I'll save the moderators some trouble and post this in the political forum before it gets moved here:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2104755

The above article makes an interesting observation that SUVs that weigh over 6,000 pounds qualify for special tax status, but by definition of being a heavy/industrial truck, they are not permitted on many residential streets. I don't expect much to come of it, but the author makes a good case that the law needs revision. My preference would be that our law encourages smaller, rather than larger vehicles. My larger preference would be that the marketplace, not tax code, determines the desirability of a mode of transportation.

My larger preference would be that the marketplace, not tax code, determines the desirability of a mode of transportation.

Detroit thinks that a marketplace with persistent $3/gallon gas will focus people's minds on the desirability of different modes of transportation.

Here's a nice betting pool opportunity. At what global price for oil (regular benchmark grade) does US gas hit $3/gallon? I'll take $55/barrel.

By what percentage does the resale value of a Hummer drop when persistent gas prices reach and hold at $3/gallon? $4/gallon?

This could be fun...

Even a Suburban that has a GVWR of 7000 pounds has a curb weight of only 5300-5500 pounds: http://www.chevrolet.com/suburban/specs.htm

There is no indication whatsoever that the street signed prohibition applies Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, and not actual or curb weight. Most SUV's, even the largest ones, are well under the 6,000 pound limit, unless they are fully loaded.

Besides, I'd bet half the cops out there writing tickets are driving these things. There is one right here on my street who does.

The author addresses your concerns quite extensively.

I don't get it, why is it so "evil" for people to own a sport utility vehicle or a large truck if that is their choice.??? You remember choice right, in this country we are supposed to respect that.

Is it because they consume too much gas? Well the large BMW sedan gets 15/23 compared to the Dodge Hemi which is 14/18 or the Volvo SUV 15/20 and the VW Toruareg 17/23 not a big difference in my book. Anybody looked at what high performance cars like a Viper or Z06 Corvette get, I'm sure they are not the most fuel efficent cars out there and I haven't heard any complaints on those.

Is it because they are more dangerous for other vehicles on the road. Well if you want to be safer drive a bigger car or SUV. Even the little electric eco-box will fair better than any motorcycle and I haven't heard a ban for motorcycles in the "interest" of public safety.

I'm in the market for a new car, heck maybe I should look at a new Peterbilt for a daily driver with a big sticker that says "My Peterbilt can run over your electric car" :eek:

Evil, no probably not, that gets into too much relativistic morality...socially irresponsible? Absolutely. Yes, America is supposedly about having choice...mostly the choice to use up as much of the natural resources on the planet as you can while we have a stranglehold on them through military and global economic sanction controls...the question is how much longer can all this last? Do you have any children? Are you interested in anyone else's kids having clean air to breath, healthy food, and peaceful society? If so, think about the choices you can make to have that happen. If you don't care, use up as much as you can, as fast as you can. Excersize the privalege you found by being born in the US rather than the Sudan. Use your choice to consume everything and mountains of waste with no thought for what future generations will have to deal with.

Of course, it's difficult to get around without a car, but that won't change until something forces it to happen...gas hitting $4-5 per gallon and/or a massive recession/depression, both of which will definitely happen in the next few years.

I'm faced with this choice all the time, take an extra 30 min to run my errands by bike, or drive it, or go without whatever it was I thought I needed until I had a bigger list to make fewer trips.

It's hard to get into this discussion without getting into a "I'm holier than you" contest...are soy-milk latte sipping organic democrats doing much to change the world in their Volvo XC's? Probably not, but it's all relative...

What it comes down to for me is the attitude of particular drivers...the people who drive with anger, change lanes without signalling, cut me off, try to blow me off the road, and post huge flag bumperstickers or SemperFi, or these colors don't run, or anything else that shows how clueless they are about what it is costing the world for them to keep up their lifestyle...and it just so happens that most of these drivers are in oversized SUV's or 1980's Camaro's...and who's gonna pick on the mullet guy? Much easier to go after the SUV's...and so we do.

Detroit thinks that a marketplace with persistent $3/gallon gas will focus people's minds on the desirability of different modes of transportation.

Here's a nice betting pool opportunity. At what global price for oil (regular benchmark grade) does US gas hit $3/gallon? I'll take $55/barrel.

By what percentage does the resale value of a Hummer drop when persistent gas prices reach and hold at $3/gallon? $4/gallon?

This could be fun...
I can't wait for gas prices to top $4 and $5 per gallon. It's the only motivator for the general public to drive fuel efficient cars. It doesn't matter if the vehicle is an SUV or Bently. It's irresponsible if it isn't getting over 25mpg in the city.

I can't wait for gas prices to top $4 and $5 per gallon. It's the only motivator for the general public to drive fuel efficient cars. It doesn't matter if the vehicle is an SUV or Bently. It's irresponsible if it isn't getting over 25mpg in the city.


I don't need a BIG SUV but I do have to have a four wheel drive, so find me a vehicle that is "responsible" and is a 4x4??? I can't find one on the market. (Before anybody chimes in with the Honda CR-V or a RAV-4 or whatever, I mean real 4x4 with a 4-low range not the drive through a mud puddle all wheel drive) :confused:

What it comes down to for me is the attitude of particular drivers...the people who drive with anger, change lanes without signalling, cut me off, try to blow me off the road, and post huge flag bumperstickers or SemperFi, or these colors don't run, or anything else that shows how clueless they are about what it is costing the world for them to keep up their lifestyle...and it just so happens that most of these drivers are in oversized SUV's or 1980's Camaro's...and who's gonna pick on the mullet guy? Much easier to go after the SUV's...and so we do.

I find that SUV does not equal angry driver - I have seen just as many in regular cars - in fact I am one of them and I drive a Honda Civic - though I don't have any bumper stickers. Perhaps I could get one that says my other car is a Peterbilt.

I don't care if people buy SUVs, I just don't want to hear them complain about gas prices.

I don't need a BIG SUV but I do have to have a four wheel drive, so find me a vehicle that is "responsible" and is a 4x4??? I can't find one on the market. (Before anybody chimes in with the Honda CR-V or a RAV-4 or whatever, I mean real 4x4 with a 4-low range not the drive through a mud puddle all wheel drive) :confused:
Sorry. If there is a need for any kind of utility vehicle, then no, it's not irresponsible. My comment was aimed at those who drive gas guzzlers just because they like them. I'm not suggesting that they be made illegal or anything. All I'm saying is that when the gas prices go through the roof these people will get zero sympathy from me because they've helped create their situation. It's also the only thing that will prompt people to buy fuel efficient vehicles and, subsequently, coax the auto makers to make more fuel efficient autos. So, in my view, high gas prices are a good thing in the long run.

The author addresses your concerns quite extensively.

The author notes the issue, but does not resolve it. The article never shows that the sign means rated weight.

As somebody who has worked in transportation, I can tell you that those weight restrictions (other than those for bridges...) generally apply only to commercially registered vehicles. In many states, you have the choice of how you can register a pickup-as a passenger vehicle, or as a commercial vehicle. Generally, it's cheaper to register it commercially, but, you will then need to abide by all commercial restrictions. You can also get nailed pretty hard if you load the vehicle over it's registered weight.

My point concerned legal consistency more than the moral implications of owning an SUV, but since you raise the issue, I'll bite. I think most people who own them, don't need them and I would prefer that less people purchased them. I grew up in a large family and somehow we managed to haul ourselves and our things just fine in a regular car. Most SUVs are only hauling air, its single occupant and their three tons of weight.

I don't need a BIG SUV but I do have to have a four wheel drive, so find me a vehicle that is "responsible" and is a 4x4??? I can't find one on the market. (Before anybody chimes in with the Honda CR-V or a RAV-4 or whatever, I mean real 4x4 with a 4-low range not the drive through a mud puddle all wheel drive) :confused:
I'll keep my Explorer. We sold our Subaru Legacy because I take the bus to work. The SUV is just more comfortable to get around in with 2 kids, gear and 3 dogs. Better off-road too. I'm all for conservation of fuel, but I'll buy a vehicle that fits my needs--not just something that is PC. I'd definately consider a hybrid SUV, but I think the only one Ford has now is the Escape which is too small.

The article explains why there is <b>no reasonable basis</b> for assuming that the sign refers to curb weight, given other laws on the books and the spirit of the restriction.

The article explains why there is <b>no reasonable basis</b> for assuming that the sign refers to curb weight, given other laws on the books and the spirit of the restriction.

The issue is how are drivers put on notice of the law, and what does the law say? Also, signs don't necessarily create law. Something has to authorize them and the consequences. Criminal laws are strictly construed, too, so if it is ambiguous, it's resolved in favor of the accused (which I'm confident you would agree with, in principle, right?).

The only issue is what the law says. I don't know, and evidently neither do you. Since we are thus <i>guessing</i>, I think the matter should be resolved in favor of common sense, and not a desire to be contrarian (which I'm confident you would agree with, in principle, right?).

The only issue is what the law says. I don't know, and evidently neither do you. Since we are thus <i>guessing</i>, I think the matter should be resolved in favor of common sense, and not a desire to be contrarian (which I'm confident you would agree with, in principle, right?).

My original intended point is that the article doesn't tell us which it is, and it's misleading to state affirmatively that the sign/law means rated weight, when there is no proof of that. Heck, for all I know, that's what the law is, but no one has demonstrated it. It's probably a city ordinance, not even available on line.

Practically speaking, I think we all realize that the law is intended to address commercial vehicles, most of which are already over 6,000 pounds curb weight, so it's not an issue. This entire issue is primarly yet another attempt at SUV scapegoating, some people taking great pleasure in blaming all of society's ills, from AIDS to terrorism, on SUVs. Have fun.

. . .from the usual suspect. Why on Earth would a law based on weight favor a theoretical marketing figure over reality? And why would the law feel differently about a 6000+ lb. commercial vehicle than a 6000+ lb. private vehicle for the purposes of setting weight limits on certain roads?

I suppose if you are satisfied with that calibre of reasoning. . .

Even a Suburban that has a GVWR of 7000 pounds has a curb weight of only 5300-5500 pounds: http://www.chevrolet.com/suburban/specs.htm

There is no indication whatsoever that the street signed prohibition applies Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, and not actual or curb weight. Most SUV's, even the largest ones, are well under the 6,000 pound limit, unless they are fully loaded.

Besides, I'd bet half the cops out there writing tickets are driving these things. There is one right here on my street who does.
curb weight for an explorer is around 4286 pounds, Suburban is listed at 5268, Lincoln Navigator listed at 5750, Hummer H2 is 6400. I'm guessing the original Hummers are more.

. . .from the usual suspect. Why on Earth would a law based on weight favor a theoretical marketing figure over reality? And why would the law feel differently about a 6000+ lb. commercial vehicle than a 6000+ lb. private vehicle for the purposes of setting weight limits on certain roads?

I suppose if you are satisfied with that calibre of reasoning. . .

Municipalities regularily post residential streets at 6000lb, or 80000lb, or 10000lb, even though the pavement can handle more. Most of these have the caveat "except for local delivery" added. These posted limits are designed to keep commercial traffic down, and apply only to commercial vehicles.

OTOH, a deficient bridge or roadway will sometimes have a load rating posted. These are an accurate description of the load bearing capacity of the structure and apply to all. These ratings are often applied by the state DOT.

Here are some similar Fresno city ordinances:

SECTION 10-1305. VEHICLES EXCEEDING MAXIMUM GROSS WEIGHT. Except as provided in Public Utilities Code Sections 1031--1036, Vehicles exceeding 6 tons, gross weight are prohibited from traveling on the following city streets:
1. Martin Luther King Boulevard between North Avenue and Jensen Avenue;
2. Clinton Avenue between West Avenue and Blackstone Avenue.
Commercial vehicles exceeding 6 tons gross weight coming from an unrestricted street having ingress or egress by direct route to and from a restricted street may travel upon the restricted street when necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on the restricted street for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure upon the restricted street for which a building permit has previously been obtained. (Added Ord. 98-12, § 1, eff. 4-3-98)


SECTION 10-1303. TRUCK ROUTES.
(a) The Council by ordinance may designate streets as truck routes for the movement of any vehicle exceeding a maximum grossweight of twelve thousand pounds.
(b) When such truck route or routes are designated by appropriate signs, the operator of any vehicle exceeding the maximum grossweight limit provided in Subsection (a) of this section shall drive on such route or routes and none other, provided that nothing in this section shall prohibit the operator of any vehicle exceeding a said grossweight limit coming from or going to a truck route having ingress and egress by direct route considering origin and destination of trip, to and from restricted streets when necessary for, the purpose of making pickups and deliveries of goods, wares, and merchandise from or to any property located on such restricted streets; or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure upon such restricted streets for which a building permit has previously been obtained; or for the actual and bona fide repair or servicing of the vehicle; or delivery of said operator to or from a motel or hotel at which he takes overnight accommodations.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(1) Passenger buses under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, or operated by governmental agencies, or
(2) Any vehicle owned by a public utility while necessary in the use or the construction, installation, or repair of any public utility.
(3) Any vehicle operated by the City of Fresno, or any other governmental agency, or any employee thereof in the course of official business or any vehicle operated by a contractor of the city or any other governmental agency while such vehicle is used in the construction, maintenance, or repair of a street, storm drain in a street, or any similar street structure or such vehicle is upon a direct route to or from such work location.
(4) Any vehicle of military or naval forces of the United States, or the duly authorized militia of this State, in the proper performance of their duties.
(d) The City Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to erect, post, and maintain on all streets designated in this article as truck routes, appropriate signs to carry out the provisions of this article. All signs and marking shall be as specified in, erected and placed pursuant to the California Vehicle Code.
(e) There is hereby established an official city "List of Truck Routes". Whenever the Council has designated a street as a truck route, the City Traffic Engineer shall cause the designated truck route to be placed on the said list. The City Traffic Engineer shall keep a record of all ordinances hereafter adopted designating truck routes and shall cause notation of such records and such streets to be placed on said list in his office. Whenever any truck route is hereafter amended, deleted, or changed, the City Traffic Engineer shall cause such fact to be recorded upon the pertinent list in the appropriate place. Said list and the notation and contents therein as they may from time to time be kept and amended pursuant to this section shall be prima facie evidence of the existence and legality of the designation of said streets as truck routes and the legality of placing appropriate signing thereat as hereinafter provided. Said list, as amended, shall be deemed to be incorporated herein. (Rep. and Added Ord. 6130, 1962, based on former Sec. 10-1404; Am. Ord. 6383, 1964; Rep. and Added Ord. 73-14, 1973; Am. Ord. 73-104, § 1, eff. 8-6-73; Am. Ord. 73-130, §§ 1, 2, eff. 9-30-73).

California law distinguishes between "gross weight" and "gross vehicle weight rating." The first is actual weight, the latter the manufacturer's theoretical maximum. The two standards serve different purposes. The Fresno ordinance refers to actual weight, and my best guess is that other ordinances do, too.

Also, there are exceptions to the ordinances, like ingress/egress to a destination (not being used as a through street).

Finally, all laws must pass a "rational basis" test; it's not hard to do, but the city in question would need to articulate a rational basis for why the ordinance says what it does, for example, "the pavement can only handle x pounds of load," etc. That reason needs to be true, too. There might be some (Constitutionally protected) interstate commerce concerns, too, as well as freedom of assocation, bla bla bla. The bottom line is that SUV scapegoaters shouldn't be too eager or smug in thinking that they are getting their pound of flesh here.

Actually, Doug, "gross vehicle weight rating" refers to the registered weight.