Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

California to ban SUV's


aREDSKIN

Recommended Posts

True. But if the State mandates it for itself then legislation mandating for all others within the State is not far behind. Very plausible especially in CA. The purported rationale will be that the State has a "compelling interest".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Um, I don't think so.

What I find disturbing is how this affects only the state's carpool ..and yet the BBC sells it as a mandate on the private citizen by the State of California. :rolleyes:

The BBC and popular political parties in the UK are all for the forced control of people's rights through socialism. That's why they did that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep remembering that scene from Dragnet (the movie):

(Friday's voice): "We stopped by the motor pool and picked up our replacement vehicle: A new Hugo. A gift to the department from the people of Yugoslavia, and representing the cutting edge of Serbo-Croation automotive technology."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they going to trash their pattie wagons, and their park veihicals, and what about their beach jeeps? I bet that they sell them at pubilic auction, witch doesn't get rid of a single SUV. If it matters so much to stop being dependent on forgien countries for oil, why do we not mind paying for more gas with our more expensive SUV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The great thing about America is the choice to choose what you want to drive, eat, drink, own, and ect. Owning an SUV does mean that you will used more gas, and since gas prices have such a high percentage of taxes added into them, that mean that the SUV owners are spending more money on ways to clean the roads and air (since that is how the taxes on gasoline is used), than other drivers on the road. If you have a large family it is better to drive one big SUV that to small cars. Multiple occupants, towing capacity, off-road capability, and additional safety are a few of the benefits that SUVs have to offer. SUV owners are not enemies of the environment, but friends to freedom and self-expression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way on Gods Green Earth that they can ban any automobile that does not present immediate danger.. If it did not pass emmissions it wouldnt be produced or on they high way....This is just some liberal minded get a rise out of everyone article that deserves as much attention as the do not remove sign from a couch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry, but can't you people read?

:jk:

This is an attempt to ban SUVs from the state car pool. No one but the fearmongers are taking this legislation as an attempt to ban on SUVs for everyone.

The state is basically saying that they should be going to more economical and gas saving vehicles.

Why would that be a bad thing?

If the intent is to save $'s through improved MPH AND save $'s through less NOx and CO2 (just to name a few) spewing out of the SUVs...then shouldn't the taxparer applaud this - since their tax money is being saved in the long run?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, There are alot of gas guzzling SUV's out there. However, These vehicles are simply boxes set over the chassi of a pick-up truck.

Ford Ranger = Explorer

F-150 = Expedition

F-250 = Excursion (which Ford has recently halted production of)

So if you own a pick-up, be it for business or personal use, are you falling under the same class as an SUV owner?

I drive a F-250 super crew four door that is EXACTLY like an Excursion, with a 6 1/2 foot bed, instead of the "SUV BOX" Am I an SUV driver?

Inquiring minds want to know :?:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Funkyalligator

I just wish Congress would finally pass a reasonable law that would force automakers to make cars/suvs more fuel efficient....but neither Detroit nor the oil industry want this to happen

This can easilly be used to force "SUV's " out of CA. Legislation could mandate all "passenger vehicles" have a certain MPG rating to be allowed to be "sold" or "owned" and penalties can be assessed for those that don't comply. CA already has legislation the the auto manufacturers already have to provided- air emissions etc. for their cars to be sold there. However, CA would miss out on all the tax revenue that those gas guzzling SUV owners pony up to the treasury everytime they fill-up. This will be interesting to see. Let's see how much political influence the Greens and other environment first groups have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by rdsknbill

OK, There are alot of gas guzzling SUV's out there. However, These vehicles are simply boxes set over the chassi of a pick-up truck.

Ford Ranger = Explorer

F-150 = Expedition

F-250 = Excursion (which Ford has recently halted production of)

So if you own a pick-up, be it for business or personal use, are you falling under the same class as an SUV owner?

I drive a F-250 super crew four door that is EXACTLY like an Excursion, with a 6 1/2 foot bed, instead of the "SUV BOX" Am I an SUV driver?

Inquiring minds want to know :?:

Very true. I guess SUV's have just made trucks more appealing to the general public and thus more popular. So now poeple need something to attack and hate on and they make a nice target. I personally don't own a truck or an SUV and don't much care for then, but I don't really have a problem with other people wanting to own them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SUVs? Yeah, I pretty much hate them.

They are big trucks with high grills that poeple drive like sedans. They are impossible to see around, making the roads less safe for non-SUV drivers, and frankly, if people are so d@mn worried about their safety the auto industry has come up with this amazing invention called the mini-van, which is actually safer, if not as cool :rolleyes:. This is America and people should drive what they want to drive. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

As far as the article goes, I don't know how big a deal this really is. The state government isn't going to use SUVs anymore? Well, good for them. More for the rest of you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's the point Henry.

Legislation that will keep SUVs out of the State CARPOOL. Not the private citizen..but the STATE.

The only need for them, statewise, is in areas that have a lot of snowfall. I am sure that this very fact is being considered with the legislation.

If it saves the taxpayer $'s, then we should all be for it, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Henry

SUVs? Yeah, I pretty much hate them.

They are big trucks with high grills that poeple drive like sedans. They are impossible to see around, making the roads less safe for non-SUV drivers, and frankly, if people are so d@mn worried about their safety the auto industry has come up with this amazing invention called the mini-van, which is actually safer, if not as cool :rolleyes:. This is America and people should drive what they want to drive. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

As far as the article goes, I don't know how big a deal this really is. The state government isn't going to use SUVs anymore? Well, good for them. More for the rest of you. :)

Good Poiny Henry! My wife swore that she would never drive a Minivan, until I bought her one. Now she is sporting around in a 2003 Grand Caravan (her second one), and wouldn't have it any other way. She test drove SUV's and thought that they were too big with no more room than the Corrola wagon she had had before.

My truck is necessary for my business, but I must admit that I do love driving the beast. Especially when the winters around here get like last year.:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...