Prius Vs Hummer

[68Hawk]

He's got a point.  Where does the free market stop?

While soccer moms in Excursions are burning WAY more gas than they ever need to, telling them they can't goes against our economic system.  Where does it end?  

Still, I never said stop them, I said they suck.

Inherent privilege is probably a bad term, but I was looking for something more than privilege but still with some conditionality.  A right can't be revoked, or shouldn't.  Some people aren't responsible enough to be driving on public roads.

Dude, please don't ask me if I have a life when you spend more time posting on these forums than any one else.

[lazs2]

68...  noo... there is right and there is priviledge.  no gray area.

I didn't say that you said stop em from driving suvs.. I meant was meaning dred.

still.. posting during coffee and lunch may mean not having a life... I don't think so but.. maybe to an extent...  worrying about other peoples lives and how they live them and voting to restrict them most certainly denotes not having a life tho.

I agree that some people should not be on the same roads as the rest of us... bad drivers.. pot heads.. drunks... they are endangering others willfully.    that does not mean that they should not be allowed cause dred doesn't like their car choice.

I will go so far as to say you should not lose your licence for tickets that do not endanger the public or can be proven to be dangerous or more dangerous than is acceptable.   Me driving 100mph is far less dangerous to everyone than my last ex wife driving 50mph for instance... yet..  she will never get a ticket.

lazs

[68Hawk]

I agree.

So driving on public roads is a privilege, and driving on private property can be considered a right.

Still, the argument that it affects others does carry some weight, at least conceptually.  It comes down to a matter of degree.  Encouraging people away from cars that make no practical sense with economic incentives seems a good way without purely prohibitive legislation.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by 68Hawk
I'll believe the article.  Too many people don't take into account the energy cost of producing new vehicles when they re-lease every couple years.

Still, what's the effect of the fuel usage over the lifetime of the vehicle in terms of overall energy expenditure of the vehicle?  The article does not take this into account at all.  

The article is most probably accurate, but incomplete.  Hybrids are still new tech and not widely in use among the overall fleet.  The batteries also are a big environmental issue.

But, the article does not take into account economics of scale or potential recycling opportunities for hybrids in the future.  It's not so much Prius vs Hummer, but Hybrids and Alternative Powered Vehicles vs traditional gas and diesel fueled vehicles.  How much of a hybrid car is recyclable or can be refurbished?  If most of it is, it's environmental footprint comes down a bit.

I still like the idea of more Hybrids, Synthetic fuels, biofuels, and rechargeables, as anything that reduces our dependence on oil from places like the Middle East, Africa, and South America is a good thing for national interests, national security (as much oil money flows to anti-western interests), ultimately the environment, and the general health of citizens (especially in larger cities).  

To actually see any benefit from hybrids will take time for hybrids and the like to become the main stream in general use.  

So, articles like the one linked is true, to a point, but does a disservice to the big picture and future possibilities.

[68Hawk]

Are there other hybrids that actually do get the good gas mileage, lifespan and don't cost so much ecologically to produce?

[Flatbar]

This thread reminds me of a joke...

A father and his 4 year old son were driving to the market one day and the son asks 'Dad, why do some people have big cars and some don't'?

The father says, 'That's because some guys have small noodlees, so they buy a big car to make up for it.'

Thinking that that answered his question they drove on.

As they parked in the market parking lot the son spots a new Hummer and rushes over to have a good look. While he was standing and stareing in awe of the size of the behemoth before him the owner walks up and opens the door. As he gets in he says to the boy 'What do you think of my new Hummer'?

The boy looks up and without hesitation he says 'You must have a really, really small noodle.'


I just wonder what he would have said if it was a woman driver

[wooley]

No whining here. The memories from back home in Yoorup are still too fresh.

[DREDIOCK]

Ok here is the quote I was going to use

" "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience . - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22"

From this link

Driving a right not a privilege

Interesting read. But I am going to stop short of claiming it to be a legitimate source.

Just something about it to me doesnt seem completely kosher

But if it is,what what I can tell it says
Anyone who has been told its a right and yet aqquired a licence from the state anyway. Gives up that right and it is now a privelige..if that makes sense LOL

so Laz. If you;ve always been told its your right to drive and yet you still  you have a drivers licence. Youve waved that right. And now only have a diveing privilege.

Whereas "I" have always been told its a privelege. Therefore I have had my right to drive illegally taken from me thus making any government claims revoking or restricting my driving "privileges" invalid or downright unconsitutional

Furthermore. If we are to take whats on this site as completely valid.
If your a police officer and yoru handing out tickets for no licence,Insurance, Registration etc.
You should not be doing so. Because in doing so you are violating a persons consitutional rights which is a felony for you to do so

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;.shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding". (This tells us that the U.S.
Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Laws that are in opposition to it.)

In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S. CONST.

We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are "Executive Officers".

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S. Constitution.

In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this
places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.


Like I said. and interesting read but something just doesnt seem right about it.

[lazs2]

dred.. something is not right about almost all our laws... that "something" is that most of em are either skirting the intent or downright violating the constitution.

That is the reality we have to live with... why help the politicians make it worse tho.


68... you say we should "encourage" people to drive more fuel efficient cars.   Excuse me for sounding like a broken record but what exactly does that mean?

Does that mean.. every time I see someone filling up an suv I should say to them "hey. you could save a lot of money if you were filling up some uncomfortable dangerous pos."  

You need to be a little more precise for me.    I say that the fuel prices are the only "encouragement" we need..

The "scientists" in the 80's told us that if gas got to $1.75 a gallon that the demand would drop to the point where it would not be a problem to produce all we ever needed.

Let people spend money on what they think is important and set their own priorities.

lazs

[lazs2]

beetle/ferndale/lambchop.... this is getting silly again.

You are doing the same things you used to do in that you are using multiple handles and agreeing with yourself...  it is tacky.

I think it proves that you can't win honestly.   It is thinking that just because these tactics didn't work last time doesn't mean they won't work this time.

You are correct to some extent tho... the more fuel we use the sooner we will get a solution.   Need drives innovation.

lazs

[DREDIOCK]

Although. If you loook at this police Bulliton board.
Overwhelmingly. they claim its a privilege. NOT a right

http://forums.realpolice.net/showthread.php?t=34904

[lazs2]

with any luck we will never get to the point where the police make or interpret constitutional law.

lazs