POLL: would you vote for/against rationing gas?
- Thread starter Lifer
- Start date
If you can afford to feed your hungry gas-guzzler, more power to you. As supplies dwindle, prices will go up.
yeah, and those people who conserve by not driving a gas guzzler now have to pay more too.
not to say i'm for gas rationing. i dont think it matters, hopefully someday we wont be so gas reliant.
One day hopefully government will realize its worth the time and money to invest in alternative power so that we can get ourselves out of the Middle East. Well actually, we do understand this but our European allies who are MUCH MUCH MUCH more dependent on oil doesn't can't afford us breakin ties with the middle east.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
How is europe more dependent on oil? The US is nothing without it.
Alternative energies are the only solution, unless we can collectively impose rationing on other countries. I honestly do think that a severe tax on gas guzzlers would be a good idea ($1k per MPG less than 25 that your vehicle averages thrown onto the purchase price), if we could impose it elsewhere, but even if the US decreases oil consumption the rest of the world won't. So, planning for when the oil runs out (since it will) can best be done by researching alternative energies.
Most are in some delusional cry wolf idea that just because it didn't run out in the 70s it never will, but it is finite and not a scientist on the planet would pretend it's not running out
Alternative energies are the only solution, unless we can collectively impose rationing on other countries. I honestly do think that a severe tax on gas guzzlers would be a good idea ($1k per MPG less than 25 that your vehicle averages thrown onto the purchase price), if we could impose it elsewhere, but even if the US decreases oil consumption the rest of the world won't. So, planning for when the oil runs out (since it will) can best be done by researching alternative energies.
Most are in some delusional cry wolf idea that just because it didn't run out in the 70s it never will, but it is finite and not a scientist on the planet would pretend it's not running out
That's absolute BS! Rationing is the only fair way to go. Everybody gets the same amout to do with as they see fit. Somebody that gets 40MPG could still go through more gas in a year, than a soccer mom in a 12MPG SUV.
neutralizer
Lifer
- Oct 4, 2001
- 11,552
- 1
- 0
Why not just require greater fuel efficiency of the gas-guzzlers -- I read in one article that current SUVs could be a bit more efficient but it would add *gasp* $500 to the manufacturing cost so automakers bribed congress and Bush & co. to not require it.
Greater efficiency = less consumption = less demand = lower prices.
Greater efficiency = less consumption = less demand = lower prices.
jesus. you want more govt taxation? why dont you just direct deposit your salary to the govt and then stfu.
This is like asking people to vote on raising taxes. They ain't gonna do it.
There's one school district here in Ma where the schools are falling apart- yet the voters continuously refuse to raise taxes. The superintendant resigned in disgust.
There's one school district here in Ma where the schools are falling apart- yet the voters continuously refuse to raise taxes. The superintendant resigned in disgust.
Against. If someone is willing to sell me gas, and I am willing to buy, it's none of the government's business.
I don't see why there is a need for rationing. Let the gas price rise to fit the demand, and that would make it lucrative for new technologies/research for other energy source.
CAFE carnage: Death by fuel economy standards
- The National Academy of Sciences and The Brookings Institution have each individually found that CAFE standards result in traffic fatalities. New research from the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that CAFE was responsible for 2,500 to 4,400 deaths nationwide in 2000, and that 27 to 47 of those deaths occurred in Oregon. Raising the standard to 40 mpg, as some in Congress want, would kill an estimated 1,100 additional Americans every year, 12 of which would be in Oregon.
More Americans are now buying SUVs and light trucks for safety reasons, particularly in rural areas where travel is more extensive, at higher speeds, and on less safe roads. If passenger cars are subject to stricter CAFE standards, SUVs will become even more popular. Instead of reducing our choices further, Congress should let each of us make responsible decisions about our use of energy and the safety of our families.
- The CAFE program was established by Congress in 1975. Current CAFE standards require motor vehicle manufacturers' fleets of cars to average 27.5 miles per gallon of gasoline and their fleets of light trucks (which include minivans and SUVs) to average 20.7 miles per gallon.1 The only affordable way for automakers to meet these standards is to reduce the mass and weight of their vehicles.2
This reduction has had deadly consequences. According to a study by the National Research Council (NRC), reductions in vehicle mass and weight necessary to meet CAFE standards increase the risk of death or serious injury in crashes. The NRC study found that vehicle downsizing and downweighting resulted in between 1,300 and 2,600 deaths and between 13,000 and 26,000 serious injuries in 1993 alone.3 A USA Today report, using data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, estimated that 46,000 people - nearly as many Americans as lost their lives in the Vietnam War - have died since 1975 as a result of the vehicle downsizing and downweighting due to CAFE standards.4
- The evidence clearly shows that smaller cars have significant disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside the vehicle must absorb. Consequently, the weight and size reductions resulting from the CAFE standards are linked with the 46,000 deaths through 1998 mentioned above, as well as thousands of injuries. It is time that policymakers stop defending the failed CAFE program and start valuing human lives by repealing the standards.
- The Dec. 13 news story about the Department of Transportation's proposal to raise fuel economy standards omitted a major point: Downsizing vehicles to meet corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards reduces their crashworthiness.
According to a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, CAFE-induced downsizing contributes to 1,300 to 2,600 vehicle deaths a year. Any move to make CAFE standards even more stringent probably would raise this death toll.
Advocates of higher CAFE standards for sport utility vehicles argue that this would reduce the hazard that SUVs pose in collisions with cars. The evidence for this is far from clear, because assessing the overall safety effects of reducing one vehicle's mass in a multi-car collision is complex. But in single-vehicle accidents, small SUVs are much less safe than large ones. A higher CAFE standard for SUVs would encourage sales of small SUVs.
The Transportation Department skirts this issue in its proposal, but that shouldn't be surprising. A decade ago the Competitive Enterprise Institute sued the department, arguing that it had illegally ignored CAFE standards' lethal effects. A federal court agreed, finding that the department's approach was based on "lame claims," "statistical legerdemain" and "bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo." Now the department is doing it again. Even regulatory history, it seems, repeats itself.
- To improve fuel economy, auto makers primarily reduce the size and power of vehicles. Unfortunately, this downsizing has tragic consequences (See Figure). As far back as 1989, consumer advocate Ralph Nader admitted that "larger cars are safer - there is more bulk to protect the occupant." Numerous studies have proved this point. For example:
Researchers at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution found that, on average, for every 100 pounds shaved off new cars to meet CAFE standards, between 440 and 780 additional people were killed in auto accidents - or a total of 2,200 to 3,900 lives lost per model year. [See the figure.]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data indicate that 322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles.
Using data from the NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety, USA Today calculated that size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths.
Since the laws of physics will not change, requiring all vehicles to be smaller increases everyone's overall risk of death or injury in auto accidents. Insurance data bear this out; occupants of small cars do worse than passengers of larger sedans, minivans or sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in every kind of accident.
I'm not for it but in the event that anti-SUV people try to have their way and ban/highly tax these vehicles I'd rather be for rationing gas instead. I like to travel safe on the highway--if my financial situation deems that I can afford a Navigator or an Excursion then I'm all for that.
If you have the money, then why not? I don't drive much (I plan what I need to do in the day, and go do it at once.. rarely do I go out multiple times) so if someone averages 50 miles per day in a 50 mpg econo-death-trap-box and I drive 17 miles per day in a 17 mpg life-saving-truck then I don't see anything wrong with it.
If you have the money, then why not? I don't drive much (I plan what I need to do in the day, and go do it at once.. rarely do I go out multiple times) so if someone averages 50 miles per day in a 50 mpg econo-death-trap-box and I drive 17 miles per day in a 17 mpg life-saving-truck then I don't see anything wrong with it.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
OrneryIn multi-vehicle accidents, which is where most people die, obviously a smaller vehicle is going to be worse to be in than a larger one if the other person is still driving an SUV. I rather doubt that we'd all be that much worse off if we were driving smaller cars as opposed to us all driving larger ones, and we'd sure save a hell of a lot of gas.
Yeah we would, read the links. If ALL cars were small there would be more deaths than if ALL cars were large.
There would even be less death for you and your family if all cars were small with the exception of you and 5% of the population which is why (some) people try to get the biggest SUV possible 
This is why there are SUVs and then full-sized SUVs which everyone seems to scorn about "one upping others". Thats not the case really, they just want to provide the most safe trip for their family. As more transports, trucks and SUVs hit the road, your safety lowers even in a big SUV, but then you're still more safe with respect to all the small cars on the road.
That is the way I look at it at least. Then again I'm the person who is all for the ability to get private medical (faster service and higher quality) in a society that provides somewhat acceptable healthcare system for free (social system in Canada where I live). That can't happen though because the government won't let you which is stupid. If I pay to have myself taken care of:
1). Less money out of the tax payers wallet
2). I get serviced faster, thus my road to recovery and chances of survival are higher
3). Others benefit from a shorter waiting line and they too benefit like #2
Tell me Jean Chretien, if your wife had cancer would she have to wait months to get an appointment for the unique and expensive equipment like the rest of us do? Don't think so. Oh yeah thats right, its okay for everyone else BUT them
People will reply that this is an "unfair advantage for the financially well people" which is right. But nothing in life is fair. Get over it. As Mel Gibson said about critics trying to ban his movie "This is not communist Russia."
This is why there are SUVs and then full-sized SUVs which everyone seems to scorn about "one upping others". Thats not the case really, they just want to provide the most safe trip for their family. As more transports, trucks and SUVs hit the road, your safety lowers even in a big SUV, but then you're still more safe with respect to all the small cars on the road.That is the way I look at it at least. Then again I'm the person who is all for the ability to get private medical (faster service and higher quality) in a society that provides somewhat acceptable healthcare system for free (social system in Canada where I live). That can't happen though because the government won't let you which is stupid. If I pay to have myself taken care of:
1). Less money out of the tax payers wallet
2). I get serviced faster, thus my road to recovery and chances of survival are higher
3). Others benefit from a shorter waiting line and they too benefit like #2
Tell me Jean Chretien, if your wife had cancer would she have to wait months to get an appointment for the unique and expensive equipment like the rest of us do? Don't think so. Oh yeah thats right, its okay for everyone else BUT them
People will reply that this is an "unfair advantage for the financially well people" which is right. But nothing in life is fair. Get over it. As Mel Gibson said about critics trying to ban his movie "This is not communist Russia."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter