Policy Pete

The left sidebar speaks about the ethanol / methanol issue.

Probably, more importantly, it gives folks driving beyond their (and/or their cars) capabilities a place to get in front of you – a good place for a dangerous or agressive driver to be.

Some pretty good ideas. I practice long, slow decelerations at lights (trying to keep the rig moving) myself.

I do take issue with the quick acceleration saving fuel though. It might possibly save fuel for ALL the drivers on average (the argument given is that fewer drivers will have to stop at the lights). But it will cause MY fuel consumption to rise for sure.

BTW I think accelerating more slowly and driving more slowly (say 5 Mi/Hr slower) than the surrounding traffic is a good idea for a number of reasons.
1)fuel consumption is decreased.
2)(more importantly) and (I’d conservatively estimate) it cuts the likelihood of being involved in an accident by 50%.
3) Since the force impact one experiences in a collision is squared with a doubling of speed, any injuries sustained will be significantly reduced.
4)It makes it easier to “caillac” (relax) down the road.

On the negative side: If you have to drive in suburban traffic you may hit a few more red lights as well traveling at a slower rate. Say 40 minutes instead of 30 for a twenty mile trip. Not a bad trade off IMO.

Vehicle Performance Requirments should be considered, not for mechinical efficiency, but for stopping and accelleration capability.

2.Increase the gas tax, but refund it for business and commuting expense (this can be done with electronic payment used explusively for these reasons).

3. Eliminate regulation on fuel mixtures (only requirment should be to clearly inform customers of the mixture and quality).

4. I’ll say it again, STOP INEFFICIENT DRIVING.

First, abolish all government mandates for vehicles of any kind. The regulations requiring that cars and trucks satisfy a myriad of goals other than getting someone from here to there cause vehicles to be overly heavy, complex, and have inefficient engines.

Second, abolish all the various restrictions on which vehicles can be driven for routine commuting. Some people might be very happy to drive a snowmobile to work in winter or a lightweight dune buggy type vehicle in summer. I know a few people who might like a horse.

It is another variation of nanny state over protectiveness that keeps people from making their own decisions. Adults do not require a “mommy” in some government office to tell them what to drive, or to wear their galoshes if it rains.

Third, abolish all taxes on fuels. These account for almost half the price of gasoline and deisel in some states.

Fourth, abolish fuel mandates for special mixtures and additives. If someone wants to use ethenol, fine. Why make every driver pay a subsidy to farmers who make up less than two percent of the population? Or to mega-sized agricultural corporations, who are, in fact, the major beneficaries of this policy.

Fifth, replace any of the above laws regarding road maintenance, pollution, or safety concerns with user fees and inspections. If someone wants to drive a lawnmower to work, fine, as long as it is insured, all fees are paid, and it stays off high speed freeways. Violations should result in confiscation and destruction of the vehicle and jail time.

The reaction to these proposals will be utter hysteria and mystified non-comprehension on the part of all those who cannot imagine living in a society in which ordinary people are allowed to decide basic questions for themselves.

We have come so far down the road toward non-liberty that the idea of letting a citizen decide what he drives to work or the grocery store is considered fanciful. Pity.