Is a Higher Gasoline Tax Good Or Bad For America?

kernick · July 2009

Well any night I turn on the local news, a gas station or 7-11 is having an armed robbery, and the thieves get away with a few hundred $'s, about what they would get from your ATM.

And lemko might tell you if the big business in Philly is still to cut the registration- stickers off the license-plates, to resell the stickers. I saw many cars in Philly that had guards over the license-plates.

I don't want the RFID tag in my arm so much, as I want the cybernetic chain-gun attachment.

stever · July 2009

That constant drumbeat is another good reason to kill your TV. Crime rates are lower now than they were when I was a kid. (Time).

Gagrice still sounds a bit paranoid about riding public transit though, even after killing his TV.

gagrice · July 2009

Does everyone stay up nights thinking up all these nightmare scenarios? No wonder parents won't let their kids walk to the bus stop - Freddy Krueger is on every corner. Sheesh.

I do not know a single parent that will let their children play in their front yard unattended. With 100 registered sex offenders per square mile and Ahnold wanting to let more loose it is far too risky. This is the sickest society since the end of the Roman Empire.

With a GPS implant in the sex offenders it would be easier to track them 24/7.

stever · July 2009

Tell 'em about Free Range kids.

gagrice · July 2009

Murder is not the only crime. When I was a kid in LA in the late 1940s early 50s, it was not uncommon for me to be out and about without a fear. You never heard of sex predators back then. Could be a result of TV and certain types of movies. WWF could account for much of the violence.

I am sure higher gas tax would lead to a big uptick in stealing gas. It went up with the price last year. Remember the trailers with big tanks parking over the tanks and sucking them dry.

stever · July 2009

That's what I'm harping on - it's safer out there now than when we were kids, yet no one lets their kiddo walk to school, much less take the bus 5 hours to Atlanta alone like I did when I was 14, or flying from MS to San Fran by myself a year later.

Ah well, enough of today's rant (especially from a non-parent).

If gas gets too high, just buy a Hyundai. New car buyers can lock in gas at $1.49 a gallon for a year.

oldfarmer50 · July 2009

"...Freddy Krueger is on every street corner..."

Of course that's silly....Freddy Krueger is in Washington dreaming up nightmare stuff like that!

bpraxis · July 2009

Giving more money to those in Washington is like giving beer and keys to a teenager.

What kind of sales presentation have we recieved where confiscating more of our income is good???

Is this not theft?

Has anyone read the recent artilce where 31,587 Phd scientist's have just signed a petition stating that there is no global warming and over the last ten years the Earth is cooling?

It appears to me that this issue is more about controling your property and your liberty.

I have to say that this global warming nonsense is the most creative tax scam in my lifetime.

stever · July 2009

Has anyone read the recent article where 31,587 Phd

No, can't find it. Got a link?

I've known quite a few responsible teens over the years, btw.

You may enjoy the Are automobiles a major cause of global warming? discussion.

dave8697 · July 2009

Trump says he would try to destroy OPEC. Then he would force the banks to loan.

Trillions need to be loaned to bring the auto industry back to 11 million vehicle sales per year.

All these college grads with no prospects. In some cases, only 1 out of 100 finalists is given an offer. Sounds like we need more taxes with so many new hires wearing out the roads driving to work.

stever · July 2009

Trump might be ok from the automakers standpoint. He's been through what, two bankruptcies already?

Anyone got any gas tax news?

xrunner2 · July 2009

The year is 2020 and the gasoline tax is history. In its place you get a monthly tax bill based on each mile you drove  tracked by a Global Positioning System device in your car and uploaded to a billing center.

Would like to see Conan Obrien do his green flashlight skit on this.

I hope that innovators/inventors of American ingenuity are already at work with designs to foil this nonsense. Some kind of device that will prevent monitoring of one's movements on the roads/highways.

This present bunch of nut politicians in DC are probably very close to, if not already, trampling our Constitution and Bill of Rights with actual or pending legislation.

Another scheme they have in mind to violate our privacy involves a national data base of every US citizens' "health" profile in the upcoming national health care plan. Also, under alread passed (House) Cap and Trade, there is a provision to require inspection by govt authority (Feds?) before a sale of your house to assure that it meets insulation effectiveness. If it doesn't, you can't sell your house until corrections are made.

As has been said on this board many times before, the most sensible plan is to adjust the gas tax charged at the pump to adequately fund roads and bridges.

kernick · July 2009

That's why there is no such thing as a small intrusion on the freedoms and liberties that individuals of this country have. This mentality of expanding control for either the individual good or societal-good goes against everything this country was founded on. This pending legislation just snowballs.

I'll drive an older car, or a kit-car before I'll drive around in something that can be tracked.

dtownfb · July 2009

We are definitely on the same page with this issue. Just keep the system as is. The more gas you buy, the more tax you pay. don't own a car, you don't pay any gas tax. Very simple, fair system.

euphonium · July 2009

A man was driving when a traffic camera flashed. He thought his picture was taken for exceeding the speed limit, even though he knew he was not speeding. Just to be sure, he went around the block and passed the same spot, driving even more slowly, but again the camera flashed. He thought this was quite funny, so he slowed down even further as he drove past the area, but the traffic camera flashed yet again. He tried a fourth time with the same result. The fifth time he was laughing when the camera flashed as he rolled past at a snail's pace.

Two weeks later, he got five traffic fine letters in the mail for driving without a seat belt. :sick:

stever · July 2009

The more gas you buy, the more tax you pay

Well, that means giving hybrid or plug-in or home-grown biofuel users a free ride for their use of the road.

euphonium · July 2009

Hybrids, Plug ins, & biofuelers can expect their annual registration notice to include a "Special Use Tax" in lieu of pay at the pump.

I can't imagine local Lefties driving a Pious would object to another tax as sofar they've never met a tax they didn't like.

gagrice · July 2009

Nebraska implemented an alternative fuel tax when the Prius became popular in 2005. The figure of $65 per year rings a bell.

66-685 (Operative date January 1, 2005). Purpose of act.

The purpose of the Alternative Fuel Tax Act is to supplement the provisions of the tax upon motor fuels by requiring any person who operates on the highways of this state a motor vehicle powered by alternative fuel to purchase an alternative fuel user permit to pay such person's estimated fuel use tax liability.

http://www.revenue.state.ne.us/fuels/statutes/alt_fuel_tax.htm

stever · July 2009

$1,000 fine if they catch a homegrown biofuel user not paying the $65 fee. I wonder how many d-i-y'selfers have paid the fee, and if any have ever been caught and fined.

Maybe they can just add the fee to the water bill.

"For ethanol from irrigated corn grown in Nebraska, travel in a car that achieves 16 mpg of ethanol represents the use of about 50 gal of water/mile driven (gwpm), the study calculates."

Penn Energy

pafromfl · August 2009

Nebraska implemented an alternative fuel tax when the Prius became popular in 2005.

E10 is like a gasoline tax in that it reduces gas mileage by 10% in many cars, but does not cost less than pure gasoline. Because of reduced gas mileage and energy used for ethanol/corn production/distribution, E10 actually increases net oil consumption. The corn conglomerate is enriched by this tax. Now that observant consumers are exposing the scam, the Greenies should admit their mistake and shut down corn ethanol production before they lose what little is left of their credibility.

kernick · August 2009

Well, that means giving hybrid or plug-in or home-grown biofuel users a free ride for their use of the road.

Maybe we need to move to a system where the tax is placed on Tires instead of gas.

That seems fair to me as everyone then will be taxed for using the road regardless of their energy-mode, and everyone's vehicle will then be taxed based on the factors of their weight and how much they are used, as this will affect how long their tires last.

So remove all road-repair taxes from gasoline and diesel, and lets just start taxing tires of all sorts! :P

stever · August 2009

No bad, but then you'll have cheapskates like me try to fill the tires with molasses or something to keep the going longer (my daddy claimed he did that with his bicycle tires back in the Depression. My daddy lied a lot too. :shades: ).

Right now, tire fees in nine states are deposited into the states general fund instead of clean-up, which is the usual reason for collecting separate tire "taxes."

Tire Fees and Recycling: How Does Your State Compare? (Tire Industry Organization)

gagrice · September 2009

Oil Industry Sets a Brisk Pace of New Discoveries

More than 200 discoveries have been reported so far this year in dozens of countries, including northern Iraqs Kurdish region, Australia, Israel, Iran, Brazil, Norway, Ghana and Russia. They have been made by international giants, like Exxon Mobil, but also by industry minnows, like Tullow Oil.

Just this month, BP said that it found a giant deepwater field that might turn out to be the biggest oil discovery ever in the Gulf of Mexico, while Anadarko announced a large find in an exciting and highly prospective region off Sierra Leone.

It is normal for companies to discover billions of barrels of new oil every year, but this years pace is unusually brisk. New oil discoveries have totaled about 10 billion barrels in the first half of the year, according to IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. If discoveries continue at that pace through year-end, they are likely to reach the highest level since 2000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/business/energy-environment/24oil.html

It is reflected in the drop of oil prices today. I hope it holds out for my vacation in my Gas Guzzling Sequoia. C'mon $2 gas... :shades:

stever · November 2009

"aimed at raising revenue while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption by making it more economical to buy the most efficient vehicles and then drive them less often, especially during the morning and evening rush hours."

Dutch Are First to Adopt Pay-Per-Mile Driving Taxes to Cut CO2, Reduce Oil Use (Green Car Advisor)

stever · February 2010

"[V]ehicle ownership and a lack of access to public transportation may be just as predictive of mortgage foreclosure rates as low credit scores and high debt-to-income ratios.

Many households in location efficient areas still have cars  its just that on average they have fewer cars per household and drive them less, said Jennifer Henry of the NRDC. In other words, families in such communities who find themselves spending too much on car repairs, gas and parking might switch to public transportation to make ends meet."

Could Cars Have Caused the Mortgage Meltdown? (Wired)

euphonium · February 2010

just spend the gasoline taxes on building new roads and repairing old highways.

Stop diverting gasoline taxes into the general fund.

kernick · February 2010

Anyone who owns a vehicle and figures out their total cost, and has seen what a monthly pass is for most public transportation systems, knows they are paying far more for the vehicle.

But then you have to ask yourself is it a level-comparision. The vehicle is being 100% supported by the rider; can most public transportation systems say that? Do fares cover the costs?

I'm taking a trip next month and I was trying to use public transportation to get most of the way to and fro the airport in Boston. I can drive 40 miles from my place in NH, get on a train, then connect thru 2 subway lines and get to the airport. Great; until I have come back to Boston and have to get back to my auto. The last subway cars run about the time my plane is supposed to land. DOH! So that would mean having to stay overnight at an expensive Boston airport hotel (about 7 hr wait and $150)

So instead I'm driving all the way, and staying at a sleep-park-fly hotel, with 24 hr shuttle.

nippononly · February 2010

But then you have to ask yourself is it a level-comparision. The vehicle is being 100% supported by the rider; can most public transportation systems say that? Do fares cover the costs?

Mm hmm, and while you're asking yourself that, you could also ask yourself if the costs related to the car REALLY cover 100% of the costs caused by the car, because clearly the roads are heavily subsidized as is the cost of gas, and STILL the roads are falling apart.

If motorists paid 100% of the impacts of their cars, it would be WAY more expensive to drive, enough so that public transit might seem quite attractive by comparison.

kernick · February 2010

because clearly the roads are heavily subsidized as is the cost of gas,

It sounds like you want me to say "prove it" and then you're going to nake some political statement, about the global-cooling ... I mean warming (LOL) that cars cause, and the fact that the U.S. happens to be the lead policeman for the world. [If you complain about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll agree with you - they should have been pulverized with a few hundred inexpensive nukes instead of dismantling them.

] Otherwise you have no financial case as the gas-tax and other taxes on owning an automobile have for years paid for the roads and bridges, and the EXCESS was given to support public transportation.

Let the government sell every road, highway and bridge in this country. And then the state and federal governments can eliminate the gasoline tax, and my registration taxes. I'll gladly pay the private owners a per-mile charge.

nippononly · February 2010

I'll gladly pay the private owners a per-mile charge.

You're just being absurd if you think that would be cheaper. $0.18/gallon tax on gas and $200/year (less if you don't live in California) for reg fees would look mighty good to you if all the roads were privatized and you started paying per-mile charges.

And it was no lead-in to some political statement - I make a point of ignoring politics. It's a poisoned well.............

kernick · February 2010

$0.18 - That's federal only. Most states charge at least that. And yes it may not be running an excess in 2010 because it hasn't been adjusted in a while, but if you look back the last 30 years or so, the total collected was higher the amount going to the road-projects.

The below is from a gov website. Please see Bold sections.

"The tax remained 4 cents a gallon until the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which President Ronald Reagan approved on January 6, 1983. The Act increased the tax to 9 cents, but the legislation created two separate accounts in the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Account would receive 8 cents of the revenue while the new Mass Transit Account would receive 1 cent of the gas tax.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (October 17, 1986) added 0.1 cent tax on gasoline for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.

On November 5, 1990, President George H. W. Bush approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. It embodied a compromise the Republican President had reached with the Democratic-controlled Congress to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The Act increased the Federal gas tax by 5 cents, with half the increase going to the Highway Trust Fund, the other half to deficit reduction.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993, increased the gas tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total tax to 18.4 cents per gallon. The increase was entirely for deficit reduction, with none credited to the Highway Trust Fund. However, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which President Clinton approved on August 5, 1997, redirected the 4.3-cents general fund gas tax increase to the Highway Trust Fund.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/gastax.cfm

So you see that large parts of the gasoline tax has been diverted several times for numerous years. If you look at the charts halfway down that link, you'll see that today 2.86 cents of every 18 cents is taken for Mass Transit Account.

Enough proof of what I'm saying?

nippononly · February 2010

Umm, I'm not sure what your point is. :confuse:

I thought you were saying that public transit is more expensive than driving and doesn't even pay its own way without subsidies, and I was saying that in fact driving is subsidized by the taxpayers even more, it's just not so obvious and traceable. Heck, California hasn't been able to pave its roads for 20 years with the gas tax at $0.18, and has instead passed several STUNNINGLY large bond measures in the last few years to try and catch up the backlog. Which they have not yet succeeded in doing. And when they can't get one of those passed, they raid the state general fund (containing taxpayer dollars) and some other program or agency goes wanting.

So what seems like an individual bargain isn't so much when you take into account everything that goes unfunded by the $0.18 gas tax, and what the cost of it would actually be if drivers paid it.

Privatizing the roads would remove any assurance that they would be properly maintained, while giving private companies free rein to charge whatever they liked. As a driver, there isn't a doubt in my mind that your cumulative costs would be much higher under that system.

And states charge sales tax on gasoline, which they would go on doing even if all gas taxes were eliminated.

gagrice · February 2010

You're just being absurd if you think that would be cheaper. $0.18/gallon tax on gas and $200/year

I don't think so. CA gas tax today is 63.9 cents for RUG and 72 cents for diesel. If the roads were privatized and regulated like any other monopoly, we could drive for a lot less than what it costs now. Last I checked we were only spending about 15% of our gas tax on roads and bridges. The rest is in the general fund being wasted in numerous ways by the Feds and the states. By the way Alaska is the lowest at 26.4 cents per gallon. The other 48 states are somewhere in between.

http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx

PS
The 18 cents is what the Feds get the rest goes to the state. And CA dumps it into the general fund then cries for more. We are not getting our monies worth out of gas tax in CA.

kernick · February 2010

I thought you were saying that public transit is more expensive than driving and doesn't even pay its own way without subsidies.

I was saying that public transit failed my attempted use of it in getting to and from an airport. I spent about 1 hr trying to figure what train and then subways to take to the airport, and then find that I can't use public transportation because the system shutsdown overnight. That would cause me to stay an extra night in a hotel.

and has instead passed several STUNNINGLY large bond measures in the last few years to try and catch up the backlog.

If you want to believe many of your state politicians. I've just shown you the government link that says gas revenues for years have been taken for other general deficit reduction and subsidizing public transportation. I have a stepson who's in college and he gets $ for books and living expense. Well guess what, he comes to us every few days asking for more money for books. When we ask what did you do with your book-$, after a lot of questioning you find he spent it on the girlfriend, cigarettes, and entertainment. As gagrice basically said - your gasoline tax $ was taken by your politicians for other purposes, and now they need to replace it. It is much easier for politicians to ask for $ for roads and bridges, then to admit they took that $ for years for a bloated government w/great pensions, and all the boondoggle projects.

Similarly you will hear the same thing about Social Security from our federal politicians. Social Security funds have been taken for many years from those trust accounts to use for everything in the general budget. The politicians are then going to feed you half-lies that Social Security can't pay out full benefits, and they're going to drastically need to change the system.

kernick · February 2010

Consider this (excuse the fact that my numbers will be approximate, if you want the exact mileage and cost, go find it):

The Big Dig which was a replacement of some existing elevated highway in Boston (RT. 93) was to update 10 - 20 miles of road/bridge/tunnel. When it was proposed in the 80's it was presented as a $2B - $3B project. It was approved. There were options to repair the existing structure, rather they doing this grandiose total replacement (I think Roman bridges have a longer life-span than 30 years which was how long the original highway was there). The project eventually came in at over $15B!!

Problems (Incompetence or Lying) with this:
1) was this project "sold" to the public as $3B when the designers knew that it would be far higher? But just like renovating your kitchen, you have to keep going once you start
2) Or was it incompetence that someone's cost estimate was off 500%?

In many people's opinions who covered this project over the years, this was one of the biggest ripoffs of government funds ever at that time.

So this is just another example of there being plenty of $ in the road funds, if they use them wisely. This Big Dig project was about powerful Mass. politicians getting funds to channel to their local business friends, as a means to hand-out billions of $ in lucrative contracts. A political-mafia feeding frenzy, in other words. (Maybe not a coincidence as the most powerful politician besides Kennedy at the time in Mass. was Billy Bulger; his brother Whitey Bulger has been on the FBI Top 10 wanted as head of the Boston Irish mafia).

Putting more and more $ into road-repair "accounts" is just MORE $ that can be misappropriated by our government, and more projects like the Big Dig. :mad: :mad: Until the funds that go to road-repair accounts are used for road-repairs, and until this really gross waste of funds is eliminated, I'd have to be a fool to voluntarily bend over again.

kernick · February 2010

Here's a few nice examples of what happens to those gas tax $'s that actually make it to transportation projects. Enjoy! :mad:

http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-pblie.htm

gagrice · February 2010

was this project "sold" to the public as $3B when the designers knew that it would be far higher?

That is EXACTLY what happened last November to the gullible CA voters. They approved a $10 billion bond for High Speed Rail from LA to SF. What they did not do as voters was due diligence. The project at a minimum will be $40 billion and probably $90 Billion if it is ever completed. This is in a state that is flat A** Broke. That $10 billion we are now paying back will likely be blown on environmental studies and trying to go around the NIMBYs. We are getting screwed daily with every dollar we pay in road tax. When at best 15 cents is actually spent on roads and bridges. It is time the mass transit users paid the full cost of the service. With gas at $3 per gallon it costs me $6 to shop at Costco. If the bus has 3 people riding, split the cost 3 ways and see if there are any riders the next day.

bpraxis · February 2010

Taxation is theft.

We need to cut spending at all levels.

stever · February 2010

One view:

"Large trucks are subsidized while autos are probably not subsidized much, if at all."

Are Roads and Highways Subsidized ? (David S. Lawyer)

And a counter:

"The research, based on Federal Highway Administration statistics, concludes that the percentage of revenue coming from road users was 51% in 2007, compared with 61% in 1997 and 71% in 1967. The remaining funds are sourced from general revenues."

U.S. motorist fees contribute decreasing share of highway funding (globalsubsidies.org)

kernick · February 2010

Interesting that those reports don't really consider:

- the state gas taxes which are usually more than the federal (how convenient)
- my annual registration fees (basic service fee + value fee) = several hundred /year / vehicle
- my insurance payment, which the government taxes the insurance companies on the profit
- all the sales taxes that autos generate when sold, repaired, and maintained
- my property taxes that go to pay for city roads and maintenance.

Intangible benefits of highways - they lower the cost of all goods and services by allowing free flow of goods. Imagine how much your bananas would cost if we didn't have highways, and covered wagons on cow-paths, were used to move your goods.

stever · February 2010

Imagine how good the trains would be.

There used to be light rail in Boise connecting town to the farming villages around. It was relatively easy to put your milk jugs on the train at 6 am for the processor in town, and then hop on the train yourself later in the day to do some banking downtown.

But cars and trucks ruined that around 1925. Like your midnight airport run, people didn't want to juggle their appointments to meet a train schedule.

Another interesting thing that happened was that developers put up parks out of town that were easily accessible. Then people decided to move out there and commute to town. So the light rail contributed to urban sprawl in its own way.

Trolley Town (Boise State)

kernick · February 2010

Take a look at the 2010 budget summary that says $42B is being budgeted for the nation's 160,000 miles of federal highway. I don't think this jives too well with your links, of what's being spent. From your SubsidyScope link: "Subsidyscope has calculated that in 2007, 51 percent of the nation's $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user feesdown from 10 years earlier when user fees made up 61 percent of total spending on roads."

What's different here?

http://www.dot.gov/budget/2010/bib2010.htm#fhwa

stever · February 2010

As near as I can tell, the rest of it comes under separate appropriation acts:

"the Presidents Budget contains no policy recommendations for surface transportation programs subject to reauthorization, including highway, transit, and highway safety programs"

Check out last year's Budget In Brief:

"It is the final installment of the $286.4 billion in highway, transit, and safety program funding agreed upon in last surface transportation re-authorization act."

That's a wee bit different from the $40 billion "budgeted". And that was just one act, albeit likely spread out over 5 years.

kernick · February 2010

It's a little confusing isn't it? But I see "multi-year" and "installment" mentioned so when was this last reauthorization act started? 10 years ago? Also note that it says - without subsidizing transportation spending with other tax dollars.

"The request fulfills the Presidents multi-year commitment to invest in surface transportation without raising taxes or subsidizing transportation spending with other tax dollars. It is the final installment of the $286.4 billion in highway, transit, and safety program funding agreed upon in last surface transportation re-authorization act."

:confuse: :confuse: We both could prove this either way using these numbers. Just like in the OJ trial there was so much evidence it was confusing.

stever · February 2010

"Americans' interest in small cars and hybrids has never accounted for a sizable segment of the market and may be falling as gas prices stabilize at less than $3 a gallon in most markets.

Meantime, the low level of interest in small cars highlights the challenge car makers face as they try to gage the return they'll get on their investments in smaller, more fuel-efficient engines as well as conventional hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles - all vehicles they are being pushed to build by government policy demanding ever-higher annual fuel efficiency figures for their retail fleets."

Gas Prices Must Soar If Public Policy, People's Wants Are To Mesh in Auto Market (Green Car Advisor)

grbeck · February 2010

Car purchases aren't just driven by gas prices. One must also consider the initial purchase price, along with maintenance costs.

Most SUVs and mid-sized and larger crossovers are priced north of $30,000. Plus, they have large wheel-tire combinations that will be expensive to replace. My wife and I are hardly poor, but those vehicles are simply not on our shopping lists for those reasons.

Gas prices DO play some role in vehicle purchases. Just because gas prices are $3 a gallon NOW does not mean that they will not increase in the future.

Also remember that many of those $30,000+ SUVs, crossovers and larger sedans were purchased with home equity loans, and that source of funds has largely dried up over the past two years.

The "sweet spot" for mass market brands over the next few years will premium subcompacts (Civic, upcoming Focus) and small SUVs (Escape, CR-V, Tuscon). Maybe they aren't stingy enough on gas for the Green Car Advisor, but they are hardly gas guzzlers.

stever · June 2011

How did we pay for this thing anyway?

Americas Interstate Highway System celebrates 55 years (USDOT)

andre1969 · July 2011

How did we pay for this thing anyway?

I believe that segment of it was funded under the Ozark Chapter of the Loyal order of the Mafia? :P

fezo · July 2011

What? Just because the guy on the left was shot from an unmarked Caddy while eating at Luigi's?

Is a Higher Gasoline Tax Good Or Bad For America?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles