Let's quit complaining and actually do something...

Probably the biggest problem with this idea is that getting "educated" and passing a test does not necessarily relate to actual practice.

As for procedures...drivers licenses are issued and administered by the state. So any law changes would be through the State legislature. Talk to your local representative.

 

Some feed for though...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...shows/rollover/

 

Paul, with all due repect,

your coment about SUV's being more dangerous, where is this information posted? I would love to see it. Or is this just an assumpiton on your part. How many sources did you gather this information from to conclude that this is a problem? I would beg to differ that a Car can not cause as much damage to a person on a bicycle, or as I saw a car hit a "little old lady" with a WALKER, crossing a busy intersection because they were not paying attention and just had to make the Right on Red turn. And yes, they did knock her over and she fell.

I would also tend to agree that even if there were extra "procedures" or licensing to go thru, that would NOT change the driving habits of people.

All to often I see people trying to solve the simptoms of a problem rather then get to the root of the cause. A bad driver will be a bad driver no matter what they are in.

It seems so easy to say there should be addtional laws for "that group of people", "SUV drivers" but I would bet if it effected you, you would have some comments about it.

Let's make penalities for bad driving stiffer. What if speeding tickets costed $300- $400 with community service. An Accident should be imideate cause for a 3 day supension for those found at fault, in addtion to other penalities.

 

Some sort of regulation re licensing could be done at the federal level merely by making federal highway dollars contingent upon certain licensing procedures. But my hope is that any change in standards would be across the board since, in my experience, no one vehicle class has cornered the market on idiots.

We also need to bear in mind that there are SUVs. I mean, some of these things are fairly benign in the sense that they are relatively small, have lower CGs than others in their class, and 4 cylinder engines. If I had to get smacked by another vehicle in my Prius, I think I'd prefer it be a sub-3200 lb. RAV4 or CR-V rather than something like a 5200 Volkswagen Phaeton or 5500 lb. Town Car. WRT rollover resistance ratings, some SUVs aren't any worse in that regard than some sedans (i.e. NHTSA = 4 stars).

 

Tag,

I agree with you. The term SUV "Sport Utility Vehicle" covers a lot of different vehicles. As you mentioned even a Rav4,or a Matrix could be considered under this term.

Manufactors are changing the vehicles as we speak. Consumers want vehicles which ride like cars, but have the functonality of a Utility vehicle.

I read the article above, about SUV, rollovers etc. I am not doubting the accuracy of the reports, however I find that there is a lot of informatoin left out?

How many of these accidends had other circumstances, driver under the influence of some drug, where they speeding, seatbelts, what was the average age. What time did the accident occour, road conditions, etc.

To not take into consideration of all of the circumstances is like taking a asprin for a "ceribal hemridge"

 

Here is the root problem regarding a graduated licensing system in accordinance to vehicle weight. Drivers license requirements are issued at the state level. If you want national confromity, you need to get all 50 states to agree on a standard.

Like Medved stated, people only respond when it hits the wallet. The immediate solution is to dramatically increase the penalties, as well as the enforcement.

 

We had a discussion about SUV safety and statistics here:

http://www.priuschat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1878

Also, there's lots of data out on the fact that SUV drivers "Kill Rate" is much higher than passenger cars.

Here's a link to a review/summary on a Book on the subject:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...2.mencimer.html

The review is a bit ranty, but it references the stats.

Examples:

Death Rate: "The occupant death rate in SUVs is 6 percent higher than it is for cars--8 percent higher in the largest SUVs."

Kill Rate: "The Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people for every 1 million models on the road; by comparison, the Honda Accord only kills 21"

Those numbers are at least a couple of years old, and the trend has not been getting better.

 

In the article I found below, from what I gather, since there are more and more SUV's on the road, the rate of accidents involving SUV's will increase. Its just a matter of numbers. What I am still looking for is more information regarding what "CAUSED" the accidents.


http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releases/200...04/pr041804.htm


Bigger share of the crash problem: Driver death rates in frontal crashes declined by about half from 1980-81 to 2000-01. Meantime, reductions in death rates in side impacts haven't been as dramatic. The result is that during 2000-01 side impacts accounted for 37 percent of driver deaths overall, up from 26 percent in 1980-81. In crashes involving a car and another passenger vehicle, about half of the car driver deaths in 2000-01 occurred in side impacts. This compares with about a third of the deaths during 1980-81. This is because of significant improvements in frontal crash protection without corresponding improvements in side impact protection. For example, frontal airbags are standard in new vehicles. The structural designs of vehicles are better than they used to be. More motorists are using safety belts, which are more effective in frontal crashes than in side impacts.

Growing sales of SUVs and pickup trucks have exacerbated height mismatches among passenger vehicles, and these mismatches increase the risk of serious head injuries among occupants of side-struck vehicles. The effect of the changing vehicle mix and changing risks for occupants in struck vehicles is apparent in the fact that 70 percent of driver deaths in passenger vehicles struck on the driver side by other passenger vehicles during 1980-81 occurred when the striking vehicle was another car. Thirty percent occurred when the striking vehicle was a pickup or SUV. By 2000-01 these percentages had almost reversed. Fifty-seven percent of the car driver deaths involved striking pickups or SUVS, and as the numbers of SUVs and pickups continue to increase so will this percentage.

 

In Texas, I can drive a vehicle up to 26,000 lbs. with my regular class C driver's license. You would have a long way to go to require more licensing for an SUV that weighs 4500 lbs. Sorry, but legislation is not going to fix this one that easily. Try getting a 2 dollar a gallon federal gas tax passed and you would probably eliminate alot of SUVs but I think you are going to waste alot of personal energy trying to legislate away this problem. I did not intend to suggest that it is possible to get a 2 dollar gas tax passed. It's not. Never fear, the Saudis will do it for us but they will collect the tax instead of our government. I think that in the long run the tax would be the best move we could make, but we'll never accept the short term pain for the long term gain because as a society we are immature and self-centered about these issues and many others. Oh but let me close by holding my hand to my heart and saying how proud I am to be an american. I truly am. I just recognize our limited wisdom as a society.

 

Though I agree that more expensive gas would help to wean us from our profligate consumption of it, I find the most troubling aspect of such a tax to be its regressivity. The poorest among us will be hit the hardest, and those with money to burn will just go on buying Hummers. You see a lot of low-income folks around here driving older sedans (which get lousy mileage) and these folks can't afford to buy a newer car, much less a Prius. They're the ones who will get hammered by an increase in the price. So until someone figures out a way to implement a progressive gas tax, don't count on me to support such an idea. YMMV. :|

 

Paul,

Please understand, that I am not totally disagreeing with you. There is no doubt in my mind that an larger vehicle will have more signifcant impact on a smaller vehicle.

I work in the computer field, and many times I find myself trying to solve puzzles. Why is something not working, what has changed. Went I try to diagnose a problem, I try to take everything into account. Usually the problem is Operator error. Which is what I believe is the same case with many accidents involving vehicles.

I agree with you whole heartly that education is the key. Understanding the limitation of whatever vehicle you are driving could save lives. On occasion, during the winter time, I find a road with no cars, or an empty parking lot, and "test" the bounderies of my 4Runner. Learn how to get out of a skid, or pump the breaks to stop short and straight. I like to know what to expect, when I least expect it.

I am not a big fan of hand guns, however, I did go to a gun shop, and learned how to, handle, load and fire one. The scary thing to me is that I could have easily purchased and walked out with one. I had no more than 3 minutes with the clerk behind the counter on how to handle it.

In Ohio now there is a consealed weapon law. It is dishearting to walk up to your church and see "no handguns" signs allowed. Just saw another sign yesterday at the "Boston Market" resturant. I have more fear about someone bringing in a gun, having it fall on the floor, and having a 5 year old pick it up and start "Playing" with it, than I do than getting into an accident with a SUV. At least when I am driving on the road, I have my wits about me to avoid accidents.

 

Woodworks,

Good point about lower income drivers. At one time in my life, I too had to make due with a "beater" I only put $5.00 of gas in it at a time because that was all I could afford. Over the years, I got a good education and a good job. Now I can afford the things I honestly never thought I would have, a House, New car, lots of "toys".

Until you make a penility "hurt" people will continue to do it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"woodworks\")</div>

Though I agree that more expensive gas would help to wean us from our profligate consumption of it, I find the most troubling aspect of such a tax to be its regressivity. The poorest among us will be hit the hardest, and those with money to burn will just go on buying Hummers. You see a lot of low-income folks around here driving older sedans (which get lousy mileage) and these folks can't afford to buy a newer car, much less a Prius. They're the ones who will get hammered by an increase in the price. So until someone figures out a way to implement a progressive gas tax, don't count on me to support such an idea. YMMV. :|[/b][/quote]

Ok I agree about regressive taxes, but I would still implement it and if you want to make some other tax more progressive you should be able to with all the billions you would take in from the 2 dollar tax. The point is either we do it, or the Saudis Et Al do it to us eventually. We have to drastically lower demand in order to be able to quit fighting wars for oil etc. and while we're discussing regressive policies, how regressive is the human tax being paid in Iraq right now by, you guessed it, the same poor people who would suffer under a gas tax. Spin the wheel and choose a prize, but choose wisely.

I believe that we share very common values, by the way.

 

Well, I suppose our wise and honorable elected representatives might be able to find a way to reduce some other tax to make up for the increase in gas taxes. But I think we'd still end up shafting the lower income drivers. After all, when you have to put gas in the car NOW, you can't afford to wait until April to get a refund for the other taxes that got lowered.

Why not instead: 1) Get rid of the "SUV loophole credit" http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/0...8/c01-38875.htm that allows business owners to depreciate the cost of some ginormous vehicle whether or not it's needed for their business, and 2) institute a "Gas-Guzzler Tax" on low-mpg vehicles (with the appropriate exceptions for farmers, construction workers, etc.). If that Hummer somebody's lusting after comes with a 100% tax, it may give them pause. :crazyeyes:

 

I like the idea of a gas-guzzler tax. Make the tax proportional to the ratio between the mileage of the most economical family sedan and the mileage of the vehicle being purchased. The most economical family sedan today is the Prius, at EPA 55 mpg combined. So a vehicle with an EPA 15 mpg combined would pay a tax of 55/15, or 367% of the MSRP of their new car.

This would also serve as an incentive for auto makers to make more fuel-efficient cars, because they'd lose market share big time if their cars rate poorly and therefore incur high taxes.

As for licenses, they should require a driving test that truely tests the driver's ability to control the vehicle under real-life driving conditions and should be classed according to the size, weight, and handling characteristics of the vehicle the person wants to drive.

 

Unfortunitly, then you would be penilizing those who are least able to afford a new vehicle. My Prius will be my first new vehicle. In the past, my vehicles where purchased on TOC (Total Ownership Costs) My guess would be that a struggleing family would only be able to affored USED cars, which by nature, would be less efficent than something new. I am NOT for hitting those people up who are less able to afford reliable transportation.

I also do not like to "FORCE" anyone into buying or NOT buying something. I believe in the freedom of choice. We need to think long term, and I think the Automotive manufactures are doing this now. In the past it seems the automotive industry moved very slow, but it is speeding up. Toyota will have most all of its cars and trucks available in the hybrid technology in 6 or 7 years. It is a step in the right direction I think.

 

I don't think you'd be penalizing anyone if it applied only to new cars because lower income buyers (with any sense) wouldn't be buying gas guzzlers anyway. And there are some relatively efficient cars on the market right now that can hold six people and cost far less than a Prius.

As for thinking long term, creating disincentives to waste finite resources is long-term thinking. A long-term tax policy is (or should be) all about trying to achieve certain outcomes. That's why there's a write-off on mortgage interest, or depreciation on business equipment. The idea is to create incentives to achive goals that we as a society deem worthy. Don't you think that cleaner air and lessening our dependence on OPEC are worthy goals? I certainly do, and I'll vote for anyone who shares that interest. As for freedom of choice, I agree, it's a great thing. But as the saying goes, your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. :wink: