Arnolds fairness to Hummer Drivers - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Wodnek · #1 11-18-2004, 02:44 PM

Check this story out...
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2004/08/19/sections/news/news/article_208035

How dare you buy an economical car!

sfloriII · #2 11-18-2004, 03:00 PM

Like the quote from the article here, I find this ideal VERY invasive. I hope it doesn't take hold!

[from the article:]

"The plan, which still requires legislative approval there, would put a $100 global- positioning-system device in every new car in Oregon. The device would beam drivers' in-state mileage to a satellite, which would then send the information to the service station where the driver is refueling so the proper tax can be levied at the pump."

"The proposal here raises a number of concerns: One is that it could discourage drivers from buying fuel-efficient cars. Another is that it could open the door to state surveillance of motorists."

"You're setting up a system of surveillance allegedly to aid with taxation," said Annalee Newitz, policy analyst for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. "This is incredibly invasive."

#3 11-18-2004, 03:05 PM

I see cost issues with this. The inexpensive, pedestrian-level GPS units do not do a lot of error checking to ensure they're not giving erroneous information based on losing satellites, etc, and they do poorly at higher speeds. Getting units that won't lose their signal (or that recognize when they've lost signal and therefore stop counting mileage until they're back on line) are more expensive.

Cost of compliance to all those mom and pop gas stations is something else again.

And I shudder to think of the privacy issues involved. I bet there are at least a few people about to post in this very thread that they would rip the damned thing out of their car or drive cars old enough to be exempt indefinitely, rather than constantly transmit their speed and location to a state-run agency, and probably a few more have the ability to hack the unit to give information more flattering to their gas bill. Call me paranoid; I'd fall into the 'rip the damned thing out' camp.

P.S.: Revolt!

Zeus · #4 11-18-2004, 03:06 PM

May I politely add "rip the damn thing out and mail it to the government's doorstep" option?

AustinsCE · #5 11-18-2004, 04:06 PM

And just to get it started, raise the gas tax 30% to fund all this GPS and other junk, amongst some nonexistent expenses. Like why it costed so much to REMOVE the MTB they shouldnt have put in to begin with. I hate this state. Why not just give us gas cards and we can only drive a certain amount of miles before we have to walk. Then put a tax on the sidewalks. Go ahead and tax the extra air we have to breathe with all that extra walking too.

SoCalBomb · #6 11-18-2004, 09:51 PM

I wonder if that magic GPS box would be a mandatory standard feature in new California Edition cars, like all the emission systems in the past. I think there are just too many problems with the idea, do you pay if your car is being towed? what if it doesn't work for some mysterious reason

? Would car companys want to add it to the cost of their cars ? NO! . . . and why are they talking about using GPS, which has its problems? isn't there a thingy in the car that calulates your mileage already? . . . why not just make the tach. tamper proof and have manditory reads at gas stations? OOPS, I didn't mean to give the Gropinator a suggestion . . . . . .regardless I'm keeping my car, it has a carburetor . . . enough said

P.S. I feel bad for those with ON STAR :p

sfloriII · #7 11-19-2004, 02:22 AM

One reason why I'll likely never own a car with GPS in it. Too much letting others know where and when I'm anywhere. It's none of their darn business!

mikemover · #8 11-19-2004, 03:06 AM

Before I would agree to buy a new car that came with one of those "Big Brother Boxes", I would require the car dealership to allow me to watch as they remove it from the car, and repeatedly smash it on the pavement with a sledgehammer. I would also require that they take photographs of this smashing event, with me smiling and making obscene gestures in the background, and send them to the politicians who dreamed up this Orwellian device.

Only THEN would I buy the car.

Mike

blackmercedes · #9 11-19-2004, 09:27 AM

GPS is not a communication device. It's possible to have GPS to be used for navigation without it communicating with the outside world. It passively uses the GPS sats to determine it's own position.

However, it's far too easy for someone to transmit the GPS data to an outside system where it can be used to track someone. This is a HUGE privacy issue that has become lost in the traffic of "terrorism" and other "current event" and I feel that it's one of the most important issues, period. I'll be the first to start the industry of "blocking data transmission" and removal of transmission devices.

Mr. Orwell is cackling at us as we are poised to far surpass the future he observed in "1984."

autozen · #10 11-19-2004, 11:32 AM

I can't believe it!! An OD thread with a consensus. I am definitely against any tracking device which is why I refuse to get a fast-trac transponder. I believe that the mileage proposal is a slap in the face of the effort by the people of the State of California to reduce pollution and the use of energy resources. California relys heavily on matching Federal funds which are based on cleaner air figures. When everyone starts driving SUVs, we won't be able to meet the requirments and will loose the funds. I don't think the problem is with declining tax revunue. I think the problem is the present system doesn't produce enough funds to fulfill the appetites of our polititions. A good example is the new seismic Bay bridge being built. The powers in control are crying , because it is going to cost a few billion than they expected. They want more tax money. The reason for the rediculous cost over run is, because they want a showcase bridge like the world has never seen. We poor slobs who are being asked to pay for it, just want a bridge to go to S.F. It's intereresting how lavish you can be when you are spending someone elses money. So far Arnie still has the support of the people, but if he supports this, I think he'll go down in flames. There are millions of commuters who drive small cars to keep costs down.

Peter

Ashman · #11 11-19-2004, 12:19 PM

they have already done it to your cell phone. Ever heard of AGPS? My friend had to call 911 because he was being chased by someone trying to jack him. cops knew which lane my friend was in ont he freeway, how fast he was going, and all. They even called him back on his cell from a 4 digit phone number showing on the caller id telling him to get into such and such lane and go this speed etc.

I wouldn't buy a car if there was this tracking type system in it and gas mileage checker. if that was the case I'd just keep driving cars not equipped with such a function.

Alon

blackmercedes · #12 11-19-2004, 12:54 PM

The idea of charging you for miles driven is MORONIC. It ignores the difference between a Hummer and a Prius. STUPID STUPID STUPID. Gasoline consumption taxes are the ONLY way to economically discourage the use of fuel. Put upfront guzzler taxes on offenders and jack up the at-the-pump taxes.

The next problem is that we have completely given away our privacy. You can start in with the tired ol cliche that "if you're not doing anything wrong, why don't you mind us watching you?" but it doesn't wash with me. Even standing on a street corner, I am expecting some privacy. Sounds funny, but it's true, and it's needed.

Where I go minute by minute is none of anyone's business beyond myself. If we let these freedoms of privacy erode, we give up the one thing that has kept us from becoming nothing more than a facist police state dictatorship. We have already allowed "tribunals" and "organizations" to control our trade and commerce, subventing democracy.

There is a common bond between the left and the right (and by right, I'm not talking about bible-nuts and other freaks) and it's the decay of our fundamental rights as individuals. As a socialist, I truly believe that there are instances where we put the common good before the individual, but there is a core of rights for the individual that must not be compromised. Police have seen 9-11 as an excuse to expand thier horizon of powers, making policy as they bash down doors.

This is not new behaviour. We have done it before, and I had hoped we'd learn from our mistakes. Post WW2, we all shook our heads and promised to preserve the rights of our citizens, and not allow conflict to drive us into a Nazi-like state. Whoops.

"Hey, it's just a chip in your car..."

BS.

mikemover · #13 11-19-2004, 07:06 PM

blackmercedes,

I love it when you and I actually AGREE on something.

I get all tingly feeling! hahaha....

Mike

Gilly · #14 11-19-2004, 09:28 PM

"Mr Orwell" is the insurance companies. I don't think he's going to go away without a fight, or at least a big increase in your insurance rates for his trouble. Black boxes in your car, and in your future..........
Gilly

neanderthal · #15 11-20-2004, 07:44 AM

i dont see why the state should have it both ways.

the whole reason why i have a mercedes is that i cant drive my 76 BMW 2002 because some of the smog stuff is missing / disconnected, even though it passes the actual sniffer test. since the car is so old, it "fits the profile" of a gross polluter and i have to take it to a test only center. if it was a regular smog test place they would issue me a certificate based on whether it passed the actual test.

yet someone who has a fuel efficient, low emissions car should now be taxed based on their milage, since the state is losing income from gas taxes.

which is is; state income, or cleaner air? they should decide.