Democrats have declared war on drivers, GOP says

Contra Costa Times ^ | July 7, 2002 | Andrew LaMar

[John Jorsett]

SACRAMENTO - Tapping into the outrage among conservatives about recently approved legislation to reduce tailpipe emissions, Republicans plan to attack Democrats for a string of policy moves they say amounts to a "war on drivers."

Gov. Gray Davis has backed more than doubling vehicle license fees, borrowing money from the state's highway account and forcing automakers to lower greenhouse gases produced by their vehicles, a measure automobile manufacturers say will boost the cost of cars.

[willyone]

Somehow or other the Pubbies will make it look like they were behind this and the Dems. will make them look stupid once again. Just history repeating itself. Our guys are morons at PR.

[willyone]

And you get to be an organ donor when they turn off life support.

[willyone]

Why is none of your business. I am sure you do things that others find silly. That is their problem. These are a bunch of elitists who just want control over other peoples lives.

[gitmo]

In fact, YOU benefit when THEY choose to use modern, efficient mass transit through less highway congestion, greater availability of fuel and more abundant parking availability. You should be grateful that others use mass-transit.

Where has this actually worked? Around here we have empty buses that stop 10 feet after every traffic light just so they can snarl up traffic. They have their own, private lane on a couple of roads. So 33% of our congested roads are empty, except for the occasional empty bus.

These monstrosities constantly change lanes without signalling, which is to be expected since they own the roads. They stink, and they are safety hazards because everyone is trying to squeeze into the lane they are not currently occupying.

It is wasteful of money, both "public" (i.e. already confiscated by the govt) and "private" (wasted fuel).

[Southack]

"You don't, and you have a good reason to be exempt. No problem here with trucks for legitimate work purposes. If you need your toolbox, you need your toolbox.

It's one thing thing for Joe Rancher who needs a truck to pull bales and make a living, it's another thing for a suburban mom to drive her kid to practice in an Excursion because it makes her feel like a supertanker captain. There is a difference."

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." - Vladimir Lenin

You've just articulated Communism, albeit in a modern, California sense. The problem with that view, however, is that it is inemical to freedom. It is the antithesis of America.

Of course, that's what every Leftist wants for the U.S. They want special priviledges to be doled out to those who have special needs, and they want to be the ones doing the doling out.

Forget freedom. The government will decide for you what you will do and how you will do it. Right, comrade?!

Sheesh. Our schools really have been dumbed down for Joe Sixpacks to be spouting such socialistic nonsense. You did claim to be Joe Average, didn't you (I mean, you wouldn't be some "plant" from DU)??

[daviddennis]

I have to admire that 'Fabulous Ruins of Detroit' guy. Just goes to show what happens when real estate becomes virtually worthless.

I don't know if it's unfortunate or fortunate, but it's pretty much certain that we'll never have that problem in urban California, home of housing prices with so many zeroes they make the inhabitants of other states dizzy :-(.

D

[CyberAnt]

"war on drivers"

Hmmmm? Seems just about equal to the war on auto makers. When they start charging 3500-5000 more for a vehicle, it will surely cut into their sales.

Has the state calculated the loss of state revenues from the sales tax on autos??

[captain11]

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." - Vladimir Lenin

As long as we're using Lenin quotes wildly out of context, let's go with:

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."
- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

The problem with that view, however, is that it is inemical to freedom. It is the antithesis of America.

It's spelled inimical, which under a common definition means "an unfriendly act of aggression". Driving a huge, gas-hogging SUV in urban areas of a state with 33+ million people is inimical to common sense, good visibility in dense, fast-moving traffic, and clean air. Inimical. I-N-I-M-I-C-A-L.

They want special priviledges...

That's spelled privileges.

Forget freedom. The government will decide for you what you will do and how you will do it. Right, comrade?!

You think I'm an apologist for statism, do you? Wrong. Speak for yourself, comrade.

Sheesh. Our schools really have been dumbed down for Joe Sixpacks to be spouting such socialistic nonsense. You did claim to be Joe Average, didn't you

Not only didn't claim to be Joe Average, but point out who has suffered the brunt of said dumbing down.

I mean, you wouldn't be some "plant" from DU.

Nah. You wouldn't be Bob Boudelang, would you?

One other thing, related to the general theme of pollution of the commons. Dispense with your 8K "bull in the china shop" vanity logo and quit wasting bandwidth and time for hundreds of others.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

GOOD to hear! So true! War on drivers and on property owners and on taxpayers - TAKE IT TO THEM, REPUBS!

[Southack]

"Driving a huge, gas-hogging SUV in urban areas of a state with 33+ million people is inimical to common sense, good visibility in dense, fast-moving traffic, and clean air."

Nonsense. It makes perfect sense to choose to ride in a vehicle that protects its driver from car-on-car collisions with a higher seating position and more metal, especially in dense, fast-moving traffic.

The higher ride height of large SUV's also provides for better vision for its driver, contrary to the claptrap that you posted above.

Of course, in your world-view, everyone would have the same viewing perspective because everyone would be driving the same econo-box.

In fact, you don't want people to be permitted to choose to drive what they want. No, you want your communist-style government to decide if someone has a need for a pickup with a toolbox or a large SUV (From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - a phrase that you evidently didn't even comprehend was directly connected to your earlier rant).

The North Koreans and Cubans must love having you around for company.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I am very happy with my small SUV.

[InterceptPoint]

Pardon my ignorance, but what are Diamond Lanes?

Diamond Lanes in California are restricted to vehicles with a minimum of two occupants.

The Diamond Lane is always the left-most lane and during weekdays, when most cars are single occupant, they are the fast lanes. It is not unusual to see speeds of 80 to 90 miles an hour in the Diamond Lanes on LA Freeways when the traffic flow in non-Diamond Lanes is stop and go. The problem is that frustrated drivers occasionally try to enter the Diamond Lanes when they are at or near a dead stop in the adjacent lane. They jump out into the Diamond Lane traffic and don't see or misjudge the speed of the approaching vehicle and WHAMMO - three dead bodies. Happens all the time.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Thanks for the ping, we can always hope that the GOP will stand on principle.

[captain11]

Nonsense. It makes perfect sense to choose to ride in a vehicle that protects its driver from car-on-car collisions with a higher seating position and more metal, especially in dense, fast-moving traffic.

In your mind. The SUV motto: "Let's roll."

The higher ride height of large SUV's also provides for better vision for its driver While obscuring vision for many others.

From each according to their ability to each according to their needs

Actually, the quote is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Evidently Lenin learned his grammar at a school that was not dumbed down, and that taught pronoun agreement.

The North Koreans and Cubans must love having you around for company.

Fat chance. You might have some interests in common with Kim Jong-Il though, judging from the bottom of your profile.

[Willie Green]

Where has this actually worked?

Many cities have well planned, highly utilized mass transit systems.
However, I agree that special HOV lanes or reserved bus lanes are asinine and don't work. Those are usually minimum cost, chintzy attempts to DO SOMETHING BUT DONT SPEND ANY MONEY. If your town's system is screwed up, its because you got what you paid for.

[cinFLA]

There must be some sort of mistake. The California GOP appears to be growing itself a spine.

Simon is leading Davis by 9 points!

[cinFLA]

Just where do they expect this power to come from and what makes them so sure that the generation of that energy source won't cause pollution (nuclear waste, smoke from coal, etc.).

solar and wind!

[medved]

In an awful lot of places, air pollution has gotten to be a sort of a 90/10 thing with 10% of the cars producing 90% of the pollution. A big part of the problem is having new cars cost $10,000 and up. A partial solution MIGHT be, assuming they still make type IV volkswagons in Mexico, to simply allow somebody who turns in an older car to buy one of those, which would have to cost way under what new cars sold in the states go for, and not worry about emissions.

[cinFLA]

If only CA would price control houses so they wouldn't have to commute 50 miles to SF!

[Southack]

"In your mind. The SUV motto: "Let's roll."

Nonsense. Not only are you missing the point (i.e. that "freedom" is not something that needs to be restricted by socialist governments deciding what we can and can't choose to drive), but new SUV's offer numerous crash advantages to drivers who frequent dense, fast-moving traffic.

In your mind, the government should be banning SUV's because they block the views of people who drive cars with lower ride heights, as well as banning them because they drink too much fuel.

It's fine to have such an opinion, of course, just don't try to confuse that sort of dictatorial mindset with one of freedom.