If you could only read, people have the right to BUY whatever they want.
Jason said, and I quote " People have the right to buy almost any vehicle
they want ". You do not need, last time I checked, a license to buy a
vehicle. Obviously if they are driving, they have obtained the proper
certification to do so, therefore they can drive any vehicle they want in
their certified class.
I'm not sure even that is true, but clearly we are not talking about
your right to buy a golf cart and drive it around on your own
property. We are talking about what you can operate on the public
In other words, you can drive whatever they let you drive. A vehicle
twice as wide as a Hummer could not be operated on any road without
special permits. There is a maximum permitted width for vehicles
which varies with the particular road on which you intend to operate
it. Setting that limit is a matter of public policy reflecting the
physical realities of road configurations and the safety margins which
are deemed appropriate. There is nothing stopping State or local
government from passing a law limiting the use of residential roads to
vehicles of a width one inch narrower than a Hummer. There has to be
some limit and where does it say in the Constitution that the limit
has to be wider than a Hummer, or even an Explorer?
How many Hummers would they sell if you couldn't drive it within three
blocks of your house?
Can a state pass a law that restricts interstate commerce, and the Hummer
meets federal width standards? In many states Hummers and other SUVs are
licensed as passenger car that exhibit the same plate as a Civic
There is nothing stopping State or local
Why not, they must have a cargo area as required by law. If the law was
otherwise it would hurt business that NEED trucks with extra seating in
their business. Why should a family of seven have to pay a higher license
fee for the vehicle they need, than a family of four pays for their license?
The President wants the Congress to give him the power to set fuel standards
and to base CAFE on vehicle weight. The last time the forced people into
less safe small under powered cars the death and injury rate climbed and the
cost of converting plant to make the more costly to build FWD car led to the
price of cars tippling.
Do we really want the government to get involved in our fuel costs. The
President wants us to use more ethanol, yet ethanol consume more energy to
make from corn then it produces. We would have to farm most of the country
to produce enough ethanol to replace the gasoline we use now.
As to using local streets there is the exception for local deliveries, why
would there not be one local for residents and how would that be enforced?
Why in the world would the people want to give the government more power?
What's next, we have to ride motorcycles? We must walk if it is less than
six blocks? Where would it end? It bad enough the government can tell us
how many MPG our cars can get, will they tell us how many miles a year we
can drive? If the government can tell is were to drive, it will not be
long before they can tell us how far. Probation was repealed for a REASON
In Arkansas and Missouri, the license fee varies by the horsepower of the
engine. SAE formula horsepower, I think in most cases. Illinois divided
their car tag fees at 35 SAE horsepower for many years. Indiana charges an
ad valorem tax as part of the license fee. Mississippi and Arkansas still
charge property tax. Illinois did until 1970.
Don't give me that guff about even license fees. Isn't Californication the
state with the 2% tax per year on cars or something to that effect?
Just remember, you get what you pay for.
Charles of Schamburg.
On Mon, 1 May 2006 13:03:08 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
Really? Cars are required by law to have a cargo area? Oh, you mean
trucks are required to have cargo area. I don't have any dispute in
the classification of (most of) these vehicles as trucks. What I
object to is permitting them to be registered and operated as cars.
Well hell, let's let them drive around with no plates at all, because
we don't want to be a burden to business.
If they NEED a truck then let them license it as a truck.
If they NEED a bus then let them license it as a bus.
If they can't afford it, then they NEED to go out of business.
Why should my safety be jeopardized because some guy can't figure out
And the result are cars that are far safer and more fuel efficient
than they were even ten years ago. Then we have these land barges
being driven as commuter cars and grocery getters.
What is really needed is an overhaul of the DOT/EPA classifications of
vehicles and their fuel economy standards. They need to create a new
category of "Large Cars" which would carry 6 - 8 passengers and have
more generous fuel economy standards. These could be large sedans,
station wagons or minivans. They would be required to meet safety
standards limiting bumper and roof height as well as additional impact
absorbing bumpers to protect smaller cars. Such vehicles would be
far safer and more fuel efficient than SUVs and versatile enough for
80-90% of SUV owners.
So who couldn't get along without their monster SUVs?
Off roaders (including people who live off-road). Sorry, but Ford and
GM spoiled it for you by promoting these things as cars and now they
have to be regulated. Not your fault but now you have tougher
licensing, inspection and operation standards.
Towing big trailers. Hey, that is tricky and dangerous. You need to
meet higher safety standards. No whining.
The good news? Go get your truck operators license and drive your car
to your local SUV-by-the Day (R) franchise where you can see how it
makes good sense to only rent it when you NEED it. Oh my, a whole new
business created overnight.
ADM and the farming industry want us to use ethanol. Bush just wants
what big business wants.
So we better conserve oil, good idea.
It would be enforced by the police following you and noting that you
are not making a delivery.
I have not proposed giving the government any new or additional power.
The government already classifies these vehicles, applies fuel economy
and safety standards, licenses operators and registers vehicles.
Everything we are discussing is just a change in the details of the
When we run out of oil. If we all drive monster SUVs we will be
walking before you know it.
He said it was his opinion before he even stated it. But I think it
is a fact. Most of the people who drive the big SUVs would be better
served by a more efficient vehicle, like a minivan. About 80% of the
big SUVs driving around are performing missions which could be
accomplished by a subcompact.
I sure did say that it was my opinion. Thanks for noticing :-)
Mike seems to think that since many people purchase SUV's --
indicating that they WANT and LIKE SUV's -- it also indicates that
they NEED them.
Actually your granddaughter would be better served with a minivan than
an SUV. More room inside and better gas mileage.
Too me the SUVs are the Country Squire station wagons. When the next
trend comes along the public will wonder why they drove SUVs. Remember
the "personal luxury cars of the 70's?
Minivans were just as "cool" when they came out and all but killed the
standard station wagon which was uncool.
Mike Hunter wrote:
Perhaps if some manufacture made a V8 mini-van. When one lives in
mountainous country they need a vehicle that can perform safely while
loaded. Around here the Toyota dealers stock mostly V6 Camrys, because the
4 cy models can't do the job very well.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.