when you purchase the car, with the knowledge that that fee will be assessed every year, it will have more of an effect.

jim beam wrote in news:AeudnZ0X5N8FO0vUnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@speakeasy.net:

I agree completely!

Families may own two or more vehicles, one of which, needs to be larger for carrying the whole family and towing a boat or trailer. Your solution doesn't match the needs of those families.

-- Ron

OMG, that's terrible--charging people extra when they need a large car to tow a boat!

For large families, there are ways to offset the cost with tax credits or tax deductions for large families. Similarly, for vehicles used commercially, the increase in fees can be offset with tax deductions.

Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds and credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated cowboy mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a recent change in management in DC.

And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?

Big families might just be one of the things we need to discourage most. As for boats, if you want that luxury you are just going to have to pay (a lot) for it.