| 
		
			| sebastian_dangerfield | 08-28-2006 03:45 PM |  
 Victimhood (Prius Rant)
 
	Quote: 
	
		| Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
 Huh?  This I don't understand.
 
 I never anywhere argued for a ban.  I gave my reasons why I dislike the proliferation of SUVs.  I would dissuade their use in two ways.  1)  Impose gas taxes that accurately reflected harm to the environment (which, in fact they may already) as well as damage to roads (this is harder to measure, but one 6000lb SUV does more than double the damage of two 3000lb cars).  2)  Make sure that insurance rates accurately reflect the harm SUVs cause to others and tax that harm to the SUV owner.
 
 If people want to pay the price, that's fine.  But as shifter points out, one of the reasons why SUVs are popular (or were) is because they are "more car for the money", which is to say, they have lower costs for the amount of car because of byzantine regulation.
 
 ETA: Lest you think I'm an enviro junkie, I just reread the thread title.  I have even more disdain for Priuses.  Why?  Because many states (at least around here) give them carte blanche for the HOV lanes.  They use gas.  They take up space and cause congestion.  They don't get that much better fuel mileage than some other econo-boxes.  Yet they get to use the HOV lanes?  Suck it.  And DC can suck it more for giving them tax-free registration.  Everyone else pays 7% of purchase price and they get in free?  Suck that.
 
 |  If you acccept that sort of soft regulation, then we should also be able to tax Domino's Pizza, or people who commute instead of take the train, for damaging roads more than others.  Why should I pay more tax for my SUV (when I only drive to the train and the few miles around my home) than a car driver who commutes 50 miles a day?  Your dissuading techniques are far too simplistic to ever be sensibly implemented.  
 
Trying to tweak people's behaviors leads to exactly the sort of damging behavior you note about the Priuses. 
 
The limited (and I agree, absurd) tax break Shifty cited does not make the case that an SUV is more car for the money.  Their lower costs have always been outweighed by higher costs of maintenance and repair (if you owned a shift on the fly 4X4 in the 80s and early 90s, you understand the "new transmisssion at 60k miles" rule that applied). If anything, it was less car in return for the privilege of not worrying about anything come Winter (or, as I noted earlier, waiting in line to leave a stadium). |