Join 3,411 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

California has banned large SUVs.
August 4, 2004 10:21 PM   Subscribe

California has banned large SUVs.
posted by NortonDC (29 comments total)

 
(via that cheesy doctor)
posted by NortonDC at 10:21 PM on August 4, 2004


Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
Smells like a steak, and seats thirty five?
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Hey, hey!
Twelve yards long, two lanes wide,
Sixty five tons of American pride!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
She blinds everybody with her super high beams
She's a squirrel-squashin', deer-smackin' drivin' machine
Canyonero! Canyonero! Canyonero!
Whoa, Canyonero! Whoa!


Sorry.
posted by jokeefe at 10:24 PM on August 4, 2004


Periodically you do see large trucks on residential streets: moving/delivery trucks are a common example. What do you do then?

Although this:

As it stands now, big-SUV drivers have it both ways: They use their trucklike status when it benefits them, yet they ignore the more onerous restrictions that "real" truck drivers face.

strikes me as right on.

Hey jokeefe, what's that from?
posted by weston at 10:28 PM on August 4, 2004


Either heavy SUVs will get a new tax to pay for all the extra pothole damage they cause, or more likely, a new law will pass soon in CA to change those legal requirements to only include commercial vehicles over 3 tons, not non-commercial ones.
posted by mathowie at 10:31 PM on August 4, 2004


Weston: The song is from the Simpsons. In answer to your first question, there is a GVWR exemption for local deliveries. I assume this to be legally codified, but when I drove truck we gave nary a thought to weight restrictions on anything but bridges.

Also, as observed here (go monkeys!), the author either willfully or unintentionally conflates curb weight and GVWR.
posted by stet at 10:35 PM on August 4, 2004


Is there a law against obscenely ugly cars? Cause that would take the H2 and the Aztec right off the roads.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:41 PM on August 4, 2004


This article was also linked from Matt's Ask thread, earlier today.
posted by dobbs at 10:49 PM on August 4, 2004


weston: sorry not to provide a link. (Scroll down past the first two song lyrics.)
posted by jokeefe at 10:52 PM on August 4, 2004


Ugly... Don't forget the element. Ughhhh
posted by jeblis at 11:45 PM on August 4, 2004


Let me get this straight - I can buy an Escalade, claim I use it primarily for transportation to and from work, then write it off?
posted by tomorama at 12:14 AM on August 5, 2004


Short answer, Do you want a happy IRS or a vengeful IRS?

Long answer, It only applies to stuff owned by a business or business owner -- it uses a provision intended to encourage companies to buy capital equipment, which includes commercial verhicles, which are defined by weight and so include Escalades.

Even the how-to-do-it pages point out that the only way to finagle it for use as a commuter vehicle is to create a home office, so you're using it to go from one business location to another, and that you'd better keep your nose clean about what you do where (ie, your home office must be non-bullshit) because the IRS agent who's auditing you did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:26 AM on August 5, 2004


Both of these situations arise because when the original laws were made, there was a clear distinction between (private) cars and (commercial) trucks, and nobody imagined that people would be using truck-sized vehicles for personal transport on a regular basis ...
posted by carter at 5:53 AM on August 5, 2004


Doesn't the GVWR indicate the maximum loaded weight of the vehicle, full of passengers, cargo, and trailer tongue weight?
posted by Tubes at 6:20 AM on August 5, 2004


Either heavy SUVs will get a new tax to pay for all the extra pothole damage they cause, or more likely, a new law will pass soon in CA to change those legal requirements to only include commercial vehicles over 3 tons, not non-commercial ones.

What's sad is that the former will never take place because it will be met by massive outrage over "taking our freedoms away."

Jefferson and Washington's ideals apparently having been the right to eat McDonalds past 400 pounds, smoke ten packs a day anywhere you want, and drive a Brinks truck filled with personal assault rifles in the eyes of "real Americans," the fact that we now offer tax incentives to purchase inefficient vehicles is just another example of how America is, and likely never will be again, known for its freedom, but rather how much people take it for granted.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:21 AM on August 5, 2004


Jefferson and Washington's ideals apparently having been the right to eat McDonalds past 400 pounds, smoke ten packs a day anywhere you want, and drive a Brinks truck filled with personal assault rifles

Of course, on the flipside, you could have Montreals ideals, which apparently are banning you from writing English on your truck, ensuring you don't use your truck to broadcast foreign television, and ensuring your truck doesn't make a right turn on red despite having the same road system as all of its neighbours.

Which do you prefer? Freedom that can clearly annoy you, or freedom that, well, isn't?
posted by shepd at 7:36 AM on August 5, 2004


*Ahem*

So it's now illegal to get a Hummer in California?

Please kill me. Thank you.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:44 AM on August 5, 2004


PinkStainlessTail's Hummer weighed 5 tons!!!
posted by onlyconnect at 7:51 AM on August 5, 2004


"Doesn't the GVWR indicate the maximum loaded weight of the vehicle, full of passengers, cargo, and trailer tongue weight?"

Yes, Tubes, that's correct.

However, the Hummer H2 weighs in at a whopping 6400-lb. curb weight with an 8800-lb. GVWR.

Chevy Suburban: 5268/7000, so it's the lightweight of the big SUVs.

Ford Excursion: 7047/8900.

That's a lotta iron, right there.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:49 AM on August 5, 2004


So it's now illegal to get a Hummer in California?

I can't see the current administration making plo chops illegal.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:50 AM on August 5, 2004


Periodically you do see large trucks on residential streets: moving/delivery trucks are a common example. What do you do then?
The way I understood those signs, a nuisance law. So “truckers” would not park their vehicle on your street. We lived by many Hotels in OC. Add folks visiting So.Ca. in RVs


Either heavy SUVs will get a new tax to pay for all the extra pothole damage

It's been proposed in Texas that SUV owners would pay a special tax. My yearly registration for my vehicles are based by weight.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:58 AM on August 5, 2004


Yeah right.....

This ban won't work, as the canny rich will merely switch to driving around in huge dump trucks and decommissioned fire-engines.
posted by troutfishing at 10:00 AM on August 5, 2004


This ban won't work, as the canny rich will merely switch to driving around in huge dump trucks and decommissioned fire-engines.

Trout, that is a beautifully ludicrous image. It will probably happen.

(French & Saunders did a great bit with rich Londoners dropping their kids off at school in tanks.)
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:10 AM on August 5, 2004


Additionally, it's interesting to note that most stretch limousines will easily top the 6K pounds threshold, even the ones that aren't made from SUVs to begin with.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:12 AM on August 5, 2004


A better solution: There should be a special license endorsement necessary to drive these giant vehicles. Including classes and a test. I don't like the things very much, but I don't think they should be banned, necessarily. But people who want to buy one should be required to learn how to drive the damn things.
posted by rusty at 10:51 AM on August 5, 2004


The fuel tax system could be revised to increase the rate for heavier (more road-abusing) and fuel-guzzling (more polluting) vehicles.

If people won't use their good common sense to make decisions that will help this world to remain healthy for humans over the long term, charge them for it.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:09 PM on August 5, 2004


This is fantastic. I look forward to seeing how this pans out.
posted by Witty at 12:10 PM on August 5, 2004


how this pans out.
Panning a cop to write the tickets.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:54 PM on August 5, 2004


Nothing will happen. The legislators and their political donors all drive big fat SUVs too. And take tax breaks from them. Nothing will happen.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:23 PM on August 6, 2004


The legislators and their political donors all drive big fat SUVs too.

They've already done their part. It's an enforcement issue now. It's solely up to the cops to write the citations against violations of the already existing laws. All it takes is one cop who wants to make a point.
posted by NortonDC at 5:15 PM on August 8, 2004


« Older A record label...  |  Lather, rinse, repeat.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments