New fueleconomy.gov tips

[niky]

Well, there are legal limits for exhaust noise. Could be set lower.

[Frank Lee]

Sure, there's a boatload of laws on the books... but when the stupid cops are among the offenders (open piped Hardley-Ablesons, anyone?) such laws don't get enforced. AT ALL.

[rmay635703]

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.

60+yrs ago insurance was in many areas considered insideous and unnecessary. Immoral even. Few people owned it and few people needed it, affairs were taken care of the hard and old fashioned way.

Insurance like utilities should either be heavily regulated or government owned, it is afterall a tax,

I don't much care paying taxes to private for profit entities, who claim to operate for the better good, especially after having to deal with them.

In your mentioned cases the child dies, family gets a death benefit of $3500.
Car hits a deer, insurance pays half what is needed to replace the car.
You slide through black ice, your at fault, you loose your car and have to pay $500, insurance company fights defendants for 10 years so they give up.

Given what I & my family has had to give for insurance and what we have gotten from having insurance I can see absolutely no reason for it to exist in its current form, since it rarely pays out but always takes.

In my family the reasons for having insurance (at least what I've been told) have occured and insurance would not cover regardless.
Also if you are unable to work your health insurance from work usually will expire after the first missed premium.

Pretty useless entities.

If we believe all should pay to make a pool for the greater good we should perhaps remove the profit aspect and put an uncaring, indifferent but objective entity in charge of such a system with no profit or personal benefit to gain from the venture.

Ah well, no utopia here.

[bestclimb]

Well folks it has been fun I'm out for the holidays have a happy and safe thanksgiving.

[Sven7]

Originally Posted by bestclimb

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?

Conceal and Carry gun laws offend my sensibilities. "Reality" TV shows offend my sensibilities. Cable already shows pretty raunchy stuff. Where do we draw the line?

When I'm running through the street drunk and naked, perhaps the cars are in my way. After all, pedestrians have the right of way. It's a public street that I help pay for; I should be able to use it however I choose. (Not really, but you see where I'm going?)

Someone driving without a license is a danger to me because I know if they lose control and hit me (more likely if they have no drivers training) that I may not get the care I need to get better. I may not have the money to fix my car or buy a new one. That's why we have insurance- so if you f**k someone's property up you are able to fix it and they can go on their merry way. Letting people drive without insurance is automotive roulette.

Originally Posted by bestclimb

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.

You need a permit to buy and carry a gun. You need to take safety courses to get them, iirc. I personally think the legality of pistols is ludicrous because they are specifically designed to shoot humans at close range. Not that rifles can't... but have you ever heard of a deer hunting pistol?

Minors are not allowed to vote because they are not mature and may not be able to process information and form thoughts and opinions as readily and effectively as adults. Would you trust your 5 year old niece to pick out your new car? Would you trust her to elect our next president?

Would you trust your 5 year old niece to drive you to the grocery store without insurance?

Originally Posted by bestclimb

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).

Driving without insurance is dangerous to others. I'm willing to bet 95% of people driving without insurance do so not because they have the means, but because they can't afford (or are too cheap) to buy it.

[wobombat]

So lets look at this in the viewpoint of the government trying to preserve oil, gas etc. as long as possible so we can enjoy its benefits as long as possible.

1. Let people conserve on their own. Well as we see on this site, people do do this and do it well, but we're a small portion of the population, and for most people, they will conserve only if they get a substantial and direct benefit from it. People will still drive hummers and escalades when the consequence for them is small.

2. We could do a gas tax. It was mentioned that many countries have large gas taxes, but the US does not. I am heavily against a gas tax because higher gas prices decrease the health of the economy. If we enacted say a $1 gas tax right now nationwide, we'd almost certainly have a double dip recession.

3. We could tax cars with bad fuel economy and do tax credits for cars with good fuel economy. The tax credits already exist, but I'm against taxing cars with bad fuel economy because some people actually need the larger car. A contracter really needs to have a truck, etc. and to put big taxes on those cars will hurt the people that really need it as well as the stupid people who buy them even though they don't need it. However, I am open to this possibility.

4. We could enact regulations that force people to drive efficiently and ticket them if they don't (ex. lowering highway speed limits to 55, no idling over x number of minutes). While personally I have no problem with these sorts of things, people sometimes do need to go fast or idle for a while, etc. and it does start to become overly regulatory when the government does this sort of thing.

5. We could support alternative ways of transportation, such as cheap subways and other transit systems. This would be great, except that this sort of thing only works well in urban areas, and it's extremely expensive, and there is no way we could afford such projects right now with the looming fiscal cliff.

Any others?

[Sven7]

Smarter urban planning (subdevelopments) that allow people to walk or bicycle to the local grocery or convenience store.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by Sven7

Conceal and Carry gun laws offend my sensibilities. "Reality" TV shows offend my sensibilities. Cable already shows pretty raunchy stuff. Where do we draw the line?

Your sensibilities can be offended. No one is forcing you to pay for cable or forcing you to watch it, change the channel or turn it off. Then move to a location that limits your right of self defense.

Originally Posted by Sven7

When I'm running through the street drunk and naked, perhaps the cars are in my way. After all, pedestrians have the right of way. It's a public street that I help pay for; I should be able to use it however I choose. (Not really, but you see where I'm going?)

Someone driving without a license is a danger to me because I know if they lose control and hit me (more likely if they have no drivers training) that I may not get the care I need to get better. I may not have the money to fix my car or buy a new one. That's why we have insurance- so if you f**k someone's property up you are able to fix it and they can go on their merry way. Letting people drive without insurance is automotive roulette.

So you would oppose Jaywalking laws? Pedestrians have the right of way at crossings. They are often specifically barred from entering motorways.

A drunk running through a field harms no one, in the street he deprives other users thier rightful access.

An unlicensed driver driving down the street does not deprive anyone of access.

Life is roulette, do what you can to mitigate the risks to your self if you desire.

Originally Posted by Sven7

You need a permit to buy and carry a gun. You need to take safety courses to get them, iirc. I personally think the legality of pistols is ludicrous because they are specifically designed to shoot humans at close range. Not that rifles can't... but have you ever heard of a deer hunting pistol?

You really should educate yourself on this.


Depends on the location, more locations are dropping restrictions against effective self defense with positive results. Vermont has never had a restriction and blood regularly flows in that most dangerous of locations.


There are several manufactures that produce handguns for hunting. I have taken deer with a handgun, it was very tasty (the deer not the 1911).


I legally carry daily and have no permit necessary for my state (I have one for a state I travel to as they require one). They have a background check that insures that I am not barred the right to use a handgun for self defense due to past violent crimes, mental instability, etc. Someone having a concealed firearm does not effect you one whit (stats indicate they actually make you safer but you would likely dismiss them due to your bias). I think it is cowardly to be willing delegate deadly force to another person (at risk to themselves) on your behalf and not be willing to take steps to protect yourself and loved ones first.

Originally Posted by Sven7

Minors are not allowed to vote because they are not mature and may not be able to process information and form thoughts and opinions as readily and effectively as adults. Would you trust your 5 year old niece to pick out your new car? Would you trust her to elect our next president?

Would you trust your 5 year old niece to drive you to the grocery store without insurance?

No and I never advocated that a 5 year old be given run of a vehicle. A minor is unable to appreciate the responsibilities that some rights carry with them, it is up to the parent/s to get them to understand responsibility when they come of age.

Originally Posted by Sven7

Driving without insurance is dangerous to others. I'm willing to bet 95% of people driving without insurance do so not because they have the means, but because they can't afford (or are too cheap) to buy it.

Frugality is not a crime.


No causing an accident and being unable or unwilling to repair the damage is irresponsible.

Originally Posted by Definition of Dangerous

able or likely to cause physical injury

Originally Posted by Definition of Irresponsible

One who is mentally or financially unfit to assume responsibility for one's actions.

[nemo]

Originally Posted by wobombat

So lets look at this in the viewpoint of the government trying to preserve oil, gas etc. as long as possible so we can enjoy its benefits as long as possible.

What if we look at it a a resource belonging to all the people?

1. Let people conserve on their own. Well as we see on this site, people do do this and do it well, but we're a small portion of the population, and for most people, they will conserve only if they get a substantial and direct benefit from it. People will still drive hummers and escalades when the consequence for them is small.

I agree letting people conserve on their own isn't working.

2. We could do a gas tax. It was mentioned that many countries have large gas taxes, but the US does not. I am heavily against a gas tax because higher gas prices decrease the health of the economy. If we enacted say a $1 gas tax right now nationwide, we'd almost certainly have a double dip recession.

Why does it need to be a dollar instantly. Make it ten cents every other month or some kind of incremental increase.

3. We could tax cars with bad fuel economy and do tax credits for cars with good fuel economy. The tax credits already exist, but I'm against taxing cars with bad fuel economy because some people actually need the larger car. A contracter really needs to have a truck, etc. and to put big taxes on those cars will hurt the people that really need it as well as the stupid people who buy them even though they don't need it. However, I am open to this possibility.

No solution is completely fair. Most business can write off the cost of vehicles. How many time do you see more than four people in a vehicle. Yes, people would need to make reasonable economic choices, maybe smaller families.

4. We could enact regulations that force people to drive efficiently and ticket them if they don't (ex. lowering highway speed limits to 55, no idling over x number of minutes). While personally I have no problem with these sorts of things, people sometimes do need to go fast or idle for a while, etc. and it does start to become overly regulatory when the government does this sort of thing.

I agree we have a lot of regulation. We could just enforce the existing speed limits. Do these people really need to go fast or is it just poor planning or unreal expectations of how long it take?

5. We could support alternative ways of transportation, such as cheap subways and other transit systems. This would be great, except that this sort of thing only works well in urban areas, and it's extremely expensive, and there is no way we could afford such projects right now with the looming fiscal cliff.

Priorities, we build new and expensive roads and bridges (sometime to cut minutes off travel). What if we refused to build new roads, when traffic became a major hassle would people then seek alternatives? We beautify roads and place art work in public buildings. But we don't want to pay for health-care or public transportation.

Any others?[/QUOTE]

From the crazy idea department.
We could require gas station attendants. This would drive up the cost of gas and provide employment. If they were required to check tire pressure on every car it would increase fe.