[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Proposed Government Driving Restrictions!



stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) wrote:
>In article <3uj0ug$9la@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CVC411 <cvc411@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>Did you know that your taxes are paying for a Presidential advisory
>>committee that is trying to force Americans into smaller cars and to drive
>>them less.  Even though fewer than two percent of the public buys
>>high-mileage sub-compacts and most people rely on a motor vehicle for a
>>variety of reasons, your government wants to change that.  
>
>The governement damn well provide incentives in this direction
>as long as they aren't draconian and counter-economic.
>
>- We import $70 billion dollars of petroleum crude and products,
>contributing a major chunk to the trade deficient.  The US now
>imports 55% of its usage up from 25% or so during the two 1970s
>oil crises.
>
>- The highways in most major cities are congested.
>
>And I haven't even mentioned pollution (strong controls already),
>greenhouse abatement (dubious), and vehicle saftey (could be better).

Okay, you have some valid points.  But if the original poster's points were
true (some of them sounded remarkably alarmist, though potentially realistic
considering the things government discusses),  then what we are talking about
is an attempt that would force the owners of pretty much any vehicle older than
ten years to replace it (penalizing those who either (a) can't afford something
better or (b) have taken good enough care of the old vehicle to keep it
operational).

Then consider the following effects of this kind of legislation:

Increased urban and suburban population densities.
   This would lead to:
	- Increased crime
	- Increased air pollution (particulates in particular)
	- More extreme changes in property values

Disincentives for interregional travel
	- Higher costs of goods (having to be shipped by rail/sea rather than 
		truck, or higher trucking costs)
	- Increased traffic at airports
	- Increased poverty and/or increased prices on goods
	- Increased rifting and regionalization along political lines

Penalties for families
	- Increased cost of "family vehicles": station wagons, minivans, etc.
	- Increased housing costs in key corridors
	- "Ghettoization" of families to more rural areas

Increased Cost of Living
	- Higher parking fines/fees
	- necessity of delivery services for basic needs (groceries, etc.)
	- Shift to retail from wholesale purchasing by individuals

This is for the urban/suburban population.  The rural/agrarian population would
be extremely hard-hit.  These measures would potentially isolate large areas of
the US, particularly through the central plains and montaine states.  People
who exist in these areas, many already near the poverty line, would become
unable to move goods to markets, driving a new element into urban areas:
displaced farmers.  Already with the small farm in decline, this would be a
very dangerous move, in that it would move an entire segment of self-sufficient
people into the cities, where a lack of skills and/or training would contribute
to a growing underclass.

All in all, if the allegations are true, this kind of a movement would be sheer
economic idiocy at best.  There are better ways to try to reduce air pollution,
etc. than by imposing such restrictive measures on people who require vehicles
for their livlihood.

And before you ask, I am rural born and bred, and lived by mass transit in a
large metropolitan area (Silicon Valley) before finally purchasing a car.  I've
run into numerous difficulties with mass tansit, including the difficulty of
purchasing any kind of durable good (television, etc.) without some kind of
exorbinant fee.  In fact, shopping of any variety, including and especially
groceries, became a nightmare.  The inability to buy in bulk (to reduce
packaging and expense) was disturbing and had a negative impact on my budget.
The contention that mass transit is more inexpensive for its users is often
patently false.

-Corey, apologizing for a rant at 8 am.



Follow-Ups: References: