170 replies to this topic

[Darvin Hansen]

I've long thought that road transport in most countries I have been to are in need of major reforms. I have thought for several years now that if I were ever elected to public office, I would shoot for minister of transport. Of course I have my own thoughts on the topic, but I want to hear yours. If it helps, imagine that you have a 5-10 year window in which to accomplish your goals.

Also try and keep it realistic and popular with the electorate if you can, but feel free to think outside the box.

Have at it!

[Jack Rabbit]

Massive investment in public transportations in urban environments, and a cross country autobahn type highway, WITHOUT speed limits. Btw, I hear rumblings the autobahn might lose its speed limit free areas pretty soon.

[desmo]

For starters, in the US, I'd increase the Federal fuel taxes by enough to pay for world class mass transit in every urban/suburban area here. Then I'd stop spending federal money on expanding or building new roads of any sort once reasonable projects begun were finished.

[Stephen W]

1) Have all Speed Cameras taken down. Then make each authority apply for permission to re-instate. They would have to provide statistics showing the number of accidents prior to the camera's installation and the number after. If the figure had dropped then the camera could be re-instated. If they had not the authority would be fined.
2) New Speed Camera Sites - once again the authority would have to apply providing current stats on accidens in the new location and giving estimates of the percentage reduction. Temporary approval would be given if reduction estimates were at least 50% but reviewed after 12 months. If the figures were less than the estimates then the cameras would have to be removed and the authority fined.
3) ALL revenue raised from Speed Cameras would go into the Road Transport Budget and NOT into the local police force's coffers.
4) 50% grants would be available to introduce NEW Park and Ride Schemes but only if they were in conjunction with restrictive parking in Town Centres and operated a minimum of six days per week.
5) Motorway Speed Limit to be raised to 90 MPH
6) Abolish Cycle Lanes
7) Reduce Road Fund Tax to TWENTY POUNDS per annum
8) Increase Fuel Duty by TEN PENCE per litre
9) Introduce more stringent fines for railway operators when their trains run late coupled to mandatory refunds to their passengers.
10) Stop all expansion of Heathrow
11) Provide grants to regional airports for expansion
12) Abolish Road Fund Tax Excemptions for Pre-1972 Vehicles - see 7

[djellison]

1) Give huge, heavy fines for under-performing public transport schemes
2) Use revenue from those fines to subsidise renewable fuel vehicles to reduces costs ( electric, fuel cell )
3) Force vehicles of 7 tonnes into the inside lane of motorways ONLY.
4) Give tax breaks for firms willing to pay for staff's transport costs if they use public transport
5) Instigate a Public Transport 'pass' - which allows transport on all buses and trains - for perhaps something like £100-150 per year - public transport should be run not -for-profit - and any profits should subsidise this scheme
6) More private industry toll roads - the M6 toll road is a joy to use (mainly because you will never see an HGV On it ) - tax breaks for firms willing to do this in congested areas. If you ban HGV's from them - they can be dual carrageways.
7) Immediate life long ban for drink driving - without any appeal. Half the current alchol blood level.
8) Retaking of driving test (including fees) for anyone found guilty of driving without due care and attention
9) Fines for inconsiderate driving. Middle lane hogs, 24mph down a 60mph straight open country road, 45mph on a motorway, undertaking, driving too close. All things that are un-necessary, and in many cases dangerous.
10) All new cars to include mobile-phone signal blocker than turns on when the engine is running.
11) Smoking banned in ALL motor vehicles. It's an order of magnitude more dangerous than using a mobile and is a disgusting habbit for those unfortunate enough to be downstream of people
12) ENORMOUS fines for those litering out of cars - and at least a full weekend of street cleaning for repeat offenders.
13) Those who cause death by dangerous driving are banned for life - and must serve at least one weekend riding with emergency service personnel to see the pain and suffering they cause
14) Those driving without insurance are banned for life, car is destroyed and they must watch it being destroyed.
15) Anyone found guilty of stealing a car must repay to the victim the full value of a new replacement over a 5 year period. If the vehicle is recovered - they must give it a full vallet - with the owner present. If the owner isnt happy - the thief must keep cleaning it until he is. During this process, the owner is allow to keep anything he chooses from the thief's home - be it a Plasma TV - stereo - bike - dvd recorder. If the thief refuses to comply - the victim may keep any one item he chooses from the thiefs house.
16) Anyone found playing music above a certain volume whilst on the highway will have their stereo confiscated and an order issued that bans them from driving in a vehicle which has a stereo. Recommended - 12 hrs of mandatory listening to Faure's Requiem as aversion therapy.
17) Anyone applying makeup whilst driving will have ALL makeup confiscated and will be banned from wearing ANY makeup for a period of 12 weeks.
18) Anyone driving an SUV as a lone occupant is to be shot
19) Anyone using a car to make a school run for <2 miles is fined £5 per day. Money invested in local transport for school children
20) Speed limits raised to 85 on motorways
21) However, all speedlimits and distance-signs converted to KM's. This is the 21st century for goodness sake, we teach our Children KM's in schools - let them use them on the roads.
22) Anyone wearing a tracksuit whilst driving - banned for 6 months
23) Motorway service stations sued for monopolistic business practices. Fuel prices must be no more than local average on A and B roads. Any found selling a sandwich for >£2 - the manager must personally offer a free car cleaning service in the car park. He must wear a suit whilst doing this.
24) ANY AND ALL modifications to vehicles intended to improve performance NOT performes by a garage authorised by the orig. manufacturer are confiscated and crushed - owner present at crushing - no compensation fr this. Modifications include and are not limited to:
-Blue lights on windscreen washer fluid jets
-Front air dams
-Rear wings
-under car lighting
-blacked out windows
-side skirts
-air intakes

25) Anyone using ANYTHING other than the DEFAULT font for registration plates - must be force to spend one weekend making proper numberplates. Same applies for those using black screws or other fixings to make C's look like O's - D's look like B's or any other trickery.

26) Speed limits wihtin 200 metres of schools to 20 mph. Speed cameras fited to check this. Any and all people caught speeding between 8 and 9 am, and 3 and 4pm to be fined £100 and forced to visit an accident and emergency unit for a minimum of 5 working shifts as an observer.

OK - some of these are stupid, I know, most are in jest - HOWEVER - people should be SHOWN, in a graphic and real way - the potential or actual harm they can cause by driving dangerously or stupidly. Furthermore, repercussions for dangerous driving should be relevant, graphic and personal. You kill a person with your car - we kill your car. You drive whilst drink - we smash your car. You drive whilst using a mobile phone - we make you drive OVER the phone to break it.

imho - anyone who objects to speed cameras just wants to speed without being caught. There is no other reason. Police have no cash as it is - let them take the money. They're not taxing motorists doing that - they're fining law breakers. There is a difference

[Wuzak]

Yes, but it doesn't take much to stray over a speed limit accidently. In Victoria the margin for error is 3km/h over the limit, whereas Australian Design Rules allow a 10% error on the speedo reading..........

A far more effective deterrent to speeding is by making it obvious that a person will be caught if they are speeding - making the camera location obvious (so many here are hidden.......), or having actual police patrolling the roads, in marked cars.

The introduction of speed cameras here in Tassie has changed the way people drive, especially when they installed fixed cameras on our busiest road - the Tasman Bridge. Since then, IMO, drivers are more like zombies when driving this particular road, driving somewhat below the speed limit, but not being particularly safer because of it!

Another couple of interesting things happened when the speed cameras were introduced here - they changed the demerit points from 9 to 12 - 33% more points to lose. And they changed a number of speed limits - the majority of which were increased by 10km/h or more. Surely an indication of the arbitrary nature of many of the speed limits.

I just happen to think the roads would be safer if drivers would concentrate on the road and driving - rather than concentrating on the speedo!

[BRG]

I can only speak for the UK, but my plan would be:-

a) Amend Road Traffic Act (the basic legislation covering all road matters) to allow the closure of roads for rallies, racing etc. Nearly every other country in the world allows this, and even in the UK it is allowed in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain except by special legislation.

b) Abolish the Road Fund Tax and raise all taxes necessary by increasing fuel tax. The more you use the roads, the more you pay – which seems equitable to me.

c) Change British licence plates to a system that allows anyone to have any unique combination of letter and numbers. Licence plates to be issued annually (with different colours for the new year), only issues against proof of ownership, insurance and roadworthiness. This is all common in the USA and other countries, I believe, and seems to work. This would reduce the number of unregistered, uninsured cars on the road. Defaulters to have cars impounded.

d) Ban speed humps of all sorts except outside schools or hospitals.

e) Resign to spend more time with family, amidst universal public approbation!

[Wuzak]

As for what I would do if I were Transport Minister........

1) Upgrade rail facilities. Build or refurbish the freight rail system throughout the country, with the aim of cutting the numbers of long distance freight trucks on our roads. Build a network of highspeed commuter trains for travelling between major mainland cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide), as an alternative to airline travel. Commuter trains and freight trains to be on separate rail networks where possible.

2) Upgrade major highways and arterial roads.

3) Intorduce driver training to high school (12-16 yo, approx) as a compulsory course. Possibly staged through each year, with a lot of theory, and basic practical. Introduce road safety to both primary and secondary schools - motorists aren't the only people affected by and responsible for road safety. How many times have you seen kids (and others) do crazy things on roads with their bikes/scooters/skateboards/feet that have put their own lives at risk, as well as the lives of others?

4) Institute a more rigourous driver training system. Drivers should be required to do a minimum number of hours of basic training before being allowed onto the road for further instruction. There could be a few stages from there to having a provisional licence, each stage having practical and theory tests. The theory tests should be much harder than they are at the moment.

5) Driver's licences have different categories now, but I would extend that. Drivers would need licence extensions for driving vehicles over 2000kg in weight, driving vehicles with restricted vision (light vans), towing (possible a couple of different categories based on size on weight of the towed object), driving vehicles that are over size (excessively wide or long - such has Hummers). And one for driving vehicles over certain performance criteria (power to weight, top speed, etc).

6) Licence review to occur periodically (every 5 years, say). This would require short courses and retesting.

7) Drivers to have periodic health certificates. As a sufferer of a chronic condition I am required to have a doctor's certificate every two years. It is highly likely that there are many people driving who suffer from a similar condition, or will do so in the future, that do not know that they currently have that condition, or have not declared it to the relevent authorities.

8) Roadworthiness tests to become standard across all states, and required annually.

That's all I can think of now...

[McGuire]

The first thing I would do is eliminate the position and fire myself. Every day I thank the Lord the USA has no Minister of transport.

[JwS]

USA
1 A gas tax that would pay for road maintainence and public transport ONLY!
2 A national licensing system with more comprehensive requirements and mandatory retesting every few years
3 Scientific studies of high traffic areas to find ways of improving traffic flow on existing roads instead of building new ones
4 Scientific studies of traffic lights and intersections to minimize cars sitting idle at lights wasting gas.
5 Higher speed limits, maybe a graduated lisence??
6 All new road construction must include bicycle/pedestrian lanes (separate from road)
7 Rest stops with decent toilets
JwS

[Ice T]

I wrote these a while ago on a different bulletin board, for the UK:

Licence/registration plates move with the driver, not the car. Get rid of the age-related plate, it's pointless and encourages snobbery.
Require a more stringent driving test before a person is allowed to drive a SUV. They are a lot bigger and less manoeuvrable than normal cars and demand more skill to drive.
Fiddling with the font/spacing/lettering on a licence plate to be punished by a large fine.
Compulsory re-tests every ten years for everyone.
People who take more than, say, five attempts to pass their test are prohibited from taking another.
No-one older than 75 allowed to drive on the road. My grandfather's 76 and he's a lunatic (drives wrong way around roundabouts, etc).
Eliminate car tax discs, shifting all tax onto the fuel. This means that people who only drive a few miles a year don't get clobbered for £100+ for a tax disc.
Compulsory carrying of insurance details and driving licence.
Anyone caught driving without insurance gets a 10 year ban.
Lifetime bans for all drink drivers.
Compulsory 10 year minimum for anyone who kills someone whilst driving.
Variable fines for speeding. Keep the 10% + 2 allowance.
Speed limiters on all cars. Big fines for anyone caught without one or fiddling with it.
Black boxes on all cars, recording accident data, etc (like aeroplanes).
No drinking and driving allowed at all. Even if you have one drop of alcohol, you're not allowed on the road.
Instant six month bans for tailgaters and other inconsiderate road manners.
Five year ban for using mobile phones on the move. You may think you can talk and drive, but you can't.
Compulsory driver education classes for those causing accidents. If you cause more than three accidents in five years, you get a six month ban.
Instigate reform of the EU to do away with the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy - subsides for farmers). No-one else gets so much money. Plough the money into a proper integrated transport system, combining normal trains, trams, buses and light rapid transport systems like the London Underground and the Tyneside Metro. Completely rebuild the entire rail system for high-speed maglev trains. Have it owned by the Government but bring in proven private sector management to run it. Require it to be run at a profit.
Reform the police to do anyway with unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy and shift more cops onto the roads.
Abolish tolls on bridges.
Nationalise the Northern Relief Road and get rid of the tolls.
Free bus travel for under 18s and over 60s, as well as people with young kids and anyone in rural areas.
Big tax breaks and other incentives for research into alternative fuels such as hydrogen and electric.
Ban tractors and anything else incapable of doing 40mph between the hours of 7.30am-9.30am and 4pm and 7pm.
More sensible deployment of so-called "safety cameras". Use them on known accident blackspots and on approaches to schools, hospitals and so on. Don't use them just to make money. All profit goes towards road improvement and driver education.
Extend driving test to cover motorway driving as well.
Extend congestion charging to all major cities. Residents, disabled and "clean" cars get a waived fee.
All government ministers must only have one car each and it must be an alternative fuel car.
Any car incapable of doing 20mpg or which doesn't meet strict environmental standards will be removed from the road and crushed.
Raise speed limit to 80mph on motorways in good weather. Lower it to 50mph in rainy weather.
Don't allow really dark tinted windows. There's no need for them. Mild tints are fine.
Ban all stupid huge exhausts, neons, spoilers, blue LEDs and other assorted ricer crap, as well as huge speakers and bass boxes. They're just annoying and cause too much disturbance.
Incentives and rebates for people who trade in their old bangers for new cars.
Incentives and rebates for people who buy alternative fuel cars.
Compulsory car maintenance lessons for new drivers. Show them how to check the oil, the wiper fluid, change a tyre, etc, etc, etc.
Switch to the metric system, as used by the rest of Europe.
10m tall statue of me in central London. Pilgrimmage compulsory for all citizens, on pain of death.

[BRG]

Originally posted by McGuire
Every day I thank the Lord the USA has no Minister of transport.

And does the Lord ever reply to point out that the USA does have a Secretary of Transportation and a Department of Transportation?

[crono33]

between some of the things already listed i would also introduce:

- 3 different max speed limits related to type of car. cannot believe a crappy 20 years fiat 127 has the same speed limit of the latest model of ferrari. (applicable only on motorway in max speed areas.)

- an extra driving test to have access to the 2 higher speed bands.



i am not so sure about all the focus on drink and drive. i see a lot more dangerous driving sober idiots than drunk drivers. bad driving should be harshly prosecuted. surely drunk driving must be adressed.

another thing i have been thinking about is to grant a reward to people who can get road crime prosecuted using videotaping or such. i am thinking about those turbodiesel driving idiots (they seem to go only flat out) who on italian motorway arrive at 200kmh from behind flashing like crazy and without slowing down at all while another car is overtaking at legal speed.
these are extremeli dangerous people. most italian motorways have only 2 lanes, one of which is mainly used by lorries doing 90kmh, the other used by loons driving at 160kmh and more.

i would like to comment some of the non-UK related remarks from Ice T (sorry for the long post)


Require a more stringent driving test before a person is allowed to drive a SUV. They are a lot bigger and less manoeuvrable than normal cars and demand more skill to drive. - agree totally. i would ban SUV altogheter from cities
Compulsory re-tests every ten years for everyone. - agree totally. compare with airplane pilots for example.
Eliminate car tax discs, shifting all tax onto the fuel. This means that people who only drive a few miles a year don't get clobbered for £100+ for a tax disc. - totally agree. i suspect there is already a large tax on fuel :-)
Lifetime bans for all drink drivers. very harsh and unnecessary...any drink drivers?
Compulsory 10 year minimum for anyone who kills someone whilst driving. - unapplicable i am afraid
Variable fines for speeding. Keep the 10% + 2 allowance. - speed limits should be reasonable. they are artificially too low and usually some speeding is allowed to compensate for it...
Speed limiters on all cars. Big fines for anyone caught without one or fiddling with it. - unreasonable and unapplicable. speed limits vary from country to country
Black boxes on all cars, recording accident data, etc (like aeroplanes). useless and too expensive-
No drinking and driving allowed at all. Even if you have one drop of alcohol, you're not allowed on the road. - inapplicable. how about chocolate with liquour?
Instant six month bans for tailgaters and other inconsiderate road manners. - totally agree
Five year ban for using mobile phones on the move. You may think you can talk and drive, but you can't. - five year ban sounds harsh. maybe a big fine?
Compulsory driver education classes for those causing accidents. If you cause more than three accidents in five years, you get a six month ban. - i would apply a longer ban
Abolish tolls on bridges. - i would abolish tolls on motorway too. create queues and waiting.
Ban tractors and anything else incapable of doing 40mph between the hours of 7.30am-9.30am and 4pm and 7pm. - agree
More sensible deployment of so-called "safety cameras". Use them on known accident blackspots and on approaches to schools, hospitals and so on. Don't use them just to make money. All profit goes towards road improvement and driver education. - agree
Extend driving test to cover motorway driving as well. TOTALLY AGREE....
Any car incapable of doing 20mpg or which doesn't meet strict environmental standards will be removed from the road and crushed. - DISAGREE..... that would mean crushing my mint delta integrale..... i''d rather give up a kidney...
Raise speed limit to 80mph on motorways in good weather. Lower it to 50mph in rainy weather. 50mph.... bit slow.. but a big yes to raising speed limits on hiway
Ban all stupid huge exhausts, neons, spoilers, blue LEDs and other assorted ricer crap, as well as huge speakers and bass boxes. They're just annoying and cause too much disturbance. - :-)
Incentives and rebates for people who buy alternative fuel cars. - what alternative fuels...
Compulsory car maintenance lessons for new drivers. Show them how to check the oil, the wiper fluid, change a tyre, etc, etc, etc. - yes yes yes.
Switch to the metric system, as used by the rest of Europe. - havent you already? :-)

and YES, lorries only on the slow lane.

gmr

[McGuire]

Originally posted by BRG
And does the Lord ever reply to point out that the USA does have a Secretary of Transportation and a Department of Transportation?

Sure, but in the USA neither the department nor its chief officer have the power to change national policy by fiat as presumed here. For me, the first thing that comes to mind in extending such authority to the Secretary of Transportation is that every other cabinet level officer will immediately demand it too, from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Underwear. No, thanks.

I don't mean to be the contrary indian as usual, but the question was not "How would you change our transportation system with a magic wand?" but what would one do as Transport Minister. I tried to reply honestly, as I appreciate the limits of political power and authority in our system. For example, I think a national driver's license/competency standard is an idea of great merit. However, it would mean eliminating or rendering redundant fifty existing state license bureaus, along with their officers, employees, individual regulations and practices, and revenue streams. As the USA's first Minister of Transport, it would not be my goal to be the first to be dragged from my office and lynched. And so it goes for all the suggestions posted here, worthy as they are. I don't want the job, nor do I think any other one person should have that authority either.

[VAR1016]

England

I am very alarmed at those of my countrymen who have posted here - dear God! aren't there enough bloody laws in this country already?

Road tax? You'd never get the idea past the treasury; as thngs are we have the highest fuel tax in the world and the robbers still charge us road tax and of course VAT...

Meanwhile unscrupulous local authorities staffed it seems by car-hating lefties charge outrageous sums for the privilege of parking in their rotten boroughs. They fix the traffic lights to ensure minimum throughflow of traffic - openly admitted, by the way. They institute 24-hour bus lanes - why? And what buses?

If I were Minister of Transport, I'd like to think that I was part of a party that had won an election of the basis of abolishing 1.2 old laws for every new one introduced (by this I mean all law not just transport legislation).

Yes fewer speed cameras: as far as so-called road safety is concerned then it is better that laws (if they be just) be enforced rather than a small percentage of miscreants punished. So if you want people to drive within a given limit, or better still safely (not necessarily the same thing) then put police on the roads.

I would like to see some flexibilty applied in general and in particular, I should like to see far more attention paid to observance of traffic lights.

Recently I was waiting at a set of lights on a very busy main road. After my my light changed to green, two cars went through quite quickly and proceeded to jump the next red light which is about thirty to forty yards away (sod the metric system ); these were followed by a motor-coach whose driver decided not to jump the second set and screeched to a halt. This meant that the SECOND motor-coach that had roared through the first red light and which was carrying a cargo of old-aged pensioners drove into the back of the first one with a loud bang.

Nice one; I was just able eventually to drive past...

PdeRL

[marcus123]

Ban SUVs from City Centres, fast lane of motorways and 1 mile radius of schools.

Tax breaks for companies who allow their staff to work from home 1 day a week.

Car insurance should be pay as you go.

Make buses stop at bus stops instead of the middle of the road.

Sack the top gear team ( except the posh one) and replace them with the ones from 5th gear.

[BRG]

Originally posted by McGuire
Sure, but in the USA neither the department nor its chief officer have the power to change national policy by fiat as presumed here.

Nor in my country, or most others either. It is presupposed that the Minister will have to put his new laws or through the legislature in some way. We weren't (or I wasn't anyway!) proposing some sort of transportational dictatorship. But in most countries, the government has a majority in the legislature and can usually therefore proceed with its programme. I realise that consitutionally the US is a bit different with a clear split between the executive and the legislative branches (see, I've been watching 'The West Wing'!), but that doesn't seem to stop most Presidents and their cabinets putting their programme into law.

But kudos to you for not wanting the job in the first place - even if that makes you a prime candidate for the job under the axiom that you should never give power to anyone who actually wants it...

[dosco]

Originally posted by BRG
Nor in my country, or most others either. It is presupposed that the Minister will have to put his new laws or through the legislature in some way. We weren't (or I wasn't anyway!) proposing some sort of transportational dictatorship. But in most countries, the government has a majority in the legislature and can usually therefore proceed with its programme. I realise that consitutionally the US is a bit different with a clear split between the executive and the legislative branches (see, I've been watching 'The West Wing'!), but that doesn't seem to stop most Presidents and their cabinets putting their programme into law.

Well, also bear in mind that in the US we have, ahem, "Lobbying Groups" which basically amount to legalized bribery and purchase of influence. (not sure if there is some "parallel" in European governments)

With this in mind, the "political calculus" changes in that some proposed legislation may be "argued down" by lobbying efforts - so something as meritorious as a "national driver's license standard" (or "national speed limit") could potentially be shot down as a result of lobbying efforts.

Or conversely, a politician may not even sponsor legislation with the fear that some lobbying group will crush him under the weight of outraged opponents (or bad PR).

But kudos to you for not wanting the job in the first place - even if that makes you a prime candidate for the job under the axiom that you should never give power to anyone who actually wants it...

True, this. LOL.

[marcus123]

Being a bit more serious, in this country ( UK ) I beleive that around 1500 people a year die on the roads, and that not including long term environment and health problems. Thats 1500 avoidable deaths. If there were that many due to terrorism, cjd or shootings, there would most likely be a bit of an outcry. I'd probably make reducing that number more of a priority than anything else.

[marcus123]

we have lobbying groups here as well, but i dont think that have as much influence as in the US. I suspect they have a lot more influence than is realised. However, the newspapers, namely the tabloids, seem to be the most powerful lobbying force in this country. This government seem to take notice over the furore over las vegas casionos and 24 hour drinking that the papers kicked up. An americanised australian media mogul probably wields as much power over here as anyone else (except those in the white house ).

[Scoots]

USA:

No speed limit other than "drive at a safe speed for the conditions" on highways.

Have the police focus on manners and attentiveness rather than speed:
- Don't use your turn signal? Ticket.
- Don't go faster than the cars on the right? Ticket.
- Don't merge at the speed of the traffic? Ticket.
- Cut someone off? Ticket.
- Don't allow someone to merge in front of you by intentionally closing the gap when they signal? Ticket.
- Cause someone to slam on their brakes by your inattentiveness? Ticket.
Accidents are caused most by inattentive drivers, let's get better drivers!

Have 1 formulation of gasoline for the whole country, not different forumlas state to state.

Mandate low sulphur gas/deisel so the more efficient cats can be used.

Do away with most double yellow lines (no passing allowed) on 2 lane back country roads.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Scoots
USA:

No speed limit other than "drive at a safe speed for the conditions" on highways.

Have the police focus on manners and attentiveness rather than speed:
- Don't use your turn signal? Ticket.
- Don't go faster than the cars on the right? Ticket.
- Don't merge at the speed of the traffic? Ticket.
- Cut someone off? Ticket.
- Don't allow someone to merge in front of you by intentionally closing the gap when they signal? Ticket.
- Cause someone to slam on their brakes by your inattentiveness? Ticket.
Accidents are caused most by inattentive drivers, let's get better drivers!

Have 1 formulation of gasoline for the whole country, not different forumlas state to state.

Mandate low sulphur gas/deisel so the more efficient cats can be used.

Do away with most double yellow lines (no passing allowed) on 2 lane back country roads.

Scoots:

[Jack Rabbit]

Originally posted by djellison

24) ANY AND ALL modifications to vehicles intended to improve performance NOT performes by a garage authorised by the orig. manufacturer are confiscated and crushed - owner present at crushing - no compensation fr this. Modifications include and are not limited to:
-Blue lights on windscreen washer fluid jets
-Front air dams
-Rear wings
-under car lighting
-blacked out windows
-side skirts
-air intakes

I'd also add this new things people put over their exhaust pipe that make a very loud whistle. Their quite popular in Oakland, CA right now and are probably making their way to where you live right now. How annoying is that.

[Todd]

I'd build roads to match the scale of modern traffic. Index traffic density to 1965, and then build lanes and alternate highways to reduce traffic density to those levels. End subsidies of mass transit. Let people know the actual cost of a passenger mile by rail, and let the market determine if it is a valuable use of real estate and tax dollars.

From a traffic safety standpoint, I would attempt to rationalize our traffic law enforcement to concentrate on behaviors which cause accidents. Currently, police seem to focus on speeding and acts of aggression. I've seen them look the other way when dealing with acts of incompetence. A method for making that change must be found. Building roads sufficient for traffic demands would go a long way to reducing aggressive driving, as people would be able to travel without the frayed nerves and frustrations of gridlock. I would also ban the use of any cell phone that an officer can tell you are using from outside the car. As for automotive design safety standards, I would ban the use of menu driven systems. Any function that can't be controlled with a single control input creates an unnecessary distraction for an incompetent driving public.

That brings me to driver training. All sorts of studies have been done by the anti-car people with the intention of showing that improved driver training doesn't reduce accidents, but we still need something when the end result of their programs is people who don't drive appropriately for conditions and who think that driving can be combined with reading, talking on the phone, and personal grooming. In addition to improving new driver training, I would devise a curriculum of specialized study for people falling afoul of my newly rationalized traffic enforcers. Instead of one boring class fits all, I would make sure people understood why they had been charged, and why the charges are needed. This isn't possible with our current system of arbitrary fines where the underlying reason is that the law says the law can make you pay them X dollars for Y violation of an arbitrary law. With rational traffic laws, violators can be shown the folly of their action, not just gradually penalized into compliance.

[Peter Perfect]

From the previous posts I'm pretty sure I'm going to be the odd one out here, but I'll stake my claim to individuality...

More speed cameras.

There. I've said it.
I don't understand the mentality that says that "it's ok for me to speed, because I'm a good driver and I'm in control". If they're such good drivers they wouldn't speed and get caught by speed cameras.

Reduce new road building.

More new roads just breed more traffic and then you're back to square one. Think about the problem and try to reduce traffic instead of automatically increasing the width of the road. Instead...

Re-nationalisation of the railways.

Much greater investment in public transport, especially infrastructure. Take control and stop funding the shareholders of the private rail companies with huge subsidies. Work out a proper integrated transport policy.

Driving licenses only last 10 years.

Much greater training of drivers. Bad habits and attitudes can take hold, they need to be caught before they develop into accidents.

[ViMaMo]

I'm from India and majority of the roads suck. Ah, actually Detroit managed to bring back memories of my local roads.

The strange fact is roads laid 20-25 years ago have managed to survive, infact they have the least problems. Its very corrupt now.

I would contract the building of roads to private parties. Keep a strict vigil on the quality of roads.

Build better highways, demand toll.

Widen the roads.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Peter Perfect
From the previous posts I'm pretty sure I'm going to be the odd one out here, but I'll stake my claim to individuality...

More speed cameras.

There. I've said it.
I don't understand the mentality that says that "it's ok for me to speed, because I'm a good driver and I'm in control". If they're such good drivers they wouldn't speed and get caught by speed cameras.

What exactly is speeding? If by "speeding" you mean the breaking of an arbitrary limit regardless of circumstances then this is unjust - one of my principal objections to cameras; hitherto circumstances have always been taken into account in connexion with any alleged offence.

Re-nationalisation of the railways.

Much greater investment in public transport, especially infrastructure. Take control and stop funding the shareholders of the private rail companies with huge subsidies. Work out a proper integrated transport policy.
[/B]

Fine; but I for one have no desire whatever to ride on the trains (this is based on several disgusting experiences) and second I have no wish to pay a penny piece towards them; I absolutely disagree with nationalisation of any kind. There is already far too much state and extra-state power over us.


PdeRL

[swaction]

Sydney, Australia...

Make the goddam trains run on time!

[url="http://http:<a%20href="http://www.shityrail.info"%20target="_blank">www.shityrail.info</a>"]www.shityrail.info[/url]

[Darvin Hansen]

Ok, some interesting ideas, many of which I share.

The way I'm coming at the problem is that the end goal of transport is to move people and goods from point A to point B ideally

a) in zero time
b) with zero cost, but more to the point zero variable cost
c) with zero fatalities
d) with zero pollution
e) with zero stress and worry.

Now I know we don't live in a world with the Startrek transporter, but that's the general thing to shoot for. Obviously there needs to be a balance. It's not going to take place with zero of any of the above, there needs to be a compromise.

It also seems to me that we are rapidly moving towards a world where computing power is extremely cheap and powerful, and so is communications.

What I would like to do if possible would be something on the scale of what Eisenhower did to revolutionize transport in the US with the interstate highway system (or to be politically incorrect, do what Hitler did first with the creation of the autobahn). I'm not sure if that is yet possible or feasible, but perhaps after the initial huge cost it would gain whatever country could implement it perhaps a 10-20% boost to productivity.

Failing that, I would go with a plan of reducing fatalities by allocating money to fix blackspots long term first, and in the mean time lower speed limits in those areas, allow cameras only in those areas, combined with increases in speed everywhere else.

Another thing I would like to do is get traffic lights to send a signal directed to cars before they get there, indicating when they are actually going to turn red, so that an on-board computer in the car can spit out the speed that a person needs to travel at in order to make the light and so save gas on the way there.

Also to increase traffic light efficiency.

Those are the main thoughts I have had at present, but I would like to see my options at a larger, revolutionary system if at all possible, and what it would take. Thanks for the suggestions so far!

[Spunout]

I´m very happy none of you actually IS minister of transport.

I mean sure it´s nice if one can go 200 kph - except when the looney without any driving skills whatsoever smashes his daddys 3.5 ton SUV to your car, killing you and your family. I´d rather have speed limits for him and local race track for me in case I want to drive fast.

What´s the big deal about driving fast on straigth line anyway? It doesn´t require any skill (even though lots of folks believe going faster than others on the highway actually proves something) and isn´t overly exciting anyway. And the time you "save" by speeding is usually nonexistent.

Of course in a perfect world you would have different speed limits for different drivers, cars and conditions, but that´s a bit tricky to accomplish. Especially since we all think we are good drivers. Or is there anyone - I mean ANYONE - willing to step up and confess he/she is clearly below average when driving skills are concerned?

No? That´s what I thought, too

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by Darvin Hansen
Another thing I would like to do is get traffic lights to send a signal directed to cars before they get there, indicating when they are actually going to turn red, so that an on-board computer in the car can spit out the speed that a person needs to travel at in order to make the light and so save gas on the way there.

Traffic lights here already do that.......


They turn orange (amber) before they go red. The rule is that one must stop at an amber light unless it is not possible or safe to do so.

[Ben]

Interesting thread. Before responding I will point out that I am both a cyclist and a motorist and my ideas focus on the UK.

1. Ban cycle lanes. In there current form they are dangerous for cyclists, I do not use them.

2. Congestion charging in large urban centres like London is a good idea, provided that the public transport is good enough.

3. To facilitate (2.) expand public transport in urban areas. I am a fan of tram systems (just got back from Melbourne). A requirement for a minimum service late at night should be mandated.

4. Re-nationalise the railways, we are paying enough taxes to the private rail companies anyhow. I don't like the fact that some of that goes straight into shareholders pockets.

5. Raise road tax massively on large lorries and force companies to think environmentally, rather than about the bottom line when considering logistics. re-nationalising the railways would make rail freight easy to include in an integrated policy.

6. Finally and most importantly of all, building lots of roads does not reduce traffic. Road building budgets must be slashed to pay for better public transport.

Yes I am left wing :-)

Ben

[Jack Rabbit]

One other thing: I would do what they do in Norway, iirc. That is, I would index traffic fines to a person's income. A couple of years ago a weathy ceo of a telecommunications company was caught speeding in Norway, and his ticket--based on a %-tage of his income, was $500 000.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

In my absence the natives have become restless. I got back just in time.
All people should be able to carry firearms in their cars if they are Republicans. A loaded shotgun on a wrack in your 'pick 'em up' truck for instance and at least one revolver, like a Python, or something, should be placed on the seat next to you with a Super Black Hawk or any 44 magnum, placed in a built in holster in the dash. A single action is suggested in the spirit of fairness. You just don't want to be killing innocent people.
Anybody that hogs the fast lane should be rammed from behind at high speed and killed if the car has Kerry bumper stickers. Handgrenades should be lobbed into Volvos. No poor people should be allowed to drive cars and their breeding habits must be limited if not curtailed.. All people that don't support George Bush should be killed. Sorry Ben, you gotta go.
Oh yeah, drinking a beer and smoking a cigar while driving is not a crime.

Originally posted by Ben
Yes I am left wing :-)

Ben [/B]

[Richard Jenkins]

1) Make public transport clean, effective, efficient & punctual, cheap & generally attractive. It isn't difficult, most other countries can do it.
2) Establish more cycle routes, but widen them to allow motorcycle routes as well, meaning less tragedy on the roads, particualry in urbanised areas
3) Motorway speed limit up to 80mph from 70mph
4) All cars with bull-bumpers etc. banned from school roads during start & end of school
5) More Park & Ride schemes
6) Lorries to be banned from using routes as a "short-cut". Heavy fines/disqualifaction
7) Driving examiners who pass ladies who can't park simply as they wear a short skirt then fail a male as it's their "quoata" even if it was a flawless test to be stripped of their examination licence.
8) Hit & Run, drug & drink drivers who kill to have life sentences. A life is a life.
9) Strip failing bus/trains services of their licences & invoke heavy fines - this means you, Richard Branson...
10) Tougher sentences on those who kill in accidents. (where they have been reckless but not drunk etc.)
11) Take all cars away from John Prescott to see how he likes public transport.....
12) Establish more motorways in places that don't have them - I mean two hours to get from Luton to Norwich is ridiclous, for example. Wales could do with more as well, but without runing the scenery, so that's a tricky one.
That will do for now

[EVO2]

Several anti-SUV comments but why are you jumping on this band wagon ?

I have an SUV for a genuine purpose - I need to tow a 3.5 ton trailer and we go skiing to the Alps in winter.

Up to recently I had children at school and sometimes, on my way to a business meeting I would need to drop them off.

Sometimes I have to go into a city centre on business and have to take kit with me.

What am I supposed to do ?

By the way, the petrol version of the vehicle was bought so that it could be converted to LPG after it had covered it's first 1000 miles, it has no bull bar and it has handling qualities better than a lot of cars.

You cannot legislate to ban SUVs without severely effecting quite a few people like me.

Instead go after the thousands of buses and trucks that belch out pollutants every day and the manufacturers of these same vehicles who pay no regard at all to passenger, pedestrian and car driver's safety.

First thing to do is bring back the trolley bus.

[Ice T]

Originally posted by EVO2
Several anti-SUV comments but why are you jumping on this band wagon ?

I have an SUV for a genuine purpose - I need to tow a 3.5 ton trailer and we go skiing to the Alps in winter.

Up to recently I had children at school and sometimes, on my way to a business meeting I would need to drop them off.

Sometimes I have to go into a city centre on business and have to take kit with me.

What am I supposed to do ?

You have a legitimate need for a SUV (well some of the time). You should - if you pass the more stringent driving test - still be permitted to drive the thing. Most people don't need them - moms taking their single child to playgroup, for example.

I read an interesting article in a newspaper (probably one of my favoured pinko liberal pro-environment ones) that proposed digging a load of tunnels below London and moving all the car traffic underground, thereby freeing up the streets for pedestrians, improving the air quality and so on.

When you see all the traffic jams in places like L.A. or the early-morning M6 here in the UK, it's fairly obvious something needs to be done - better, cheaper, more efficient public transport, more roads or tax people off the road. If the public transport system here was any good (and it isn't) I would use it regularly. As it is, they closed the local station down in the 1960s, the buses take ages to get anywhere and train times are fairly inconvenient. Politicans keep ranting on at people to get on public transport but it broadly sucks, so it's not surprising that they don't bother.

Oh, and continuing the cheap political jibes started by Mr Glover, I also prospose to ban anyone with an IQ of less than 100 from driving. That should exclude most of the people he wants to give the rights to carry guns when driving, not to mention most Bush supporters, who are probably at home anyway, procreating with their sisters.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Wuzak


Traffic lights here already do that.......


They turn orange (amber) before they go red. The rule is that one must stop at an amber light unless it is not possible or safe to do so.

Yes but no-one takes any notice - see my earlier post

PdeRL

[EVO2]

Originally posted by Ice T


You have a legitimate need for a SUV (well some of the time). You should - if you pass the more stringent driving test - still be permitted to drive the thing. Most people don't need them - moms taking their single child to playgroup, for example.

Well, we are making progress here :

you agree that I should be allowed to drive my SUV in town and to drop off kids at school when I am on my way to a work commitment.

So just how do you propose to police others who, under your rules, would not be allowed to ?


And why on earth do I need a different licence to drive my SUV when I can legitimately drive a 7.5 ton truck on my car licence ( which I have had for 36 years with nothing more than a few speeding tickets ? )

My SUV is nothing like as long as many cars and is less wide and less heavy than quite a few.

It also has better brakes than many cars, including at least two of my classic cars.

It handles better than almost any 5 year old car and has traction control, ABS and Stability control
( which also automatically extends to link to the trailer )

It will do less harm to pedestrians than any commercial vehicle ( including the afore mentioned 7.5 ton truck of which there are many '000s more on the road than there are SUVs : especially delivering in city centres.



So tell me, Mr Minister of Transport, on exactly what grounds are you going to insist I have a special licence :

Will all Rolls Royce owners have to have one ( They all have more Weight and length ) ?
Will all Classic car owners have to have one ( Most have worse brakes, handling, passenger & Pedestrian Safety )
Will all light truck and Ford Transit drivers have to have one : ( Most of the above and more height )


You have simply no answers to any of these points.

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by EVO2


Well, we are making progress here :

you agree that I should be allowed to drive my SUV in town and to drop off kids at school when I am on my way to a work commitment.

So just how do you propose to police others who, under your rules, would not be allowed to ?


And why on earth do I need a different licence to drive my SUV when I can legitimately drive a 7.5 ton truck on my car licence ( which I have had for 36 years with nothing more than a few speeding tickets ? )

My SUV is nothing like as long as many cars and is less wide and less heavy than quite a few.

It also has better brakes than many cars, including at least two of my classic cars.

It handles better than almost any 5 year old car and has traction control, ABS and Stability control
( which also automatically extends to link to the trailer )

It will do less harm to pedestrians than any commercial vehicle ( including the afore mentioned 7.5 ton truck of which there are many '000s more on the road than there are SUVs : especially delivering in city centres.



So tell me, Mr Minister of Transport, on exactly what grounds are you going to insist I have a special licence :

Will all Rolls Royce owners have to have one ( They all have more Weight and length ) ?
Will all Classic car owners have to have one ( Most have worse brakes, handling, passenger & Pedestrian Safety )
Will all light truck and Ford Transit drivers have to have one : ( Most of the above and more height )


You have simply no answers to any of these points.

I propsed that vehicles which are over certain height, width and weight limits would require the drivers to have additional training. That includes Maybachs and Rollers, as well as SUVs.

Most definitely drivers of light trucks would have to have additional training.

[bob sacramento]

Up to recently I had children at school and sometimes, on my way to a business meeting I would need to drop them off.

Forgive me if I am missing something here, why do you need an SUV to drop your kids off ? I can get 5 fully grown adults in my wifes 1.0 litre corsa.

[EVO2]

Originally posted by Wuzak


I proposed that vehicles which are over certain height, width and weight limits would require the drivers to have additional training. That includes Maybachs and Rollers, as well as SUVs.

Most definitely drivers of light trucks would have to have additional training.

Legislation is almost always introduced to answer a specific problem (or under our present government , specific prejudice). You, together with the whole of the anti-SUV lobby is clearly acting on prejudice.


What possible, quantifiable justification do you have for your proposed additional driver training rule ?

As far as I know there are no statistics to show that drivers of the vehicles you are picking on are any more dangerous on the road.


Right, then, Mr Transport Minister, let's so get down to business, what height, width and weight limits are you proposing ?

Just for a change, we could start by looking at some facts : I know it's a novel idea but humour me a little :


Why don't we use that awfully dangerous BMW X5 as our benchmark SUV : It's SO Politically Incorrect


Lets see if you could use height to legislate SUVs off the school run :


A Ford Galaxie ( Surely very acceptable for the school run and the preferred choice of Our Esteemed Great Leader) is, er, taller than an X5.


If you go on width to get at the SUVs you will get "safe" cuddly cars as well.
A FIAT Multipla, a cuddly car for the school run and a favourite with the chattering classes, it's Green and pretty PC, but it's the same width as an X5. No luck there then.


Interestingly the BMW is also a safer car for our little darlings than either of the people carriers. ( it achieves 4 NCAP stars rather than 3 for both of the people carriers)


While it is true that an X5 is heavier than either of our people carriers, most of the difference disappears if you load, say the Galaxie, with the maximum number of obese adults ( 7 ) and the BMW with it's maximum of 5. A maximum weight might just take out the X5, then.


But if you were looking for a weight limit to get all of the popular SUVs off the school run, you will have to think again :

The very popular five door RAV 4 is a massive 400kg lighter than the Galaxie and 20kg lighter than the Multipla.


So, Transport Minister, just explain to me EXACTLY how are you going to use maximum Height, Width and weight limits to pick on SUV owners ?

You are going to have to create a black list of individual vehicles which will seriously piss off the manufacturers and give you legal problems galore. I'll start retraining as a barrister now.....


But I haven't finished with your arguments yet :


The Anti-SUV argument brings out left wing prejudice just like fox hunting : Your proposal to make life difficult for Rolls and Maybach owners is a clear example :

I don't own a Roller but I know a few people that own classic Sliver Clouds and one or two older Phantoms :

Do drivers of any particular Rolls Royce model have a significantly higher rate of accidents than, say, Renault Clio drivers ?

Do Maybach drivers wipe out more pedestrians than S Klasse drivers ?
( Perhaps you have just got it in for Simon Cowell because he's rich and was quick in the reasonably priced car on Top Gear's track).

If you are going on size and vehicle weight you are also going to have to retest a large number of working class 1950's American Car enthusiasts. They will certainly not be happy.

But I could probably support you on white van drivers, though.
( That is, White Van drivers, not white Van Drivers ) This is easily accomplished by requiring a higher test standard for all commercial vehicle drivers.

But it's all academic, your proposal will never get through the house because some wealthy Roll-Owning Barrister will request a judicial review. He would win because your rule is arbitary.

[EVO2]

Originally posted by bob sacramento


Forgive me if I am missing something here, why do you need an SUV to drop your kids off ? I can get 5 fully grown adults in my wifes 1.0 litre corsa.

Problem is Bob, I do need the SUV and like many other people I don't have two four seater modern cars.

[Darvin Hansen]

Originally posted by Wuzak


Traffic lights here already do that.......


They turn orange (amber) before they go red. The rule is that one must stop at an amber light unless it is not possible or safe to do so.

That's not what I meant.

Say you are 500m away from a stop sign. Say there is a curve in the road where you can't actually see the lights. You have a radio transmitter giving such details as when the light is going to turn green, when it will turn amber aimed at all cars on the stretch of road.

Cars equipped with the necessary devices could, (probably with a gps device, maybe without) compute a speed range in which to maintain your car in order to hit the green light or to make the red light.

Say in order to make the green light, the display spits out 56km/h. In order to make the light while it is still green, it computes the necessary speed as 32km/h. This is all in real time. (You could have a matrix for left, straight and right turn signals and necessary speeds as well.)

Imagine that you are currently travelling at 60km/h. If you didn't have the information, you might speed at 60 until just before the light, when you slam on the brakes (notice how many people do this). You have then effectively wasted quite a bit of energy that was completely unecessary.

If you had the information, you would allow your car to coast until it reached the required speed and then cruise at the same speed.

(Note the speed output would be slightly slower than necessary before the green light, so people didn't speed right up until a changing red light and it didn't actually change, and so that they actually observe the lights.)

It would also help the reverse situation. Imagine you are that same 500m away, but the light is green. Say you are going 40kph, but if you were to be going at least 47kph you would make the light in time. So you speed up and thus avoid having to brake and waste 5 minutes idling your car.

Such a system would enable people to bridge the gap between city mpg and highway mpg without everyone having regenerative braking, and also save brake pads.

Yes, I am living in Victoria now, I think I understand how traffic lights work...

[Darvin Hansen]

EVO2,

I have to say that I concur with a lot of your arguments... the solutions the anti-SUV folks propose are not at all politically feasible.

However, it is also easy to see that SUV's incur large negative externalities. (You will need to scroll down to see the relevant graph.) As an ex-cop acquaintance of mine once said with regard to heavy vehicles (who had two 4*4 vehicles), paraphrasing: "I used to see loads of accidents as a cop. Hardly ever see a four wheel drive fatality. Crumple zones are great. If you hit a small car with your 4*4, you use their crumple zones!"

If you want any more evidence, go play Grand Theft Auto (3, Vice City, or San Andreas). You should be able to pick it up for $10 or so. It's got an excellent physics engine. Hijack a bus, a large SUV, a semi trailer. Go run into some small cars and motorcycles. They go flying, you hardly slow down. Or you can do the math yourself with conservation of momentum, m1v1 = m2v2.

The thing is, heavy vehicles aren't even in the domain of rich people. You can buy seriously heavy second hand vehicles for a fraction of the price of a new Clio, for instance.

Now, I'm not yet convinced whether the solution is to encourage everyone to own heavier vehicles or to discourage (but not ban) heavier vehicles through some sort of variable rate taxation. The answer to that depends on whether there was an average weight at which less overall deaths would occur, either yours or others.

The answer that according to that table appears to be in the range of 3000-3499lbs (1363-1590kg). (Interestingly, from that table pickup trucks appear to be 50% worse than SUVs, of the same weight!!)

It seems there is an advantage to vehicle height (pickups and SUVs are higher than cars). This means that the driver and passengers are above the area that would get hit in a collision with a car. This is at the expense of the occupants of the car however, where the bulk of the tall vehicle hits at head/chest height.

The way I look at it, in light of any tax incentives to do otherwise, buying a tall, heavy vehicle is relatively cheap insurance if you want to protect your family. Especially when other people pay your premiums with their lives (statistically). I would do it if money weren't an option and I had a family.

But if relatively few people could afford SUVs it would make much more sense to own a regular passenger car... in a smash with another such vehicle things are much more fair.

[Darvin Hansen]

Additionally, (as is typical of the far left), it seems that their main priority of some people is to drag everyone down to their level rather than aim for a higher average that is attainable. i.e. rather than figure out a way to make transport get from A to B with less pollution than currently, fewer fatalities, with less cost and at greater speed;

they would rather everyone used public transport because they do, and that no one is able to travel faster than them because they don't want them to be able to.

I'm glad that such people are relegated to the fringe of politics.

---

BTW one thing that is certainly interesting and provocative to think about: an epidemiological study found that the motor vehicle death rate for men of IQ 80-85 was triple and for men of IQ 85-100 it was double the rate for men of IQ 100-115 (O'Toole, 1990).

That's not as bad as it sounds, because it's very difficult to design a test that does not correlate to a large degree with IQ, and most licensing tests aren't that easy.

[Jack Rabbit]

Originally posted by Darvin Hansen

BTW one thing that is certainly interesting and provocative to think about: an epidemiological study found that the motor vehicle death rate for men of IQ 80-85 was triple and for men of IQ 85-100 it was double the rate for men of IQ 100-115 (O'Toole, 1990).

Sounds like an interesting study, How do you perform an IQ test on dead people?



A few problems with SUVs include gas mileage (and related C02 output), the much longer braking distances/less manuverablity, and the unecessary deaths of people driving 'normal' sized cars being hit by SUVs. Further, SUV's have a tendency to rollover alot more then cars with a lower center of gravity.

Also, are we going to get into somekind of SUV escalation, where monster trucks will be the safest choice?

SUVs in the city are for posers and paranoids. But the car companies love them as they make 2 or 3 times the profit on them as they do with a car (hence the heavy marketing).

And I am guessing, those vehemently defending the SUVs own them. I know when I buy something expensive, I have to believe it was a good purchase, even if its a gas-guzzling waste.

cheers.

[random]

Originally posted by EVO2
Problem is Bob, I do need the SUV and like many other people I don't have two four seater modern cars.

That's actually pretty unlikely. I know dozens of people with SUV's, yet only one that actually needs an SUV. (and even they could probably do well with something else.)

Every other person I know with an SUV could have purchased a better, more economical, more fuel efficient, better handling, and most importantly, safer alternative. It's my feeling that well over 9 out of 10 SUV owners would be better served, in all real-world respects, with a different class of vehicle.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't own an SUV. I just don't get the mentality of trying to justify owning one of the things. Personally, I only buy sportscars, and I don't even try to justify owning them. There is no justification, they're not fuel efficient, not especially safe, and don't carry much in the way of passengers or cargo. For my transportation needs, I would be far better served, in almost all respects with other classes of vehicle.

It's just the same with SUV's. They and sports cars are vehicles of luxury, not need.

[Darvin Hansen]

Jack,

How do you perform an IQ test on a dead person ...

[QUOTE]O’Toole and Stankov used IQ at induction into the military, along with 56 other psychological, behavioral, health, and demographic variables, to predict noncombat deaths by age 40 among 2,309 Australian veterans. When all other variables were statistically controlled, each additional IQ point predicted a 1% decrease in risk of death. Also, IQ was the best predictor of the major cause of death, motor vehicle accidents. Vehicular death rates doubled and then tripled at successively lower IQ ranges. . .

Basically you use people who have already been tested, and see at what rate they have accidents. A possible reason for this is the fact that IQ correlates well with reaction time, for which you don't have to be a genius to see how a lower reaction time would cut down on fatalities.

As to the SUVs/pickups, I think you are right in that there IS an arms race of sorts going on that will likely increase pollution and total accident fatalities (slightly). While I don't think the solution is to ban, the solution is somewhere between do nothing and tax according to some function of vehicle type/weight.

It would be interesting to know what the mortality rates of SUV on SUV crashes for instance. The implications of that are that it may be more feasible to get everyone driving them than not, or leaving the status quo the way it is.

But make no mistake about it, people have good and valid reasons for buying large vehicles. The problem with this is that it spoils the commons.

[Jack Rabbit]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darvin Hansen
Jack,

How do you perform an IQ test on a dead person ...

[QUOTE]O’Toole and Stankov used IQ at induction into the military, along with 56 other psychological, behavioral, health, and demographic variables, to predict noncombat deaths by age 40 among 2,309 Australian veterans. When all other variables were statistically controlled, each additional IQ point predicted a 1% decrease in risk of death. Also, IQ was the best predictor of the major cause of death, motor vehicle accidents. Vehicular death rates doubled and then tripled at successively lower IQ ranges. . .

Basically you use people who have already been tested, and see at what rate they have accidents. A possible reason for this is the fact that IQ correlates well with reaction time, for which you don't have to be a genius to see how a lower reaction time would cut down on fatalities.

As to the SUVs/pickups, I think you are right in that there IS an arms race of sorts going on that will likely increase pollution and total accident fatalities (slightly). While I don't think the solution is to ban, the solution is somewhere between do nothing and tax according to some function of vehicle type/weight.

It would be interesting to know what the mortality rates of SUV on SUV crashes for instance. The implications of that are that it may be more feasible to get everyone driving them than not, or leaving the status quo the way it is.

But make no mistake about it, people have good and valid reasons for buying large vehicles. The problem with this is that it spoils the commons. [/QUOTE]

Thanks for the link, it is an interesting study.