Reply to Giant increase in annual registration fees for giant vehicles in DC

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Giant increase in annual registration fees for giant vehicles in DC"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Good. To respond to some of the criticism in this thread:

1) The fee is $500 for the really big vehicles. If it is used for business, that is a reasonable business expense. It's not like the fee is $8,000 or something. If your business cannot afford $500 to register a huge pickup that is needed to haul equipment or whatever, then you probably also cut all kinds of other corners. I don't feel bad for you. Also, many of the people using these large vehicles in DC for work don't even register them in DC because they live and base their businesses out of state. It truly is a minuscule number of businesses that will be impacted by this change and most are in construction and landscaping, both highly lucrative and this cost is totally reasonable. It's not going to put anyone out of business or serve as a true barrier to entry. And it's not like it was previously free to register these vehicles. It's an incremental increase.

2) There is not room for these vehicles in the city. Period. If you want to live somewhere that can accommodate vehicles this size, don't live in the city. They are too big for most parking spaces and garages, they have terrible visibility of pedestrians (of which there are far more in the city), they don't fit down many of DC's residential streets. The only want to make lanes wide enough to accommodate these vehicles in many parts of DC would be to eliminate parking lanes. You really think we should reduce street parking just so someone can comfortable drive a Denali down residential streets? No.

3) The alternative here is to simply ban large vehicles from certain parts of the city where they pose a threat or the infrastructure does not accommodate it. I'd actually be fine with this, but I bed you all would cry about it. This is actually better for you. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.[/quote]

[b]1.  So it is a 240% increase but we shouldn't mind because it's not that expensive?  Then why spend so much time intentionally lying about the percentage increase?[/b]

2. You make some good points HOWEVER they are all completely undercut by the EV exception and therefore do not apply.

3.  That is not the alternative.  That is a disengenuous attempt to make it into a false binary.[/quote]

DP. Percentage increase is a misleading way to frame small numbers. This is "how to lie with statistics" 101.[/quote]

And how to make yourself look like an untrustworthy fool is to deny when confronted with them.  Lying and obviously bs narratives like "safety" do way more harm then just saying yes but it's not that bad because there is a small base.  The lie makes every single utterance suspect.  The lie makes it look like one is trying to pull one over.[/quote]

Safety isn't a BS justification; it's the actual reason. EVs are granted an exception for some weight because the council sees increasing the number of electric cars on the road as a good which outweighs the harm of increased vehicle weight. You can disagree with that (I'm on the fence myself) but calling the safety reasoning "PCOS obvious BS" makes it obvious that you're not presenting the issue fairly or reasonably. [/quote]

The exception clearly means safety is not a serious concern. It also clearly means that safety is not the primary concern or purpose.  Safety is nothing but a cover story designed to disengenuously deflect criticism.[/quote]

You're welcome to believe this, but it makes you seem like you lack the ability to apreciate any level of complexity or balance competing interests which makes me think you're not someone whose opinion on public policy I should care about. [/quote]

Lol, now lying exaggeration insults and specious reasoning is a public policy virtue.  How very Trump of you.  God I hope you're not involved in any sort of public policy.  You are the exact thing wrong with our society at the moment and you have really bad judgement.  Rule number one of sound public policy is don't lie.[/quote]

I've never lied in this conversation. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else? Anyway, you're not really seeming like you have any interest in having an actual conversation, so I'll leave you to do your silly name calling by yourself.[/quote]

dollars to donuts the PP accusing you of lying is the same one on every thread about transportation and housing doing the same. They have a very personalized grievance against any sort of progress that changes their environment in any way, and they have some sort of paranoia about people being out to get them. I have seen these people in action in real life and I can tell you they absolutely have a mental disorder of some type. [/quote]

Sure they are Jan.  Project much?

The simple fact of the matter is that an EV is MORE dangerous than a vehicle of the same size and weight because they don't have engine noise.  Therefore it is absurd to claim this has anything to do with safety.[/quote]

DP.  It doesn't have to be one thing and only one thing.  The car registration fee can promote safety and also protect roads from excessive wear and tear.

DC has had Teslas and pedestrians for years now.  What are the statistics showing that Teslas are more dangerous than the F-250s (which incidentally don't even fit on many of the streets in DC, especially the narrow side streets)?[/quote]

It’s the Rivians that are nightmare machines … and self-driving Teslas. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics