Calblog

The state cannot outright tax or ban SUVs, but there are ways....

One could require a special "Class H" license for driving a (current Class C) vehicle weighing over, sya, 5000 pounds.

One could require much higher minimum liability insurance as well. Say 3x the current minumum for vehicles over 5000 pounds, and 10x for those over 7000 pounds.

Both of these changes are eminently justifiable, due to both the added difficulty of handling a heavier vehicle and their potential for external injury in an accident. Last I looked, both insurance and driver's licensing were strictly state powers.

I find minivans every bit as obnoxious as SUVs -- but I've found my biggest problem wih either is resolved by not following so close. No matter how big a vehicle is, it gets much smaller wih a more distant perspective.

And I have just as much of a night vision problem with pickup trucks as with SUVs.

Of course, it's PC to bitch about SUVs, but not about minivans or pickup trucks.

I hate SUVs.

The little 4 foot 11 women, whose faces barely clear the dashboard, seem to enjoy demonstrating their "power" by dangerously tailgating small sedans while carrying on animated cell phone conversations.

Hummers get, what, maybe 10 MPG, right?

So that means they're already paying in a bundle to the state in fuel taxes, which should more than make up for the added wear they put on the roads. (In CA, that's 26 cents a gallon.)

A hummer is paying twice the fuel tax of a car making low-mid 20s, and three times that of one making the mid 30s, mpg-wise. I doubt very strongly that the hummers are doing two to three times as much road wear.

(I do expect they're doing a bit more wear, certainly. They're very heavy... though on the other hand their very large tires spread the weight out over a larger section of road. Someone with the patience should work out the weight/contact area stats, as a preliminary indication...)

Hard to say (not having any road wear stats by car type), but there's a very good chance that inefficient cars are in effect subsidising the road maintenance of everyone with a VW TDI, a hybrid, or other very-efficient car.

(This, of course, assumes that CA actually spends fuel tax dollars on the roads, which it certainly ought to. Though, knowing CA government, it would not surprise me in the least if they did not, and then pushed for tax increases to "fix the roads"...)

Interestingly enough, I have been told that cars almost place no wear and tear on the road. This is because their weight is not significant enough to wear the roadway. However, this does not remain true as you get heavier vehicles. Most road damage is actually done by Semi's. I'd be willing to bet weight damage ratios are exponential. Furthermore, gas taxes pay for the road, but they can also be seen as a cost modifier for pollution and other things. The larger vehicles tend to perform worse at. Perhaps there should be some additional tax on SUVs.

RWV, here in subtropical west Georgia -- for that matter, in subtropical north, south, east and central Georgia -- everybody tailgates, including sheriff's deputies. Vehicles whose headlights are high enough simply shine them over us in lower-profile cars. Helps spot the deer on dark nights, too.

Joel: Why tax SUVs? They weigh far, far less than tractor-trailer rigs (which are normally exempt from a lot of fuel tax, to keep general prices down), so road damage is, as you implied, near zero.

As for pollution, well, they use more gas already, so they're already paying. With catalytic converters and such, I sincereyl doubt that SUVs (or vans or trucks, which are identical for these purposes) put out enough more emissions per gallon to justify a tax.

I still don't understand the widespread villification of SUVs (generally, not directed at you), but that's just me. Nobody complained about full-size vans, pickup trucks, or the odd Suburban or Grand Cherokee before the "evil SUV label" came around...

(Want to talk dangerous and fuel-wasting? Sports/performance cars, guys. The 4.5 in, say, a classic 450SL gets maybe 15 mpg. The 5.6 in a 560SEC? 14 mpg. Might as well just buy that Expedition, if you can't afford a new SL600 that gets 19 on the highway! If "uses more gas and thus pays more fuel tax" isn't enough, are we going to just sin-tax anything someone decides we "don't NEED"? God forbid.)

Sigivald,

The difference is that in lighter cars, you don't have to run the engine as hard to do normal stuff. A Corvette gets 25-28 mpg on the highway. And a MB SL gets 20-23 mpg on the highway, depending on trim, and that's for a 4500 pound car. A Hummer gets 13 mpg on the highway.

The thing is, SUVs are bad citizens on the road. I remember how those big, old cars used to behave like boats on the road, but the SUVs are far worse, because you can't even see over them. They're awful.

Were I the feds, I'd add a proviso to the light truck designation saying that you have to sell 25,000 units with three or fewer (or nine or more) seats in order to qualify.

My friend's sister was hit head on by a drunk driver in Chino Hills last week. The drunk driver and his passenger died. My friend's sister was barely bruised. She was driving a Chevy Suburban. You can keep your freaking Prius.

I am glad to hear that your sister went unhurt. The flip side to your situation though is one that truly disturbs me...What happens when the drunk driver is in the SUV...then my Toyota Corrola probably won't stand a chance...and that drunk driver will walk away without a scratch.

Well, since I'm not a drunk driver I'd have to say that if someone has to die in an accident, I'd rather it not be me. I'm speaking from a purely selfish perspective here. Self-preservation. People are crazy out there and I know that my brothers feel much safer with their wives and many children safely cruising in SUVs. When they married, the first thing they did was get rid of their wives' Hondas, Toyotas and Acuras and set them up with big monster SUVs. (Well, one brother waited until his wife's Acura was destroyed by an asshole in a little pick up truck who slammed into the back of her.)

I don't know, maybe we should all drive SUVs. That would be interesting.

Patrick,

The issue is that driving a SUV *is* selfish. And it's a false sense of security too.

SUVs aren't held up to the same safety standards as cars are. Their brakes aren't as good, among other things. Their testing isn't as rigorous. And most of them are prone to rollovers.

A well-built passenger car will do just as well against another car as most SUVs, and its superior brakes and handling mean that they are less likely to get into an accident.

The 2002 Chevy Suburban got a 4-star crash rating for front impact, and a 3-star rollover resistance rating (they didn't do side impact testing). A 2002 four door Honda Accord with side air bags, by comparison, for 5 stars up front and rolling over, and four stars for the driver's side and five stars on the passenger's side.

The only thing most non-Volvo or Mercedes do in an accident that a car won't is hurt the other guy badly.

So yeah, driving a SUV is selfish. And stupid, too.

Selfish according to you. I don't think it's selfish to want to survive. Of course a Honda got a higher rollover rating. It's low to the ground. So low in fact, that when I drove a Honda I couldn't see squat on the freeway.

Further, have you ever tried cramming five children, an ice chest, two strollers, diaper bags, tupperware filled with food, toys, etc into a Volvo? Or a Corolla for that matter?

Do you hate WalMart and McDonalds too?

I like Wal-Mart and McDonalds, I just don't like SUVs, I think SUVs pose an increased threat to other vehicles, doesn't mean I want to seem them taken away, but I would like some kind of premium attached to an SUV, they block my vision, and pose a greater risk to those who choose to drive cars. I mean who's really being unfair, the person asking you to bear the cost of your externalities, or the person who says I don't care that there are external costs to you, it's all about me. People have every right to be selfish...I just think SUVs inadequately bear the cost they pose to people who prefer cars. Who really is diminishing freedom? The person who says pay what it costs and drive an SUV or the person who says...well everyone else should just own a SUV I mean ick...I don't like driving SUVs they're not for me.

Patrick,

If that's your real concern, get a minivan. Apparently, the Toyota Sienna and Ford Freestar have among the highest safety ratings on the road. And yes, I have fit all that into a Volvo wagon. My parents had a string of old ones when I was a kid. People had big families with lots of stuff before the SUV craze started, believe it or not.

You're right, it's not a bad kind of selfish to want to survive. It is a bad kind of selfish to buy a vehicle that does not protect your life any more but which endangers others' lives in accidents more than other cars, and which can't avoid accidents as well as passenger cars or minivans because their brakes suck.

McDonalds food is disgusting. I used to be able to eat there when I was a kid, but I went to one about a year ago and tried a quarter pounder and I just couldn't eat the damned thing. But I shopped at Wal-Mart when I lived near one. Now I live nearer to a Target, so I go there instead.

It's official. You people are nuts. Get a cause. SUVs? For crying out loud! Aaaaaaagh. Just what we need another tax, another regulation, another know it all, technocratic government rule. If I want to drive an SUV I'll drive one. If people don't like it, that's too bad. I'll use as much gasoline as I like and I'll crush the little hybrids like bugs.

Yeah. people had big families, but things were different then. No one used seat belts and car seats and everyone squeezed in. I know. I have 12 siblings. Not everyone had 2.1 children and that's who the smaller cars are made for. The perfect little family. Just enough room to squeeze Junior and Petunia in. Maybe we people with larger familes should do what we did when I was young. Drive two cars when we all had to go the same place at once. That's fuel efficient, no?

By the way, I drive a freaking Chevy Malibu. I just loathe this anti-SUV bull crap. It's such a non-issue. My God!

Who says this is my "cause?"

This is blogging.

Anyhoo, what I object to is the fact that there are tax and safety loopholes. I don't want another tax; I want them to eliminate the stupid loopholes.