Business History Books » Business Plans » Morality of SUV's
Morality of SUV's
Question:
: > : > : > > : > > : Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular : > > : spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like : > > : to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller : > > : ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. : > > : > > Well, no. First, cars are still the majority vehicle on the road. : > : > The constitution, fortunately, protects the rights of the MINORITY also. : > : > > Secondly, it’s the SUV doing the damage. Thirdly, since cars use less : > > fuel, pollute less, and put out less greenhouse gas, they must be the : > > preferred method of transportation and SUVs should accomodate them. : > : > "Preferred" by whom? Honda Accords outnumber Mercedes E-classes too. Therefore : > we should ban E-classes because Accords are the "preferred" method of : > transportation. Stupid, stupid argument. : : A Geo Gnat (or whatever they’re called) pollutes less than an Accord and uses : less fuel. Dump the Accord and get into one of these. Odds are that most : Accord owners can’t justify anything other than a dinky little economy car : anyway. What can an Accord do that the Geo can’t? : : Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has : sufficient justification to keep it. Agreed. What irritates me are the folks that use it for solo commmuting on interstates and grocery shopping, where a car would serve them better.
Response:
: : : : >Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to : : >their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that : : >priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win : : >that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance : : >offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. : : > : : > : : : : People are… wait until you see the legislation… : : Wow, now there’s a *great* idea – legislating why kinds of : car I can own. Done. You can’t own one that doesn’t meet US emissions and safety regulations. You can’t own one that doesn’t meet lighting standards, or crash protection standards. Since auto makers have to pay fines if they don’t meet CAFE standards, they restrict your choices even further. : : Lets see the governments record on such idiocy. Last was the : luxory tax on boats and certain cars. Drove boat owners out : of business in droves and and got lots of auto workers laid : off. It was, fortunately, repealed as being a stupid idea. : : I have no problem with seeing certain safety and pollution : limits applied (many SUVs already meet car standards : in these areas anyway). Name them. Any SUV classifed as a truck meets much looser emissions standards and CAFE standards. Plus the crash tests are different, which is why few trucks have the crumple zones most cars have. : : Many of the ideas behind such legislation is to put everyone : in smaller, inherently less safe cars. Somehow that strikes me : as just plain wrong-headed thinking. Europe drives mostly smaller cars; if you compare on the same types of roads, you don’t see less highway safety.
Response:
> E-classes don’t roll over more than cars do on the average. SUVs do.
E-classes roll over more easily than Vipers. Therefore, they’re a menace and should’t be driven. > E-classes don’t take longer to stop than cars do. SUVs do.
E-classes take longer to stop than Vipers. Therefore they’re a menace to the general motoring public. > E-classes don’t put out more emissions, more greenhouse gases, and consume > more natural resources. SUVs do.
E-classes put out far more emissions and burn far more fuel per mile, thus producing far more greenhouse gasses per mile than a Toyota Prius. Therefore they’re harmful to the environment and should be banned. > E-classes don’t cause more damage and injury to other cars. SUVs do.
E-classes cause more damage to other cars than Ford Festivas do. Therefore they should be banned. > What part of that do you find hard to understand?
The assumption that its a reasonable argument, any more than my patently ridiculous answers above. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Response:
: : : : > Except the Accord puts out no more emissions than the Geo, : : Patently FALSE. Both have to meet the same standard, but the standard allows cars to be 100x dirtier than the : cleanest cars typically produced. There’s a huge amount of "headroom" in the standards to allow for production : variations and aging of the vehicles. The Accord may emit 5x the emissions of the Gnat, and a Lexus can emit 5x : what the Accord does. All still meet the standard. The cleanest truck is allowed to put out many times the emissions of the dirtiest cars though. : : > whereas the : > Excursion puts out a lot more than the Accord. : : Better than the first statement, but again not NECESSARILY true. The standards *allow* SUV’s to be dirtier, but : again since most new vehicles are on the order of 100x cleaner than the standard, it is possible for a car and an : SUV to pollute the same amount, or even for the car to pollute more than a particularly clean SUV. Sorry, but again, you refuse to comprehend. Trucks are allowed to put out many times the emissions of cars (currently; this is changing). Typically, you throw in red herrings about how much cleaner vehicles are than the standards, blah, blah, but the fact is, NO TRUCK SOLD MEETS THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS OF CARS.
Response:
: : : > : : > : Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to : > : their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that : > : priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win : > : that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance : > : offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. : > : > Low cost of maintenance? Now that’s a hoot. Look at CR again — except : > for Toyotas, no SUV or other truck is "much better than average" in : > reliability, as numerous cars are. Add in fuel costs and there’s simply : > no way a truck can match a car in operating costs. : : Really? Fuel costs may be somewhat higher, but anytime anyone has : presented a calculation on the actual fuel cost per yer, the difference : has only been a few hundred dollars. Chicken feed to someone who can : afford a $25,000 vehicle. Regardless of what CR says about reliability, : our ‘91 Chevy Pickup has only needed one distributor cap (<$50) and one : set of brake pads in 9 years and 100,000 miles. And like a car, the : fluids are changed at regular intervals. : : Jeff Well, let’s see. A Honda at 20,000 miles a year at 30 mpg = $1000 a year. An Excursion at 12 mpg, $2500 a year. Over a 3-year period, $4500 more just for gasoline. Now add in the extra repairs, extra depreciation, extra insurance.
Response:
>> >Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has > >sufficient justification to keep it. > The only justification they need is wanting it. If you want to change that, > then go ahead and vote for Nader. >I agree completely. I was just making the point that the Accord drivers >had better shut up about SUVs. The reasoning that they use to buy an >Accord instead of a Gnat is the same that some people use to buy >an Excursion instead of an Accord.
This whole discussion is amazing. If this were truly a moral question, then the only argument with any foundation would be to go back to the pre-industrial age and use horses, walking or sailing for transportation and we’d all be farmers. Even bicycles and carriages would be immoral for the need to manufacture them and the accompanying pollution. If the people want to protect the environment by setting emission standards for cars/trucks, that’s fine by me. Aside from that, a person can own whatever vehicle they darn well please. This smacks of class envy (or guilt) more than it does of environmental concerns. Pol Pot personified that point of view and we all know what he accomplished.
Response:
: : : : > If Mercedes E-classes were causing disproportionate damage and injury to : > Accords in collisions, if Es were consuming a disproportionate amount of : > natural resources and emitting a disproportionate amount of emissions and : > greenhouse gases, and if Es were so clumsy they were a hazard to have out : > around other cars, you’d have an analogy. As it is, you don’t even have a : > clue. : : Oooooh. I think I found a NERVE with Mr. Mercedes Parker. : : The whole point is that none of your inane statements ("so clumsy they were a : hazard…" what a typical example of baseless hyperbole) apply to SUVs any more than : they apply to the E-class. Empty rhetoric. E-classes don’t roll over more than cars do on the average. SUVs do. E-classes don’t take longer to stop than cars do. SUVs do. E-classes don’t put out more emissions, more greenhouse gases, and consume more natural resources. SUVs do. E-classes don’t cause more damage and injury to other cars. SUVs do. What part of that do you find hard to understand? : : — Stephen G. Lacker : sglacker at texas dot net : "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!" :
Response:
> : Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to > : their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that > : priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win > : that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance > : offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. > Low cost of maintenance? Now that’s a hoot. Look at CR again — except > for Toyotas, no SUV or other truck is "much better than average" in > reliability, as numerous cars are. Add in fuel costs and there’s simply > no way a truck can match a car in operating costs.
Really? Fuel costs may be somewhat higher, but anytime anyone has presented a calculation on the actual fuel cost per yer, the difference has only been a few hundred dollars. Chicken feed to someone who can afford a $25,000 vehicle. Regardless of what CR says about reliability, our ‘91 Chevy Pickup has only needed one distributor cap (<$50) and one set of brake pads in 9 years and 100,000 miles. And like a car, the fluids are changed at regular intervals. Jeff
Response:
> Except the Accord puts out no more emissions than the Geo,
Patently FALSE. Both have to meet the same standard, but the standard allows cars to be 100x dirtier than the cleanest cars typically produced. There’s a huge amount of "headroom" in the standards to allow for production variations and aging of the vehicles. The Accord may emit 5x the emissions of the Gnat, and a Lexus can emit 5x what the Accord does. All still meet the standard. > whereas the > Excursion puts out a lot more than the Accord.
Better than the first statement, but again not NECESSARILY true. The standards *allow* SUV’s to be dirtier, but again since most new vehicles are on the order of 100x cleaner than the standard, it is possible for a car and an SUV to pollute the same amount, or even for the car to pollute more than a particularly clean SUV. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Response:
> If Mercedes E-classes were causing disproportionate damage and injury to > Accords in collisions, if Es were consuming a disproportionate amount of > natural resources and emitting a disproportionate amount of emissions and > greenhouse gases, and if Es were so clumsy they were a hazard to have out > around other cars, you’d have an analogy. As it is, you don’t even have a > clue.
Oooooh. I think I found a NERVE with Mr. Mercedes Parker. The whole point is that none of your inane statements ("so clumsy they were a hazard…" what a typical example of baseless hyperbole) apply to SUVs any more than they apply to the E-class. Empty rhetoric. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Response:
> Agreed. What irritates me are the folks that use it for solo commmuting > on interstates and grocery shopping, where a car would serve them better.
People use cars for many different purposes. If I were to own a boat or tow a travel trailer, even once a year, I would probably own an SUV to tow it. I would ALSO use said SUV for other purposes… including "solo commuting" because its not cost effective (nor environmentally responsible) to buy an extra vehicle just for that purpose. Building a car, even a small one, pollutes the world a lot more than driving an SUV for several years. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Response:
: > : > : > >A Geo Gnat (or whatever they’re called) pollutes less than an Accord and uses : > >less fuel. Dump the Accord and get into one of these. Odds are that most : > >Accord owners can’t justify anything other than a dinky little economy car : > >anyway. What can an Accord do that the Geo can’t? : > : > For one thing, the pollution standards are set in grams per mile. A 5 litre : > Chevy has to meet that same figure the Geo Gnat does. : > : > As for what an Accord can do that the Geo can’t. It can be more comfortable. : > It can provide a bit more security in an accident. It can sure as hell be : > nicer to drive on a long road trip. : > : > > : > >Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has : > >sufficient justification to keep it. : > : > The only justification they need is wanting it. If you want to change that, : > then go ahead and vote for Nader. : : I agree completely. I was just making the point that the Accord drivers : had better shut up about SUVs. The reasoning that they use to buy an : Accord instead of a Gnat is the same that some people use to buy : an Excursion instead of an Accord. Except the Accord puts out no more emissions than the Geo, whereas the Excursion puts out a lot more than the Accord. Ditto for greenhouse gases. Ditto for natural resources consumed. Ditto for handling and braking.
Response:
> Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has > sufficient justification to keep it.
Or anyone with a Caprice or Fleetwood and a boat or horse trailer, etc… Up to 7000lbs worth. Aardwolf.
Response:
Don’t look now Lou, but they are doing the same things in Aussieland. Ask them what happened to all their guns. And whether it solved the problem they claimed it would solve…. Different item, same idea. Scott
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : >Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to > : >their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that > : >priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win > : >that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance > : >offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. > : > > : > > : People are… wait until you see the legislation… > Wow, now there’s a *great* idea – legislating why kinds of > car I can own. > <snip> > But, when I can’t buy a legally made car just because some > folks don’t like them (and/or are jealous of the owners), it is > time to move to another country. Looks like I need to start > working on that Aussie accent again 
> — > Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University
Response:
>A Geo Gnat (or whatever they’re called) pollutes less than an Accord and uses >less fuel. Dump the Accord and get into one of these. Odds are that most >Accord owners can’t justify anything other than a dinky little economy car >anyway. What can an Accord do that the Geo can’t?
For one thing, the pollution standards are set in grams per mile. A 5 litre Chevy has to meet that same figure the Geo Gnat does. As for what an Accord can do that the Geo can’t. It can be more comfortable. It can provide a bit more security in an accident. It can sure as hell be nicer to drive on a long road trip. >Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has >sufficient justification to keep it.
The only justification they need is wanting it. If you want to change that, then go ahead and vote for Nader.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : >Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to > : >their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that > : >priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win > : >that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance > : >offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. > : > > : > > : People are… wait until you see the legislation… > Wow, now there’s a *great* idea – legislating why kinds of > car I can own. > Lets see the governments record on such idiocy. Last was the > luxory tax on boats and certain cars. Drove boat owners out > of business in droves and and got lots of auto workers laid > off. It was, fortunately, repealed as being a stupid idea.
Actually, the luxury tax on ‘cars’ and various IRS regulations used to define a ‘car’ for tax purposes as anything up to 6000 lbs gross weight. Above that, taxes and expense rules were relaxed, figuring that they didn’t want to penalize contractors and other legitimate truck users. Enter the SUV as a passenger vehicle to get through the tax loophole. Congress being the semi-smart people that they are, raised the cut off point to 8000 lbs gross weight. Enter the Ford Excursion. There are SUV plans on the drawing boards for a possible 12,000 lb rule. Just in case. — Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->A Geo Gnat (or whatever they’re called) pollutes less than an Accord and uses >less fuel. Dump the Accord and get into one of these. Odds are that most >Accord owners can’t justify anything other than a dinky little economy car >anyway. What can an Accord do that the Geo can’t? > For one thing, the pollution standards are set in grams per mile. A 5 litre > Chevy has to meet that same figure the Geo Gnat does. > As for what an Accord can do that the Geo can’t. It can be more comfortable. > It can provide a bit more security in an accident. It can sure as hell be > nicer to drive on a long road trip. >Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has >sufficient justification to keep it. > The only justification they need is wanting it. If you want to change that, > then go ahead and vote for Nader.
I agree completely. I was just making the point that the Accord drivers had better shut up about SUVs. The reasoning that they use to buy an Accord instead of a Gnat is the same that some people use to buy an Excursion instead of an Accord. If someone steps in with a demand for justification for any car purchase, the Accord drivers will be downsized long before the people with SUVs who have that trailer that needs to be pulled. — Broad-mindedness; n, the result of flattening high-mindedness out.
Response:
: : : : > : > : Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular : > : spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like : > : to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller : > : ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. : > : > Well, no. First, cars are still the majority vehicle on the road. : : The constitution, fortunately, protects the rights of the MINORITY also. : : > Secondly, it’s the SUV doing the damage. Thirdly, since cars use less : > fuel, pollute less, and put out less greenhouse gas, they must be the : > preferred method of transportation and SUVs should accomodate them. : : "Preferred" by whom? Honda Accords outnumber Mercedes E-classes too. Therefore : we should ban E-classes because Accords are the "preferred" method of : transportation. Stupid, stupid argument. If Mercedes E-classes were causing disproportionate damage and injury to Accords in collisions, if Es were consuming a disproportionate amount of natural resources and emitting a disproportionate amount of emissions and greenhouse gases, and if Es were so clumsy they were a hazard to have out around other cars, you’d have an analogy. As it is, you don’t even have a clue. : : > : Americans want, and get, big vehicles. Eco-whackos pushed : > : for–and got–rules that made it disbeneficial for car companies to make : > : Chev Caprice Classics, Ford LTDs, Mercury Grand Marquises, Plymouth Gran : > : Furies, and Dodge Monacos. The big cars went away. The public promptly : > : replaced their big cars with small trucks which got around the : > : big-car-restrictive rules. Car makers saw they were selling a lot more : > : Cherokees and Suburbans than they figured, figured out the trend, and set : > : the hook. Large cars got harder to certify without expensive : > : penalties…small trucks proliferated. And got larger. So now the : > : problem the eco-whackos bitched about is worse than before, due directly : > : to their own misguided manipulation of market supplies and market demands. : > : > And hopefully, before long, SUVs will have to meet the same emissions and : > fuel economy standards as cars. : : So what? They’ll still be bigger, heavier, and more powerful than cars. Maybe. It’ll be interesting to see how they meet the same standards as cars while being bigger and heavier. And more powerful? Want to compare the 0-60 times of an E320 with ANY domestic SUV? : I, for : one, can’t wait for a hybrid-powered Durango-sized vehicle that gets better : mileage than a current-generation Miata. I eagerly await the fabricated : complaints that the big-car haters will come up with when this happens. It’ll only cost as much as that E-class and be much slower (DC has said the hybrid Durango was as fast as the V6 model, I believe). So much for "still being more powerful." : : Big vehicles are here to stay. That’s what they said about 5000-lb cars in the 70s. : Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to : their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that : priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win : that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance : offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. Low cost of maintenance? Now that’s a hoot. Look at CR again — except for Toyotas, no SUV or other truck is "much better than average" in reliability, as numerous cars are. Add in fuel costs and there’s simply no way a truck can match a car in operating costs. : : : — Stephen G. Lacker : sglacker at texas dot net : "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!" :
Response:
Having just had my Intrepid whacked by a doofus in an Explorer this week, I’ve gotten a pretty clear perspective on this one. Fortunately, in my case, the damage was minor. The right front corner of my Intrepid (hood, headlamp/cornering lamp assemblies, fender) contacted the Explorer’s front bumper on the driver’s side (the guy pulled out in front of me from a driveway). Yes, it’s true that his bumper was higher than mine, and my vehicle suffered more damage than did his (practically none). (BTW, everybody was going about 5MPH, and the total damage to my car was in the $1000 range.) This doesn’t mean, however, that he had an "unfair" advantage over me in the collision. Had things been timed a little differently, and speeds have been higher, I might have t-boned him, likely causing him injury from the side impact and possible rollover, while I would have remained protected by having the entire front crush space of my vehicle in front of me. Simply put, bumpers don’t always contact bumpers in collisions, and relative height is just that–relative–which might amount to completely irrelevant given the situation. Somehow, even though the other guy was clearly at fault in the collision (he got the ticket…) I DIDN’T come away with: o A strong feeling that the guy needs to be forcibly downgraded to a Honda Accord…last time I checked, he was still an American, with freedoms that include vehicle choice given the ability to pay for those choices… o A strong desire to "upgrade" my vehicle choice from a ‘mere’ 3500lb unit to a 4200lb unit: the Explorer and other sport-utes don’t add up to a good compromise for my needs, which are primarily acceleration, handling, value-for-the-buck and comfort (Explorer only offers one of these) o A desire to raise the cost of my next vehicle purchase by imposing regulations in a wrong-headed effort to achieve some sort of peculiar technical vehicular egalitarianism–i.e. by forcing the auto companies to either downsize SUVs or upsize cars, thus eating into profits So there you have it. Despite having felt the bite of a collision with an SUV this week, I’ve somehow failed to be converted to the liberal socialist egalitarian tree-hugging greenie camp that is demanding an end to all things SUV. Given the opportunity to do things all over again, and be in the same crash, I’d choose to be in the same vehicle again. It’s far more maneuverable than the SUV, and despite its size disadvantage, I think on balance far safer because of that fact. Of course, a couple’la hundred extra horsepower would be nice to increase my chances of zipping around him! 
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> : Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular > : spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like > : to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller > : ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. > Well, no. First, cars are still the majority vehicle on the road. > The constitution, fortunately, protects the rights of the MINORITY also. > Secondly, it’s the SUV doing the damage. Thirdly, since cars use less > fuel, pollute less, and put out less greenhouse gas, they must be the > preferred method of transportation and SUVs should accomodate them. > "Preferred" by whom? Honda Accords outnumber Mercedes E-classes too. Therefore > we should ban E-classes because Accords are the "preferred" method of > transportation. Stupid, stupid argument.
A Geo Gnat (or whatever they’re called) pollutes less than an Accord and uses less fuel. Dump the Accord and get into one of these. Odds are that most Accord owners can’t justify anything other than a dinky little economy car anyway. What can an Accord do that the Geo can’t? Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has sufficient justification to keep it. — Answer: Eight. Twelve if the light bulb is cross-threaded.
Response:
>Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to >their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that >priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win >that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance >offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it.
People are… wait until you see the legislation…
Response:
: >Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to : >their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that : >priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win : >that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance : >offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. : > : > : People are… wait until you see the legislation… Wow, now there’s a *great* idea – legislating why kinds of car I can own. Lets see the governments record on such idiocy. Last was the luxory tax on boats and certain cars. Drove boat owners out of business in droves and and got lots of auto workers laid off. It was, fortunately, repealed as being a stupid idea. I have no problem with seeing certain safety and pollution limits applied (many SUVs already meet car standards in these areas anyway). Many of the ideas behind such legislation is to put everyone in smaller, inherently less safe cars. Somehow that strikes me as just plain wrong-headed thinking. But, when I can’t buy a legally made car just because some folks don’t like them (and/or are jealous of the owners), it is time to move to another country. Looks like I need to start working on that Aussie accent again — Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University
Response:
> : Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular > : spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like > : to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller > : ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. > Well, no. First, cars are still the majority vehicle on the road.
The constitution, fortunately, protects the rights of the MINORITY also. > Secondly, it’s the SUV doing the damage. Thirdly, since cars use less > fuel, pollute less, and put out less greenhouse gas, they must be the > preferred method of transportation and SUVs should accomodate them.
"Preferred" by whom? Honda Accords outnumber Mercedes E-classes too. Therefore we should ban E-classes because Accords are the "preferred" method of transportation. Stupid, stupid argument. > : Americans want, and get, big vehicles. Eco-whackos pushed > : for–and got–rules that made it disbeneficial for car companies to make > : Chev Caprice Classics, Ford LTDs, Mercury Grand Marquises, Plymouth Gran > : Furies, and Dodge Monacos. The big cars went away. The public promptly > : replaced their big cars with small trucks which got around the > : big-car-restrictive rules. Car makers saw they were selling a lot more > : Cherokees and Suburbans than they figured, figured out the trend, and set > : the hook. Large cars got harder to certify without expensive > : penalties…small trucks proliferated. And got larger. So now the > : problem the eco-whackos bitched about is worse than before, due directly > : to their own misguided manipulation of market supplies and market demands. > And hopefully, before long, SUVs will have to meet the same emissions and > fuel economy standards as cars.
So what? They’ll still be bigger, heavier, and more powerful than cars. I, for one, can’t wait for a hybrid-powered Durango-sized vehicle that gets better mileage than a current-generation Miata. I eagerly await the fabricated complaints that the big-car haters will come up with when this happens. Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Response:
: : > This is the problem with SUVs, the bumper hight means that the SUV : > never ever hits the parts of a car meant to protect the people inside, : > but rather they hit the weakest parts and cause massive : > cabin-intrusion. : : This is the problem with small cars; their small size means that they fail : to protect their occupants from real-world events in which large objects : (phone poles, abutments, larger cars, trucks, and yes, SUVs) hit the car : and cause massive cabin-intrusion. : : Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular : spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like : to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller : ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. Well, no. First, cars are still the majority vehicle on the road. Secondly, it’s the SUV doing the damage. Thirdly, since cars use less fuel, pollute less, and put out less greenhouse gas, they must be the preferred method of transportation and SUVs should accomodate them. : : The eco-whackos who ranted and railed until they got their : small-car-favorable CAFE rules have only themselves to blame for the : popularity and ubiquity of SUVs. America is a large place with large : distances. Most SUVs seem to be used for solo commuting 20 miles to work on interstate highways, at least around here. : Americans want, and get, big vehicles. Eco-whackos pushed : for–and got–rules that made it disbeneficial for car companies to make : Chev Caprice Classics, Ford LTDs, Mercury Grand Marquises, Plymouth Gran : Furies, and Dodge Monacos. The big cars went away. The public promptly : replaced their big cars with small trucks which got around the : big-car-restrictive rules. Car makers saw they were selling a lot more : Cherokees and Suburbans than they figured, figured out the trend, and set : the hook. Large cars got harder to certify without expensive : penalties…small trucks proliferated. And got larger. So now the : problem the eco-whackos bitched about is worse than before, due directly : to their own misguided manipulation of market supplies and market demands. And hopefully, before long, SUVs will have to meet the same emissions and fuel economy standards as cars. : : Take away the small trucks! Do it! Watch Kenworth and Mack and : Freightliner get around *those* new rules with an even larger class of : vehicle. Well, Freightliner is owned by DaimlerChrysler, who seems to have a good commitment to environmental issues. : : DS :
Response:
> This is the problem with SUVs, the bumper hight means that the SUV > never ever hits the parts of a car meant to protect the people inside, > but rather they hit the weakest parts and cause massive > cabin-intrusion.
This is the problem with small cars; their small size means that they fail to protect their occupants from real-world events in which large objects (phone poles, abutments, larger cars, trucks, and yes, SUVs) hit the car and cause massive cabin-intrusion. Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. The eco-whackos who ranted and railed until they got their small-car-favorable CAFE rules have only themselves to blame for the popularity and ubiquity of SUVs. America is a large place with large distances. Americans want, and get, big vehicles. Eco-whackos pushed for–and got–rules that made it disbeneficial for car companies to make Chev Caprice Classics, Ford LTDs, Mercury Grand Marquises, Plymouth Gran Furies, and Dodge Monacos. The big cars went away. The public promptly replaced their big cars with small trucks which got around the big-car-restrictive rules. Car makers saw they were selling a lot more Cherokees and Suburbans than they figured, figured out the trend, and set the hook. Large cars got harder to certify without expensive penalties…small trucks proliferated. And got larger. So now the problem the eco-whackos bitched about is worse than before, due directly to their own misguided manipulation of market supplies and market demands. Take away the small trucks! Do it! Watch Kenworth and Mack and Freightliner get around *those* new rules with an even larger class of vehicle. DS
Response:
> This is the problem with SUVs, the bumper hight means that the SUV > never ever hits the parts of a car meant to protect the people inside, > but rather they hit the weakest parts and cause massive > cabin-intrusion.
This is the problem with small cars; their small size means that they fail to protect their occupants from real-world events in which large objects (phone poles, abutments, larger cars, trucks, and yes, SUVs) hit the car and cause massive cabin-intrusion. Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. The eco-whackos who ranted and railed until they got their small-car-favorable CAFE rules have only themselves to blame for the popularity and ubiquity of SUVs. America is a large place with large distances. Americans want, and get, big vehicles. Eco-whackos pushed for–and got–rules that made it disbeneficial for car companies to make Chev Caprice Classics, Ford LTDs, Mercury Grand Marquises, Plymouth Gran Furies, and Dodge Monacos. The big cars went away. The public promptly replaced their big cars with small trucks which got around the big-car-restrictive rules. Car makers saw they were selling a lot more Cherokees and Suburbans than they figured, figured out the trend, and set the hook. Large cars got harder to certify without expensive penalties…small trucks proliferated. And got larger. So now the problem the eco-whackos bitched about is worse than before, due directly to their own misguided manipulation of market supplies and market demands. Take away the small trucks! Do it! Watch Kenworth and Mack and Freightliner get around *those* new rules with an even larger class of vehicle. DS
Response:
: : > This is the problem with SUVs, the bumper hight means that the SUV : > never ever hits the parts of a car meant to protect the people inside, : > but rather they hit the weakest parts and cause massive : > cabin-intrusion. : : This is the problem with small cars; their small size means that they fail : to protect their occupants from real-world events in which large objects : (phone poles, abutments, larger cars, trucks, and yes, SUVs) hit the car : and cause massive cabin-intrusion. : : Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular : spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like : to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller : ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. Well, no. First, cars are still the majority vehicle on the road. Secondly, it’s the SUV doing the damage. Thirdly, since cars use less fuel, pollute less, and put out less greenhouse gas, they must be the preferred method of transportation and SUVs should accomodate them. : : The eco-whackos who ranted and railed until they got their : small-car-favorable CAFE rules have only themselves to blame for the : popularity and ubiquity of SUVs. America is a large place with large : distances. Most SUVs seem to be used for solo commuting 20 miles to work on interstate highways, at least around here. : Americans want, and get, big vehicles. Eco-whackos pushed : for–and got–rules that made it disbeneficial for car companies to make : Chev Caprice Classics, Ford LTDs, Mercury Grand Marquises, Plymouth Gran : Furies, and Dodge Monacos. The big cars went away. The public promptly : replaced their big cars with small trucks which got around the : big-car-restrictive rules. Car makers saw they were selling a lot more : Cherokees and Suburbans than they figured, figured out the trend, and set : the hook. Large cars got harder to certify without expensive : penalties…small trucks proliferated. And got larger. So now the : problem the eco-whackos bitched about is worse than before, due directly : to their own misguided manipulation of market supplies and market demands. And hopefully, before long, SUVs will have to meet the same emissions and fuel economy standards as cars. : : Take away the small trucks! Do it! Watch Kenworth and Mack and : Freightliner get around *those* new rules with an even larger class of : vehicle. Well, Freightliner is owned by DaimlerChrysler, who seems to have a good commitment to environmental issues. : : DS :
Response:
> : Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular > : spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like > : to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller > : ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. > Well, no. First, cars are still the majority vehicle on the road.
The constitution, fortunately, protects the rights of the MINORITY also. > Secondly, it’s the SUV doing the damage. Thirdly, since cars use less > fuel, pollute less, and put out less greenhouse gas, they must be the > preferred method of transportation and SUVs should accomodate them.
"Preferred" by whom? Honda Accords outnumber Mercedes E-classes too. Therefore we should ban E-classes because Accords are the "preferred" method of transportation. Stupid, stupid argument. > : Americans want, and get, big vehicles. Eco-whackos pushed > : for–and got–rules that made it disbeneficial for car companies to make > : Chev Caprice Classics, Ford LTDs, Mercury Grand Marquises, Plymouth Gran > : Furies, and Dodge Monacos. The big cars went away. The public promptly > : replaced their big cars with small trucks which got around the > : big-car-restrictive rules. Car makers saw they were selling a lot more > : Cherokees and Suburbans than they figured, figured out the trend, and set > : the hook. Large cars got harder to certify without expensive > : penalties…small trucks proliferated. And got larger. So now the > : problem the eco-whackos bitched about is worse than before, due directly > : to their own misguided manipulation of market supplies and market demands. > And hopefully, before long, SUVs will have to meet the same emissions and > fuel economy standards as cars.
So what? They’ll still be bigger, heavier, and more powerful than cars. I, for one, can’t wait for a hybrid-powered Durango-sized vehicle that gets better mileage than a current-generation Miata. I eagerly await the fabricated complaints that the big-car haters will come up with when this happens. Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Response:
>Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to >their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that >priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win >that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance >offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it.
People are… wait until you see the legislation…
Response:
: >Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to : >their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that : >priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win : >that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance : >offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. : > : > : People are… wait until you see the legislation… Wow, now there’s a *great* idea – legislating why kinds of car I can own. Lets see the governments record on such idiocy. Last was the luxory tax on boats and certain cars. Drove boat owners out of business in droves and and got lots of auto workers laid off. It was, fortunately, repealed as being a stupid idea. I have no problem with seeing certain safety and pollution limits applied (many SUVs already meet car standards in these areas anyway). Many of the ideas behind such legislation is to put everyone in smaller, inherently less safe cars. Somehow that strikes me as just plain wrong-headed thinking. But, when I can’t buy a legally made car just because some folks don’t like them (and/or are jealous of the owners), it is time to move to another country. Looks like I need to start working on that Aussie accent again — Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> : Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular > : spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like > : to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller > : ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. > Well, no. First, cars are still the majority vehicle on the road. > The constitution, fortunately, protects the rights of the MINORITY also. > Secondly, it’s the SUV doing the damage. Thirdly, since cars use less > fuel, pollute less, and put out less greenhouse gas, they must be the > preferred method of transportation and SUVs should accomodate them. > "Preferred" by whom? Honda Accords outnumber Mercedes E-classes too. Therefore > we should ban E-classes because Accords are the "preferred" method of > transportation. Stupid, stupid argument.
A Geo Gnat (or whatever they’re called) pollutes less than an Accord and uses less fuel. Dump the Accord and get into one of these. Odds are that most Accord owners can’t justify anything other than a dinky little economy car anyway. What can an Accord do that the Geo can’t? Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has sufficient justification to keep it. — Answer: Eight. Twelve if the light bulb is cross-threaded.
Response:
Having just had my Intrepid whacked by a doofus in an Explorer this week, I’ve gotten a pretty clear perspective on this one. Fortunately, in my case, the damage was minor. The right front corner of my Intrepid (hood, headlamp/cornering lamp assemblies, fender) contacted the Explorer’s front bumper on the driver’s side (the guy pulled out in front of me from a driveway). Yes, it’s true that his bumper was higher than mine, and my vehicle suffered more damage than did his (practically none). (BTW, everybody was going about 5MPH, and the total damage to my car was in the $1000 range.) This doesn’t mean, however, that he had an "unfair" advantage over me in the collision. Had things been timed a little differently, and speeds have been higher, I might have t-boned him, likely causing him injury from the side impact and possible rollover, while I would have remained protected by having the entire front crush space of my vehicle in front of me. Simply put, bumpers don’t always contact bumpers in collisions, and relative height is just that–relative–which might amount to completely irrelevant given the situation. Somehow, even though the other guy was clearly at fault in the collision (he got the ticket…) I DIDN’T come away with: o A strong feeling that the guy needs to be forcibly downgraded to a Honda Accord…last time I checked, he was still an American, with freedoms that include vehicle choice given the ability to pay for those choices… o A strong desire to "upgrade" my vehicle choice from a ‘mere’ 3500lb unit to a 4200lb unit: the Explorer and other sport-utes don’t add up to a good compromise for my needs, which are primarily acceleration, handling, value-for-the-buck and comfort (Explorer only offers one of these) o A desire to raise the cost of my next vehicle purchase by imposing regulations in a wrong-headed effort to achieve some sort of peculiar technical vehicular egalitarianism–i.e. by forcing the auto companies to either downsize SUVs or upsize cars, thus eating into profits So there you have it. Despite having felt the bite of a collision with an SUV this week, I’ve somehow failed to be converted to the liberal socialist egalitarian tree-hugging greenie camp that is demanding an end to all things SUV. Given the opportunity to do things all over again, and be in the same crash, I’d choose to be in the same vehicle again. It’s far more maneuverable than the SUV, and despite its size disadvantage, I think on balance far safer because of that fact. Of course, a couple’la hundred extra horsepower would be nice to increase my chances of zipping around him! Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com
Response:
> Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has > sufficient justification to keep it.
Or anyone with a Caprice or Fleetwood and a boat or horse trailer, etc… Up to 7000lbs worth. Aardwolf.
Response:
Don’t look now Lou, but they are doing the same things in Aussieland. Ask them what happened to all their guns. And whether it solved the problem they claimed it would solve…. Different item, same idea. Scott
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : >Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to > : >their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that > : >priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win > : >that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance > : >offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. > : > > : > > : People are… wait until you see the legislation… > Wow, now there’s a *great* idea – legislating why kinds of > car I can own. > <snip> > But, when I can’t buy a legally made car just because some > folks don’t like them (and/or are jealous of the owners), it is > time to move to another country. Looks like I need to start > working on that Aussie accent again > — > Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University
Response:
>A Geo Gnat (or whatever they’re called) pollutes less than an Accord and uses >less fuel. Dump the Accord and get into one of these. Odds are that most >Accord owners can’t justify anything other than a dinky little economy car >anyway. What can an Accord do that the Geo can’t?
For one thing, the pollution standards are set in grams per mile. A 5 litre Chevy has to meet that same figure the Geo Gnat does. As for what an Accord can do that the Geo can’t. It can be more comfortable. It can provide a bit more security in an accident. It can sure as hell be nicer to drive on a long road trip. >Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has >sufficient justification to keep it.
The only justification they need is wanting it. If you want to change that, then go ahead and vote for Nader.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : >Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to > : >their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that > : >priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win > : >that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance > : >offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. > : > > : > > : People are… wait until you see the legislation… > Wow, now there’s a *great* idea – legislating why kinds of > car I can own. > Lets see the governments record on such idiocy. Last was the > luxory tax on boats and certain cars. Drove boat owners out > of business in droves and and got lots of auto workers laid > off. It was, fortunately, repealed as being a stupid idea.
Actually, the luxury tax on ‘cars’ and various IRS regulations used to define a ‘car’ for tax purposes as anything up to 6000 lbs gross weight. Above that, taxes and expense rules were relaxed, figuring that they didn’t want to penalize contractors and other legitimate truck users. Enter the SUV as a passenger vehicle to get through the tax loophole. Congress being the semi-smart people that they are, raised the cut off point to 8000 lbs gross weight. Enter the Ford Excursion. There are SUV plans on the drawing boards for a possible 12,000 lb rule. Just in case. — Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->A Geo Gnat (or whatever they’re called) pollutes less than an Accord and uses >less fuel. Dump the Accord and get into one of these. Odds are that most >Accord owners can’t justify anything other than a dinky little economy car >anyway. What can an Accord do that the Geo can’t? > For one thing, the pollution standards are set in grams per mile. A 5 litre > Chevy has to meet that same figure the Geo Gnat does. > As for what an Accord can do that the Geo can’t. It can be more comfortable. > It can provide a bit more security in an accident. It can sure as hell be > nicer to drive on a long road trip. >Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has >sufficient justification to keep it. > The only justification they need is wanting it. If you want to change that, > then go ahead and vote for Nader.
I agree completely. I was just making the point that the Accord drivers had better shut up about SUVs. The reasoning that they use to buy an Accord instead of a Gnat is the same that some people use to buy an Excursion instead of an Accord. If someone steps in with a demand for justification for any car purchase, the Accord drivers will be downsized long before the people with SUVs who have that trailer that needs to be pulled. — Broad-mindedness; n, the result of flattening high-mindedness out.
Response:
: : : : > : > : Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular : > : spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like : > : to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller : > : ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. : > : > Well, no. First, cars are still the majority vehicle on the road. : : The constitution, fortunately, protects the rights of the MINORITY also. : : > Secondly, it’s the SUV doing the damage. Thirdly, since cars use less : > fuel, pollute less, and put out less greenhouse gas, they must be the : > preferred method of transportation and SUVs should accomodate them. : : "Preferred" by whom? Honda Accords outnumber Mercedes E-classes too. Therefore : we should ban E-classes because Accords are the "preferred" method of : transportation. Stupid, stupid argument. If Mercedes E-classes were causing disproportionate damage and injury to Accords in collisions, if Es were consuming a disproportionate amount of natural resources and emitting a disproportionate amount of emissions and greenhouse gases, and if Es were so clumsy they were a hazard to have out around other cars, you’d have an analogy. As it is, you don’t even have a clue. : : > : Americans want, and get, big vehicles. Eco-whackos pushed : > : for–and got–rules that made it disbeneficial for car companies to make : > : Chev Caprice Classics, Ford LTDs, Mercury Grand Marquises, Plymouth Gran : > : Furies, and Dodge Monacos. The big cars went away. The public promptly : > : replaced their big cars with small trucks which got around the : > : big-car-restrictive rules. Car makers saw they were selling a lot more : > : Cherokees and Suburbans than they figured, figured out the trend, and set : > : the hook. Large cars got harder to certify without expensive : > : penalties…small trucks proliferated. And got larger. So now the : > : problem the eco-whackos bitched about is worse than before, due directly : > : to their own misguided manipulation of market supplies and market demands. : > : > And hopefully, before long, SUVs will have to meet the same emissions and : > fuel economy standards as cars. : : So what? They’ll still be bigger, heavier, and more powerful than cars. Maybe. It’ll be interesting to see how they meet the same standards as cars while being bigger and heavier. And more powerful? Want to compare the 0-60 times of an E320 with ANY domestic SUV? : I, for : one, can’t wait for a hybrid-powered Durango-sized vehicle that gets better : mileage than a current-generation Miata. I eagerly await the fabricated : complaints that the big-car haters will come up with when this happens. It’ll only cost as much as that E-class and be much slower (DC has said the hybrid Durango was as fast as the V6 model, I believe). So much for "still being more powerful." : : Big vehicles are here to stay. That’s what they said about 5000-lb cars in the 70s. : Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to : their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that : priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win : that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance : offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. Low cost of maintenance? Now that’s a hoot. Look at CR again — except for Toyotas, no SUV or other truck is "much better than average" in reliability, as numerous cars are. Add in fuel costs and there’s simply no way a truck can match a car in operating costs. : : : — Stephen G. Lacker : sglacker at texas dot net : "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!" :
Response:
: > : > : > > : > > : Same phenomenon. Opposite spin. Just as valid. Parroting the popular : > > : spin doesn’t make it any more valid than the unpopular one. We don’t like : > > : to face the fact that the laws of physics favor large objects over smaller : > > : ones in a collision, so we say that SUVs are evil. : > > : > > Well, no. First, cars are still the majority vehicle on the road. : > : > The constitution, fortunately, protects the rights of the MINORITY also. : > : > > Secondly, it’s the SUV doing the damage. Thirdly, since cars use less : > > fuel, pollute less, and put out less greenhouse gas, they must be the : > > preferred method of transportation and SUVs should accomodate them. : > : > "Preferred" by whom? Honda Accords outnumber Mercedes E-classes too. Therefore : > we should ban E-classes because Accords are the "preferred" method of : > transportation. Stupid, stupid argument. : : A Geo Gnat (or whatever they’re called) pollutes less than an Accord and uses : less fuel. Dump the Accord and get into one of these. Odds are that most : Accord owners can’t justify anything other than a dinky little economy car : anyway. What can an Accord do that the Geo can’t? : : Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has : sufficient justification to keep it. Agreed. What irritates me are the folks that use it for solo commmuting on interstates and grocery shopping, where a car would serve them better.
Response:
: : : : >Big vehicles are here to stay. Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to : : >their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that : : >priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win : : >that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance : : >offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. : : > : : > : : : : People are… wait until you see the legislation… : : Wow, now there’s a *great* idea – legislating why kinds of : car I can own. Done. You can’t own one that doesn’t meet US emissions and safety regulations. You can’t own one that doesn’t meet lighting standards, or crash protection standards. Since auto makers have to pay fines if they don’t meet CAFE standards, they restrict your choices even further. : : Lets see the governments record on such idiocy. Last was the : luxory tax on boats and certain cars. Drove boat owners out : of business in droves and and got lots of auto workers laid : off. It was, fortunately, repealed as being a stupid idea. : : I have no problem with seeing certain safety and pollution : limits applied (many SUVs already meet car standards : in these areas anyway). Name them. Any SUV classifed as a truck meets much looser emissions standards and CAFE standards. Plus the crash tests are different, which is why few trucks have the crumple zones most cars have. : : Many of the ideas behind such legislation is to put everyone : in smaller, inherently less safe cars. Somehow that strikes me : as just plain wrong-headed thinking. Europe drives mostly smaller cars; if you compare on the same types of roads, you don’t see less highway safety.
Response:
: > : > : > >A Geo Gnat (or whatever they’re called) pollutes less than an Accord and uses : > >less fuel. Dump the Accord and get into one of these. Odds are that most : > >Accord owners can’t justify anything other than a dinky little economy car : > >anyway. What can an Accord do that the Geo can’t? : > : > For one thing, the pollution standards are set in grams per mile. A 5 litre : > Chevy has to meet that same figure the Geo Gnat does. : > : > As for what an Accord can do that the Geo can’t. It can be more comfortable. : > It can provide a bit more security in an accident. It can sure as hell be : > nicer to drive on a long road trip. : > : > > : > >Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has : > >sufficient justification to keep it. : > : > The only justification they need is wanting it. If you want to change that, : > then go ahead and vote for Nader. : : I agree completely. I was just making the point that the Accord drivers : had better shut up about SUVs. The reasoning that they use to buy an : Accord instead of a Gnat is the same that some people use to buy : an Excursion instead of an Accord. Except the Accord puts out no more emissions than the Geo, whereas the Excursion puts out a lot more than the Accord. Ditto for greenhouse gases. Ditto for natural resources consumed. Ditto for handling and braking.
Response:
> Agreed. What irritates me are the folks that use it for solo commmuting > on interstates and grocery shopping, where a car would serve them better.
People use cars for many different purposes. If I were to own a boat or tow a travel trailer, even once a year, I would probably own an SUV to tow it. I would ALSO use said SUV for other purposes… including "solo commuting" because its not cost effective (nor environmentally responsible) to buy an extra vehicle just for that purpose. Building a car, even a small one, pollutes the world a lot more than driving an SUV for several years. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Response:
> If Mercedes E-classes were causing disproportionate damage and injury to > Accords in collisions, if Es were consuming a disproportionate amount of > natural resources and emitting a disproportionate amount of emissions and > greenhouse gases, and if Es were so clumsy they were a hazard to have out > around other cars, you’d have an analogy. As it is, you don’t even have a > clue.
Oooooh. I think I found a NERVE with Mr. Mercedes Parker. The whole point is that none of your inane statements ("so clumsy they were a hazard…" what a typical example of baseless hyperbole) apply to SUVs any more than they apply to the E-class. Empty rhetoric. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Response:
> Except the Accord puts out no more emissions than the Geo,
Patently FALSE. Both have to meet the same standard, but the standard allows cars to be 100x dirtier than the cleanest cars typically produced. There’s a huge amount of "headroom" in the standards to allow for production variations and aging of the vehicles. The Accord may emit 5x the emissions of the Gnat, and a Lexus can emit 5x what the Accord does. All still meet the standard. > whereas the > Excursion puts out a lot more than the Accord.
Better than the first statement, but again not NECESSARILY true. The standards *allow* SUV’s to be dirtier, but again since most new vehicles are on the order of 100x cleaner than the standard, it is possible for a car and an SUV to pollute the same amount, or even for the car to pollute more than a particularly clean SUV. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Response:
> : Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to > : their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that > : priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win > : that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance > : offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. > Low cost of maintenance? Now that’s a hoot. Look at CR again — except > for Toyotas, no SUV or other truck is "much better than average" in > reliability, as numerous cars are. Add in fuel costs and there’s simply > no way a truck can match a car in operating costs.
Really? Fuel costs may be somewhat higher, but anytime anyone has presented a calculation on the actual fuel cost per yer, the difference has only been a few hundred dollars. Chicken feed to someone who can afford a $25,000 vehicle. Regardless of what CR says about reliability, our ‘91 Chevy Pickup has only needed one distributor cap (<$50) and one set of brake pads in 9 years and 100,000 miles. And like a car, the fluids are changed at regular intervals. Jeff
Response:
: : : : > If Mercedes E-classes were causing disproportionate damage and injury to : > Accords in collisions, if Es were consuming a disproportionate amount of : > natural resources and emitting a disproportionate amount of emissions and : > greenhouse gases, and if Es were so clumsy they were a hazard to have out : > around other cars, you’d have an analogy. As it is, you don’t even have a : > clue. : : Oooooh. I think I found a NERVE with Mr. Mercedes Parker. : : The whole point is that none of your inane statements ("so clumsy they were a : hazard…" what a typical example of baseless hyperbole) apply to SUVs any more than : they apply to the E-class. Empty rhetoric. E-classes don’t roll over more than cars do on the average. SUVs do. E-classes don’t take longer to stop than cars do. SUVs do. E-classes don’t put out more emissions, more greenhouse gases, and consume more natural resources. SUVs do. E-classes don’t cause more damage and injury to other cars. SUVs do. What part of that do you find hard to understand? : : — Stephen G. Lacker : sglacker at texas dot net : "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!" :
Response:
>> >Anyone with an SUV and a boat, horse trailer, skiing cabin, etc. probably has > >sufficient justification to keep it. > The only justification they need is wanting it. If you want to change that, > then go ahead and vote for Nader. >I agree completely. I was just making the point that the Accord drivers >had better shut up about SUVs. The reasoning that they use to buy an >Accord instead of a Gnat is the same that some people use to buy >an Excursion instead of an Accord.
This whole discussion is amazing. If this were truly a moral question, then the only argument with any foundation would be to go back to the pre-industrial age and use horses, walking or sailing for transportation and we’d all be farmers. Even bicycles and carriages would be immoral for the need to manufacture them and the accompanying pollution. If the people want to protect the environment by setting emission standards for cars/trucks, that’s fine by me. Aside from that, a person can own whatever vehicle they darn well please. This smacks of class envy (or guilt) more than it does of environmental concerns. Pol Pot personified that point of view and we all know what he accomplished.
Response:
: : : > : : > : Small vehicles are inherently more dangerous to : > : their occupants than big vehicles, and we choose our vehicles by weighting that : > : priority along with cost of operation and cost of maintenance. Big vehicles win : > : that analysis for a lot of the population because the low cost of maintenance : > : offsets some of the cost of operation. Deal with it. : > : > Low cost of maintenance? Now that’s a hoot. Look at CR again — except : > for Toyotas, no SUV or other truck is "much better than average" in : > reliability, as numerous cars are. Add in fuel costs and there’s simply : > no way a truck can match a car in operating costs. : : Really? Fuel costs may be somewhat higher, but anytime anyone has : presented a calculation on the actual fuel cost per yer, the difference : has only been a few hundred dollars. Chicken feed to someone who can : afford a $25,000 vehicle. Regardless of what CR says about reliability, : our ‘91 Chevy Pickup has only needed one distributor cap (<$50) and one : set of brake pads in 9 years and 100,000 miles. And like a car, the : fluids are changed at regular intervals. : : Jeff Well, let’s see. A Honda at 20,000 miles a year at 30 mpg = $1000 a year. An Excursion at 12 mpg, $2500 a year. Over a 3-year period, $4500 more just for gasoline. Now add in the extra repairs, extra depreciation, extra insurance.
Response:
: : : : > Except the Accord puts out no more emissions than the Geo, : : Patently FALSE. Both have to meet the same standard, but the standard allows cars to be 100x dirtier than the : cleanest cars typically produced. There’s a huge amount of "headroom" in the standards to allow for production : variations and aging of the vehicles. The Accord may emit 5x the emissions of the Gnat, and a Lexus can emit 5x : what the Accord does. All still meet the standard. The cleanest truck is allowed to put out many times the emissions of the dirtiest cars though. : : > whereas the : > Excursion puts out a lot more than the Accord. : : Better than the first statement, but again not NECESSARILY true. The standards *allow* SUV’s to be dirtier, but : again since most new vehicles are on the order of 100x cleaner than the standard, it is possible for a car and an : SUV to pollute the same amount, or even for the car to pollute more than a particularly clean SUV. Sorry, but again, you refuse to comprehend. Trucks are allowed to put out many times the emissions of cars (currently; this is changing). Typically, you throw in red herrings about how much cleaner vehicles are than the standards, blah, blah, but the fact is, NO TRUCK SOLD MEETS THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS OF CARS.
Response:
> E-classes don’t roll over more than cars do on the average. SUVs do.
E-classes roll over more easily than Vipers. Therefore, they’re a menace and should’t be driven. > E-classes don’t take longer to stop than cars do. SUVs do.
E-classes take longer to stop than Vipers. Therefore they’re a menace to the general motoring public. > E-classes don’t put out more emissions, more greenhouse gases, and consume > more natural resources. SUVs do.
E-classes put out far more emissions and burn far more fuel per mile, thus producing far more greenhouse gasses per mile than a Toyota Prius. Therefore they’re harmful to the environment and should be banned. > E-classes don’t cause more damage and injury to other cars. SUVs do.
E-classes cause more damage to other cars than Ford Festivas do. Therefore they should be banned. > What part of that do you find hard to understand?
The assumption that its a reasonable argument, any more than my patently ridiculous answers above. — Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"