From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 10:41:50 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "BillK" <bill@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Fuel Efficient Cars (was Oil Economics)
> Sat Feb 08, 2003 05:23 pm Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> > ### This is such a strong argument against gas taxes: taxing gas is
> > exchanging *human lives* for a pile of cash at the IRS.
>
> But..... the USA traffic deaths are still worse than many countries with
> mostly smaller cars and higher gas taxes.
>
> The excellent site http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/default.htm
> that Edwin Evans referred us to is packed with useful data. They have an
> article published in the SF Examiner 9th Dec 2002 by Leonard Evans
> entitled 'We need higher taxes on gas' which eloquently sets out the
> case.
> Quote:
> 'While there is near universal agreement in the technical community that
> making vehicles lighter increases fatalities, there is no corresponding
> agreement that increasing the fuel economy of vehicles reduces the total
> amount of fuel consumed in the nation. Making a vehicle more
> fuel-economic reduces the cost of travelling each mile. This encourages
> more driving, less car-pooling and less use of alternative
> transportation modes. In the long run, it makes longer commuting trips
> more acceptable.
> Although there is no consensus on whether making vehicles more
> fuel-economic increases or decreases the total amount of fuel the nation
> uses, there is universal agreement among economists that increasing the
> cost of a commodity reduces its consumption.'
> end Quote.
>
> Leonard Evans is the same person that published the previous report that
> said that big cars provide better driver protection in crashes. He
> appears to have come to the conclusion that increased death rates in
> spite of larger cars must mean that Americans are 'bad' drivers. Other
> articles show that young males with the fastest reactions have the
> highest death rate. So it is not technical skills at driving that are
> the problem - it is the way they are driving that is the problem.
>
> I suspect that Newton's Laws of Motion have an affect as well. If your
> SUV has a much greater mass then it will tend to keep going in the
> direction of motion, especially at higher speeds. i.e. it is not as
> steerable as a smaller, lighter car.
>
> The countries with the lowest traffic death rates appear to have the
> strongest enforcement of traffic laws and drink-driving laws.
>
> So, there seems to be two options for the future that Americans have to
> face up to:
> 1) Higher gas prices are the only way to reduce consumption and reduce
> the power of the oilfield-owning states.
> 2) The freedom to drive just as you please on the roads must be
> restricted in order to save lives.
### Ah, exactly, *somebody* must save my life against my will. I must be
deprived of the ability to move around, so I won't get hurt on the way.
I have a different two-point plan:
1) Rounding-up of busybodies in camps where they can interfere only with
each other is the only way to reduce unwanted interference and power of
busybodies.
2) The freedom to propose restrictions on freedom must be restricted in
order to save freedom.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 10:44:02 MST