SUVs technically banned in CA

[84porsche]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2104755/?GT1=4529

[MAS]

Yeah, I read that too. Too bad they're not enforcing it (yet).

-MAS

[JavaBrewer]

I'll admit I think the super-sized SUVs running around are a waste of space and gas. Plus the tax breaks favoring these vehicles are absurd.

However, I have no issue with full sized SUVs. Banning these from the roads, dream on. Just wish they offered them with diesel engines, and hybrid technology would be cool too.

Next thing to ban are cars that cannot seat 4 adults.

[mikester]

Politically this can't possibly be enforced at any more than the local level.

I can see some place like Santa Monica or Venice enforcing this law.

The fact is that it's not a bad law at all - just look at the condition of our roads and the repairs they require. I know near my house the roads that qualify as truck routes (namely Imperial Highway) are in terrible disrepair and I am loath to travel on them. If you take the 6k tax break then it's a commercial vehicle then it shouldn't be on a residential road any more than a fedex truck or UPS truck should be (limited to the time it takes to do the delivery).

[Dantilla]

There is a difference between vehicles over 6000 lbs, and vehicles with a gross weight of over 6000.

My Chevy truck weighs about 4800, but has the capacity for over 10,000 when towing. The article makes no mention of the difference.

If SUV's are succesfully banned, Porsches will soon be on the endangered spieces list. No one NEEDS a car that is so impractical.

Last week I filled the back of my truck with camping stuff and towed a boat to the other side of the state. There are times when a large vehicle is the most practical.

The people most uptight about SUV's will not be happy untill every car on the road is a Prius.

[84porsche]

My only disagreement is that they are too big to see over in a Porsche and the people driving pay attention less because they are in a bigger vehicle and swerve in my lane way too much and cut me off becuase they can't see me or don't look as carefully. Really, how hard is it to see a bright red Porsche. If it wasn't for the color, I would have been a hood ornanment a long-time ago.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

My biggest objection is the safety problems they create. Lack of visibility was mentioned, but what about bumper height, rollover succeptability, and the DOT study that stated that a person involved in a collision with an SUV was something like six times more likely to be killed! Not to mention they're driven by the least attentive jackasses on the road, typically.

[mikester]

SUV's have their place but unless you have 6 kids, tow something that requires it regularly or use it for work an Expedition or Excursion sized SUV has no place in a residential area. Period - a single person doesn't need to drive a commercial sized vehicle to work if the only cargo in that vehicle is them - it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense other than "it's what I wanted." Well, what you wanted is destroying our roads and creating a safety hazard; not to mention the exemption they get from clean air standards is obsurd.

On a supporting note however in CA a child must be in a car seat if that child is under 6 or under 60 pounds they only way they can get out of that car seat is if they are OVER 6 AND OVER 60 pounds; Not one or the other - both must be met to get out of that car seat. This means that any person who has more than two kids within this catagory and has a full sized passenger (say - maybe a wife) is going to need a larger car than your average sedan to fit everyone. Car seats three abreast aren't going to work for obvious reasons.

So...how do those work together? Mini Vans? Crap.

I am quite tired of trying to see around these larger ones - the Explorer sized SUVs are reasonable in my mind. Still - they only have one row of seats so they won't hold many more than two under 6 kids.

[island911]

Originally posted by Dantilla
There is a difference between vehicles over 6000 lbs, and vehicles with a gross weight of over 6000.

My Chevy truck weighs about 4800, but has the capacity for over 10,000 when towing. The article makes no mention of the difference.
. ..

Good point, I was thinking the same.

However, on this one, I'm siding with the article, in that I know that gross weight .. . Heavy trucks, and such, do the vast majority of damage to our roads.

Next time you're driving your 911 along some rutted out asphalt road, or hit a ridge of the stuff at an intersection, remember, that ripple was brought to you by heavy trucks & busses.

[Spud]

I just don't understand where folks get off telling other folks what they can and can't drive. Do you guys understand that once you give the politicos the ability to legislate any car off the road they will be coming for our precious Porsches next (Cali is a good example of this with its draconian smog laws)

If someone wants to drive an enormous SUV and can afford the gas then more power to em.

There is such a thing as a slippery slope and this is definately one of them.

[Mulholland]

Edited for content. -Z-man.

[mikester]

Originally posted by island911
[B}

Next time you're driving your 911 along some rutted out asphalt road, or hit a ridge of the stuff at an intersection, remember, that ripple was brought to you by heavy trucks & busses. [/B]

That's exactly how I feel.

[vash]

no way can we regulate a person's vehicle of choice. it is a damn shame that bumper heights cannot all match. but i would rather leave the laws in place. i dont want it illegal to lower a car, any more than i would like a law to ban a jacked up ford diesel truck with 44inch diameter tires. what does crack me up are the fools that have those huge pickup trucks. then in order to tow, they need something crazy like a 24" drop hitch. i guess they figured coolness trumps physics. wrong. leave a person's choice alone, ban people that cannot handle the vehicle they choose.

[banjomike]

The swastica/peace symbol is in VERY VERY POOR TASTE. I imagine someone will say, 'lighten up it's just a joke'. Well if that was the intent it was still in VERY VERY POOR TASTE.

[banjomike]

I don't think people are getting off on telling people what they can and can't drive. There should be one uniform set of rules applying to all passenger vehicles. Don't try to tell me that 95% of Suburbans, Hummers, Expiditions, etc aren't used as passenger vehicles. The safey laws are different, there are tax breaks, the fuel efficiency requirements are different, the bumpers are at a different level, the emissions requirements may be different (I'm not sure on that one), they contribute disproportionately to cost of road upkeep. All of these things amount to explicit and/or hidden subsidies. The market doesn't function if the playing field isn't level. So you end up with a sickness where the roads are populated with unclean, unsafe, and wasteful beasts.

I clearly don't like them but I'm not saying ban them. They should be required to adhere to the same laws as other passenger cars.

They are more likely to be involved in an accident. The people in the other car are much more likely to be killed. Rollovers are much more likely. Bumpers don't match up with other cars increasing damage from minor accidents. Lights are much higher than allowed on cars, blinding traffic. These are all bad design that has been fostered by stupid government interference (on an uneven playing field).

whew! no I'll get off my soap box.

[mikester]

It's stated in every driver's license test - Driving is a priviledge and not a right.

You don't have the right to drive a vehicle that is heavier than the road you're on was designed to accept.

You can't measure them empty because they aren't driven empty...so what do you measure them by? It's a simple remedy - the manufacturers should simply reduce their cargo capacity without reducing the room they have.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by Mulholland
moronic nazi symbol

So that means... what? What do SUV's have to do with
1/ Nazis?
2/ Peace?
3/ What I assume is your belief that Nazi idealogy & peace are equivalent?

[Spud]

"whew! no I'll get off my soap box." ... gee, thanks for that.

"It's stated in every driver's license test - Driving is a priviledge and not a right.

You don't have the right to drive a vehicle that is heavier than the road you're on was designed to accept."

- Are you serious? This is total blather, please explain to me how someone driving a Surburban ruins the highway anymore than a passenger car? A big rig I can see, weighing in at 80,000 lbs, but a Surburban? No. Don't buy it. And "driving" is the priviledge, not what I "drive", this is still America, and I do get to choose.

If there are tax breaks and different emmissions regulations for SUVs then address those with your congressman. Don't take my right to tow my race car from me because you percieve some imbalance between the way passenger cars and SUVs are treated and built. Why not call for the bumpers on passenger cars to be raised? Makes as much sense...

"Don't try to tell me that 95% of Suburbans, Hummers, Expiditions, etc aren't used as passenger vehicles."

- Sure they are, but then I also tow a race car and a boat with my SUV, so what concern is it of yours? How do you proppose I get my boat to the lake?

So banjomike what kind of millage does your 911 get? I know my MFI 2.2S gets about 18-20mpg (not very cleanly either!) My 2004 Suburban is getting 16.7mpg, and I'm willing to bet pollutes less than either of our 911s. So which cars should be off the road?

[SteveStromberg]

Hummers exceed the 6000lbs unladen and Santa Monica PD Traffic has know that they are in violation since 1997 When I called and spoke to the Sgt in Charge of traffic. I was nearly run over by a Hummer on seventh st hill. That street is posted no vehicles over 600l0bs.

[banjomike]

Originally posted by Spud
So banjomike what kind of millage does your 911 get? I know my MFI 2.2S gets about 18-20mpg (not very cleanly either!) My 2004 Suburban is getting 16.7mpg, and I'm willing to bet pollutes less than either of our 911s. So which cars should be off the road?

I'll repeat myself:
I clearly don't like them but I'm not saying ban them. They should be required to adhere to the same laws as other passenger cars.


I don't think they should be banned. I can't think of a way that it could be done in a fashion that is anything close to fair or wouldn't cause negative side effects (for example in 1989 MD banned 'saturday night specials', and in the next year illegal sales of high capacity 9mm went through the roof... oops! now the crooks are armed with high quality weaponry!) I do think that the various subsidies should be removed because the subsidies are having negative side effects.

As far as which one pollutes more... post the results of your emissions test we'll compare. Keep in mind that the numbers on the test are in % or ppm, so you have to factor in the relative engine size. A 3.0 liter car with Xppm of NOx is putting out half the total NOx as a 6.0L car with Xppm of NOx at the same RPM.