Car taxes should be raised...

[Kuciwalker]

If you drive, you assume risks. You get popped, it's on you.

You also create risks for others.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No I'm not. The real problem here is computer vision, and in this they deal only with stationary obstacles - and that itself is a huge, huge problem. None of these had to pay attention to dozens of fast-moving objects that change speed and direction.

xpost*2

You have to apply add'l computing power and programming algorithms. It's merely math and communications among vehicles at this point. The suite of sensors has become fairly standard over the last year (radar, laser, vision).

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


Without knowing the cost, we don't know whether the economic incentive is worth it or not.

It does not take a genius to figure out that more efficient vehicles are better for the economy than less efficient ones.

If you get more work for less energy, that is a good thing.

Personally, the only environmental standard issue I would like trully investigated is the level of particulates in the air- more stringent US particulate standard keep the ultra efficient european diesel engines out of the US market- I would like to know if the trade off is worth it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
It does not take a genius to figure out that more efficient vehicles are better for the economy than less efficient ones.

Unless the amount resources devoted towards producing those more efficient vehicles is greater than the amount of resources conserved in their operation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

If you drive, you assume risks. You get popped, it's on you.

You also create risks for others.

Which is why you have to, by law, have insurance to drive.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

If you drive, you assume risks. You get popped, it's on you.

You also create risks for others.

If you refer to risks of accidents, you accept the risks when you go out onto the road.

People with, or who get lung disease do not accept the risk when they breathe in the crap spewed by your auto.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Which is why you have to, by law, have insurance to drive.

Which amounts to a tax on cars.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If you refer to risks of accidents, you accept the risks when you go out onto the road.

Pedestrians.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Unless the amount resources devoted towards producing those more efficient vehicles is greater than the amount of resources conserved in their operation.

Which is not the case here.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Which is not the case here.

For hybrids it can be. That's one interpretation of the fact that they take a LONG time to pay off the extra cost.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Which amounts to a tax on cars.

Very good. Have a cookie.

I think the issue is, should they be raised....

[DanS]

Originally posted by notyoueither
People with, or who get lung disease do not accept the risk when they breathe in the crap spewed by your auto.

I agree with this, but I do not know who I would trust to figure the actual costs for this pollution.

As for "accepting the risk," you are accepting the risk not only for you, but for society as a whole. In Canada, they have to pay for your health care, after all.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Very good. Have a cookie.

I think the issue is, should they be raised....

Clearly the insurance companies are going to keep those taxes at levels that are at least sufficient to pay for the damages done by car accidents, or they'll go out of business.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DanS


I agree with this, but I do not know who I would trust to figure the actual costs for this pollution.

As for "accepting the risk," you are accepting the risk not only for you, but for society as a whole. In Canada, they have to pay for your health care, after all.

You don't need to trust anyone. Look at major North American cities, if you can see them through the smog, and look at kids who develop lung defects.

Would it not be good to reduce the stress autos put on our own children?

It's not a matter of dollars and cents. It's a matter of right and wrong.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


For hybrids it can be. That's one interpretation of the fact that they take a LONG time to pay off the extra cost.

Some European diesels get about 60 miles to the gallon as is.

A hybrid ususally runs about, what? 20% extra up front? Maybe over the life of a single owner, it might not make sense, but over the life of the vehicle?

That is on top of the fact of people using vastly oversized and underutilized vehicles (like SUV's) is the bigge inefficiency.