Re: R.I.P. General Motors (1931-2006)

They wouldn't need the money if they hadn't bought that monster truck LOL.

Reply to
Gordon McGrew
Loading thread data ...

If it takes one a days pay, to buy fuel to get to work for a day, he working at the wrong place ;)

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

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

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Not stopping you from buying one, just stopping you from driving it on residential roads. Is their a Federal law that requires residential roads to be open to medium duty trucks?

This is a law that could be changed and should be IMO. Manufacturers should not be allowed to certify these vehicles as trucks under Federal law and then turn around and license them as cars.

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

It doesn't have to consume your entire day's pay in fuel to break your back financially. And don't forget about the monthly payments on the beast. You might be surprised at how many people are "truck poor."

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

Statically those that buy cheaper new vehicles and used vehicles finance a larger portion of the selling price, for a longer period of time, than those that buy new and more expensive vehicles. Seems to me they would be the ones being hurt the most by higher fuel costs not those with vehicles that cost 50K or more ;0

For instance I have not financed a new vehicle in over thirty years and I buy a new vehicle every year. ;)

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

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

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

I would rather they license them as cars. Cars have higher safety standards.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Because it is a bigger vehicle. By your logic, perhaps we should charge for gas by the miles driven rather than by the gallon.

If the President set fuel standards, he would set them lower than they are now.

What's tippling?

However, if we got rid of all the trucks and got just small cars, the injury rate would go down.

They already are.

Not anymore. The production of ethanol is more efficent.

Easy. No one would be allowed to drive medium duty military vehicles on local streets.

The government is the people.

The government already tells us where to drive. For example, it is illegal to drive on other people's lawns or in Central Park (NYC) during certain hours.

And the CAFE laws were not repealed for a reason, as well.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Dear Mike,

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.

Reply to
n5hsr

Perhaps but the fees are the same for every driver in the state

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Not in Pennsylvania. The Constitution requiers taxes to be equal among payers

mike hunt

During which hours can one drive on other people's lawns?.

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Both cars and light trucks he been required to meet the same Federal crash standards for over ten years, and they meet them more easily than cars because of their size and greater mass.

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

In response to:

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 birth control.

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 regulations.

When we run out of oil. If we all drive monster SUVs we will be walking before you know it.

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

So mike, what was the reason your probation was repealed?

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

(Cough) Iraq (Cough)

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

Hey mike, you didn't top post this. Are you one of those trainable mentally handicapped people?

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

But they don't meet bumper height requirements which are a critical safety feature.

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

Go to this site.

formatting link

Reply to
Bob Palmer

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.