New fueleconomy.gov tips

[Sven7]

Originally Posted by bestclimb

Because the regulations are doing a great job of keeping incompetent people off the roads. If someone demonstrates that they are incompetent or a hazard they should have that right revoked (your right to swing your fist ends at my noise and all that). In the case of driving a slight infringement on that right may be a necessary evil, that does not mean I do not retain it as a right.

Also I did not note that you are in Canada, we may have different views regarding rights and their origins.

I agree that there should be higher standards for American drivers. This is something to bring up at the state level by mailing your representatives or attending a caucus.

I challenge you to find where anything says driving is a right. Isn't that kind of like saying running drunk and naked through the street is a right? Just because you pay taxes and have the ability to do it, doesn't make it okay. We limit certain activities for good reason, and keeping unlicensed, uninsured and irresponsible drivers off the road is one.

As far as gas guzzling vehicles and irrational decisions, fine. I am just as opposed to 5,000 pound death machines as any of you are, but if someone (like me) wants to make a stupid decision and go buy a luxury sedan with a 3.4L engine for the sole purpose of commuting 6 miles to work, I see no reason to legally limit them in doing so.

Behavioral modification through legislation rarely works as intended- much like subsidies. So, leave people to do what they want. It'll catch up to them. I'll sure be sick of 20 mpg by spring.

[Miller88]

I'd rather take the state routes ... they may take a bit longer but a much more relaxing drive, easier access to food, etc and much better gas mileage.

I put about 3000 miles on the car one weekend going on a road trip - 99% of it was interstate. Not fun at all. Way too stressful, averaged getting caught up in at least one traffic jam a day (killing fuel economy for that tank). Granted, we ended up getting to where we wer e going a day early by going fast.

[ksa8907]

You have the right to do whatever you want, you will be responsible for any consequences.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by Sven7

I agree that there should be higher standards for American drivers. This is something to bring up at the state level by mailing your representatives or attending a caucus.

I challenge you to find where anything says driving is a right. Isn't that kind of like saying running drunk and naked through the street is a right? Just because you pay taxes and have the ability to do it, doesn't make it okay. We limit certain activities for good reason, and keeping unlicensed, uninsured and irresponsible drivers off the road is one.

As far as gas guzzling vehicles and irrational decisions, fine. I am just as opposed to 5,000 pound death machines as any of you are, but if someone (like me) wants to make a stupid decision and go buy a luxury sedan with a 3.4L engine for the sole purpose of commuting 6 miles to work, I see no reason to legally limit them in doing so.

Behavioral modification through legislation rarely works as intended- much like subsidies. So, leave people to do what they want. It'll catch up to them. I'll sure be sick of 20 mpg by spring.

I don't have to find where anything says specifically that driving is a right, that's not how rights work. The BOR is not the end all be all of the list. I noted earlier the 9th amendment. It is kind of like an umbrella covering the rest of them.

What harm is it in driving unlicensed (or uninsured for that matter)? If someone did so responsibly obeyed traffic laws and had the ability to pay for any damages that they caused?

Running drunk and nekid might offend someone's sensibilities. Doing it in the streets impedes others from using the area designated for them. Which is why it is not legal in most areas. The issue with this strawman is not that he is drunk and naked, it is that the scarecrow is running through the streets. The real question is how is someone driving responsibly (even if they had no licence) interfering with anyone else's access to the area?

[UltArc]

Originally Posted by bestclimb

I don't have to find where anything says specifically that driving is a right, that's not how rights work. The BOR is not the end all be all of the list. I noted earlier the 9th amendment. It is kind of like an umbrella covering the rest of them.

What harm is it in driving unlicensed (or uninsured for that matter)? If someone did so responsibly obeyed traffic laws and had the ability to pay for any damages that they caused?

Running drunk and nekid might offend someone's sensibilities. Doing it in the streets impedes others from using the area designated for them. Which is why it is not legal in most areas. The issue with this strawman is not that he is drunk and naked, it is that the scarecrow is running through the streets. The real question is how is someone driving responsibly (even if they had no licence) interfering with anyone else's access to the area?

My mind is blown on the thought of driving without insurance. I am pretty good at controlling my car. I am not very good at controlling the car in front of me, next to me, or behind me, or the deer I can't see in the bushes, or the child behind a van, or the black ice in front of the stop sign.

I do not know of any laws that are very dangerous. Not having insurance and driving is absolutely dangerous. Like a tie rod snapping, hitting on coming traffic, and both drivers being killed.

I just can not fathom one being okay not legally driving. We really have few rights. Driving should not be one. Just because one is a living human does entitle them to drive. If it is a right, why don't five year olds get to drive?

Really, the laws are in place for a reason. The speed limits seem reasonable to me, sometimes I go a bit slower, sometimes I go faster. We all know the consequences either way.

[niky]

Driving on roads built and maintained by the state is a privelege, not a right. You have the absolute right to drive your own car on your own land without a license or a seatbelt, with no one to blame but yourself if things go tits up.

On roads that don't belong entirely to you, considering your taxes have paid for less than a millionth of their length, hell no.

That said, I don't agree with static speed limits. I'd rather have adaptive or flexible limits that take into account road and weather conditions. 70 on a clear road with no traffic? Sure! 70 in the rain at night? Hell no. Again.

Originally Posted by UFO

Not sure you refined your point enough. Solar/hydro/wind/biofuels energy is renewable in every sense, unless you really think it's necessary to take it to the extreme when the sun burns out.

Solar panels have a 35 year guarantee of operating at at least 85%. They may last fifty years, but you will get to a point where the amount of electricy produced is not worth the amount of space and maintenance required to keep the facility operational. Hydroelectric dams silt up and likewise have a maximum useful lifespan. Wind incurs a lot of maintenance downline. While operating, you get energy seemingly for free, but the start-up and downline maintenance costs are no joke. I know a few wind farms that still haven't reached the capital bteak-even point, and solar will take that thirty or forty years to even come close. Of the above, hydroelectric makes the most sense and is the most bang for the buck, but appropriate sites are limited.

Biofuels? Let's talk when the EROEI goes down to reasonable levels.

Fossil fuels are renewable. Just stop using them for a few million years and call us back in the morning.

-

In the end, everything is subsidized, and the level of subsidy is often proportional to the volume of energy produced for consumption. (I posted an infographic here somewhere, but too lazy to find it now). And the level of subsidy actually scales up based on downstream pollution and legacy costs, which means more dollars per kWatt go to "clean" energy.

Perhaps all that's needed is simply to charge consumers directly for the environmental costs of their choice of fuel and their behavioral patterns will change. Other first world countries pay a hell of a fuel tax, it's crazy that Americans do not. It would be painful, though. American society is built on cheap oil, so people live further away from everything they need than anyone else.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by UltArc

My mind is blown on the thought of driving without insurance. I am pretty good at controlling my car. I am not very good at controlling the car in front of me, next to me, or behind me, or the deer I can't see in the bushes, or the child behind a van, or the black ice in front of the stop sign.

I do not know of any laws that are very dangerous. Not having insurance and driving is absolutely dangerous. Like a tie rod snapping, hitting on coming traffic, and both drivers being killed.

I just can not fathom one being okay not legally driving. We really have few rights. Driving should not be one. Just because one is a living human does entitle them to drive. If it is a right, why don't five year olds get to drive?

Really, the laws are in place for a reason. The speed limits seem reasonable to me, sometimes I go a bit slower, sometimes I go faster. We all know the consequences either way.

We have a right to vote we don't let 5 year olds do it, we have a right to own firearms, we don't let 5 year olds do it.

Please explain to me how driving without insurance is dangerous, does it make the car somehow harder to steer? Would having insurance bring back the child carelessly backed over? Is it some magic that protects my car from a suicidal deer? Does it run in front of me and douse slippery spots with sand? You pays your money and you takes your chances. If you want to financially protect your property, it really should be up to you to decide if you want to share risk (which is what insurance really is).

Not having insurance is not dangerous. Not having insurance and having neither the means, nor the willingness to be financially responsible for your actions is irresponsible.

I do not have insurance on my vehicle, I do carry liability, not because I am required to do so (though I am) I carry it because I am responsible for my actions and making a mistake can result in damage totaling a bunch of money or worse and that thought is pretty horrible. I A) want the person or property that I damage or destroy to be replaced/repaired or healed, and I can not afford to do that out of pocket and B) I want my property protected from lawsuit. If I drove a more expensive car I might want that insured as well. Though if I was in a position were the cost of a more expensive car was negligible I might not insure it then.

My mother-inlaw was recently hit head on, the other car was insured but the driver was specifically bared from the coverage (DUI). The guy had nothing and the insurance would not pay. <Shrug> not much you can do about it. But this guy had a DUI what was he still doing driving? He already proved that he can't be trusted behind the wheel. Laws can't really protect you from the stupidity of others, but once they prove themselves unable to handle simple liberties they should be removed.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by niky

Driving on roads built and maintained by the state is a privelege, not a right. You have the absolute right to drive your own car on your own land without a license or a seatbelt, with no one to blame but yourself if things go tits up.

On roads that don't belong entirely to you, considering your taxes have paid for less than a millionth of their length, hell no.

You are right the roads do not belong entirely to me, I never made that claim. The neat thing about this country is that we delegate tasks to our agents, the public official. We could have built a bunch of private roads all over the country but officials acting under powers we the people delegated to them built a road system.

Funny you should mention seat belts. I wear them, it would be foolish not to. If some other driver did not want to what right do you and I (through the powers we delegate to the police) have to tell them they must do it or we will take their time (for stopping as it is a primary offense in many jurisdictions) and their money.

What harm does it to anyone if someone operates a motor vehicle on public roads without being licensed?

[niky]

Knowing something about what roads cost... Good luck building more than a mile wirh your money.

-

What harm does it do people if someone practices surgery without a license? What harm does it do if someone does the engineering plans for a bridge without a license? What harm does it do if someone sells food without a businees license or health inspection certificate.

Obviously nothing if they're competent, but a license is a means of ensuring minimum competency. Which means the can be insured. Which means if they muck up, someone is there to pay the tab.

Driving on the road unlicensed, uninsured and unbelted makes you a risk to others, as IF you are in an accident, that increases the liability for all the other parties involved. If you are unbelted, they hit you and you die, that is obviously a much different case from both of you surviving and arguing it out in court. If the other party has only third-party liability but no collision insurance and yoi're at fault... Who pays? How do they guarantee payment? And lastly, being unlicensed means there's no way of ensuring you are familiar with the rules of the road. Which makes you an unknown quantity that insurers and law enforcement can't assign risk factors to.

Reminds me of a law in Japan, where you are assigned criminal liability for trying to commit suicide by train. Think of the poor train drivers and sanitation crew...

Again, do what you want on your own time and own land, but driving on roads owned and operated by the state, you follow state rules. They're not there to protect you. They're to protect everyone else from you. Your freedom ends where another person's freedoms begin.

[Frank Lee]

your freedom ends where another person's freedoms begin.

Nice idea; why am I unable to keep everyone's noise pollution off my property or even out of my house?