Talk about anything and everything not related to this site or the Dreamcast, such as news stories, political discussion, or anything else. If there's not a forum for it, it belongs in here. Also, be warned that personal insults, threats, and spamming will not be tolerated.
curt_grymala wrote:
They aren't taxing by the mile, but around here (in the Baltimore/Washington area) there is a personal property tax hike going into effect for people that own large vehicles (like Hummers, Expeditions, etc.)
I disagree with those taxes. There no reason that the government should discriminate against bigger vehicles. Besides, they are making more money off the bigger vehicles with gas taxes.
Because they damage the roads more. Plain and simple.
No...they don't. SUVs don't weigh as much as people make them out to be.
Semis on the other hand do ruin roads becuase most roads are not built for that much weight.
curt_grymala wrote:
They aren't taxing by the mile, but around here (in the Baltimore/Washington area) there is a personal property tax hike going into effect for people that own large vehicles (like Hummers, Expeditions, etc.)
I disagree with those taxes. There no reason that the government should discriminate against bigger vehicles. Besides, they are making more money off the bigger vehicles with gas taxes.
Because they damage the roads more. Plain and simple.
No...they don't. SUVs don't weigh as much as people make them out to be.
Semis on the other hand do ruin roads becuase most roads are not built for that much weight.
Yes...they do. As for semi's ...
Damage done by a given vehicle increases roughly with the fourth
power of its weight. Put another way, if you double the weight of a
vehicle, then the damage it does gets doubled four times. This means that
double the weight causes 16 times the damage.
Spreading the weight over many wheels and many axles greatly reduces the
damage caused per pound of vehicle weight. Also, axles spaced just a few
feet apart do less damage than axles located individually when used on
asphalt pavement. On concrete pavement, the damage is independent of the
axle spacing.
Cars do little or no pavement damage in comparison to large trucks.
It takes approximately 12,000 cars to do the same damage as a single 80,000
pound 18-wheel truck. Engineers who design pavement typically ignore the
number of cars and only concern themselves about the number of trucks.
Andrew Johnson
Bush and Hussein together in bed
Giving H-E-A-D head
Y'all motherfuckers heard what we said
Billions made and millions dead
Orange_Ribbon wrote:I have an odd idea, why not tax people who drive insanly large vehicles per mile, and get the goverment hands out of it. I know in NJ there is a 22% gas tax. Why not tax the people that are using more for driving up the cost. Just don't tax vehicles used for comercial or govt use.
I remember in California, I think it was, they were considering taxing people by the mile - thereby punishing people for driving lower mileage vehicles, in a roundabout sort of way (well, not exactly, but the increase in gas mileage of vehicles was the reason they proposed it). Of course, this new system did not take into account the size or weight of vehicles (which it should, since heavier vehicles damage the road more).
Well the whole point is to punish people with lower millage. Then get rid of Fuel tax and that will lower the prices a WHOLE bunch. Personally I would like to see more go into Bio Diesal so we can have more control internally over price of fuel.
curt_grymala wrote:
They aren't taxing by the mile, but around here (in the Baltimore/Washington area) there is a personal property tax hike going into effect for people that own large vehicles (like Hummers, Expeditions, etc.)
I disagree with those taxes. There no reason that the government should discriminate against bigger vehicles. Besides, they are making more money off the bigger vehicles with gas taxes.
Because they damage the roads more. Plain and simple.
No...they don't. SUVs don't weigh as much as people make them out to be.
Semis on the other hand do ruin roads becuase most roads are not built for that much weight.
Yes...they do. As for semi's ...
Damage done by a given vehicle increases roughly with the fourth
power of its weight. Put another way, if you double the weight of a
vehicle, then the damage it does gets doubled four times. This means that
double the weight causes 16 times the damage.
Spreading the weight over many wheels and many axles greatly reduces the
damage caused per pound of vehicle weight. Also, axles spaced just a few
feet apart do less damage than axles located individually when used on
asphalt pavement. On concrete pavement, the damage is independent of the
axle spacing.
Cars do little or no pavement damage in comparison to large trucks.
It takes approximately 12,000 cars to do the same damage as a single 80,000
pound 18-wheel truck. Engineers who design pavement typically ignore the
number of cars and only concern themselves about the number of trucks.
Andrew Johnson
IF the roads are built for the weight, they will be fine. Many streets are not up to par for semis. But an SUV "damaging" the road more then a car is bull.
curt_grymala wrote:
They aren't taxing by the mile, but around here (in the Baltimore/Washington area) there is a personal property tax hike going into effect for people that own large vehicles (like Hummers, Expeditions, etc.)
I disagree with those taxes. There no reason that the government should discriminate against bigger vehicles. Besides, they are making more money off the bigger vehicles with gas taxes.
Because they damage the roads more. Plain and simple.
No...they don't. SUVs don't weigh as much as people make them out to be.
Semis on the other hand do ruin roads becuase most roads are not built for that much weight.
Yes...they do. As for semi's ...
Damage done by a given vehicle increases roughly with the fourth
power of its weight. Put another way, if you double the weight of a
vehicle, then the damage it does gets doubled four times. This means that
double the weight causes 16 times the damage.
Spreading the weight over many wheels and many axles greatly reduces the
damage caused per pound of vehicle weight. Also, axles spaced just a few
feet apart do less damage than axles located individually when used on
asphalt pavement. On concrete pavement, the damage is independent of the
axle spacing.
Cars do little or no pavement damage in comparison to large trucks.
It takes approximately 12,000 cars to do the same damage as a single 80,000
pound 18-wheel truck. Engineers who design pavement typically ignore the
number of cars and only concern themselves about the number of trucks.
Andrew Johnson
IF the roads are built for the weight, they will be fine. Many streets are not up to par for semis. But an SUV "damaging" the road more then a car is bull.
How about the fact that they use more gas, and drive up the demand?
curt_grymala wrote:
They aren't taxing by the mile, but around here (in the Baltimore/Washington area) there is a personal property tax hike going into effect for people that own large vehicles (like Hummers, Expeditions, etc.)
I disagree with those taxes. There no reason that the government should discriminate against bigger vehicles. Besides, they are making more money off the bigger vehicles with gas taxes.
Because they damage the roads more. Plain and simple.
No...they don't. SUVs don't weigh as much as people make them out to be.
Semis on the other hand do ruin roads becuase most roads are not built for that much weight.
Yes...they do. As for semi's ...
Damage done by a given vehicle increases roughly with the fourth
power of its weight. Put another way, if you double the weight of a
vehicle, then the damage it does gets doubled four times. This means that
double the weight causes 16 times the damage.
Spreading the weight over many wheels and many axles greatly reduces the
damage caused per pound of vehicle weight. Also, axles spaced just a few
feet apart do less damage than axles located individually when used on
asphalt pavement. On concrete pavement, the damage is independent of the
axle spacing.
Cars do little or no pavement damage in comparison to large trucks.
It takes approximately 12,000 cars to do the same damage as a single 80,000
pound 18-wheel truck. Engineers who design pavement typically ignore the
number of cars and only concern themselves about the number of trucks.
Andrew Johnson
IF the roads are built for the weight, they will be fine. Many streets are not up to par for semis. But an SUV "damaging" the road more then a car is bull.
How about the fact that they use more gas, and drive up the demand?
No...they don't. SUVs don't weigh as much as people make them out to be.
It depends on which SUVs you're talking about. The really large ones (like the excursion) weigh more than double what a "normal" sized car weighs.
Yes, excursions do weight a lot (7700 pounds) but how often do you honestly see those? Look at a suburban though, 5100 pounds. You can't say that all the large ones weight more.
No...they don't. SUVs don't weigh as much as people make them out to be.
It depends on which SUVs you're talking about. The really large ones (like the excursion) weigh more than double what a "normal" sized car weighs.
Yes, excursions do weight a lot (7700 pounds) but how often do you honestly see those? Look at a suburban though, 5100 pounds. You can't say that all the large ones weight more.
back in atlanta I'd say excursions were maybe 15% of the automobiles in the area.
Bush and Hussein together in bed
Giving H-E-A-D head
Y'all motherfuckers heard what we said
Billions made and millions dead
No...they don't. SUVs don't weigh as much as people make them out to be.
It depends on which SUVs you're talking about. The really large ones (like the excursion) weigh more than double what a "normal" sized car weighs.
Yes, excursions do weight a lot (7700 pounds) but how often do you honestly see those? Look at a suburban though, 5100 pounds. You can't say that all the large ones weight more.
Yeah, Suburbans are relatively light for their weight, probably because they're basically a pickup truck with a cover and more seats. But I see a lot of Excursions and that one other mammoth SUV whose name escapes me around here in Missouri.. They were even more common in Michigan. The more average sized SUVs (like the old Explorers) don't bother me, but the huge ones like that irritate me, personally.
How to be a Conservative:
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
No...they don't. SUVs don't weigh as much as people make them out to be.
It depends on which SUVs you're talking about. The really large ones (like the excursion) weigh more than double what a "normal" sized car weighs.
Yes, excursions do weight a lot (7700 pounds) but how often do you honestly see those? Look at a suburban though, 5100 pounds. You can't say that all the large ones weight more.
Yeah, Suburbans are relatively light for their weight, probably because they're basically a pickup truck with a cover and more seats. But I see a lot of Excursions and that one other mammoth SUV whose name escapes me around here in Missouri.. They were even more common in Michigan. The more average sized SUVs (like the old Explorers) don't bother me, but the huge ones like that irritate me, personally.
hearld500 wrote:I went to get gas yeserday. $2.06 for low grade.
Deisel is $2.54. That is absolutly killing a couple of my friends.
Do they drive really a lot? I'd think you'd have to be in a pretty tenuous situation, financially, for an extra 75 cents a gallon to be killing you . But, if there job involves driving or something, I could see it. As is, for me this means I have to spend an extra... Probably $20-$25 a month.
How to be a Conservative:
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
. But, if there job involves driving or something, I could see it. As is, for me this means I have to spend an extra... Probably $20-$25 a month.