Washington Post op-ed: Drivers prefer tolls to taxes. That's too bad. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2016/07/20/drivers-prefer-tolls-to-taxes-thats-too-bad/)
QuoteMany drivers gripe about the sorry condition of roads and bridges in the United States. They sometimes gripe even louder, knowing that they will likely have to dig into their pockets deeper to pay to fix them. But if they had to pick from several alternative ways to raise money for roads, a new study suggest drivers would prefer tolls instead of taxes.
QuoteThat's odd. I'd take the fuels tax any day – and especially instead of a new mileage tax.
QuoteThe study – conducted by associate professor Denvil Duncan and others at Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs – analyzed national data on drivers' views of five possible revenue sources that could make up for declining fuel tax revenues. Thirty-four percent would go along with a greater reliance on tolls, while 29 percent would support raising fuel taxes, the researchers found. Twenty-one percent would support a new mileage fee, compared with 18 percent who would go for a higher retail tax. The least favored solution (13 percent) was raising income taxes.
Not that we have much choice. The fuel tax isn't sustainable since we will be having more vehicles that don't use fuel on the roads. Tolls are not scalable to cover all roads. So what you are left with is some kind of tax. A mileage tax is the fairest since unlike tolls it can cover the use of any road and is a measure of how much you use road infrastructure. Other taxes are not specific to road infrastructure so they wouldn't be fair to people who don't drive.
Electric vehicles can be taxed by charging for electricity at the supercharger stations and having a device in the car that meters in the tax from being plugged in and bills the owner. I don't see hybrids sticking around once electric vehicles get as good as gas from a range/recharge time perspective.
A mileage tax would be tracking/paperwork nightmare and well as severely discourage driving, since it's very "in your face" to the motorist. I would not want to have to guess how much I'll drive in a year, keep track of it, pay an upfront sum, have vignette stickers, etc.
While it's hard to cover everything with tolls, you can very easily cover the most expensive roads to maintain (interstates/freeways, bridges, and tunnels), and with AET, even surface streets are possible (the Move NY plan would place an E-ZPass gantry on every north-south road in Manhattan, for example).
Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2016, 07:33:48 PM
A mileage tax would be tracking/paperwork nightmare and well as severely discourage driving, since it's very "in your face" to the motorist. I would not want to have to guess how much I'll drive in a year, keep track of it, pay an upfront sum, have vignette stickers, etc.
States that have safety and/or emission inspections already record your annual mileage as part of the inspection. Wouldn't be that difficult to impose a Federal tax on that, to be distributed to the states similar to how the Federal gas tax is now. For those states that don't have inspection programs, they could elect to either adopt such a program or lose a portion of their Federal funding. Yes, this would be politically difficult, but not entirely impossible to sell. Especially if you tie it into a reduction in the current gas tax.
QuoteWhile it's hard to cover everything with tolls, you can very easily cover the most expensive roads to maintain (interstates/freeways, bridges, and tunnels), and with AET, even surface streets are possible (the Move NY plan would place an E-ZPass gantry on every north-south road in Manhattan, for example)
My comments above regarding implementing a mileage tax notwithstanding, and at the risk of sounding like I'm a Libertarian, I do believe that charging tolls is currently the most logical funding mechanism for Interstates, other major roads, bridges, and tunnels. However, unless you have a location (like Manhattan) where there are a very limited number of ways to get into and out of the area, AET for surface streets will be largely unworkable from both an implementation and a political standpoint. The other danger of tolling additional highways is that the revenue from those tolls will not be used for the most pressing needs in the larger highway system, but will be directly spent on the toll facility instead.
I suggest the following: Toll the majority of the Interstate system, other freeways, and major bridges and tunnels. The sole exceptions would be for locations where alternative facilities (and that includes transit and other non-highway modes) do not reasonably exist adjacent to the tolled facilities. The secondary and local roads and streets would still be funded by gas, property, and excise taxes. However, as funding for the big ticket items are no longer dependent upon those revenue sources, those taxes could (and should) actually be reduced. I believe this plan will put funding sources for specific types of facilities more in line with the expenses to operate and maintain those facilities, and should avoid the need to eventually implement a mileage tax.
Quote from: BrianP on July 20, 2016, 05:06:30 PM
Not that we have much choice. The fuel tax isn't sustainable since we will be having more vehicles that don't use fuel on the roads. Tolls are not scalable to cover all roads. So what you are left with is some kind of tax. A mileage tax is the fairest since unlike tolls it can cover the use of any road and is a measure of how much you use road infrastructure. Other taxes are not specific to road infrastructure so they wouldn't be fair to people who don't drive.
Mileage based user fees have three (IMO) huge problems.
1. With the current state of technology, they are expensive to administer, potentially imposing the equivalent of a federal motor fuel tax increase of 8¢ to 10¢ per gallon -
just to operate and administer the system.
2. Securing such data could be a problem, and I am certain that hackers in Red China and Russia will have significant economic incentive to steal those data.
3. I have seen no way to prevent municipalities from imposing an extortionate per-mile fee (a high-tech version of a speed trap), especially on non-resident drivers. I can think of several local governments in Maryland and Virginia that would gladly try to impose a charge of $1, $5 or more per mile on non-resident vehicles.
It's not difficult to understand this preference. Tolls offer something none of the other four alternatives presented do: choice whether or not to pay them.
A fuel tax or a mileage tax cannot be avoided unless you do not own a car. A sales tax or income tax pretty much cannot be avoided, period. A toll can be avoided by choosing a shunpike route that is not tolled.
This is basically a manifestation of the classic syndrome of "I support more of X if someone else pays for it". I'm sure plenty of respondents who favor tolls do so under the assumption that they will not use the new toll road very often or at all. Or if they do, it will be a shiny new road and offer the perception of something gained, as opposed to having to pay more just to keep using all the same roads they are already using.
Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2016, 07:33:48 PM
Electric vehicles can be taxed by charging for electricity at the supercharger stations and having a device in the car that meters in the tax from being plugged in and bills the owner. I don't see hybrids sticking around once electric vehicles get as good as gas from a range/recharge time perspective.
A mileage tax would be tracking/paperwork nightmare and well as severely discourage driving, since it's very "in your face" to the motorist. I would not want to have to guess how much I'll drive in a year, keep track of it, pay an upfront sum, have vignette stickers, etc.
While it's hard to cover everything with tolls, you can very easily cover the most expensive roads to maintain (interstates/freeways, bridges, and tunnels), and with AET, even surface streets are possible (the Move NY plan would place an E-ZPass gantry on every north-south road in Manhattan, for example).
I would say the glass half full..
If such taxation system for electric vehicles can be implemented, it wouldn't be too difficult to extend it to gas burners. I don't see such tax much more discouraging than gas expenses (and who thinks about gas consumption when heading to nearby grocery? Certainly not in the city).
Tolls may work if single nationwide transponder system is implemented (2016, right?)
Quote from: Duke87 on July 20, 2016, 09:52:31 PM
It's not difficult to understand this preference. Tolls offer something none of the other four alternatives presented do: choice whether or not to pay them.
A fuel tax or a mileage tax cannot be avoided unless you do not own a car. A sales tax or income tax pretty much cannot be avoided, period. A toll can be avoided by choosing a shunpike route that is not tolled.
This is basically a manifestation of the classic syndrome of "I support more of X if someone else pays for it". I'm sure plenty of respondents who favor tolls do so under the assumption that they will not use the new toll road very often or at all. Or if they do, it will be a shiny new road and offer the perception of something gained, as opposed to having to pay more just to keep using all the same roads they are already using.
Yep - they're probably thinking "I don't drive the toll roads anyway, or there's no toll roads in my state, so I won't have to pay for it".
They're missing the part where every road will become a toll road, including the municipal road they live on, and the county route they take to get to the convenience store.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2016, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 20, 2016, 09:52:31 PM
It's not difficult to understand this preference. Tolls offer something none of the other four alternatives presented do: choice whether or not to pay them.
A fuel tax or a mileage tax cannot be avoided unless you do not own a car. A sales tax or income tax pretty much cannot be avoided, period. A toll can be avoided by choosing a shunpike route that is not tolled.
This is basically a manifestation of the classic syndrome of "I support more of X if someone else pays for it". I'm sure plenty of respondents who favor tolls do so under the assumption that they will not use the new toll road very often or at all. Or if they do, it will be a shiny new road and offer the perception of something gained, as opposed to having to pay more just to keep using all the same roads they are already using.
Yep - they're probably thinking "I don't drive the toll roads anyway, or there's no toll roads in my state, so I won't have to pay for it".
They're missing the part where every road will become a toll road, including the municipal road they live on, and the county route they take to get to the convenience store.
Not very feasible. More like backbones would be tolled - so one can still drive within city (at least smaller one) on gas tax. Fair or not, but this way local roads may be paid for by localities to some extent, and road warriors pay for the long haul infrastructure..
Like much polling product out of academia, the poll presents skewed results. As is often the case, it makes a presuposition and then presents a false dichotomy.
The presuposition is actually two. It presuposes that taxes need to be raised, and it presuposes that highway construction needs cost what it now does.
A better poll would start without any assumpitions.
First you would ask about direct fuel taxes.
"Would you support spending 100% of fuel taxes on highways, or continue to use it to subdize transit?"
Then you would ask about other taxes.
"Which of the following government programs would you support eliminating in order to spend the money now spent on these for highways" (Foreign aid, national defense, student loans, welfare, water projects, pretty much ask the pollee to priortize his or her opinion of what taxes should go for, assuming no new taxes.)
Then you would ask about costs.
"Would you support lowering the cost of highway constuction by 12.5% by repealing Davis-Bacon?" "Would you support lowering the cost of highway constuction by 11% by elimination of certain aspects of EPA regulations?"
THEN, you would ask those who indicated a negative response to ALL of the above, if they would support X, Y or Z tax to fund highways.
Quote from: kalvado on July 21, 2016, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2016, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 20, 2016, 09:52:31 PM
It's not difficult to understand this preference. Tolls offer something none of the other four alternatives presented do: choice whether or not to pay them.
A fuel tax or a mileage tax cannot be avoided unless you do not own a car. A sales tax or income tax pretty much cannot be avoided, period. A toll can be avoided by choosing a shunpike route that is not tolled.
This is basically a manifestation of the classic syndrome of "I support more of X if someone else pays for it". I'm sure plenty of respondents who favor tolls do so under the assumption that they will not use the new toll road very often or at all. Or if they do, it will be a shiny new road and offer the perception of something gained, as opposed to having to pay more just to keep using all the same roads they are already using.
Yep - they're probably thinking "I don't drive the toll roads anyway, or there's no toll roads in my state, so I won't have to pay for it".
They're missing the part where every road will become a toll road, including the municipal road they live on, and the county route they take to get to the convenience store.
Not very feasible. More like backbones would be tolled - so one can still drive within city (at least smaller one) on gas tax. Fair or not, but this way local roads may be paid for by localities to some extent, and road warriors pay for the long haul infrastructure..
There are many toll bridges that are only a mile in length.
For cities that have an entry tax, it doesn't matter if you're driving a block or across the city. The tax is the same.
It goes with what SP said...there's way too many presumptions in such a poll...and as you said, many unrealistic expectations.
We've talked many times on various threads about a theory that every car will have a transponder in the future, tracking you where you go. In theory, it's not hard to set up transponder readers at nearly every intersection that records when you go thru that intersection. In populated areas, they can do this at every intersection with a traffic light. It's fairly impossible to go very far without passing thru an intersection without one. The traffic light system at that intersection is probably a more complicated, costly endeavor than the transponder readers needed.
And in some states, EZ Pass readers are already tracking you anonymously in order to compute travel times that we see on the VMS boards. The infrastructure is there...and it's relatively easy to use.
I know yearly vehicle registrations pay for State Police/Highway Patrol, but what about adding a safety inspection to the bi-annual (California) emissions test?
A part of it could go the Highway Patrol, a part of it could go to the state DOT.
The word "tax" is the problem. It's been burned into the psyche of the American people as the root of all evil.
Quote from: jfs1988 on July 29, 2016, 01:46:30 AM
I know yearly vehicle registrations pay for State Police/Highway Patrol, but what about adding a safety inspection to the bi-annual (California) emissions test?
A part of it could go the Highway Patrol, a part of it could go to the state DOT.
Those inspections cost time and money for personnel, and there's a significant investment in equipment and maintenance for that equipment, buildings to house it in, etc.
Any additional money raised, unless it's very significant, would just be going to that stuff without any extra money being available for the Highway Patrol or DOT. And for the most part, it'll be money considered wasted as a very high majority of vehicles will pass (around 95% or so), with the remainder failing for minor violations such as a broken windshield, a light out, etc.
Quote from: jfs1988 on July 29, 2016, 01:46:30 AM
I know yearly vehicle registrations pay for State Police/Highway Patrol, but what about adding a safety inspection to the bi-annual (California) emissions test?
A part of it could go the Highway Patrol, a part of it could go to the state DOT.
Why would you even recommend something as terrible as that? Isn't life strict enough for drivers in that state?
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 29, 2016, 06:41:11 AM
Quote from: jfs1988 on July 29, 2016, 01:46:30 AM
I know yearly vehicle registrations pay for State Police/Highway Patrol, but what about adding a safety inspection to the bi-annual (California) emissions test?
A part of it could go the Highway Patrol, a part of it could go to the state DOT.
Why would you even recommend something as terrible as that? Isn't life strict enough for drivers in that state?
Some of us have to get emissions tests every year depending on the county.... Not that I'm in favor of something like that but I would be curious to find out what the poster had in mind with "safety." I mean....couldn't under inflated tires technically be "unsafe" or make a car "not road worthy" in the eyes of the wrong person?
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 29, 2016, 04:09:52 AM
The word "tax" is the problem. It's been burned into the psyche of the American people as the root of all evil.
Yep. After 40 years of telling the public that taxation is Uncle Sugar raiding your piggy bank, how can you expect people to do a 180 and see it as social responsibility?
By my count, 16 US jurisdictions and 5 Canadian ones require a, generally annual, "safety inspection" often indicated by a sticker on the windshield or a receipt (actual or electronic) that must be presented to renew registration. Hawaii puts its sticker on the rear bumper, which a lot of car guys object to.
Most other states, including California, say a cop can require a motorist to get a letter from a mechanic that the car is safe if he thinks a car looks unsafe. A few others require a one-time inspection if the car is coming in from out of state title.
The inspection covers a list of the things you would think. Tire tread, brakes, bulbs, horn. Varies from state to state.
There just is no evidence that such programs work. The number of equipment failure accidents is statistically the same.
In my state, it is a waste. The amount the state gets is trivial, and the amount the garage gets has not been changed in decades. It is $12.66 total, with the state getting $3 of that. The garage is put in the middle of having to lose customers by not offering the service, or losing money by doing so. And also of p***ing off customers if they actually flunk a car. And of fudging by not doing anything, since $9 is a rediculous amount to make for the work involved if you actually followed the book.
Several states have eliminated these program recently. It is better just to take the fee charged and add it to the registration.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 09:22:19 AM
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 29, 2016, 06:41:11 AM
Quote from: jfs1988 on July 29, 2016, 01:46:30 AM
I know yearly vehicle registrations pay for State Police/Highway Patrol, but what about adding a safety inspection to the bi-annual (California) emissions test?
A part of it could go the Highway Patrol, a part of it could go to the state DOT.
Why would you even recommend something as terrible as that? Isn't life strict enough for drivers in that state?
Some of us have to get emissions tests every year depending on the county.... Not that I'm in favor of something like that but I would be curious to find out what the poster had in mind with "safety." I mean....couldn't under inflated tires technically be "unsafe" or make a car "not road worthy" in the eyes of the wrong person?
I would put brakes check, worn-out tires - and a general shop visit for a general check-up - as main advantage of mandatory periodic inspection. I don't know how many people would ignore everything - except for possibly oil change - as long as possible. Forcing a fix at an early stage is actually beneficial for all sides.
Now charging too much for that to pay for government service.. Pick one: either this is about safety, or it is about money.
Reading the replies...I had a thought of my own on the maintenance thing. Now that I think about it, why not require basic car maintenance as a requirement to obtain a license in the first place and teach it in driver's education classes that already exist? I can see maybe a three-four year mechanical certification but maybe something as simple a multipoint inspection at a service station. I would be in favor of something if there was a benefit to the motoring public for increased education about a "safe" car and how to operate it...but how do you substantiate the value and for me it would have to be done with the purpose with safety totally in mind, not obtaining additional funding.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 29, 2016, 10:36:28 AM
In my state, it is a waste. The amount the state gets is trivial, and the amount the garage gets has not been changed in decades. It is $12.66 total, with the state getting $3 of that. The garage is put in the middle of having to lose customers by not offering the service, or losing money by doing so. And also of p***ing off customers if they actually flunk a car. And of fudging by not doing anything, since $9 is a rediculous amount to make for the work involved if you actually followed the book.
Several states have eliminated these program recently. It is better just to take the fee charged and add it to the registration.
I don't know state you're talking about, but I wouldn't call $9 (aka 10 minutes @$55/hour rate) very inadequate. If there is another service performed (like oil change), then things are actually blended together. I mean, it doesn't really cost much to check horn, seat belt, windshield and mirrors if mechanic needs to pull the car in anyway. Guy doing filter from below the car can check underside of the car. Only relatively long and specialized thing is checking brake pad - that requres either lift or jack, pneumatic wrench and 2-3 minutes to take a wheel off. NYS requires removal of 1 wheel.
PS: all of the above is based on having my car inspected at Valvoline (plus an oil change) done this spring.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 10:49:44 AM
Reading the replies...I had a thought of my own on the maintenance thing. Now that I think about it, why not require basic car maintenance as a requirement to obtain a license in the first place and teach it in driver's education classes that already exist? I can see maybe a three-four year mechanical certification but maybe something as simple a multipoint inspection at a service station. I would be in favor of something if there was a benefit to the motoring public for increased education about a "safe" car and how to operate it...but how do you substantiate the value and for me it would have to be done with the purpose with safety totally in mind, not obtaining additional funding.
Not all people are actually good at technical stuff. And not all tasks are easy outside of the shop.
How do you expect petite 4'10" girl to take a wheel off to check a pad? Most people have only manual jack..
Quote from: kalvado on July 29, 2016, 11:03:05 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 10:49:44 AM
Reading the replies...I had a thought of my own on the maintenance thing. Now that I think about it, why not require basic car maintenance as a requirement to obtain a license in the first place and teach it in driver's education classes that already exist? I can see maybe a three-four year mechanical certification but maybe something as simple a multipoint inspection at a service station. I would be in favor of something if there was a benefit to the motoring public for increased education about a "safe" car and how to operate it...but how do you substantiate the value and for me it would have to be done with the purpose with safety totally in mind, not obtaining additional funding.
Not all people are actually good at technical stuff. And not all tasks are easy outside of the shop.
How do you expect petite 4'10" girl to take a wheel off to check a pad? Most people have only manual jack..
No but I would prefer if she knew what she was looking at when a shop gives her an inspection sheet showing how much brake pad she has left or at minimum knows why air pressure in tires important. I had an ex that was like that and I caught her going 16,000 miles between oil changes and with 15 PSI in one tire...not from a slow leak but years of neglect. In her instance she had so little knowledge of what was going on with her truck that it was a hazard to everyone on the road. Any shop could have fixed the situation quickly but there was no excuse for her to be so under educated. Anything to tone up the education level of people going for a license I'm all for.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: kalvado on July 29, 2016, 11:03:05 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 10:49:44 AM
Reading the replies...I had a thought of my own on the maintenance thing. Now that I think about it, why not require basic car maintenance as a requirement to obtain a license in the first place and teach it in driver's education classes that already exist? I can see maybe a three-four year mechanical certification but maybe something as simple a multipoint inspection at a service station. I would be in favor of something if there was a benefit to the motoring public for increased education about a "safe" car and how to operate it...but how do you substantiate the value and for me it would have to be done with the purpose with safety totally in mind, not obtaining additional funding.
Not all people are actually good at technical stuff. And not all tasks are easy outside of the shop.
How do you expect petite 4'10" girl to take a wheel off to check a pad? Most people have only manual jack..
No but I would prefer if she knew what she was looking at when a shop gives her an inspection sheet showing how much brake pad she has left or at minimum knows why air pressure in tires important. I had an ex that was like that and I caught her going 16,000 miles between oil changes and with 15 PSI in one tire...not from a slow leak but years of neglect. Anything to tone up the education level of people going for a license I'm all for.
Oh, come on, be realistic. Do you actually sort your clothing by color and fabric type before putting it into the washer?
Quote from: kalvado on July 29, 2016, 11:23:47 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 11:19:45 AM
Quote from: kalvado on July 29, 2016, 11:03:05 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 10:49:44 AM
Reading the replies...I had a thought of my own on the maintenance thing. Now that I think about it, why not require basic car maintenance as a requirement to obtain a license in the first place and teach it in driver's education classes that already exist? I can see maybe a three-four year mechanical certification but maybe something as simple a multipoint inspection at a service station. I would be in favor of something if there was a benefit to the motoring public for increased education about a "safe" car and how to operate it...but how do you substantiate the value and for me it would have to be done with the purpose with safety totally in mind, not obtaining additional funding.
Not all people are actually good at technical stuff. And not all tasks are easy outside of the shop.
How do you expect petite 4'10" girl to take a wheel off to check a pad? Most people have only manual jack..
No but I would prefer if she knew what she was looking at when a shop gives her an inspection sheet showing how much brake pad she has left or at minimum knows why air pressure in tires important. I had an ex that was like that and I caught her going 16,000 miles between oil changes and with 15 PSI in one tire...not from a slow leak but years of neglect. Anything to tone up the education level of people going for a license I'm all for.
Oh, come on, be realistic. Do you actually sort your clothing by color and fabric type before putting it into the washer?
Actually yes, my Mom was a fiend when I was a kid about cleaning....she was more strict than my drill instructor was in that regard. :D Look, I'm talking like something maybe along the lines of 10-15 extra questions on a driver's ed test. I'm not saying it's a save all but why not add some substance with some car safety stuff.
Quote from: kalvado on July 29, 2016, 11:00:00 AM
I don't know state you're talking about, but I wouldn't call $9 (aka 10 minutes @$55/hour rate) very inadequate.
WV
You cannot begin to follow the book in 10 minutes.
First the mechanic must complete a state run inspection class, at his or the shop's expense. And complete a criminal background check, with fingerprints, at his or the shop's expense. That is a couple of $100, counting the time away from work and the tuition and fees.
Then the shop must have a lift. Instant oil change with the guy in the basement is not acceptable. Must also be able to not only inspect, but regularly be in the business of repairing brakes, lights, steering, horns, mirrors, windshilds (to be fair, they let that one slide, all you have to do is have the phone number of a glass shop posted on the wall), and wipers. Meaning you have to have not an oil change drone, but someone who understands hydralics, electrical, and suspension parts. A real mechanic.
Building must have a DEDICATED inspection bay, exclusive of those used for work. Must have a work bench, wheel puller, floor jack, vise, light, bench grinder, socket set, pipe wrench, toe in gauge, soldering iron, assorted replacement bulbs, tread gauge, wire, wipers, ruler, light device (aprox $1000, only works on old cars before lights were plastic), joint tolarance ball, micormeter, and window tint monitor.
Must check registration papers, insurance papers, check all glass surfaces for breaks and apply window tint meter, must check all metal (an open gash is a flunk), must lift and check frame, must check horn, mirrors, wipers, plate mount. must pull two wheels and check brakes inlucing hoses, pedal linings, and emergency brake, must check front end alignment and steering componets for wear, must check exhaust, must gauge all tires for wear including uneven wear. Must check all bulbs.
For $9.
Just add $5 to the cost of registration and be done with it. Any mechanic worth his salt can generate $100 in the time it takes to follow the book.
Which is why nobody follows the book, at least if a person has a car that is under 100K or 10 years old. They just toot the horn and slap a sticker on. They cannot afford not to.
Quote from: kalvado on July 29, 2016, 11:00:00 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 29, 2016, 10:36:28 AM
In my state, it is a waste. The amount the state gets is trivial, and the amount the garage gets has not been changed in decades. It is $12.66 total, with the state getting $3 of that. The garage is put in the middle of having to lose customers by not offering the service, or losing money by doing so. And also of p***ing off customers if they actually flunk a car. And of fudging by not doing anything, since $9 is a rediculous amount to make for the work involved if you actually followed the book.
Several states have eliminated these program recently. It is better just to take the fee charged and add it to the registration.
I don't know state you're talking about, but I wouldn't call $9 (aka 10 minutes @$55/hour rate) very inadequate. If there is another service performed (like oil change), then things are actually blended together. I mean, it doesn't really cost much to check horn, seat belt, windshield and mirrors if mechanic needs to pull the car in anyway. Guy doing filter from below the car can check underside of the car. Only relatively long and specialized thing is checking brake pad - that requres either lift or jack, pneumatic wrench and 2-3 minutes to take a wheel off. NYS requires removal of 1 wheel.
PS: all of the above is based on having my car inspected at Valvoline (plus an oil change) done this spring.
In PA, which still has annual safety inspections at private repair places for around $40 - $60, it's amazing how many cars fail for brakes and windshield wipers. Brakes are something that the majority of people can't really tell themselves. Wipers are cheap but have a nice profit margin, and can be replaced in seconds. You don't have to get those things replaced at the inspection...but then your car won't pass inspection. You still have to pay the inspection cost (actually, I think you pay half of it from what I heard), but then you have to take the vehicle elsewhere to get inspected again...at their price.
In NJ, which used to have safety inspections in public garages, these failures occurred much less frequently. No incentive for a public garage to fail you on something that he can't sell you right there.
In PA, a car 1 year old has to get a safety inspection, one of the very few that still requires such a service, and then every year after. In NJ, a new car doesn't get inspected for 5 years, and then every 2 years. All inspections are just emission inspections. They can look at other stuff...and tell you a headlight is out or something...but they can't fail you for it.
Just the comparison of PA to NJ (and there's plenty of other states to compare to as well) shows how states with private testing sites can really hold their customers hostage with phantom failures.
I'm so glad I live in an area where I don't have to go through some BS inspections year after year. All I do every year is pay around $45 for my new registration and that is it; no questions asked and no BS requirements.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 29, 2016, 10:36:28 AM
Most other states, including California, say a cop can require a motorist to get a letter from a mechanic that the car is safe if he thinks a car looks unsafe. A few others require a one-time inspection if the car is coming in from out of state title.
The inspection covers a list of the things you would think. Tire tread, brakes, bulbs, horn. Varies from state to state.
On my last smog check, about 2 months ago, I had to sign something that said I would have my tires replaced within a certain amount of time.
I mean, you're complaining about $9: smog checks are $50 every two years for less than 30 minutes of actual work. It's a huge racket just to keep that industry, which mostly serves no other purpose (a lot of these places are solely smog check places), in business. Modern cars just don't need to be smogged that often.
I thought that you were taught basic car maintenance in drivers ed. I mean, I never took it, so I don't know, but I thought everyone learned some basic stuff. But, honestly, do you remember any of your other high school classes? I think I'm not too much in the minority to say that I didn't have my mind on pre-calc or British literature when I was in those classes.
I don't know about drivers test either. It's stupid enough as it is to ask about braking distances on wet roads for box trucks, and multiple choice tests aren't for everyone.
In the end, I think it's more the parents' responsibility to teach the maintenance of a vehicle, not the nanny state's. Best thing you can do is break that gender role barrier: teach your daughters about cars. Show them where the oil, coolant and wiper fluid are. Talk to them about belts and hoses. When you go to get an oil change, or do your own oil change, have them hang around with you and watch. It seems like men already do this with their sons, but don't with their daughters, for whatever reason. And it's just a matter of a couple of generations to even it out a little bit, I think.
And I'll step off the soapbox now...
I'm grateful that Kentucky abandoned annual inspections back in the 1970s.
We used to require annual inspections, but I don't remember what all was actually inspected. A sticker was placed in the front windshield to certify passage of the inspection. Just about any neighborhood garage could be and was certified as an "Official Kentucky Vehicle Inspection Station."
Sometime in the mid to late 1970s, Kentucky eliminated annual inspections and inspection stickers in favor of insurance stickers. I do not know if Kentucky made having auto insurance mandatory then, or if it was already mandatory, but I would suspect the former because the proof of insurance was a sticker that was placed in the back window of the vehicle. In essence, the insurance sticker replaced the inspection sticker. A few years later, the insurance sticker was abandoned in favor of simple cards kept with the vehicle registration certificate.
And emissions inspections are just global warming Chicken Little-isms, but that's an entirely different argument.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2016, 12:09:03 AM
And emissions inspections are just global warming Chicken Little-isms, but that's an entirely different argument.
You may think that, but in places like LA, it's amazing how much clearer the sky is during the day now than it was ten years ago. One of the biggest benefits was cracking down on older vehicles and idling as the primary culprits. So, it does have a benefit. In areas with regular rain, smog isn't as much as a problem as a good storm tends to clear the air for a while.
As for inspections, Ohio doesn't do anything statewide. If you bring in a car from out of state you're required to get an Out of State VIN Inspection, which is a dealership (or the clerk) going out to look at your car's VIN # in the windshield to verify it's what is on the title. That's it. And that's $3. There is emissions checks in Cuyahoga, Hamilton and Franklin Counties from what I'm aware, but don't live there so it doesn't matter to me.
Quote from: Sykotyk on July 30, 2016, 02:18:57 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2016, 12:09:03 AM
And emissions inspections are just global warming Chicken Little-isms, but that's an entirely different argument.
You may think that, but in places like LA, it's amazing how much clearer the sky is during the day now than it was ten years ago. One of the biggest benefits was cracking down on older vehicles and idling as the primary culprits. So, it does have a benefit. In areas with regular rain, smog isn't as much as a problem as a good storm tends to clear the air for a while.
Totally agree with you. Even ten years ago, but between now and twenty years ago is a tremendous difference. But, now, I don't think it's worthwhile - nor would it be worthwhile if I lived in LA - to have my < 10-year-old car tested every two years. If we got rid of it completely, I think people would go crazy and reintroduce all kinds of cars and configurations that they're otherwise keeping off of the roads because they can't get it smogged and, thus, legal. If it were all or nothing, I'd choose all, but I think there's a better way to handle this.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2016, 12:09:03 AM
I'm grateful that Kentucky abandoned annual inspections back in the 1970s.
We used to require annual inspections, but I don't remember what all was actually inspected. A sticker was placed in the front windshield to certify passage of the inspection. Just about any neighborhood garage could be and was certified as an "Official Kentucky Vehicle Inspection Station."
Sometime in the mid to late 1970s, Kentucky eliminated annual inspections and inspection stickers in favor of insurance stickers. I do not know if Kentucky made having auto insurance mandatory then, or if it was already mandatory, but I would suspect the former because the proof of insurance was a sticker that was placed in the back window of the vehicle. In essence, the insurance sticker replaced the inspection sticker. A few years later, the insurance sticker was abandoned in favor of simple cards kept with the vehicle registration certificate.
And emissions inspections are just global warming Chicken Little-isms, but that's an entirely different argument.
I think the trend is to eliminate these inspections. In addition to Kentucky, I can remember Ohio and South Carolina doing away with the system in the last decade or so. North Carolina did away with the physical sticker, but you still need an inspection, the garages have an on-line system now.
I do remember the Kentucky insurance stickers. IIRC, it had quite a bit of personal information, maybe residence and agents name. Never knew any other state to do that.
Global warming is, of course, pseudo-science, but there is certainly air pollution and, to the extent that places with a high population try to regulate those gases (which the EPA act actually gives them jurisdiction over, unlike so-called "carbon emissions" which the EPA has no jurisdiction over whatsoever) it is OK with me. The problem, as always is over-reach as the EPA wants air coming out of cars to be cleaner than the air that goes is and wants to impose smog checks (they tried it here a few years ago, but we beat them back) in less populated places with no need.
I think checking people emissions is kind of pointless and unnecessary. There are probably factories out there that put out more emissions in one minute than what your car will put out in one year. Mexico City has no drive days, depending on the last digit of your license plate, and it really hasn't had a significant impact on solving their pollution problems either. Honestly any big city is going to have some kind of problem with pollution no matter what, especially big cities that are somewhat surrounded by mountains like LA and Mexico City.
I personally think global warming is a hoax, but let's just assume its real. It's called global warming for a reason. The US, Canada, and the EU are not the only countries out there. As long as countries like China and India do whatever they want, it doesn't really matter how much the western world cuts back on emissions, because honestly 80% of the world doesn't care about global warming.
Quote from: US 41 on July 30, 2016, 12:40:02 PM
I think checking people emissions is kind of pointless and unnecessary. There are probably factories out there that put out more emissions in one minute than what your car will put out in one year. Mexico City has no drive days, depending on the last digit of your license plate, and it really hasn't had a significant impact on solving their pollution problems either. Honestly any big city is going to have some kind of problem with pollution no matter what, especially big cities that are somewhat surrounded by mountains like LA and Mexico City.
I personally think global warming is a hoax, but let's just assume its real. It's called global warming for a reason. The US, Canada, and the EU are not the only countries out there. As long as countries like China and India do whatever they want, it doesn't really matter how much the western world cuts back on emissions, because honestly 80% of the world doesn't care about global warming.
One thing you have to understand: emissions checks are not about carbon dioxide and global warming - they are about side effects, mostly incomplete fuel combustion.
Carbon footprint of a car, or whatever you call it, is effectively the MPG value. You can do only that much about it.
Incomplete combustion is a much more interesting thing. Anecdotic example: since catalytic converters became mandatory, suicide by starting a car in a closed garage no longer work. Headache is the worst you can get if running a proper converter. Because catalytic converter takes care of CO, which is the lethal one in closed garage.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 30, 2016, 09:00:27 AM
Global warming is, of course, pseudo-science
Quote from: US 41 on July 30, 2016, 12:40:02 PM
I personally think global warming is a hoax
Neither of these statements is — and by a wide margin — even close to true. The evidence against them is everywhere. I'd say more, but that would get too close to the political realm.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 30, 2016, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 30, 2016, 09:00:27 AM
Global warming is, of course, pseudo-science
Quote from: US 41 on July 30, 2016, 12:40:02 PM
I personally think global warming is a hoax
Neither of these statements is – and by a wide margin – even close to true. The evidence against them is everywhere. I'd say more, but that would get too close to the political realm.
Truth, hoax, fact, misleading statistics....whatever you may or may not believe....I just know one thing. Ghostbusters got me dead-set against the environmental brigade all the way in 1984:
Seriously Walter Peck was on screen for MAYBE 10 minutes and he did more to ruin the reputation of the EPA that probably anyone or anything in the last 30 years combined.
I think that whatever your stance is on global warming or emissions we can all agree on one thing, Walter Peck has no dick. :-D
Quote from: US 41 on July 29, 2016, 01:06:54 PM
I'm so glad I live in an area where I don't have to go through some BS inspections year after year. All I do every year is pay around $45 for my new registration and that is it; no questions asked and no BS requirements.
Likewise, even if we do have a quick emissions inspection (OBD) at a state-run facility, and pay $101 a year for registration.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 30, 2016, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 30, 2016, 09:00:27 AM
Global warming is, of course, pseudo-science
Quote from: US 41 on July 30, 2016, 12:40:02 PM
I personally think global warming is a hoax
Neither of these statements is – and by a wide margin – even close to true. The evidence against them is everywhere. I'd say more, but that would get too close to the political realm.
Okay then prove to us that global warming is caused by human activity.
Quote from: US 41 on July 30, 2016, 11:00:37 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 30, 2016, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 30, 2016, 09:00:27 AM
Global warming is, of course, pseudo-science
Quote from: US 41 on July 30, 2016, 12:40:02 PM
I personally think global warming is a hoax
Neither of these statements is – and by a wide margin – even close to true. The evidence against them is everywhere. I'd say more, but that would get too close to the political realm.
Okay then prove to us that global warming is caused by human activity.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.ucsusa.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2Fmlo_full_record.png&hash=881fe6e43b9e1e801ca743610e9d5057facd325d)
So here's the problem with the global warming/climate change denying: you have no place in a multitude of discussions. By that, I don't mean that it's not anyone's place to say it, but offering "global warming is a hoax" as an argument is totally irrelevant here, in a discussion about inspection fees.
You either need to ignore the discussions that even remotely touch on the subject, or ignore the coal- and oil-funded malarkey of fake science that's pushed on conservative talk radio and Fox News. But asking someone to prove it in a discussion simply derails the discussion. Someone on a roads forum, who very likely has no expertise in atmospheric and climatic science and can't explain all the intricacies of the process, is just going to Google it, like you should.
I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any actual warming for like over 17 years, which means that humans probably aren't the cause. The weather just changes and it can be unpredictable. It's barely over a degree warmer on average now than it was in 1880. That means if the average temperature in 1880 was 75 degrees then right now it is 76 degrees. Big Deal. I really think we should all flip shit over one degree. :rolleyes: If it is 85 degrees one day and then 99 the next do you flip out about it or do you say oh the weather just happened to be different today.
Seriously we have had more snow the past two winters than I have ever remembered us having. Two summers ago it hardly ever got warm enough for me to use my pool.
CO2 readings don't mean anything to me. There were around 1 billion people living on earth in 1880. There are over 7 billion now. You know what every human breathes out every second of every day? CO2. BTW only 0.039% of air is CO2. Most of our air is Nitrogen (78%) and Oxygen (20%).
Quote from: US 41 on July 31, 2016, 07:05:29 AM
Seriously we have had more snow the past two winters than I have ever remembered us having. Two summers ago it hardly ever got warm enough for me to use my pool.
Those that believe in global warming will say that those things are caused by global warming.
I've noticed that people who believe in global warming use any hot day in the local area to say it's due to global warming. But if it's a cold day, they're quick to explain that it's GLOBAL warming, so just because it's cool doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist.
Whenever there's hurricanes or tornados, it's now due to global warming. Nevermind many destructive storms took place 40, 50, 60 or more years ago.
It's tough to have a conversation with these people because of their inability to acknowledge anything bad happened in the past. Heck, even normal summertime temps are now caused by global warming, and not by, say, summer atmosphere conditions!
Quote from: US 41 on July 31, 2016, 07:05:29 AM
I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any actual warming for like over 17 years, which means that humans probably aren't the cause. The weather just changes and it can be unpredictable. It's barely over a degree warmer on average now than it was in 1880. That means if the average temperature in 1880 was 75 degrees then right now it is 76 degrees. Big Deal. I really think we should all flip shit over one degree. :rolleyes: If it is 85 degrees one day and then 99 the next do you flip out about it or do you say oh the weather just happened to be different today.
Seriously we have had more snow the past two winters than I have ever remembered us having. Two summers ago it hardly ever got warm enough for me to use my pool.
CO2 readings don't mean anything to me. There were around 1 billion people living on earth in 1880. There are over 7 billion now. You know what every human breathes out every second of every day? CO2. BTW only 0.039% of air is CO2. Most of our air is Nitrogen (78%) and Oxygen (20%).
Extreme views on either side of the coin would have you believe one of two things. People who claim climate change generally ignore all the data in front of their face to which there is plenty. A lot of them throw the word "conspiracy" out there when they are losing an argument and need a maguffin that can't be refuted. The opposite extreme are the people who are convinced all the ice caps are going to melt in the next 10 year and think that almost major seaboard city will be under 400 feet of water. These people deny the data in from of the all which has showed progress towards reigning carbon emissions.
OKAY....so here's my legitimate take on the subject that doesn't include a Walter Peck reference. Basically I don't think anyone could have known at the beginning of the industrial age or automotive era the effect carbon emissions would have in regards to global warming or pollution in general. Really at the end of the day I think there was an easy energy source and it was exploited in kind...that's human nature. If anythings like the Environmental Protection Act led to some decent stuff like advancements in the automotive sector towards alternate drive trains and increased fuel economy figures. Nowadays things like electric cars are becoming more and more common while others like the hydrogen combustion engine have been explored. I'll say this though; there is a huge reliance in terms of the power grid for coal even until this day and it is an equally large pollution source as all the cars on the road. Not to mention that the process used to create lithium ion batteries in those electric cars ain't exactly "clean." So...progress is progress and usually people won't do things unless they are mandated by law....so yeah...not all terrible.
Now with that in mind that same EPA has a lot of negatives that have come in vogue with it. Basically there is red tape about EVERYTHING nowadays given that almost any kind of public works project in the U.S. requires an burdensome impact survey. It also led to silly laws like states requiring emissions checks on new cars which cost the tax payer base money on cars that would likely never fail unless heavily modified. Speaking of modification, the EPA even sought to have new cars built out of production vehicles conform to emission standards....like that was any significant source of pollution. :eyebrow: Basically the automotive sector as much progress as it has made has become the favorite punching bag for environmentalists when their efforts ought to be focused now on how we generate power... I could get into the efficiency and pollution levels of nuclear power plants versus coal or the myths associated with the former...but I digress.
In terms of climate data, it's pretty clear people have had effect. But with that in mind there have actually been warmer periods of time in last 1,000 years like the Midevil Warm period which ran 1C warmer than today. Geologic and climate data is often best viewed from long historic ranges like tens of thousands of years rather than a couple decades or a century. There is even evidence of higher coast lines in recent geologic history...hell the Florida Keys were formed not too long ago geologically from an under water coral reef. If you really want to see how wild the climate swings over time in North America alone check out the water levels out in the Great Basin Desert over the last 100,000 years with all the warming/cooling trends.
It's interesting to note some predictions as recently as around the year 2000. Many of them had our coastal waterliness much high in just 15 years...which would mean now. None of those predictions came true.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2016, 09:33:05 AM
It's interesting to note some predictions as recently as around the year 2000. Many of them had our coastal waterliness much high in just 15 years...which would mean now. None of those predictions came true.
One of the things which may affected those predictions is lower than average solar activity in cycle 23, peaked around 2000-2002, and significantly lower than average activity in cycle 24, peaked 2012-2014. There are indications cycle 25 will be weak as well.
This can be be a short term variation, or a longer term, beginning of a small ice age.
Nobody can tell what would happen in cycle 26, 20-25 years from now. Maybe greenhouse effect would save us from a new ice age, maybe all those climate horrors would come true around 2040-2050.
And you may look at Hubble telescope to see how predictions didn't quite work out - for same lower sun activity reasons.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.spaceref.com%2Fnews%2F2003%2F07.31.03.hubble.3.jpg&hash=2050f6c7cdd7e591a81615e9ad4780836fc4f6e8)
Pointing out the ignorance of people does not change the science. You shouldn't be listening to uneducated people, anyway. Claiming that there is no global warming because you had a cold day is as ignorant as saying there is global warming because you had a warm day.
It's important to keep things in perspective. One of the biggest factors to be considered is that the majority of the heat caused by global warming is in the oceans. Up to a point, the heat can basically disappear and be safely stored in the water (and in water vapor caused by increased evaporation). Heat is also going into the ice and melting it. This all happens before actual warmer weather. As these storehouses get increasingly full, that's when warmer weather starts to happen. Due to differences in heat capacity, the warmer air is a very small portion of the actual heat imbalance.
The normal variation of weather, which will include cold spells, does not negate the heat excess. Neither does hot weather prove or appreciably increase the imbalance. It's not actual "global" warming, because it doesn't heat up the interior of the planet, but it also isn't accurate to think of it as "atmospheric" warming. It's warming of the oceans, ice, land, and atmosphere. The atmosphere is the last link in the chain, and a very small part of it. Arguing about how warm the air is makes the discussion a "deck chairs on the Titanic" topic.
By the time the atmosphere is getting warmer, you've already stored up an unbelievable amount of heat above the natural conditions. As the imbalance between the atmosphere and everything below it grows, the air will gradually follow the trend. That will happen in an unsteady manner, consistent with weather and climate variations.
Quote from: US 41 on July 30, 2016, 12:40:02 PM
I think checking people emissions is kind of pointless and unnecessary. There are probably factories out there that put out more emissions in one minute than what your car will put out in one year.
Actual data says otherwise:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fx1XkHSS.png&hash=5c5d3440b8567e486000ae6ad9e341e8a64042ca)
Yes, a factory individually will be a larger source than a vehicle, but vehicles significantly outnumber factories so collectively it does make a difference.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2016, 09:33:05 AM
It's interesting to note some predictions as recently as around the year 2000. Many of them had our coastal waterliness much high in just 15 years...which would mean now. None of those predictions came true.
Not to mention all the doomsday predictions back in the 1970s that we were headed for another Ice Age.
You can debate global warming all day. Some people believe in it, some don't. If it was 100% proven it wouldn't be controversial, but obviously it's not.
Back on topic. I would definitely support tolling freeways before I would add a mileage tax or raising the gas tax. There's nothing wrong with having people pay to use the best roads. States like Oklahoma, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida all have multiple toll facilities. I don't hear complaints about how those states are forcing poor people onto less safe roads. In fact all the states I just mentioned, besides OK, are eastern states that have more traffic than the rest of the nation. I don't get why states like Indiana and Illinois can't collect toll money off of their interstates. A lot of the traffic on interstates are from out of state so it would make sense to charge tolls, especially in rural areas where it wouldn't be extremely difficult to convert the freeway into a toll road.
Quote from: US 41 on July 31, 2016, 07:05:29 AM
I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any actual warming for like over 17 years, which means that humans probably aren't the cause.
The seven hottest years on record are (in order): 2015, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005, 2009, and 1998. This year, 2016, is also well on track to take the top spot.
QuoteIt's barely over a degree warmer on average now than it was in 1880. That means if the average temperature in 1880 was 75 degrees then right now it is 76 degrees.
A difference of 1 degree Celsius is quite a bit. The planet is only about 6 degrees Celsius warmer now than it was at the height of the last ice age.
QuoteCO2 readings don't mean anything to me. There were around 1 billion people living on earth in 1880. There are over 7 billion now. You know what every human breathes out every second of every day? CO2. BTW only 0.039% of air is CO2. Most of our air is Nitrogen (78%) and Oxygen (20%).
The carbon used in human metabolism doesn’t have a significant impact on CO2 levels in the atmosphere. When food grows, it pulls carbon out of the air, and when people eat it, it gets put back. Also, while O2 and N2 make up the bulk of the atmosphere, their role in climate change is minimal because they are not greenhouse gases.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2016, 04:25:56 PM
Not to mention all the doomsday predictions back in the 1970s that we were headed for another Ice Age.
There was some concern about global cooling in the ’70s, but even then, the bulk of scientific work on climate was related to warming.
Quote from: US 41 on July 31, 2016, 11:42:05 PM
You can debate global warming all day. Some people believe in it, some don't. If it was 100% proven it wouldn't be controversial, but obviously it's not.
It is proven as far as anything else is. There is no scientific controversy. However, for various reasons, belief or disbelief in it has become a bit of a social group identifier. That’s why people get all worked up about it, in much the same way they don’t get worked up about neutrinos.
This all I will say on the matter. We’re definitely getting a bit off the discussion of road funding.
Global warming is a scientific theory, not a scientific law. It hasn't been 100% proven to be true. There are many scientists out there that don't believe in global warming and many who do. If it was a law there would be absolute proof. There is not, so it is a scientific theory, just like the Big Bang is a theory.
How many of those scientists that don't believe in climate change are climate scientists? And how many more climate scientists do? It's never 100%, but it is the dominant paradigm, and science works in paradigms (fortunately or unfortunately).
Anyways, even if something is 100% proven, some people still won't believe it. For example, there are some people out there who believe that vaccines are a conspiracy by the Illuminati to keep people's souls enslaved by damaging the Pineal Gland, thereby preventing people from connecting with spiritual energy that would give them psychic powers (also that the decrease in disease attributed to vaccines being caused by access to potable water).
Plus any warming is not uniform. 1 degree of warming is just the global average; it can stay the same in one place, shoot up by 10 degrees in another (which is actually happening in Siberia, by the way; there's actually an anthrax epidemic up there caused by a 40 year old reindeer corpse defrosting), and decrease in a third. Plus the increased temperature causes wind patterns to change and weather to become more volatile, so hotter summers and colder/snowier winters can BOTH happen in the same area.
Back on this topic, people actually do complain about the Thruway tolls, quite vehemently. Some truckers even threatened to sue the state over toll money going to the Canal Corporation.
Quote from: US 41 on August 01, 2016, 12:12:12 PM
Global warming is a scientific theory, not a scientific law. It hasn't been 100% proven to be true. There are many scientists out there that don't believe in global warming and many who do. If it was a law there would be absolute proof. There is not, so it is a scientific theory, just like the Big Bang is a theory.
There is no absolute certainty in science. The difference between a theory and a law isn't that one might be true while the other is certainly true. A hypothesis, a theory, and a law are all really the same thing: a proposed explanation. The difference is that a hypothesis is more specific and has less certainty, while a theory is more general and has more certainty, and a law is very general, describing a very fundamental and universal truth, and has the highest degree of certainty.
The Theory of Relativity is about as proven as any science can be, but it is not a law. Laws are generally very basic, such as the laws of motion and of gravity, because with that simplicity you can have a high degree of certainty not only that it's true, but that it's a fundamental building block of nature. The Law of Universal Gravitation, in spite of being a law, is not, in fact 100% true. Relativity is Einstein's new theory of gravity. It also is proven but does not appear to be completely correct. Science isn't about absolute truth; it's about the state of understanding of the day and advancing that state tomorrow. Nothing we know is completely true because we don't know everything.
Global warming is much too small a phenomenon to be a law of nature, no matter how well it's proven or how true it is. We need to understand science for what it actually does and what it actually means, and not use our misunderstanding to justify rejection of scientific facts we don't want to be true. (Note that "scientific facts" does not mean absolutely true facts, but it refers to an explanation reflecting the state of understanding at the time.) I'm not a scientist and not qualified to explain the process is complete detail, but I understand it well enough to recognize that it's frequently misunderstood.
Quote from: vdeane on August 01, 2016, 12:59:03 PM
Back on this topic, people actually do complain about the Thruway tolls, quite vehemently. Some truckers even threatened to sue the state over toll money going to the Canal Corporation.
I guess it depends on how important that toll for the bottom line. For me EZpass is a small expense, and actually I would gladly pay $100-200/year extra for better roads (assuming $0.00 goes towards new roundabouts).
My EZpass bill for last week was about $25 (that was quite high for me, though). I probably spent more than that on soda along the way. Do I really care?.. Not so much. But I can see truckers being significantly impacted by those expenses.
As far as I understand, Thruway commuter plans in upstate are more or less reasonable. And I am not talking NYC bridges and tunnels, those are a different story.
Honestly speaking, only thing that makes me personally uncomfortable with Thruway toll is the fact that I pay twice: both gas tax AND toll. But again, that is not enough to complain.
The problem, of course, is that you just cannot trust that a toll is going to result in "better roads".
Toll authorities, pretty much nationwide, are known for misappropriation of toll money for things unrelated to road maintance. When you have a big pot of money and no oversight, since tolls usually pass through without legislative appropriation, it is a receipe for waste.