How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?

Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?

I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace Styrofoam without burning your hands.

FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be my hero.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

formatting link

Reply to
His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

I live in a city just north of your border and EVERY winter I see wide spread damage done to the front skirts of cars, especially to smaller economy cars and lower aerodynamic car models because of horrible road conditions ( pot holes and snow buildup ). I got a RAV4 to deal these exact reasons. I don't drive in savannahs or on unpaved mountain slopes. My car just has FWD and LOTS of ground clearance to deal with our terribly neglected city streets.

It's not really an issue of what kind of car you drive, it's a problem of how often you drive unnecessarily.

I would like to see my public auto insurance offer rates by the mile driven as opposed to all purpose or pleasure. Perhaps then some people might pay a little more attention to exactly why and if they really need to drive somewhere. Maybe then we could see less traffic congestion in our streets.

Reply to
homepc

Excellent post. I'd love to see a Per Mile insurance cost. My neighbours, for example, pop out multiple times every evening for multiple runs to the store for various things. I, on the other hand, arrange my chores into TWO trips a week, max. The assholes litter the street with their vehicles, ignoring their double garage and driveway. Why ANYONE would park on the street when they have a garage and/or driveway is beyond me!!

Reply to
Sharx35

I agree that it'd certainly curb traffic, but you may not like what it would do to the price of food and commoditites.

Reply to
Conscience

Hell, no...NOT on vehicles with COMMERCIAL plates. Most people who are paid to drive don't try and lengthen their routes if they want to stay employed. I'm talking about so-called "pleasure" driving. Now retired, my wife and I get along quite fine with just ONE vehicle to register, insure, and maintain. It just means we keep a master calendar for planning...e.g., NOT making appointments at about the same time. Meanwhile, my sister and BIL, insist on having THREE vehicles, and complain that they will not be able to fully retire because of all the expenses they have. Go figure.

Reply to
Sharx35

What about non-commercial plated vehicles used for business? Where does this invasion of privacy end?

My wife was a home-health nurse who used her vehicle to travel to patient's homes. Post-op, etc. Do individuals like her need to pay per mile? Would you trust any government official to write a proper law that addresses innumerable issues of which I've only mentioned one?

I sure as hell wouldn't.

Reply to
Conscience

In my original post, I mentioned that I have public auto insurance -- essentially a monopoly run by the province to ensure non profit, low user insurance rates. My point was that insurance profile choices offered by my auto insurer do not really meet my needs. Leave the pleasure insurance option open, but also offer insurance by the mile to those who may drive limited distances. I drive about 2500 km more or less annually and I honestly feel my rates are too high for my driving habits. If auto insurance by the mile were offered, perhaps more users would be inclined to curb their excessive driving habits and save some cash to be put for better use. Less cars on the road = less congestion.

The distance you drive annually option should be a personal choice, and I can't see it being an invasion of my privacy. There was an auto insurance pilot project run in Ontario where volunteers had event recorders installed in their vehicles and the insurance premiums were based upon demonstrated driving habits. The event recorder only recorded time of day, speed, and distance. It did not record GPS data like a smart phone. So if a user drove short distances during non-rush hour periods at slower speeds their risk assessment would be very low. If a user drove daily during rush hour at high speeds their risk assessment would be much higher. No one could possibly know where the test vehicles were driven. This type of generic information could not be used as an invasion of privacy argument. If you want a real invasion of privacy, look no further than your smart phone.

Reply to
homepc

I rest my case. Public insurance? Run by the government?

But if you're sucking at the teat of the taxpayers, then you have no right to privacy. If I'm paying full-price, with no subsidies for my insurance, then it's up to me to pick a company that I feel isn't infringing on my privacy. The number of miles doesn't mean squat unless you're in the habit of getting in wrecks, DUIs, or whatever other bad driving one can imagine. If I drive 40K miles per year without incident, why should my rates equal or exceed some idiot that drives 5K and gets in accidents or whatever?

That's your opinion, and I'll certainly back your right to it...while I disagree.

Again, your choice to use it as-is, or learn to change the settings preventing that from happening.

Reply to
Conscience

My auto insurance automatically increases dramatically due to demerits accrued by speeding, DUI, and at fault accidents. So any option auto insurance coverage premium and driver's license fee would increase or decrease in lock step with the number of demerits or merits a driver has.

If I am a very good driver like you, and decide only to drive 5000k miles a year during fair weather and light traffic, reason dictates that I would be less of a risk than if I drove 40000k miles a year during mostly rush hour commuter conditions and occasional bad weather. Then wouldn't it be fair to pay less for my car insurance? If I would be forced to pay the same insurance rate as you under those conditions, then wouldn't you be taking unfair advantage of me? To use your words, high mileage drivers would be sucking at the teat of those who elect to drive sparingly.

Reply to
homepc

Your logic is faulty at best, and proves my assertion. It matters not how many miles anyone drives as long as they're not constantly in trouble. By virtue of my example of 40K per year vs 5K, I am a proven safer driver than you per-mile driven.

One has the freedom of choice to pick a company that best fits their driving miles and habits.

Unless you're subsidized by the government. You've then signed-away your privacy.

Reply to
Conscience

That line of reasoning has been used before. Does that mean if I only drive 5,000 miles to the supermarket and local errands at MY DISCRETION annually, I will be a greater insurance risk than if I drive 40,000 miles under all road and weather conditions during the same period of time? No, it just means my excellent driving skills in combination with a certain degree of luck saved me from any accidents during that 40,000 miles of road travel.

When you drive, there are many different kinds of risk involved. Good driving skill and past experience work in your favor obviously. Exposure to less skilled drivers around you, exposure to bad road conditions, exposure to bad weather conditions, third party road accidents, etc, are all risks that are beyond your control and the greater exposure to these risks, the greater your chance of making an insurance claim, whether you are at fault or not.

You argue that by having no accidents driving 40K miles per year makes you a better insurance risk than me per-mile driven. I argue, that if I drive 40K miles over an eight year period ( 5K per year ) without any accidents, I will be less of an insurance risk over all just because I have deliberately chosen to limit my exposure to uncontrolled risks.

Freedom has a cost, and if you chose to drive a lot you should also assume the added risk costs.

My public auto insurance is not for profit, but that doesn't mean it's subsidized by taxpayers. It just means that shareholders are not paid any dividends, nor is there any fediciary obligation to maximize shareholder wealth, like private insurance companies do. If there are any excess profits realized, they are refunded back to the insurance holders.

No insurance system is perfect. But if public insurance is such a bad deal, why are drivers from neighboring provinces spoofing their parents' address as their own just to illegally qualify for a public auto insurance purchase from my province. It's because the private auto insurance in their home province is too insanely expensive.

Reply to
homepc

Thank you for expounding on, and proving, my point. My accident-free

40K proves my superior skills.

As you wish. But your detailed rebuttal has utterly failed.

I've had no accidents whatsoever in four decades. You?

Reply to
Conscience

3 decades and 15 merits ( maximum earned ) -- knock on wood.

It's something I don't wish to boast about just in case the gods are listening.

Like the saying goes -- Shit happens!

Reply to
homepc

Exactly. But I don't wish to pay for the risks that my record means are associated with OTHERS and their driving. That's why I object to rates based upon miles.

Reply to
Conscience

Fact is, the MORE miles driven, the MORE risk. This applies for good AND poor drivers. The MORE miles, the MORE time on the road, the MORE exposure to risk. Period.

Reply to
Sharx35

Then call me far better, even perfect, at "risk management". No accidents, so no reason to pay the same rate as someone else.

Reply to
Conscience

For about 3 years now I've purchased vehicle and homeowners insurance from Hartford though ARRP and have saved a bundle over the mainstream store front insurance companies (better coverage too). Purchased on line and customer service is as good or better than sit down eye to eye with a local agent. I have had a claim too and was without pain or argument. You have to be a ARRP member though. Check it out.

Reply to
dbu`

Due to their liberal and anti-gun politics, I've never joined.

Many years ago, I'd stuff the postage-paid solicitation envelopes with everything in which they were sent. I'd even add extra junk mail from other sources and tape it all up nice and neat, knowing the AARP would have to pay the postage for essentially what was trash.

Eventually they got the point and stopped mailing me applications.

Reply to
Conscience

We can set a limit on weight and bumper height. Of course, you may still buy a bigger one and use it strictly off road --or keep in the garage.

Tell you what, we can set the curb weight as follows:

CURB WEIGHT 2002 JEEP LIBERTY... 3648 lbs. And that shall be the law of the land.

Compare that to the curb weight of a Hummer: 6614 lbs. If you need something bigger than a Jeep Liberty go to Russia.

Reply to
His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Yes, I know about ARRP, but the bottom line is me not joining or joining is not going to make any difference to their policy or others policys, we are but a pin prick of influence.

What is a difference is my bottom line insurance bill, it's much less than the other big shot insurance companies who make YOU pay for other peoples fuxx-ups or teen-age kids in the family.

Reply to
dbu`

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.