I miss Jobst

On May 20, 7:59*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 5/20/2011 7:12 AM, john B. wrote:
* [...]

While the Maine explosion, in which 266 died, was shocking it was
hardly as catastrophic as the Johnstown flood, some ten years earlier,
in which more then 2200 people died. The WTC disaster is, I suspect,
the greatest disaster which has occurred ion U.S. soil.[...]

Greater than the genocide of the American Indian?

Good point.

- Frank Krygowski

john B. wrote:

Didn't the British use a modification of that system by taxing
vehicles based on their engine horsepower? I seem to remember that
story when questioning why so many English cars had such low
horsepower.

The French used to tax cars according to "statute horsepower", which
wasn't actual horsepower but a derivative of displacement. That
yielded cars like the Citroën 2CV and Renault 4CV, "CV" standing for
chevaux (horses).

Tax and administrative policy that results in the broad adoption of
400cc, 1200lb cars is categorically better than that which results in
the popularity of 7000 pound, 6+ liter cars. I think we should ban
huge personal cars, just to make the roads more tolerable and safer
for small, efficient vehicles.

Chalo

On May 22, 12:48*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
john B. considered Sat, 21 May 2011 19:24:34
+0700 the perfect time to write:



On Sat, 21 May 2011 00:49:33 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote:

Ron Ruff wrote:

But... would it be a "good" thing to reduce fuel consumption
(greenhouse gases, oil imports) and traffic congestion? It's easy
enough to do if there is a will to make it happen. Tax fuel to a
higher degree. Make a class of small car (weight and size restricted)
and design the infrastructure to accomodate them. Restrict larger
vehicle use in urban areas (ie certain lanes and certain roads). This
would necessarily make using a larger vehicle more expensive and less
convenient.

I think you could simplify the system to just two criteria. *Make
registration fees proportional to the cube of the weight of the
vehicle (which approximates wear and tear on roadways and other
infrastructure),

That would have to be to the fourth power to be proportional to road
wear & tear.

* * * * * * * * times the gross weight of the vehicle divided by its
payload. *The first term rewards smaller vehicles; the second term
rewards vehicles that are well designed for their purpose.

Chalo

Need some link to vehicle size as well (as in road area occupied).
I know the Japanese have that as an aspect of vehicle taxation, as
some of their home market models have slightly smaller external
dimensions than the export equivalents, to fit them into a lower tax
class (see Estima Lucida or Estima Emina versus plain Estima.or
Previa).
Ideally, I think there needs to be a way of taxing empty seats more
than full ones.
I just can't think of a sensible way of managing that though.



Didn't the British use a modification of that system by taxing
vehicles based on their engine horsepower? I seem to remember that
story when questioning why so many English cars had such low
horsepower.

In the UK, we used to band vehicle excise duty on cubic capacity, but
changed to CO2 emission banding a while back.

Cars marketed before CO2 emmisions ratings fall either above or below
1.6l (used to be 1.2 then 1.4) for alternative VED banding.

On Sat, 21 May 2011 13:08:13 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote:

john B. wrote:

Didn't the British use a modification of that system by taxing
vehicles based on their engine horsepower? I seem to remember that
story when questioning why so many English cars had such low
horsepower.

The French used to tax cars according to "statute horsepower", which
wasn't actual horsepower but a derivative of displacement. That
yielded cars like the Citroën 2CV and Renault 4CV, "CV" standing for
chevaux (horses).

Tax and administrative policy that results in the broad adoption of
400cc, 1200lb cars is categorically better than that which results in
the popularity of 7000 pound, 6+ liter cars. I think we should ban
huge personal cars, just to make the roads more tolerable and safer
for small, efficient vehicles.

Chalo

The fact is that something could be done about both emissions and
energy use, but no one wants to do it. Extreme examples could be, for
all autos to be limited to less then 100 H.P., home air conditioners
totally banned, No more snow blowers or power lawn mowers, grass
blowers, lawn edgers, etc. (exercise IS good :-). Revert to wind power
for shipping, and so on.

All perfectly feasible, after all it is just reverting to a life that
your parents or grand parents knew.

On Sat, 21 May 2011 08:21:00 -0500, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
" wrote:

On 5/21/2011 7:21 AM, john B. wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 18:59:55 -0500, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
" wrote:

On 5/20/2011 7:12 AM, john B. wrote:
[...]
While the Maine explosion, in which 266 died, was shocking it was
hardly as catastrophic as the Johnstown flood, some ten years earlier,
in which more then 2200 people died. The WTC disaster is, I suspect,
the greatest disaster which has occurred ion U.S. soil.[...]

Greater than the genocide of the American Indian?

I have to say that I was wrong about the WTC's place in the U.S.
Disaster listing. A hurricane in Texas carried off something like
20,000 people (and I'd never even heard of it).

I'm not too embarrassed by the genocide of the American Indian. after
all, they were not adverse to slaughter the white man given a chance
and had they not been essentially a stone age culture they might well
have been more successful. After all even the U.S. Army considered
them first class light cavalry.

Certainly this does not justify genocide but the practice has been
going on for centuries, starting, some theories has it, with
prehistoric man.

Fortunately ethnic cleansing and/or genocide has become socially
unacceptable, except for the Nakba, and as Mr. Atzmon would say, the
Tide Has Turned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iplwg842mk8&feature=related.


As someone said in a slightly different context, "speak for your self,
John".

Obviously genocide is not socially unacceptable... in some societies
it appears quite acceptable. In fact the Africans seem to be quite
enthusiastic about the subject and I suspect that most of the peoples
in the Middle East would happily embrace it, given half a chance.

On Sat, 21 May 2011 08:10:31 -0500, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
" wrote:

On 5/21/2011 7:38 AM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 05:40:46 -0500, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
" wrote:

On 5/21/2011 2:49 AM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
Ron Ruff wrote:

But... would it be a "good" thing to reduce fuel consumption
(greenhouse gases, oil imports) and traffic congestion? It's easy
enough to do if there is a will to make it happen. Tax fuel to a
higher degree. Make a class of small car (weight and size restricted)
and design the infrastructure to accomodate them. Restrict larger
vehicle use in urban areas (ie certain lanes and certain roads). This
would necessarily make using a larger vehicle more expensive and less
convenient.

I think you could simplify the system to just two criteria. Make
registration fees proportional to the cube of the weight of the
vehicle (which approximates wear and tear on roadways and other
infrastructure), times the gross weight of the vehicle divided by its
payload. The first term rewards smaller vehicles; the second term
rewards vehicles that are well designed for their purpose.

I would also factor in MRSP, to make the fees more progressive.

Farm vehicles [1] would of course, not be subject to the same high fees,
as a full-size 4WD pick-em-up truck is a legitimate farm tool.

[1] Some states, such as Cheeseheadland have "Farm" license plates.


Wasn't that how the SUV got started? By making an end run around the
regulations on horsepower?

No, fuel economy.

In the US since 1975, the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) has been
in place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE. SUVs were classified as
light trucks instead of cars, so they became the replacement for large
sedans and station wagons. SUVs also had to meet less stringent safety
regulations (in the past) due to their truck classification.

Of course, 99% of SUV are used as cars, and not trucks.

But as for farm vehicles why exempt them? The days of the family farm
are pretty well behind us and there are a lot of subsidies collected
by "farmers". If they gonna get that free goment money let um pay
taxes.

I support eliminating all farm subsidies where more than 50% of the work
is performed by hired workers (immediate family members excluded).


Which would effectively eliminate farm subsidies, or at least reduce
them to a point that they would be a tiny appendage on the bottom of
the last page of the federal budget.

On 5/21/2011 8:56 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 08:21:00 -0500, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
" wrote:

On 5/21/2011 7:21 AM, john B. wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 18:59:55 -0500, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
" wrote:

On 5/20/2011 7:12 AM, john B. wrote:
[...]
While the Maine explosion, in which 266 died, was shocking it was
hardly as catastrophic as the Johnstown flood, some ten years earlier,
in which more then 2200 people died. The WTC disaster is, I suspect,
the greatest disaster which has occurred ion U.S. soil.[...]

Greater than the genocide of the American Indian?

I have to say that I was wrong about the WTC's place in the U.S.
Disaster listing. A hurricane in Texas carried off something like
20,000 people (and I'd never even heard of it).

I'm not too embarrassed by the genocide of the American Indian. after
all, they were not adverse to slaughter the white man given a chance
and had they not been essentially a stone age culture they might well
have been more successful. After all even the U.S. Army considered
them first class light cavalry.

Certainly this does not justify genocide but the practice has been
going on for centuries, starting, some theories has it, with
prehistoric man.

Fortunately ethnic cleansing and/or genocide has become socially
unacceptable, except for the Nakba, and as Mr. Atzmon would say, the
Tide Has Turned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iplwg842mk8&feature=related.


As someone said in a slightly different context, "speak for your self,
John".

Obviously genocide is not socially unacceptable... in some societies
it appears quite acceptable. In fact the Africans seem to be quite

All of them? Sheesh!

enthusiastic about the subject and I suspect that most of the peoples
in the Middle East would happily embrace it, given half a chance.

The only people in the Middle East interested in ethnic
cleansing/genocide are the Zionists. Muslim Arabs and Jews coexisted
with no problems for over 1250 years, until Zionism reared its ugly head.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On May 21, 1:49*am, Chalo wrote:
Ron Ruff wrote:

But... would it be a "good" thing to reduce fuel consumption
(greenhouse gases, oil imports) and traffic congestion? It's easy
enough to do if there is a will to make it happen. Tax fuel to a
higher degree. Make a class of small car (weight and size restricted)
and design the infrastructure to accomodate them. Restrict larger
vehicle use in urban areas (ie certain lanes and certain roads). This
would necessarily make using a larger vehicle more expensive and less
convenient.

I think you could simplify the system to just two criteria. *Make
registration fees proportional to the cube of the weight of the
vehicle (which approximates wear and tear on roadways and other
infrastructure), times the gross weight of the vehicle divided by its
payload. *The first term rewards smaller vehicles; the second term
rewards vehicles that are well designed for their purpose.

Chalo

I don't see the point of discouraging the ownership of larger
vehicles... just their use. I suppose that many families will have one
for long trips or any time when more space is needed. If you merely
increase registration fees based on size, the people who do own large
vehicles will have no disincentive to use them all the time, and our
infrastructure will still be designed specifically to accommodate
them... since the wealthy will have large vehicles and nothing else.

Another advantage to making a particular class of car is that lanes
and parking spaces can be made specifically for that size of vehicle.

On May 21, 2:08*pm, Chalo wrote:
Tax and administrative policy that results in the broad adoption of
400cc, 1200lb cars is categorically better than that which results in
the popularity of 7000 pound, 6+ liter cars. *I think we should ban
huge personal cars, just to make the roads more tolerable and safer
for small, efficient vehicles.

200cc, and 600lb would be sufficient for a tandem 2 seater. Or even
better, make it electric.

On May 21, 7:51*pm, john B. wrote:
The fact is that something could be done about both emissions and
energy use, but no one wants to do it. Extreme examples could be, for
all autos to be limited to less then 100 H.P., home air conditioners
totally banned, No more snow blowers or power lawn mowers, grass
blowers, lawn edgers, etc. (exercise IS good :-). Revert to wind power
for shipping, and so on.

All perfectly feasible, after all it is just reverting to a life that
your parents or grand parents knew.

Severe lack of imagination. We have much better technology... that is
the huge difference. Does a good life require gluttonous energy use?