More bad news for california Drivers Options

[hioctane]

deleted

This post has been edited by hioctane: Jul 31, 2005 - 1:04 PM

[slipgun]

Having thoes gps system that talk back how many miles would be A. Very expensive, how would they add thoes into all the cars that dont currently have them. B. Coundnt that make privacy issues? I wonder if they would be set to track where you go.

[97sccelica]

hah

i found the lojack in my car.

it will be even easier to find and remove that GPS tracking crap and let it sit in my garage.

guess if it happens, i will also remove the speedo cable on my mazda beater(soon i will be driving it 140 miles a day in that car alone) i will do it to my mom's car too, she puts on like 4000 miles a month

we cant catch a break, they have the taxes on gas, then the gas guzzler tax(one time payment made at original purchase), and now that they are selling cars that need gas 1/3 as often they want to make up for not taxing them as much.

so yea, they could install a tracker on my cars, i will just remove them and unplug the speedo's

oh yeah, i just thought of something

how much would it cost to put a GPS tracker on EVERY CAR IN CALIFORNIA?

****, my family has 6 cars and 3 drivers. every house on my street has atleast 3 cars.

i think it would be easier to tax cars that are rated at less than 18mpg city, since most of those cars are the ones that put the most wear and tear on the roads.

This post has been edited by 97sccelica: Feb 16, 2005 - 1:02 PM

[Digndoug]

they could do somthinglike emmisions, like every 6 months u have to go to a station to check milage, and then pay an amountor somthing.

That is BS.. good thing we dont have that problem on the east side.
but u could do a lot of things to get around it.. You would be screwed if you got caught, but thats life.

[Supersprynt]

Wait wait wait. We already do this, its called BUYING MORE GAS. The more you drive the more gas you pay and the more taxes you pay because taxes are on gas.

California needs to start voting out representatives & senators because you guys are getting bvttfvcked.

[Digndoug]

Wait wait wait. We already do this, its called BUYING MORE GAS. The more you drive the more gas you pay and the more taxes you pay because taxes are on gas.

California needs to start voting out representatives & senators because you guys are getting bvttfvcked.
[right][snapback]246826[/snapback][/right]

An this is why im SO THANKFULL Kerry didnt get votes in, he would have already raised it a $1 a gallon everywhere.

[shid]

One of the reasons this legislation is supposidely gaining weight is because hybrid cars do damage to the roads and pay less.

But really guys, all this is is sensationalism. YOU and ME have to vote to make this take effect, and no one will EVER vote this in.

[Supersprynt]

how do hybrid cars damage roads?

[shid]

Proponents of this legislative say that hybrid vehicles put the same wear and tear on the roads as normal vehicles, but pay less in taxes meant for road maintenance (gas tax)

Articles are here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/...ain674120.shtml
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2004/08/19/s.../article_208035
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/st...,656107,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/st...,656127,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/sto...,656082,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,58616,00.html

and neat picture here
http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/news/...19milefee.g.jpg

You can read those, but I wouldn't bother.

This is just overhyped sensationalism

[slipgun]

[right][snapback]246826[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
An this is why im SO THANKFULL Kerry didnt get votes in, he would have already raised it a $1 a gallon everywhere.
[right][snapback]246828[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

"Bush recently attacked Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), his Democratic opponent, for once favoring a 50-cent-per- gallon increase.

The Kerry campaign responded that while the senator did mention such a potential increase in a 1994 newspaper article that also discussed possible tax cuts, he never voted for it.

At the state level, however, there has been considerable bipartisan support for changes. "

It was a 50 cent increase, in 1994, when gas prices where LOW.

"At a rally in Appleton, Wis., on March 30(2004), President Bush came down hard on Democrats for supporting an increase in the 18.4- cent-a-gallon federal gasoline tax, which finances highway building, mass-transit projects and safety programs."
Sorry he wanted to fund things with real money instead of a deficit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2-2004Apr9.html

[Supersprynt]

Oh I see what you mean. They, in particular, dont damage roads more or less than other cars but use less gas therefore less taxes are paid.

This is BS, a big selling point for hybrid cars is to save money in the long run, I think automaker lobbyists would be against this, there will be no point to buying hybrid cars.

[shid]

right

of course, don't forget the other law that no one pays attention to- SUVs over 2 tons (most of them) are illegal on almost ANY residential or side street!

[Supersprynt]

My bad 1 ton = 2000lbs, thats 4000lbs. Is this a federal law or stateside.

An H1 Hummer is 10,000lbs.
A Lexus GX (pretty large SUV) is 4800lbs.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 16, 2005 - 3:03 PM

[shid]

Woops, my bad, I meant THREE tons; and it's all municipal laws. You know those signs that have a truck on them with a NO TRUCKS OVER 6000 POUNDS

it applies to cars too, but no one ever cites it- city officials sometimes say it doesn't apply, etc.

However, at the same time, people get a HUGE tax break when they buy a truck/SUV over 6000 pounds that they say they use it for work-

*shrug*

[Supersprynt]

Tax breaks are due to the increased gas usage, so they try to even it out.

[shid]

Super, the tax breaks here in Cali are to make it easier on businesses to buy trucks they need for the business- assuming those trucks abide by business standards.

However, people who buy the trucks with the business right off and just use them for commuting..

They shouldn't try to even it out, SUVs cause way more damage to roads.

[saleeka]

"Shame on you, trying to help the enviornment by using less fuel and causing less air polution... But we see though all that goodness, your really just trying to evade on your taxes!!!" Thats wack. No wait, not just wack, but wiggety wack

This post has been edited by saleeka: Feb 16, 2005 - 4:51 PM

[Coomer]

Did you guys read the article someone posted here a while back about the systems in new cars today and the information gathered and stuff? I know not many replied but there was mention of this in there.

Also, drivers in the US and Canada have been found guilty of being at-fault in some car accidents, not from witness accounts or police reports, but from recorded driving data subpoenad(spelling?) from companies like OnStar.

Potential things such as giving out tickets without ever being pulled over, insurance premiums based on exactly how you drive(your speed, location, how many Gs your car pulls while turning, braking, accelerating, etc. can all be recorded via OnStar), etc. were also in the article. Scary, scary stuff.

[97sccelica]

im glad no car i would ever be interested in has the option of on star

[Coomer]

im glad no car i would ever be interested in has the option of on star
[right][snapback]246948[/snapback][/right]

Same here...I told my parents(who know nothing about cars but like my car shopping advice) I won't let them buy anything with OnStar either.