[andyt]

SprCForr SprCForr:

eureka eureka:

SprCForr SprCForr:

Whew, so my Impala is OK then.

If it is 2006 or later or, preferably, the new six cylinder.

It most certainly is not. I prefer reuse to replace.

While your car may spew a lot more pollutants and suck more gas than a new vehicle, keeping an old car instead of buying new saves all the pollution and energy used to build that new car. (You probably already knew that). It would be nice if there was a calculator somewhere where you plug in your car's specs and see if you're ahead or behind the curve.

You're not of Cuban heritage, are you? They're big on the old Chevys too.

[SprCForr]

It isn't just Cubans, everyone is an old Chevy fanboi at some level!

Exactly right on the environmental impact being spread out over 44 years. While it does emit more than a new vehicle, it's much better than when it was new. It's mileage is much better than a comparable version from back in the day. Since I'm not interested in a factory restoration, I'm free to add all the updated goodies I can afford. Even a simple thing like decent radial tires have changed things for the better since 44 years ago. The old Powerglide getting pitched for a new 700-R4 is a profound change in both economy and driveability.

Yes, I gave it more HP and torque than a Kenworth, but I don't drive it like one or as frequently as one. I don't need to go fast to prove it to Joe Dork. He knows it just by seeing and hearing.

Do I hammer on it on occassion? Do bears shit in the woods?

[andyt]

OK, but if you way pumped that engine, you may be kidding yourself about how fuel efficient the car is. And how much it pollutes with those high compression heads/pistons. NOx thru the roof.

[Unsound]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Nobody needs anything beyond the basics. Enough room for you and your family.

People don't "need" a Mustang, Porsche or any sports car anymore than they need a truck....but at least the truck is more practical.

And if you can afford to buy a mustang or a porshe or a $40 000 truck, then you can pay a little extra to run it. Or maybe you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

[andyt]

Quit being so reasonable.

It's all in the gas taxes. That way it's not just about what you drive, but how much. As for poor people who can't afford a more modern, fuel efficient car, there are ways to ameliorate any extra costs for them. Raise the basic personal exemption for instance.

[SprCForr]

Fuel efficiency is directly related to mileage, I get better mileage so it has to follow the car is using the fuel more efficently.

As for emissions, it's the same thing. The better design of heads, fuel and the like are far superior to those from when the car is new, so even though I have more power and torque, it's also cleaner at the same time.

Where the wheels fall off is if a vehicle is failed to be properly maintained and in that case all bets are off. Besides, 44 year vehicles are rigidly maintained in comparison to the average new bubble car.

[Gunnair]

Unsound Unsound:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Nobody needs anything beyond the basics. Enough room for you and your family.

People don't "need" a Mustang, Porsche or any sports car anymore than they need a truck....but at least the truck is more practical.

And if you can afford to buy a mustang or a porshe or a $40 000 truck, then you can pay a little extra to run it. Or maybe you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Bang on. Gas taxes are a user fee, at least sticking to non-commercial vehicles. Pick a vehicle that uses more, then be prepared to pay for it. Opt for a Ford Fiesta for commuting vice an F250, then your user fees plummet.

Not hard to figure out here.

Now, what I would like to see is a more flexible insurance that would allow transfer between say a truck bought for recreation and maintenance and a compact for commuting. Instead of paying for insurance for two vehicles, pay for one that can go back and forth.

[SprCForr]

andyt andyt:

Quit being so reasonable.

It's all in the gas taxes. That way it's not just about what you drive, but how much. As for poor people who can't afford a more modern, fuel efficient car, there are ways to ameliorate any extra costs for them. Raise the basic personal exemption for instance.

A big way is to perform basic routine maintenance on the vehicle. Going to the next level in performing minor repairs reaps even more benefits.

[Brenda]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Unsound Unsound:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Nobody needs anything beyond the basics. Enough room for you and your family.

People don't "need" a Mustang, Porsche or any sports car anymore than they need a truck....but at least the truck is more practical.

And if you can afford to buy a mustang or a porshe or a $40 000 truck, then you can pay a little extra to run it. Or maybe you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Bang on. Gas taxes are a user fee, at least sticking to non-commercial vehicles. Pick a vehicle that uses more, then be prepared to pay for it. Opt for a Ford Fiesta for commuting vice an F250, then your user fees plummet.

Not hard to figure out here.

Now, what I would like to see is a more flexible insurance that would allow transfer between say a truck bought for recreation and maintenance and a compact for commuting. Instead of paying for insurance for two vehicles, pay for one that can go back and forth.

I would like to see flexibility in insurance companies. We are stuck with ICBC. I would like to see some competition, even for the basic insurance.
If you put a tax on gas, as a user tax, then the user should see some of that back in maintained roads outside of the lower mainland. Like Herbie says, 5 years of pot holes repaired by men on foot with a bucket and stamping the asphalt in by foot is kinda... sad.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Now, what I would like to see is a more flexible insurance that would allow transfer between say a truck bought for recreation and maintenance and a compact for commuting. Instead of paying for insurance for two vehicles, pay for one that can go back and forth.

good idea. Or, pay insurance based on mileage. In fact in your system they'd would still have to pay by mileage. Otherwise everybody would insure for the compact and then drive the truck all the time. They have started to talk about mileage based insurance.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Now, what I would like to see is a more flexible insurance that would allow transfer between say a truck bought for recreation and maintenance and a compact for commuting. Instead of paying for insurance for two vehicles, pay for one that can go back and forth.

good idea. Or, pay insurance based on mileage. In fact in your system they'd would still have to pay by mileage. Otherwise everybody would insure for the compact and then drive the truck all the time. They have started to talk about mileage based insurance.

A combination of both then.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

I would like to see flexibility in insurance companies. We are stuck with ICBC. I would like to see some competition, even for the basic insurance.
If you put a tax on gas, as a user tax, then the user should see some of that back in maintained roads outside of the lower mainland. Like Herbie says, 5 years of pot holes repaired by men on foot with a bucket and stamping the asphalt in by foot is kinda... sad.

We had that system. ICBC only works as a monopoly, otherwise the private insurers will just cream off the good drivers and ICBC is stuck with the lousy ones. I was around when we had private insurance - ICBC's better.

As for the gas tax - sure. They should put the gas tax in a special fund that goes for roads, environmental damage caused by vehicles, medicare paid out by accidents, etc. (Or make ICBC pay for the medicare part). We could allocate the tax money to regions based on how much tax is collected in a region. Would that make you happy? You might find tho that Metro Vancouver generates by far the most gas tax, so we'd get most of the money back as well.

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

I would like to see flexibility in insurance companies. We are stuck with ICBC. I would like to see some competition, even for the basic insurance.
If you put a tax on gas, as a user tax, then the user should see some of that back in maintained roads outside of the lower mainland. Like Herbie says, 5 years of pot holes repaired by men on foot with a bucket and stamping the asphalt in by foot is kinda... sad.

We had that system. ICBC only works as a monopoly, otherwise the private insurers will just cream off the good drivers and ICBC is stuck with the lousy ones. I was around when we had private insurance - ICBC's better.

As for the gas tax - sure. They should put the gas tax in a special fund that goes for roads, environmental damage caused by vehicles, medicare paid out by accidents, etc. (Or make ICBC pay for the medicare part). We could allocate the tax money to regions based on how much tax is collected in a region. Would that make you happy? You might find tho that Metro Vancouver generates by far the most gas tax, so we'd get most of the money back as well.

No andy. Your sea-to-sky-highway is not paid for by only Vancouverites.
Nor is your roof on the Rogers Arena. I would like the potholes filled in roads most Vancouverites will never travel, but are a major trucking route, repaired professionally.

[andyt]

But you said the tax on gas should pay for roads. I agree. Since most gas taxes are paid in Metro Vancouver, we should get most of that tax money for our roads, no?

As for the roof on BC place (Not Rogers arena), you can have it. Pick it up any time you want - what a bullshit deal. But even there, it's not just a benefit for Lower Mainlanders. I'm sure you have Lions fans out in hicksville too - they wouldn't be able to watch them on TV if the Lions had nowhere to play. Same with if you have any Whitecaps fans. And if it really had been the Rogers arena - can you imagine the outrage in Dogpatch if the Canucks couldn't play?

And as i said, the sea to sky highway should be tolled, and a tax put on Whistler and Squamish businesses to help pay for it.

[eureka]

When private insurers are allowed in competition with state insurers, the state facility can end up as an insurer of last resort for the reasons that andy gave. It happened in Australia many years ago.

There are other arguments against public insurance but they do not directly affect the customer.