The real price of gas in Germany (and EU for that matter)

I have a huge problem with some of the talk in this thread.

Increasing gas taxes or prices to force people people to drive smaller vehicles. Thats bullcrap. Cars like the Prius, Honda insight or honda fit for that matter dont work for everyone. Neither me or my wife or any of my family members could get away with driving something that small. Im always either A) hauling something that wouldnt work with or small car. Or B) have to many people and cargo in a vehicle. That it wouldnt be practical or comfortable to own something that small.

Not to mention the problems I have been reading about here over the last few weeks about traction issues in the snow. That definately would not work well for me or most anyone in my area.

You folks can believe what you want. But last time I checked this was the USA where people are free to make their own choices. You all have no right to force me to drive anything other than what I want to drive

 

Except in the case where you rights interfere with the health and/or prosperity of the community as a whole. At that point your rights are trumped for the greater good. You can still choose to exercise your rights where they don't interfere with outright regulation but you should pay an extra associated cost for your degradation.

 

Are you by chance saying his driving a less fuel efficient vehicle is harming the environment? Something about CO2 and climate change perhaps?

 

Yes and no, I'm talking about ALL THE OTHER POLLUTION and problems associated with poor fuel efficiency. Not CO2.

 

Not necessarily. Size is only one of many reasons that traditional American-market vehicles are fuel hogs. There is still plenty of room to sharply increase fuel efficiency without shrinking vehicles. My Prius is significantly larger and heavier than the old Accord it replaces, and still gets much better fuel economy.

Apart from how the taxes are collected -- fuel tax, registration, property tax, road tolls, weight fees -- the 'user fees' for driving do not cover government's full cost of building and maintaining the roadway infrastructure. These fees should be raised to cover the real cost.

Not particularly relevant to fuel efficiency, only to Toyota's particular implementation of it. And to the tendency of many drivers, regardless of car model, to not install appropriate tires. I haven't heard anyone claim similar problems with the 4WD Escape Hybrid, and don't expect traction problems when Subaru finally gets around to hybrids.

Does this 'freedom' also apply to pollution controls and crash compatibility standards?

 

Last time I checked larger vehicles are far safer when it comes to crashes. In my line of work I pull more injured people out of small cars like the prius and hondas than I do anything larger.

As to the pollution argument. Thats not gonna work. Goes right along with global warming right now. Oops wait that was all faked.

Just because you want your small "fuel efficient" vehicle and want to eliminate larger vehicles so you can feel safe on the road. Thats bullshit.

Hell Ive got a 7700lb truck thats 4wd and still gets 24 mpg on the highway. Not to mention it can haul or pull anything i can hook it up to.

Normally Im a pretty nice guy. But this kind of thing just pisses me off.

Small cars are job security for me though

 

i

The last time I checked, trucks and SUVs were 'safer' only in multi-vehicle collisions with smaller opponents. When crashing into their own, and in single vehicle crashes, they were less safe.

Another problem was that much of their weight was 'wasted' for safety purposes. The trucks exempted from passenger car safety standards were significantly less safe, on both sides of the collision, than cars of the same weight.

If the auto and industrial pollution controls of the 1960-1980s had not been applied, many of our cities would still be nearly unlivable.

May I suggest a visit to Beijing or Shenzen or Guangzho for a sample of what our pollution could be like?

None of this changes the fact that even 7700 pound 4WD trucks can still be made significantly more fuel efficient without losing any weight or 4WD.

 

It was only a matter of time before the denier/tea bag/don't tax me Trolls awakened from their Christmas slumber and crawled out from under their bridges.

Merry Christmas to all, May we have peace on earth and good will toward all men (and women,,and dogs too!)

 

Safer for whom? Apparently they are more dangerous for other drivers on the road. Seems selfish to me. A real American would care about his community.

Pollution is fake? Are you F'ing kidding me? You really need to study up on the subject. I'm not even talking global warming here.

Your backwoods mentality is BS IMO.

And it pollutes more than any of our cars... If it ran clean then I have no problems with it. Drive what you like but do not pollute my world and my lungs with your decision or I'll act to make sure you lose that right.

I'll help you out with your education on pollution....

Please see the EPA site for detail info on air pollution

Agricultural losses can be due to:

• Acidification of soils (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide)
• Invasion of weedy species due to localized nitrogen deposition
• Smog and/or ozone induced biomass losses
• Reduced solar insolation (reduced photosynthetic capacity) due to aerosols and soot blocking sunlight
• Loss of labor due to laborer sickness
• Water costs due to reduce precipitation caused by aersols and airborn particulates acting as condensation nuclei

This also applies to forests as well because they are under the agricultural umbrella and we've all heard about acid rain issues.

This is an easy to read chart that breaks down some of the common issues: Environmental Externalities of Transportation

Have a look at this site to determine how "clean a car is". It sperates the cars into two categories so you can judge them on global warming greenhouse gases and smog forming emissions. Have a look at the 2009 Ford F350. The smog rating is under 1 (out of 10). The Jetta TDi is 5 (out of 10). This is not a slam on those vehicles as I actually like them. But the reality is they can be quite dirty.

DriveClean.ca.gov

 

We had all the same arguments over here in the UK about 10 years ago. There is a saying "horses for courses" and this applies to fuel economy. If you need power for towing you do need a more powerful vehicle, but does it have to be a 6 litre huge SUV? Would a 3 litre diesel still do the job? yet return more fuel economy with more torque?

Ten years ago most SUV's here were petrol, now with more expensive fuel, they are mostly the new generation of diesels. They get better fuel economy AND more torque. Ask the owner if they'd have had a diesel 10 years ago and they would have laughed. Ask them now once they're use to the higher power and towing capacities and the answer is they love them. You will hardly find a new petrol one these days!

I guess it's the unknown and people don't like/want to be changed. Encourage them rather than force them. Tricky problem to find a solution for though.

 

The problem in NA only a couple of diesel are allowed in,
X5 and ML 320 and over $50gs in Canada

 

Yeah for now, but there's more coming. I thought Jeep did one too along with the VW Tourag though not sure if they were 50 state compliant.

 

Not looking for a debate, but do you believe we should be free to use 25-28% of the world's oil resources when we are only about 4-5% of the world population? Imagine if China, India and other emerging markets do the same. Estimates say we would need 3 times the known oil resources to support it, they simply aren't there!

Even if you don't agree with the safety implications, climate change, etc. - it doesn't make economic sense for us to use a finite resource (oil) with no regard for the future implications unless you don't care about future generations. We can debate when the world will run out (actually it will become prohibitively expensive before it literally runs out), but not if. Having our fates in the hands of other countries, many who don't like us at all, seems questionable as well.

 

WHy do think that?
I really do not think you will see more diesels
Toyota & GM stop producing on smaller diesel
VW Tourag TDI in Canada also starts at $50 gs plus 15%tax that alot of green

 

A quick Google search reveals numerous roll-over and back-over
accidents associated with pickups and SUVs at much higher rates than
for other types of vehicles.

But there is evidence that there are additional safety matters
associated solely with pickups:

Scapegoat Utility Vehicle?


Light Trucks Dodge the Spotlight

... On average, pickup trucks killed 100 of their drivers and 100
other drivers per million vehicles registered each year. By
comparison, SUVs killed 75 of their drivers and 50 drivers of other
cars. Down in the safe corner, luxury cars killed 27 of their drivers
and 25 drivers with whom they collided. Wenzel controlled statistically
for who was more likely to be driving the vehicles like young men in
sports cars and Baby Boomer women in minivans. He used drivers
because that eliminates potentially confounding factors like multi-
passenger vans having their results skewed simply because more
people tend to ride in them at any given time.

“Pickup trucks, as driven, are riskier than any other major type of
vehicle. The risk to drivers of the average pickup is higher than that
for minivans, SUVs, and large and midsize cars, although it is not
significantly different from that of the average compact and
subcompact car," Wenzel states.

"The combined risk to drivers of pickups and the vehicles they crash
into is much higher than that for other vehicle types...Light trucks,
especially pickups and to a lesser extent SUVs are responsible for the
deaths of many people in other vehicles." This result supports earlier
informal surveys of police regarding the outcomes of two-vehicle
crashes. He found that there are twice as many deaths in car-to-
pickup crashes as in car-to-car crashes and 1.8 as many deaths in
SUV-car crashes as in car-to-car...

More here:

TSC Newsletter: SUVs and Traffic Safety- light trucks dodge the spotlight

There is the matter of this study being 4+ years old.
Is there reason to believe the intervening time changes its conclusions?

 

RED - that about says it all. However, I will pick just a bit at your next statement:

"All you who are currently insured, be glad, but realize, you are only one paycheck away from having none."

While that statement is telling and acurate to a point, it's not the whole truth. The whole truth is that having health insurance in the States doesn't insure that you are covered in the least.

That's the dirtly little secret. The truth is that insurance companies can deny ANY claim at ANY time for ANY reason. In other words, you're insured right up to the point where the insurance company decides you cost to much to treat. I work in healthcare and see this EVERY single day. If you don't believe, just have a trained lawyer take a peak at your 1,768 page healthcare "contract".

To sum up all 1,768 pages in one sentance: "If we think you will cost us too much money, you can simply go somewhere and die."

It's a great system though - USA - USA -USA!

 

You all may drive all the big truck/suv you like. We, through our elected representatives reserve the right to tax the hell out of them, their fuel, their parking or whatever else we feel like! We will attempt to do this with the express purpose of doing public good. Please be advised that many if not most of these taxes are likely to bother you, perhaps to the point of apoplexy, to which I suggest, remember that WE WON the last general election (and the one before as well) and as such, in the great grand marketplace of ideas, our were voted better than yours!

Please also be advised that in spite of the republican leaderships continued attempt at obfuscation/misinformation and outright lies about the health care bill, we will prevail on this as well. We won't get all we hoped for, but for the first time since Medicare was instated we are beginning to move toward the Universal health care that was envisioned by the (last) great Republican Theodore Roosevelt a century ago! A right/benefit enjoyed by the vast majority of the civilized world, AND at a per capita/net GDP cost considerably less than we are forced to pay in the USofA.

 

I don't understand where this attitude and sense of entitlement come from. Are we free to be obnoxious and ignorant, to do whatever the @! we want, while expecting everyone else to pay the costs of our choices? I don't think so.

 

We had similar reactions here a few years ago. I suppose if people are 'forced' then they will rebel. I know you Americans are very patriotic and quite rightly so; We all love our own countries.

Instead of looking at fuel economy as a bad thing and being forced from your existing way of life and existing vehicle, why not look at fuel economy as being extra patriotic as it will enable you to reduce dependance on foreign oil and the often dodgy governments/countries that provide this oil. You can still continue with a comfortable way of life, just using a more fuel efficient vehicle. You don't have to go the full hog and swap a SUV for a Prius. Maybe just swap it for a SUV with better mileage.

Even a saving of 25% is a little amount and probably not save you much on your fuel bills, but across the country this 25% means you can be self-sufficient on oil again. That's a good thing on its own, let alone the environmental aspects.