CNBC Says only racing enthusiasts buy manuals, let’s correct them

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My idea is just increase gasoline tax. The method of taxation is already in place, and it closes the most loopholes because it's nearest to directly addressing the behavior we're trying to reduce; fuel consumption. That eliminates the need to dream up a never ending list of things to tax, and creative loopholes that avoid them, as well as the administrative overhead.

There were times when taxation of cars in Brazil was horsepower-biased. Even though a taxation biased toward some technical feature could be effective to address the fuel consumption issue somehow, at least in the United States it seems like increasing taxation over gasoline might be the easiest way to lead the average Joe to take a look at efficiency just like it did everywhere else. But it would eventually also require a coordinated effort with NHTSA and EPA to put an end on the protectionist measures that allowed the Big Three to dump gas guzzling trucks and SUVs which seemed to be cheaper to make than economy cars which would be up to the Euro and Jap contenders.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm always willing to engage in OT subjects. My idea is just increase gasoline tax. The method of taxation is already in place, and it closes the most loopholes because it's nearest to directly addressing the behavior we're trying to reduce; fuel consumption. That eliminates the need to dream up a never ending list of things to tax, and creative loopholes that avoid them, as well as the administrative overhead.

If taxes were high enough, people would be motivated to carpool.

Except that isn't what the gasoline tax is intended to do. It is intended to fund the construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure. The amount of fuel consumed has little to do with the number of roads needed.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

Except that isn't what the gasoline tax is intended to do. It is intended to fund the construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure. The amount of fuel consumed has little to do with the number of roads needed.

Sin taxes are effective at affecting change.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I don't find gridlock traffic to be very burdensome in a manual. Drive at the average speed of traffic and you rarely have to shift. Way less stressful and more fuel efficient too.

If anyone has the right to say this, it's probably me, because I drove M/T in the Bay Area for years. Steep hills, 4mph traffic, circling the block for 30 minutes looking for parking, I've done it all, and the clutch was never a problem. Clutch operation is not something I have to think about, my foot moves where it needs to.

Granted, I did get left knee pain after moving to the East Coast, and operating the clutch for a whole day did make it hurt, but I could definitely manage a shorter drive.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Sin taxes are effective at affecting change.

The "sin" is driving. Consuming gasoline isn't required to drive and even with a gasoline vehicle it isn't proportional to the amount of mile driven. My 15 mpg Astro Van takes up the same amount of road space as my 35 mpg VW Sportwagen.

If we don't want people to drive then charge them by the mile.

[freebeard]

We're all sinners here?

Road space is determined by the vehicle's speed more than it's length. Road wear is determined more by a vehicle's weight than it's fuel consumption.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Road space is determined by the vehicle's speed more than it's length.

Considering the absence of traffic jams from point A to point B, this can make sense.

Road wear is determined more by a vehicle's weight than it's fuel consumption.

Sometimes a subcompact running on gasoline or even on ethanol might end up being charged a higher amount of fuel tax than a fancy SUV with a turbodiesel engine. In the end, tax revenue is what really matters.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by freebeard

We're all sinners here?

Road space is determined by the vehicle's speed more than it's length. Road wear is determined more by a vehicle's weight than it's fuel consumption.

The basic truth is we don't have enough space on our roads for everyone to drive where they want to go. We haven't for years and it is only getting worse. If thing are going to get better something needs to change.

The fuel tax isn't cutting it and it hasn't matched transportation infrastructure costs for decades. Charging some one that drives a 20 mpg vehicle twice as much as someone that drives a 40 mpg vehicle is fundamentally unfair. It is time for a change.

[freebeard]

'If thing are going to get better something needs to change.' vs 'a better world is possible.'

The basic truth is we don't have enough space on our roads for everyone to drive where they want to go.

Raise the speed limit, raise the traffic volume. Arguing against my last point, I know.

[Piotrsko]

Statistically, there is enough room, just not during the day or when everyone wants to use it. Fwiw, traffic even in Smell-a lightens up a lot during non peak hours.

I remember the doom and gloom people whining about congestion during various epoch level events: Olympic, earthquakes, fires that time/use shifting prevented.