October 18, 2006
Drive That New SUV. Help Clear the Air
Who is more environmentally friendly, a person driving a new Ford Escape SUV or the one in the old Toyota (or maybe an old Volkswagen)? Our habitual scripts are often wrong. If we were serious about cleaning the air, we would junk all the cars made before 1980, since they produce more than 20x the pollution of a similar new car. The wonders of progress …
Some people think that anything good must be uncomfortable, difficult or bad tasting. This is not true. Pleasant things can be good too and technology makes this more likely.
It is silly to do things that are hard when you can get more benefit from things that are easy. There is no virtue in unnecessary suffering, but it is hard to overcome old ways of thinking. Back around AD 400 a guy in Syria decided to sit on top of a column to show how holy he was. Would you believe some people bought it and this aberrant behavior set off a trend?
I don’t believe hedonism is a smart lifestyle. We all should be willing to sacrifice and work for things that are important. But let's be smart and focus on goals, not process. And remember that smart people avoid unpleasantness when they can.
If we were serious about cleaning the air, we would junk all the cars made before 1980,……
Just come and try to junk my 1970 440 6Pac 4-speed Dodge Challenger R/T Convertible. Something will be junked and it won’t be the car.
But your right that today’s cars are cleaner than they were then. And if you get the right one they’ll preform just as good or better while getting better mileage.
It surprised me at how well my Hyundai Elantra performs while getting 34 mpg.
False dichotomy. Most cars older than twenty years are off the road anyways.
Also, it seems like you’re trying to discourage people from some sort of sacrifice. You might be surprised at what people might be willing to do. I recently finished Torie Clarke’s Lipstick on a Pig, and one regret she talked about that resonated with me was that in the Post 9/11 period, the President didn’t call people to arms to some sort of Sacrifice. Rather, he told them to keep on shopping, to live their lives as usual.
This resonated with me, because this was part of my disillusionment with Bush, post 9/11.
What endeavors worth achieving can be sought without cost? We went to the moon, a monumental feat that would have been impossible, had Sputnik not spurred us into being willing to put forward the effort not to fall behind. The interstate system cost a lot, but look at all the economic benefits!
A nation that is not willing to collectively sacrifice for collective gain is one that’s going to fall behind those willing to do so. If we don’t spring for fiber-optic connections to homes, we might fall behind those countries willing to do so. If we don’t spring for space travel, someday, somebody will, and we’ll end up eating their dust on our way to the stars. If we don’t spring for cleaner energy, somebody will, and not only will that render them profits, but it will also increase their efficiencies over us.
The time to passively wait for America to regain its leadership in science, technology, international affairs, medical coverage, war-fighting, and all kinds of other fields must end. America did not become the nation it is by waiting for things to happen. It became the nation it is today by doing something about it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2006 01:34 AMWho is more environmentally friendly, a person driving a new Ford Escape SUV or the one in the old Toyota (or maybe an old Volkswagen)?
Which political party is for improved mileage standards for vehicles? Which political party considers forcing vehicle manufacturers to adhere to stricter standards an undue burden on their ability to be competitive? I bet you don’t know, Jack.
Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at October 19, 2006 01:47 AMDoing the easy thing rather than the right thing is the Republican way.
Posted by: trublu at October 19, 2006 02:14 AMMaybe if we outlaw smoking in bars, it will cleanup the air. Save me from the PC police. I’ve never smoked, but resent the smoking nazis from banning smoking in All public and office buildings, with some exceptions. What stupid autocratic laws. Houston city council just passed such a stupid one.
I drive a 1991 Jeep Cherokee as a work truck. I have to carry test eqauipment to construction sites. I have to pass annual pollution standards to continue to drive the vehicle as long as I live in an urban county. I have nearly 200,000 miles on this truck because I take care of it. I don’t want a new Air-bag deathtrap for work. I never wear a seatbelt and can be ticketed for it.
I’m a bit tired of being legislated to death by do gooders. I tried to take a bus to a baseball game a few weeks ago. You can get to the evening game, you just can’t get back from it, no late night weekend bus routes in my area.
Everybody has a great idea for making my life better. I’m a libertarian mostly. Whatever happened to liberty?
I’m all for clean air and health, but stop shoving the little guy around with all this stupid nonsense regulation.
Posted by: gergle at October 19, 2006 03:09 AMOh yeah that’s another reason I’m voting for Kinky Friedman for Governor…he smokes cigars.
Posted by: gergle at October 19, 2006 03:13 AMgergle,
Good posts. Kinky Freidman almost makes me want to change my permanent residence to Texas just to vote for him absentee.
Posted by: 1LT B at October 19, 2006 03:27 AMWho is more environmentally friendly, a person driving a new Ford Escape SUV or the one in the old Toyota (or maybe an old Volkswagen)?
Jack, that’s an obvious unfair game.
Here a moe fair one:
Who is more environmentally friendly, a person driving a new Fort Escape SUV or the one in the new Toyota (or maybe any new small car)?
All new cars are built at the same period, with the same technological knowledge level available to each car manufacturers. The choice of the driver/buyer is what make difference.
When one will choose a SUV, whatever the low mpg it has, because its looks secure and strong, another one will choose efficiency and drop the “I have a bigger one” view on his car.
Who is more environmentally friendly, the person who care about “having the biggest one” or the one who care about environment friendness only?
And I’m sure it’s not unpleasant at all to drive an all new hybrid car, indeed.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 04:33 AMJack,
Neither choice is good. Our cars emit more CO2 than China’s cars did in the early 80’s. They emit more CO2 than most industrialized countries.
I disagree with you about which choice is better. Both choices suck. A large number of people want something better.
Besides if you are going to buy a new car, it’s kind of lame to rationalize your choice by saying, “but my new SUV runs cleaner than a Toyota from 10 years ago”. Who’s being PC with that statement? Just say you don’t care what you pay for gas or how it affects the environment and be done with it. Stop the doublespeak.
Finally, is some politician somewhere suggesting policemen come and forcibly take cars away from everyone? Isn’t the real proposal to set new, higher, standards that are better for the environment, our pocketbooks, and help us be more competitive internationally? What’s wrong with that?
Posted by: Max at October 19, 2006 05:55 AMJack,
Who is more environmentally friendly, a person driving a new Ford Escape SUV or the one in the old Toyota (or maybe an old Volkswagen)?
I thought you were a fiscal conservative, Jack. How, then, can you completely ignore the ECONOMICS of the situation?
Those vehicles are at two different price points, and as any good fiscal conservative will tell you, economics is the first factor people are going to consider when buying a car.
The person driving that new SUV could have very easily bought a cleaner car for the same (or less) money. The person driving a 1980 Toyota Piece-of-Crap is probably driving the best thing they could afford. So the comparison is bogus, as nobody is going to be choosing between those two models.
Personally, I’d LOVE to be driving a new hybrid, instead of the two mid-90s, 150k+ mileage rustbuckets that I own now. But I can’t afford a new car. If I could, I certainly wouldn’t waste my money on an SUV. I’d buy something more practical, and more environmentally-friendly. Few things in today’s society are as wasteful and selfish as the “comfortably seats six, usually seats one” SUV.
Choices must be judged in relation to their alternatives. Any other judgement is unrealistic and unfair. Your argument basically boils down to: “How dare poor people drive polluting cars! Can’t they afford cleaner ones like rich people can?”
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at October 19, 2006 06:44 AMWe do need better choices. We need more nuclear power plants so we can charge very clean electric cars and create zero air pollution.
But nuclear power is being held back by radical left wingers who use the environment as a political weapon.
And get this. Kenney kept Massachussets from putting in a wind far because it would ruin “the view” from his compound. And in Texas enviornmentalists are keeping wind power from happening because it will chop up birds. So the liberal politicians and nut jobs wont let us have wind power either!
We need much more nuclear power now so we can stop burning oil to get to work.
Posted by: Stephen at October 19, 2006 06:50 AMStephen
I was thinking more along the lines of working smarter. You can work really hard and sacrifice a lot and accomplish little or you can work smart and get a lot done.
The SUV example illustrates the power of being smart and using technology. That is how we solve problems.
Re old cars, I chose 1980 because of the very high difference between pollution levels, but progress is constant. A 1990 car is much worse than one made today too. The point, as above, is progress and intelligence solve problems.
BTW – we have never lost our lead in those areas you mention. Others are catching up and that it good and proper, but did you notice who won almost all the Nobel Prizes this year?
Jeff
Price is the key to fuel efficiency. Check the fleet mileage records. Improvements came fast until the middle 1980s. Lower prices slowed the progress. Most of those big SUVs became popular when? During the Clinton Administration. It is true that Dems talk more about it.
Trublu
Easy and right are sometimes the same. Generally simple is best, although not always easy. It all depends. Some people want to punish rather than solve problems. This is always wrong.
Philippe
Of course the most environmentally friendly person is one who does not drive at all. I am against all the shifting of blame. People who drive make the problem. If you drive a lot and burn a lot of gas, you are a bigger contributor. What you drive makes less difference. The man who burns 100 gallons of gas each week in his Prius is worse than the one who burns 10 gallons in his SUV.
Max
See above to Philippe
Re my choices, I have a Honda Civic Hybrid, which I drive rarely, since I take the Metro and ride my bike. If everyone had habits like mine, we would burn much less gas. But I am looking at real American lifestyles.
In my own life I am fairly puritan. But I do not want to impose this on eveyone - well maybe a little.
Stephen
We need much more nuclear power now so we can stop burning oil to get to work.
Okay, but why not meanwhile buy an oil efficient car instead of keep buy and drive a far less efficient one but bigger and expensive than my neighboor’s one?
First step first.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 08:03 AMPhilipepe,
Okay, lets compare a 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid SUV to a 2007 Toyota Camry. Both are similar in price (around $27K) and have similar space for their occupants. If you look at the EPA Fuel Economy Estimates you will see that the SUV is more efficient than the Camry. The 4wd hybrid produces 6.0 tons of greenhouse gases, while the V6 Camry 7.2 tons. The SUV has a combined EPA estimate of 31 MPG, while the Camry has a combined estimate of 25 MPG.
Which car is more environmentally friendly? I think people tend to assume that all SUVs get 14 MPG.
Posted by: Alan Crosby at October 19, 2006 08:16 AMJack Said:
“I have a Honda Civic Hybrid, which I drive rarely, since I take the Metro and ride my bike. If everyone had habits like mine, we would burn much less gas. But I am looking at real American lifestyles.
In my own life I am fairly puritan. But I do not want to impose this on eveyone - well maybe a little.”
Jack, someone that still has true conservative values is hard to find. I’ve liked your latest posts, it’s time we all become more responsible for the care of our home, the earth, and the same time getting us off this oil addiction that causes so many of our problems.
But I know that taking the metro is not only a wise way to save on gas, but a much easier way to get around these long DC commutes.
Lots of small and mid-sized communities don’t have public transportation options, and they are left to drive their bloated SUV’s from their country/suburbia bedrooms to their jobs. If you go to Europe, which I know is much smaller, public transportation is available everywhere. The US needs to improve this to help us get off the oil addiction. I know many people who would take public transporation to save on gas and wear on their vehicle, if it were available.
Posted by: mem beth at October 19, 2006 08:51 AMJack, you’re changing the comparaison ground but it’s still bogus:
The man who burns 100 gallons of gas each week in his Prius is worse than the one who burns 10 gallons in his SUV.
True, but the man who burns 100 gallons of gas each week in his new SUV is still worse than the one who burns 100 gallons in his hybrid car.
Sure, the one who don’t drive, so don’t burn oil is the best environmental friendly on transport. And you’re one of the few who are moving in that direction, that very good.
Still, your topic is comparing driving a new SUV or and old car, which is a bogus comparaison and a choice nobody have to make. People drive old cars because a) they can’t afford a new one or b) their car is a collector.
Let’s compare on a fair plan, would you?
A driver will do the same distance to his work everyday, whatever is his car. If he buy one that consume more oil and/or emit more CO2 than another one, he’s not the most environment (and economically) friendly.
Today, between SUVs and hybrid cars, the price is pretty much the same. But still, there is more SUVs than hybrid cars in usage. Whoever could afford their SUVs could have bought an hybrid vehicule instead, but they choose SUV which they should know - let’s hope! - consume more and emit more CO2 than hybrids. Between environment and hype, at same price, they choose hype.
What’s the rational behind such choice except for “mine is bigger than your” attitude?
If everyone had habits like mine, we would burn much less gas. But I am looking at real American lifestyles.
I think we all here trying to look at real *today* American lifestyles. Which is, AFAIK, more buying SUVs than hybrid cars.
But, agreed, a better choice is to reduce and factorize our transportation needs, both on distances, energy consumed and polution emitted. Except that’s your comparaison don’t address it at all.
BTW, doesn’t Toyota selling an hybrid powered SUV on the market, the Highlander? How sales are doing?
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 09:15 AMAlan Crosby,
Thanks to make me clear the new Ford Escape SUV is hybrid, because I didn’t catch this, as anyone could have deduce from my previous post.
Why not now compare this hybrid SUV with hybrid non-SUV cars!
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 09:19 AMPhilippe,
Actually, you made me reread Jack’s original post. He didn’t specify the Hybrid Escape, that was an assumption on my part. If we assume the regular Escape then the mileaeg goes WAY down, to a more typical SUV mileage of 21 MPG combined.
As for comparing hybrid cars to hybrid SUVs, you do have a point. A lighter car will always trump a heavier SUV in fuel economy, there is just no getting around the laws of physics.
But choosing a hybrid SUV is a reasonable compromise, and will help foster the development of even more efficient hybrid technologies, making all cars that much more efficient and green.
Posted by: Alan Crosby at October 19, 2006 09:44 AMAlan Crosby,
I fix your link and found out that according them the Camry has a combined EPA estimate of 39 MPG, not 25, and produce 4.8 tones of greenhouse gases, not 7:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs_cars.shtml
The Toyota Prius or the Jack’s Honda Civic Hybrid have both a MPG over 50 and produce near 3.5 tones of greenhouse. To compare to any hybrid SUV stats:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs_SUVs.shtml
Best MPG, 34, and greenhouse emission, 6 tones goes to the new Ford Escape hybrid SUV. Still, new hybrid cars emit near half that and offer an average +30% MPG…
There no magic here: a smaller car is lighter so need less energy to move at same speed, period.
The question people should ask themselves when they’re considering buying an SUV or a smaller car is do they really needs such space or is just because they can buy one?
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 09:51 AMAlan Crosby,
But choosing a hybrid SUV is a reasonable compromise, and will help foster the development of even more efficient hybrid technologies, making all cars that much more efficient and green.
For the same price you could have the best today efficient and green cars but, I agree with you, until SUV become un-hype, an hybrid SUV is still better than the worst case, non-hybrid SUV.
Sorry, but I will drive a big car or pick-up so long as they are the safer vehicle. I am more than willing to pay for the additional gas to be in the safer vehicle. Yes, I know that there are a few “safe” high mileage vehicles. But I need something that will operate on a gravel road and farm lanes as well as a 4 lane highway. And, I have no intention of spending the extra money just to buy a new vehicle. I always see people leave out of these equations the environmental cost of building the new vehicle when they promote buying something new over something old.
Let’s take hybrids as an example. Here we have a car with great mileage at the cost of needing to produce and recycle/dispose of a lot more lead/acid batteries than a standard vehicle. I have seen the real problems that the current battery disposal problem has created - now multiply that by 10 to 20 times. Not many people know that during the life of the battery the plastic shell becomes inpregnated with lead making it a hazardous waste that is very hard to deal with and even harder to recycle. Far to many decisions by both consumers and the government is made based on knee jerk reactions to things like fuel economy without taking a look at the true bottom line from both a human health and safety stand point or the bottom line environmental impacts.
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 09:57 AMWell, if I had actually follow the second link in Jack post, I will have discover he was talking of the hybrid Escape model.
Anyway, that’s great to see at last an american car to appear in these chartes. Go Ford!
If we are really serious about getting the old polluters off the road, this conservative is willing to buy into a new Gov’t program (ugh!)
When the emissions test of old vehicles reaches a drop dead level, the program would confiscate the vehicle using the, tada….eminent domain clause! Take their rust bucket, pay them real street value and use it for target practice on a military base.
Exceptions could be allowed for genuine antiques, meaning well kept and properly maintained older cars such as the sweet Charger mentioned above or my buddy’s Model A, which unfortunately would have to meet some minimum polution standards based on their original design, and of course pay a reasonable fee for the inspection/liscensing.
Whoever said that the CO levels in China in the 80’s were lower that ours now should prove it or get his/her head our of their A**. I’ve been to China, and they still aren’t up to our 80’s standards. Los Angeles is a pollution free mecca next to any industrial area of China.
When I left any proper city, there wasn’t even any indoor plumbing, I had to leave my hotel room and go down to the street for the “facilities. A hole in the floor, with a grab handle on the opposite wall was something of a luxury after a while. Maybe it was just that way around the mines I visited, but anyone who wants to compare quality of living in China as better than the US in any useful way belongs in a straight jackey and on heavy medication.
Posted by: Tom at October 19, 2006 10:01 AMTrublu -
“Doing the easy thing rather than the right thing is the Republican way.”
Doing the right thing is God’s way.
That leaves the hard wrong thing as the Democrat way.
So, leave the politics out of this.
Posted by: Don at October 19, 2006 10:02 AMWe all should be willing to sacrifice and work for things that are important.
If only cars could run on platitudes.
But let’s be smart and focus on goals not process.
Actually, focusing on goals and not the process is a great way to never reach your goals. You’re also more prone to end up with an “ends justifies the means” mentality.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 19, 2006 10:11 AMTo debate this requires one to believe in the primary importance of being environmentally friendly in the first place. The free market dictates that products people want will be developed and sold for a profit. The question of being friendly isn’t part of a rational equation. Its definately one that doesn’t belong in the governmental domain. Once the market shows that it either overwhelmingly will buy (not claim to buy) technologies that are environmentally safer, then those products will dominate. Instead of complaining that Americans need to ditch their SUVs and start driving tinker toy cars to be considered responsible, why not examine why the market loves SUVs (their size, power, interior room, etc.) and build technologies around that premise?
Those that claim that “everybody wants this” or “everybody wants that” can be proven correct, or incorrect with a simple measure - what do people buy? The free market will do a much better job of revolutionizing technology that the government ever could. Let’s leave it in the hands of the market and get government focused on its primary responsibilities - protecting our interests at home and abroad, creating a rule of basic law, and providing services that its people truly want.
Posted by: Howard Rourke at October 19, 2006 11:10 AMHoward,
Your thesis assumes that everyone is insightful and has long term thinking and understands the difference between real cost and cash lay out.
That’s a bad assumption. Government has a responsibility to educate and nudge people in the right direction.
Taxing the hell out of ciggarettes, banning commercials and placing death symbols on the pack…good.
Banning smoking….bad.
Turning a market toward efficient design with research grants and gradual standard shifts…good.
Banning SUV’s…..bad.
Helping the markets compete fairly with education and tax incentives isn’t unfair interference in a market. Laissez faire is not always good government policy, it may just be ignoring the abuses of the market and a lack of leadership.
Posted by: gergle at October 19, 2006 11:27 AMGas mileage is a minor issue. I was very interested though in the comment about Post 9/11 grass roots activism. After 9/11 and during Katrina I was very concerned about “what I should be doing”.I think we need some sort of civil service plan like most other countries have where highschool graduates serve for at least one year and are trained in something useful to society. In world war 2, the people were involved in rubber drives and buying of war bonds and varied local activities that gave them a sense of participation. We need that today. There are too many people asking what their government can do for them and almost no one asking what can I do for my fellow Americans. As for the political discussion, I think there should be a 2 term limit on every politician on every level. There are enough sharp people who are willing to serve who would do just fine. Right now there is way too much time and energy being spent on getting re-elected. As long as we have life-long incumbancy for most elected positions we are dooming ourselves to more of the party based divisiveness we see on these posts. Everyone should be a lame duck. Do what is best for the country without regard to being re-elected and then let the next guy have a turn.
Posted by: Kenny at October 19, 2006 11:30 AMGrossman-
The argument you make is one I have the most problem with. You say you will drive larger vehicles because they are safer, so I’m assuming you mean collision wise, because larger vehicles are actually more likely to be involved in single-vehicle accidents. And if it is collision safety you are talking about, by making yourself safer you have inherently made the other driver less safe
(same article). Then, whereas there is an obvious correlation between vehicle size and vehicle price, highway safety has become a commodity. Those who can afford to buy and fuel larger vehicles can afford to be safer on the roads, and there is even some evidence now that this added security will cause many SUV and truck owners to drive more aggressively, even dangerously. Your argument is weak and self-centered and typical of everything that is wrong with today’s me-first attitude in this country.
David Grossman,
Sorry, but I will drive a big car or pick-up so long as they are the safer vehicle.
Safer from small cars, but not safer from other big cars. Otherwise, next what everybody will want to feal safe? A tank!?
Beside, car safety, whatever the car size, have made huge improvment in the last two decades. Air-bag, ABS, ESP etc made every driver safer, whatever his car size.
What make cars less safe than before is people driving them more agressivly, due to a false safety-inducted impunity to do it.
I need something that will operate on a gravel road and farm lanes as well as a 4 lane highway.
Big SUV or trucks are not the only solution here. If you don’t need that much space in your car, small 4x4 are as up to the task than any larger car.
Anyway, I wonder how many SUV or pick-up truck owners actually drive them only on highway…
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 12:16 PMGergle: You either believe in a free market or you don’t. The government is the least suited and qualified entity to manage the forces of a free market. Period. That’s assuming that anyone should attempt to manage the free market - I believe they shouldn’t. While I agree that banning is inappropriate government behavior, the other punitive/coercive measures - i.e., taxing, restricting - are equally inappropriate. As it relates to capitalism, the goal is to make government work for us to protect our interests militarily, enforce primary law and NOT to shape market policy.
I trust the market more than I trust the political and beauricratic spasms of the government any day of the week.
The other writers that are preaching self-sacrifice and selflessness don’t understand how our market works. Our market works because people purchase and support the things they want to, based on their own selfish wants. The foundation of our system is not that we sacrifice and subordinate our wants in response to guilt. It’s much simpler: we are willing to sacrifice to get the things we want. In our market, we don’t need to justify driving what we want to drive. Those that like to drive small cars create a market for them. Those that like large cars and SUVs create another market. If emerging technologies address the things people want, then they will succeed. If one wants to browbeat the American public into feeling guilty enough to drive the things they don’t want to drive, then that initiative will fail.
Posted by: Howard Rourke at October 19, 2006 12:44 PMThe Government has NO business telling anyone what type of car to drive. Or how old or new it has to be.
The only reason I have a small car is because I co-signed for it and the boy didn’t make the payments. But I do like the car.
I personally like the big cars because they ride better than the small ones. I’m wiling to give up gas mileage for the ride. That’s my choice and I have the right to it.
Besides the Elantra we have a Chrysler 300C. This baby rides like a Mercedes and in my opinion is a better value than the Mercedes. Before the 300c we had a Town Car and as good as it rode the Chrysler rides a whole heap better. Even with a 5.7L engine it gives the same mileage the Lincoln did with a 4.6L.
gergle
I’m with ya on the seat belts. Again the Government has NO business telling me I have to wear one. Here in Georgia seat belt violations are secondary charges. The cop has to stop you for something else and see your not wearing a seat belt. I just buckle up when I see the blue lights turn on behind me.
Whatever happened to liberty?
It’s went down the tubes along with both major parties.
David S and Houdoin
I am afraid that you have some facts and logic in error. Bigger vehicles are safer primarily because of the larger crushing distance - and that applies to single vehicle as well as two vehicle crashes. The further you have to deaccelerate your body in a crash the fewer injuries - and then there is the issue of where the engine ends up in a crash - again more room for it to move and not end up in the front passenger seat.
Second I have not heard anyone suggest that trucks and busses be taken off the highway - there will always be bigger vehicles to crash into. I do not make myself safer at the expense of others. I have been driving for 35 years - never in an accident with another vehicle where I was not hit from behind - and that only once that I can recall. I am a very conservative and defensive driver. Personal accusations of being “weak and self centered” are more name throwing than any attempt to deal with the issues - to bad you need to resort to that tactic.
Next, the suspension systems of small SUVs and trucks, even if they are 4 wheel drive, are not as rugged as the full size vehicles - they may work well in snow on a road but they are not designed for off road use. In addition, the small beds of small pickups do not have the cargo capacity I need and routinely use - nor can they carry the weight.
Statistics can not be applied to individual circumstances - attempts to do so again deal with false logic - I am not an “aggresive” driver in a manner that results in accidents - I am aggresively defensive - my driving history speaks for itself.
As for price, I have never purchased a vehicle for more than $20k nor have I ever puchased a new vehicle. I keep them well maintained and typically drive them till they have over 200,000 miles. So the logic about buying big being related to money and that somehow being related to the economics of safety is also false logic. You can be frugal and safe and drive a larger vehicle if that is what you want to do.
PS The name is Gossman not Grossman
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 12:52 PMThose that like to drive small cars create a market for them. Those that like large cars and SUVs create another market. If emerging technologies address the things people want, then they will succeed. If one wants to browbeat the American public into feeling guilty enough to drive the things they don’t want to drive, then that initiative will fail.
Posted by: Howard Rourke at October 19, 2006 12:44 PM
100% right. Right along with the rest of your post.
In my own life I am fairly puritan. But I do not want to impose this on eveyone - well maybe a little.Posted by: Jack at October 19, 2006 07:50 AMGood job Jack, the first step in reconciling your dual personalities…(lol?)
I just buckle up when I see the blue lights turn on behind me…Posted by Ron Brown at October 19, 2006 12:48 PMJust how often is that,e xactly, Ron?(insert smiley here)Gossman, saftey is realted to size of hood, the ability of the car to shed its inertial energy, frame rigidity, etc… Most cars shed energy by having the engine fall to the ground via attachement bolts of varying sheer force specs. The biggest problem is smaller cars being hit by bigger cars and off center crashes. Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 19, 2006 01:00 PM
If one wants to browbeat the American public into feeling guilty enough to drive the things they donâ´ want to drive, then that initiative will fail…Posted by: Howard Rourke at October 19, 2006 12:44 PMIt amazes me almost beyond words (yeah yeah, straight line) how many people will give up their rights to privacy and habeous corpus, etc… but not their freakin car! Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 19, 2006 01:03 PM
Dave1-20-09:
Why do we have to give up our rights to any of it? I can’t believe that what either of us drives is something that anyone would want to control. The safety and fuel consumption arguments aren’t relevant. Some of the market likes SUVs and some of the market doesn’t. When people no longer want to drive SUVs, they’ll send that signal to the market with their buying decisions. Until then, it should be left to the market to decide. No one should have to justify what they drive when we are free to drive what we want.
Habeous corpus and privacy are distractions from this topic.
Again, one beleives in a free market or they don’t. If one doesn’t, there are some wonderful countries all over the world to live in. My suggestion is if someone wants the government to control the market and its forces, why choose to live here?
Posted by: Howard Rourke at October 19, 2006 01:54 PM“Few things in today’s society are as wasteful and selfish as the “comfortably seats six, usually seats one‎ SUV.”
Well said! I completely agree. While I’m not about to go out and force people to buy hybrids, I do think that it should be, just as it is in most other nations, considered to be wasteful and frowned upon by people. In Japan, driving a big American car is a rebelous statement that means you don’t care about anything but yourself. It is looked down on. And everyone should know by now that I am a big believer in the power of informal control.
Instead of regulating, we should be looking down on our neighbors who buy huge unnecessarily expensive cars just so they can go to work by themselves every day. SUV’s are NOT safer for anyone but the those inside the SUV. For everyone else they are instruments of death. This is why it costs much more for insurance. You cannot see around them on the freeway. And they don’t handle all-terrain driving very well. Mini-vans carry more passengers and are more versatile for families.
Overall, they are simply a status symbol. So next time your friend comes up to you bragging about his new Ford Excess, tell him he’s a moron and walk away. Don’t ooo and aww over the built in DVD player and massaging driver seat. Then ask him if this luxury expense is what makes it so that his mortgage is in default?
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 02:29 PMHoward,
You either believe in a common good or not. You either believe society has the choice to protect the all at some cost to a few, or not. The cons give up what used to be our unique freedoms as Americans in exchange for driving big cars. My point: The “free market” mantra is an excuse to ignore everyone else and pretend to live in a world of one.
Kevins,
SUVs also tip over very easily, there’s no room for emergency manuevering on the highway. Maybe they shoud be called FAS’s: Flip and Slides
Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 19, 2006 02:50 PMKevin23:
What’s the purpose of the formal or informal controls? Who is trying to be the controller? When A doesn’t equal A, I always look at the supporting premises. The bottom line is those that want to frown upon the rest of society and utilize controls want to be in charge. They want the rest of society to bend to their will. In their world, being selfish is supposed to be evil and selflessness is supposed to be courageous. Phooey. I suspect that the root of this silliness isn’t about SUVs at all, but in the desire to tell others how to live.
Market data doesn’t support that SUV drivers do worse with their mortgages than minivan drivers. Frankly, it supports quite the opposite. Luxury goods are predominantly purchased by the best earners/producers. Why should someone be upset if someone has earned the money to purchase a car with a DVD player - its ridicilous.
This is a country engineered for free thinkers, producers, capitalists and achievers who covet freedom of choice. There are plenty of countries better suited for experiencing maximum governmental control - direct and indirect. Why would someone so bent on telling everyone what to drive, eat, wear, think choose to live here? Why not explore the joys of communism, dictatorship and welfare states abroad?
Howard-
“What’s the purpose of the formal or informal controls? Who is trying to be the controller? When A doesn’t equal A, I always look at the supporting premises. The bottom line is those that want to frown upon the rest of society and utilize controls want to be in charge. They want the rest of society to bend to their will. In their world, being selfish is supposed to be evil and selflessness is supposed to be courageous. Phooey. I suspect that the root of this silliness isn’t about SUVs at all, but in the desire to tell others how to live.”
How can a person be so wrong? You need to read my posts and try to actually comprehend them before coming at me with a BS response like that!
First off, I was actually promoting the idea that no one should force anyone to do anything. You must have missed that, right? well a simple google search for the meaning of informal controls would have helped. It means that people regulate themselves based on the opinions of those they care about and respect. It is basic stuff. And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever with being in charge of anything but your own opinion.
Strike 1.
“Market data doesn’t support that SUV drivers do worse with their mortgages than minivan drivers”
Did I ever say it did? No. I alluded that people do in fact do borrow from equity to buy SUV’s all the time. I know many personally. Don’t pretend I said anything other than what I actually did.
Strike 2.
“This is a country engineered for free thinkers, producers, capitalists and achievers who covet freedom of choice. There are plenty of countries better suited for experiencing maximum governmental control - direct and indirect. Why would someone so bent on telling everyone what to drive, eat, wear, think choose to live here? Why not explore the joys of communism, dictatorship and welfare states abroad?”
INFORMAL!!! You are talking about formal control…which I, as a conservative libertarian, rail against every chance I get.
Strike 3
The pitcher is on fire!
Get off your partisan high horse and listen to what people are saying. You just built a straw man, and knocked it down. It had nothing to do with my point at all. I hope you feel like a big man.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 03:06 PMDave1:
What is a common good? Who decides that? You? Every evil that has ever taken place under the banner of the common good. Free market commitment is not “mantra” - it’s a fundamental, and very unique part of our value system. Its an underlying principle that’s a key to understanding the constitution.
It’s simple to figure out, if the majority or even a large portion of the market continues to purchase SUVs, then the market speaks - the market reflects consensus. So often the “common good” is a label used to justify positions that are uncommon.
I still can’t figure out why someone should care what we drive.
Posted by: Howard Rourke at October 19, 2006 03:08 PM“I still can’t figure out why someone should care what we drive.”
It shows. Once again, I guess the whole point alludes you.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 03:19 PMKevin 23:
I know what you meant and so do you.
People utilize the equity they have earned to finance a myriad of things that they want to finance. You were using that analogy to put forth a premise that if someone buys an SUV, that they probably had to leverage their key assets. I disagree with the the premise because it doesn’t make sense and its not relevant.
When you discussed the benefits of informal control you listed taxation. TAXATION IS NOT INFORMAL. If you agree that taxation (“taxing the hell out of cigarettes”) is an acceptable governmental response, then you are not a conservative libertarian. You’re just confused. True libertarians don’t support government control via taxation. If you do, that makes you a Democrat or Republican, possibly.
My partisan high horse is registered independant. You obviously want to make this personal, which is silly. I disagree with some of your assertions. That doesn’t have anything to do with the size of man that I am. More importantly, it shouldn’t make you so angry.
I’m not much of a baseball guy - Rugby’s more up my alley. Maybe you could use some Rugby analogies next time to make it interesting.
Cheers.
Posted by: Howard Rourke at October 19, 2006 03:32 PMGossman (Grossman, whatever)-
Your claims as to your individual driving record are something that I cannot refute, but you cannot back them up wither. The FACTS are that SUVs and trucks are more accident prone, and many (not all, many) drivers of these larger vehicles drive more aggressively because they feel safer.
As to your argument about “deceleration of your body”, you don’t really adress the crux of my argument, that while SUVs may make the driver and occupants safer, they increase the danger for other drivers. SUVs carry much more force into a crash than a sedan travelling at the same speed, making it more dangerous once an accident is happening. Another point about SUVs is the greater blind spots. Some SUVs and trucks have low blind spots behind them of over 50 ft. A simple solution would be to require back-up cameras, but automakers have resisted any legislation that would require this. Why would they do that if SUVs are all about increasing safety?
The fact that you use $20k as your mark for affordability shows a total disconnect with reality. Average payment on a $20k car is $485 (bankrate.com rate for 48 month used car loan is 7.59%). Add insurance for an A+ driver like yourself at about $150/month (in CA, states can differ greatly) and gas at lets say $50/week and your automotive expenses in one month are around $835. That is not in a lot of people’s budgets, so the option of owning an SUV is not available to them. Thats OK, not everyone should be able to afford to drive whatever they want. I believe people should be able to spend their money as they see fit, until it hurts the greater good.
SUVs hurt the greater good. Forgetting all environmental arguments, they are simply too dangerous to have on the road. Your arguments about buses and trucks are baseless, because buses are rarely tearing down the freeway at 75 mph and commercial trucks require special licenses. When you claim your reason for wanting to drive an SUV or truck is for your own personal safety or that of your family, you have to acknowledge that that increase in safety for you is balanced out by a decrease in safety for everyone else on the road. That is a selfish decision. It may be that you have no problem with that, but in my mind it is wrong.
Posted by: David S at October 19, 2006 03:37 PMThe point doesn’t elude me at all.
I know exactly what you are asserting and I just disagree with it.
Posted by: Howard Rourke at October 19, 2006 03:41 PMHoward-
No mention of taxes whatsoever in my post. I have no idea where you pulled that from…although I could venture to guess.
And since you keep harping on this point, I did not make any quantitativer assessments of how people or what people purchase SUV’s. You are using this line: “Then ask him if this luxury expense is what makes it so that his mortgage is in default?”
I apologize if the humor escapes you, but it was just a quirky reference to something that does in fact happen.
Your tantrum about my being pro-communist was just idiotic, out of RIGHT field, and does absolutely nothing to advance the debate. You only said it to make your position seem more normal. Fact is that we are saying the same thing as far as the role of government. You just couldn’t resist the chance to attack a straw-man. Next time you do that, I highly suggest leaving my un-related postings out of it.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 03:45 PMAnd Howard-
Your basic premise that what people buy is the sole thing to be looked ignores the basic priciple that Madison Avenue has lived by for over 100 years. People will buy what you tell them they need to have. Period. It works.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 03:48 PMI still can’t figure out why anybody would want to drive without a seatbelt fastened. Wrinkled clothes? Better than a wrinkled head I’d think.
Posted by: Ray at October 19, 2006 03:52 PM“The point doesn’t elude me at all.
I know exactly what you are asserting and I just disagree with it”
Could have fooled me, seeing as how you interpreted every point wrong and accused me of saying things I never did. If I’m to believe you understood, then a simple “I disagree” would have served your purposes much better. By the way, what part of my post specifically do you disagree with except my recommendation that people start communicating their negative feelings about SUV’s to those who might respect their opinions? You feel that people aren’t allowed to voice critisisms of others? If not, then what do you disagree with?
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 03:54 PMKevin23:
You’re right. It was gergle that mentioned taxes. I apologize for confusing it. I’ll take the hit on that squarely on the chin where it should fall.
That said - I want you to know that I support your right to drive a Mini-Van or whatever you want that’s available on the market. I won’t even apply informal controls.
No tantrums. No attacks. Go back and look at your last 3 postings and tell me whose having a tantrum/meltdown. You’re heated up because you have a thing against SUVs and want the rest of the universe to comply with your desires. I disagree with that.
People buy and act on the things thay want. People will let Madison Avenue tell them what they need as long as they percieve it will help them get what they want.
Posted by: Howard Rourke at October 19, 2006 04:08 PMDavid S
Unlike some on this thread I am public about who I am. You are free to check out my driving record with the state’s of Ohio, Indiana and IL where I have had driver’s licences over the last 35 years. You can not refute my claims because they are true - not because the data is unavialable - deal with it. I do not need to prove something that anyone who knows me well can testify to - especially since I am public about who I am.
Your accounting seems backward. My midsize SUV is weighs less than my wife’s sedan…the point is that you could make the claim that everyone should ride motorcycles based on your logic and you would deny the roads to trucks and busses - your logic does not hold water. The key here is that people have choices. I choose to spend the additional money on gas to drive a safer vehicle and one with the utility that I need. Others are free to do the opposite. That is the basic concept behind individual rights.
I choose the $20k break point as an upper limit - most SUVs new cost more than that and I had a secretary who spent more on a car than I ever have. Certainly the hybrids advocated here are nearly that much or more. I also do not finance vehicles - I buy with cash - that just takes a little self discipline. The last vehicle I purchased was a 94 Ford Pickup with 4 wheel drive. I spent $12k - for the record. I think that the last sedan my wife bought cost about the same.
I will assume that you want to be the one that defines “the greater good”. In my book any interference in the rights of the individual is an interference with the greater good - how would you deal with that?
I have not acknowledged that I drive an SUV to make myself safer at the cost of someone else’s safety - that is your strawman - keep striking at it - but do not make false accusations against me in the process. My vehicles - including my midsized SUV are safer because I drive them that way. I could make a very strong case based on statistics that whole demographic groups of current drivers should not be allowed to drive based on your logic regarding “the greater good”. Is that honestly what you are proposing - I think not. I think you just want to control what other people do - gives you and other with that bent a sense of power. Control your own life and stop trying to control the lives of others - you might be happier.
You keep making personal accusations and digging yourself in because of it. I am public about who I am and what I do. I will put the things I have done to improve the environment for everyone up against you any time - feel free to visit my websites http://gcisolutions.com http://chemrightlabs.com and http://treefarmproducts.com
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 04:10 PM“You’re heated up because you have a thing against SUVs and want the rest of the universe to comply with your desires. I disagree with that.”
Here’s where you are blind to my argument (and by the way, what you seem to percieve as my having a meltdown is, in fact, me joking around with a few student assistants of mine while we eat). Say whatever you want, but feeling social shame or grace makes us act the way we act. It is basic sociology.
“People will let Madison Avenue tell them what they need as long as they percieve it will help them get what they want”
Which begs the question: how do they know what they want? Do you realize that every aspect of what you read, see, or hear in almost every form of communication today, right down to the basic graphic design components are designed based on proven research showing what makes people engage it. Soundbites of empty promises, billboards with hot women drinking beer, cute catch-phrases used to sway a jury, a placement of pictures in a magazine…all of these things influence your actions. One need only three words to decribe it: Tickle Me Elmo.
If you honestly don’t believe that SUV’s are a status symbol, you need to visit California some time. You’ll see traffic jams full of SUV’s with one passenger. And read the stats. If you collide with one, then you are MUCH more likely to die. I think that this breeds honest bitterness against them. It is only fair to let your friends know when they are pissing you off, correct?
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 04:26 PM“My vehicles - including my midsized SUV are safer because I drive them that way”
Now that is arrogance…pure and simple. Your personal financial decisions are yours alone. Buy a damn jumbo jet…it’ll put people to work. But you should realize that should people become aware of detrimental effects of your actions, even those far seemingly far removed from one person’s actions - like global warming, they will publicly admonish you for it. That is free speech. NOT forcing you against your will. It is also part of being “public” about they are.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 04:33 PMRon,
I’m with ya on the seat belts. Again the Government has NO business telling me I have to wear one. Here in Georgia seat belt violations are secondary charges. The cop has to stop you for something else and see your not wearing a seat belt. I just buckle up when I see the blue lights turn on behind me.Whatever happened to liberty?
The liberty to lose your grip on the wheel while breaking like crazy because the lack of belt allow your body to be projected straight on it, knocking you out before you could turn and eventually avoid collision with the car in front of you is the liberty to be enough irresponsible and not respected the other life. It’s the liberty to commit an homicide. Or a whole family homicide.
I don’t care one bit if you kill youself *alone* because you can’t stand a belt, but until you drive without belt *only* on your private roads, other people using public roads along you deserve your best driving skills, something you could NOT have without a belt. Or drunk. Or asleep. Or with a damaged vehicule.
Ask any race driver, which you are really not, they know better.
Your liberty stop where other people could lost their life by excercing your so-call right.
Kevin23
A statement of fact supported by the evidence is not arrogance.
As for the global warming issue please show me a risk analysis for the public at large that shows that the risk from the global warming created by driving a larger vehicle is greater than that created by driving a smaller vehicle. Bet you can’t.
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 04:44 PMDave1-20-09,
It amazes me almost beyond words (yeah yeah, straight line) how many people will give up their rights to privacy and habeous corpus, etc… but not their freakin car!
Or their gun(s) for that matter. Two things that are responsible for the most larger part of all homicides…
Anyway, Not In My Back Yard, as always.
David Gossman-
“As for the global warming issue please show me a risk analysis for the public at large that shows that the risk from the global warming created by driving a larger vehicle is greater than that created by driving a smaller vehicle. Bet you can’t.”
Again, I seek not show anything other than people’s thoughts. Whether you or I find a study to satisfy our short term curiosity or not, the reality is that people associate SUV’s with a lack of respect for the environment. It is a perception that is highly based on personal experiences and it is becoming almost universal among non-SUV owners that I know of here in CA. This means that anyone who decides they want one wil likely, at one time or another, be put on the spot about their decision. I say, rightfully so. That is all I say about this issue in regards to anyone but myself. I THOUGHT I’d made that clear, but I continue to repeat.
It’s probably a different general perception in rural envronments where benefits of trucks and SUV’s are obvious. Here? Status symbol.
“A statement of fact supported by the evidence is not arrogance.”
Saying you can avoid accidents by “driving safely” is not supported by anything but your own speculation. I don’t trust you with my life, sorry.
Posted by: Kevin at October 19, 2006 05:00 PMHoudoin,
People are responsible for homicides - by definition - things like guns and cars can not take responsibility for anything. The suggestion that they should is a clear attempt at deception. The only question is who has been deceived?
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 05:01 PMshows that the risk from the global warming created by driving a larger vehicle is greater than that created by driving a smaller vehicle. Bet you can’t…Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 04:44 PMFor real? It’s obviously the amount of AGGREGATE exhaust that makes the difference. That’s why there are AGGREGATE fuel economy standards for car makers. (Which are under attack by BushCo, big surprise)
Howard,
Kevin23 is absolutely correct. You showed no understanding of my post. Are you an anarchist?
Kevin
My safe driving is suppported by my 35 year driving record - that is a fact. Your suggestion that I am speculating is a false implication. You should not trust me or any other driver - that is why any safe driver is aggresively defensive.
You are probably right about the perception regarding trucks and SUVs in rural areas. But why should someone be put on the spot as you say because of your perceptions? What happened to individual rights and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
“People’s thoughts” have promoted tyranny many times across the years - that is why the concept of individual rights must come first.
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 05:09 PMDave1
Yes for real. If you can not perform the risk analysis on a single example what makes you think you can do it on the aggregate? Where is the aggregate risk analysis comparison? You are setting up strawmen that are so easy to knock down - sort of fun for a brief time.
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 05:11 PMDavid Gossman,
Control your own life and stop trying to control the lives of others - you might be happier.
Do you really believe you actually could control you own life in every aspect of it!?
How I control my life so that my beloved kids wont have to face a planet full of C02 because 4% of the world population responsible for 25% of all CO2 emitted by human activities refused since decades to start using vehicules, whatever size, more environmental-friendly?
Should I control my life by killing every SUV drivers?
How I control my life when this huge SUV is not breaking enough because his driver, who never had any accident since whatever years *before* this first one, has being projected and pass out because he can’t stand belt and, bad luck for me, his vehicule is rushing free toward me uncontroled?
Should I control my life by making my body crashproof to cars?
Hello, most of the time human *control* nothing in their life, he just try to adapt to every change happening and, when possible, try to influence these changes. Being in control is a myth. If we were, nobody could have enough power to oppose ethanasia for example…
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 05:14 PMGossman-
You keep equating everything I’m saying to your personal situation, and maybe you’re as responisble as you say you are. The facts (as opposed to your anecdotes) show that SUVs and large trucks are more dangerous. If I am driving my small sedan and get in a wreck with a large SUV, my damage and potential for injury is greater than if I was in a wreck with another small sedan. Further, active safety in an SUV is worse than in smaller cars for a number of reasons, including tangible reasons such as rear visibility and potential for loss of control, and intangible reasons such as increased carelessness by SUV drivers.
You admitted that you are willing to pay more for safety, and I have no problem with that, unless it makes the roads less safe for other drivers. Even if you are an amazing driver, things can happen on the road that are out of your control that will cause you to be in an accident. When that happens, you will be safer in your SUV, but everyone around you will be in major danger. That is unacceptable.
Posted by: David S at October 19, 2006 05:15 PMDavid Gossman-
Oh Good Grief. We’re going in circles now.
Please don’t tell me that your past driving record is proof of anything but your PAST driving record. It may mean your less of a risk, but nowhere near risk free. Especially as you get older, and slower to react.
And people are put on the spot every day for millions of things. It shapes their tastes and preferences. It is not tyranny. Its called socialization. I feel as if you’ve never cracked a sociology book. I’m not bashing you if haven’t. But have you?
Haven’t you ever felt cought up in the hype of a new movie? Haven’t you ever felt pissed enough to say something to a rude waiter? This is nothing but good old fashion American free speach.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 05:17 PMHoward Routke,
Again, one beleives in a free market or they don’t.
There is no real free market. Only regulated ones. More or less. In US, it’s most probably far lesq than anywhere else, but it’s still not a free market.
Because in a real free market, drugs, sexual slaves, suitcase nukes and assassins will be allowed.
The question is how much regulated it should be. Should CO2 cars emission be regulated? I think yes. Every poluter should pay for the amount of their polution, just because this planet is NOT yours, you or anybody else DON’T own it.
But I agree, you should have choice. If you really want to drive a vehicule who polute more, just pay more. Put your money where is your mouth.
Poluting is not free, neither it is a *right*. It comes at a price, whatever the form. Except maybe only the next generation will see it completly.
Now, if you don’t care beyond your own lifetime, then you’re right to not care about this *issue*.
Keep drive *safe*.
““People’s thoughts‎ have promoted tyranny many times across the years - that is why the concept of individual rights must come first.”
And how exactly are these rights enforced? Through government or on the honor system? If through government, then sorry, too liberal/socialist for my liking. If through the honor system, then we’re already and always there…no matter what.
And I’m still laughing about the past driving record as “proof” of future safety. I need to call my insurance company pronto and get that premium reduced to zero (I have a clean record too). How long do you give me before they laugh me out of their office?
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 05:34 PMMem Beth
Europe IS more compact with greater population densities to support mass transit. We cannot except in a few urban areas.
Philippe
I think the time of your decision frame is wrong as are the potential options.
People also choose where they live. A person might choose a smaller home closer in or he might choose to live nearer his employer (or wherever he goes the most). We can also choose to consolidate trips or satisfice (choose something that is good enough instead of optimizing your preferences.) For example, your favorite restaurant might be 20 miles away, but you choose to frequent the one nearby.
So you might have a guy who really loves to drive an SUV, but makes other good choices versus the guy who makes bad choices and compensates with a hybrid. The only way to judge the relative validity of their choices in total is through how much gas they are burning. Otherwise we are stuck making value judgments about each part of the individual life choices.
Hybrids are becoming more and more common. Soon all vehicles will be hybrids.
Re space, it depends on what you need to carry. I am over six feet tall and weigh 210 lbs. I fit very well into the front seat of my Civic, but if I try to put my wife next to me and my three kids in the back (the boys are now bigger than I am and even my daughter is six feet tall) we don’t all fit at the same time. A little family of five could fit, however.
I do fear that liberals might eventually ban tall people. We breath in more air and eat more food and sometimes make the “gravity friendly” feel small.
re the poor driving old cars - that is another reason to avoid being poor.
BTW - I think I will need to buy a pickup truck soon. I hope hybrids are available. I also like the hybrid because it is quieter.
Tom
We already have a government program where I live for renewing tags. Cars have to pass a pollution test. If they just made that test sufficiently stringent and did not make exceptions, most of the old cars would quickly be off the streets.
Joseph
I favor high gas prices. Nothing works faster or more efficiently to reduce oil consumption. It gives people the choice. If they still want to drive, it is their business.
Howard
I think you see exactly what you are talking about if you look at the mileage. The big, roomy Ford Escape (Hybrid) gets better mileage than those cramped little cars.
David Gossman,
People are responsible for homicides - by definition - things like guns and cars can not take responsibility for anything.
Indeed. And stats show that SUVs drivers and guns owners are more at risk to commit an homicide than non-SUV drivers and people who don’t own a gun.
As a SUV driver, you’re at more risk to be responsible for an homicide than if you were driving a smaller car. Meanwhile, you also polute more. That’s your choice and you have the right to do this choice, but your past driving record give you nothing in the future nor it allow to polute more without paying more.
Your choice, your responsability. Take it all.
Jack,
So you might have a guy who really loves to drive an SUV, but makes other good choices versus the guy who makes bad choices and compensates with a hybrid. The only way to judge the relative validity of their choices in total is through how much gas they are burning. Otherwise we are stuck making value judgments about each part of the individual life choices.
Hum, you sounds like this little unimplementable Kyoto’s idea of a global CO2 market, doesn’t it?
;-)
I do fear that liberals might eventually ban tall people. We breath in more air and eat more food and sometimes make the “gravity friendly‎ feel small.
LOL. Good one!
HowardI think you see exactly what you are talking about if you look at the mileage. The big, roomy Ford Escape (Hybrid) gets better mileage than those cramped little cars.
Except that he got his numbers wrong as the exact same link you both posted show well. As I’ve previously corrected, it says a Prius have a 55 mpg and emit about 3.4 tones of greenhouse gases when the best big car, the hybrid Escape indeed, have at best 34 mpg (which is already an accomplishement!) and emit 6 tones of GHG…
Jack,
Hybrids are becoming more and more common. Soon all vehicles will be hybrids.
Which is great.
But even when it will be the case, bigger vehicules will still polute and consume more than smaller ones. That’s no magic.
For the exact same usage when a smaller car could reply too to all buyer requirements as well, the ones who will choose the bigger one just because they think bigger is better will choose to polute more and, IMHO, should pay more to compensate the extra polution they’re responsible for.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 06:06 PMPhilippe-
One thing I think you should realize is that many Americans resist any intrusion into their daily life by regulations. Seat belts are proven to be effective. But I know many people who refuse to wear them. Why? Usually I have found it to be a rather macho thing, or it is treated as a motherly lecture, and not wearing it means you are independent. It is very much like someone who constantly bites their nails being told to stop it. Eventually, you start telling people to mind their own business. But you know they’re right. Its just a human nature thing, and Americans are very independent-minded to begin with.
I advocate honest social pressure as the best formula for meaningful change. I know that you are coming from a position of trying to benefit people in general, but I think it is better to take it one step at a time…essentially wait for the horse to catch up to the cart. When people are mostly aware, they will be much more willing to break their bad habits because they feel they are exercising free will at that point.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 06:43 PMThe freedom argument with seatbelts is bunk.
The real question is whether you’re moving with the car, or independent of it. if you’re moving with it, you have the advantage of borrowing on its inertia to keep you in one place. If you’re free? Well then, you will continue on your own course, which will either continue independent of the vehicle when it meets the brittle glass of the windows (still a substantial impact), or will reconcile it to the vehicle’s line of travel by transferring the momentum violently to the vehicle.
If you’re not wearing a seat belt, then you will have multiple opportunities to do that. It won’t be of much inconvenience to the car, but you might find the broken bones, head injuries, internal trauma, and maybe even that slight case of death many non-seatbelted accidents cause inconvenient.
Not wearing a seatbelt ranks high among my list of pointless freedoms. If you want that kind of freedom, try skydiving without a parachute. It’s the same basic principle.
What’s the point?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2006 06:57 PMPhillipe
High gas prices. They are the perfect solution. Those who use more automatically pay more. Nobody has to make any judgements and influence cannot get you off the hook.
Posted by: Jack at October 19, 2006 06:57 PMI am so sick of people claiming they have a “personal freedom” to do harm to other prople. It is crap. Not wearing your seat belt only harms you. Biting your finger nails only harms you. Not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle only harms you. But as soon as a decision you make has the possibility of effecting others’ safety, it should be regulated. Speed limits, DUI laws, the fact that a license is required to operate a vehicle…all regulations, all respecting the fact that when you get behind the wheel of a vehicle it is not just your safety or the safety of your passengers that you are responsible for. It is everyone else’s on the road as well.
So should we ban SUVs? Of course not. Many times people do have a need for larger vehicles, for business purposes or because of where they live, but soccer moms in the suburbs have no “need” for a Ford Excursion. Hollywood executives have no “need” for Humvees. What a bout a system whereby only drivers over 21 could drive vehicles over x weight, and then the driver would have to have a clean record?
Posted by: David S at October 19, 2006 07:20 PMStephen,
I think it’s even worse than that. By exposing them to not fully be able to control in any situation their vehicule until it stops, people not weary their seatbelt are putting *other* people lives at risk.
I don’t care one bit they put their own life at risk, that’s their call, they think they know better than cinetic forces, fine, but I DO care about mine they are putting at risk by NOT being in their full capabilities all the time until their vehicule hit mine.
BTW, no-seatbelt free-riders, how do you explain to your kids they should put their but you don’t? Daddy wont die? Don’t do what daddy do? Daddy don’t care you could lost your dad? Daddy is a superhero, he could resist 4, 5, 6G deceleration?
Responsible my ass. Macho stupidity instead.
I’ve absolutelly zero tolerance for people putting others lives at risk because their ego is to large to accept the simple and obvious fact that they’re error prone, like any human. How ironic the same people bragging they don’t put their seatbelt are the one choosing SUVs only because they feel *safer* in it? That hypocrisy at top. They refuse the seatbelt for the exact same reason they choose SUV: machism.
If you want to drive without seatbelts, buy your own private roads or go play with your life, and your only, on a race track.
Otherwise, play by the rules. Which means seatbelt. It’s not for you, it’s for me and all the others people you’re *enforced* to share the roads with…
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 07:21 PMDavid S,
While I agree with your post, I disagree with you on this specific point:
Not wearing your seat belt only harms you.
No!
Seat belt is not only what could save your life, it’ also everyday what keep you in the driver seat when things start to go wrong.
How could you continue to press the break pedal if the quick deceleration is projecting you thru the glass window, without nothing retaining your body?
How could you counter-turn if the centrifuge force
is projecting you to the passenger seat, far away from wheel?
The ability to still be in the driver seat even during bad situations is critical to keep control until last instant. Under huge G, positive or negative, it’s already enough difficult to do anything, why one would add another bigger difficulty?
By refusing seatbelt, people agree to lost control of their vehicule eventually as soon as things could start to turn bad. They should take responsability to put people at risk because they explicitally agreed to not be in best control possible of their vehicule everytime. That’s quite a criminal attitude to me.
One that should be sanctionned accordingly.
Here in France, such behavior could lead after a car accident to be condamned for “putting at risk other people life” (Mise en danger d’autrui, in French), even if nobody was killed, if it can be proved that you weren’t wearing your seatbelt, and/or your glasses if you needs ones, were drunk or under illegal drugs.
Jack,
High gas prices. They are the perfect solution. Those who use more automatically pay more. Nobody has to make any judgements and influence cannot get you off the hook.
High price doesn’t work that fine to get junkies, smokers, alcoolics off the hook. Judgements and influence does better, as efficient regulations.
I’ve not that much trust in the good magic of free market because money don’t care about reality anymore.
See, gaz prices are down. Still, the oil dependency and oil burning polution issues are still the same than when prices were high. How come if free prices is the only solution to solve these?!
It will work if we keep artifially high gases prices, which I think we agree about in a former thread. But that’s regulations, not free market.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 08:07 PMDo people drive SUVs because they are a status symbol or because they have a ton of room, they are rugged, they are comfortable, they look great and they are fun to drive? SUVs have been popular for a long time - The Ford Bronco was very popular in the ‘70’s; so was the International Harvester Scout. A good number of Americans love trucks, SUVs and being able to enjoy the benefits.
Why can’t a soccer mom enjoy those benefits? (Especially when minivans are so damn ugly) If one chooses an SUV, one pays more for gas and accepts the risk of flipping. If one chooses an elfin car, one accepts the risk of being hit by larger vehicles. If one chooses to ride a motorcycle, one accepts the risk of being hit by anything, including the elfin car. Under the ridiculous assertions listed previously, the motorcycle people should demand that all cars are banned because cars make them less safe. (They should also demand a rain prevention program to keep the roads from being slick - we could call it a motorcyclists rights bill and utilize an additional tax to pay for it)
SUVs aren’t the problem. Our lack of market-conscious innovation is. Americans like powerful engines and even Toyota recognizes the V8 as our current preference. We also like lower fuel costs. The first one that pays attention to that will win by developing technologies that allow us to drive big powerful cars, pay less for fuel and have the added benefit of keeping the air clean. Americans like their SUVs and pick-up trucks as much as the Japanses love their tiny vehicles. The opportunity to create technologies that make the market happy is ever-present and robust. Tell the American public that they can have power and size AND keep the air clean and the market will respond accordingly. Market desire + innovation = solution. The approach of forcing us to drive in a shoe box avoids the market desire portion of the formula.
My question is, Will we then assert that people with big homes are vicious, greedy consumers of power, gas and fuel and regulate them, too? Where does it stop? The deep, dark answer is it doesn’t. The looters are never sated.
Americans don’t need or want to be told what to want. They are smarter than many give them credit for.
To the comment about us not having a free market - no kidding. Governmental do-gooders, special interest groups, and tax-hungry politicians have done their best to screw it up. Prohibition policies don’t work. History has shown them to increase America’s desire. That’s because at the very core, we hate being told what to do - by environmental howlers, looters and especially by government. Especially government because we are supposed to be telling it what to do.
Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 19, 2006 08:17 PM
Rourke’s Ghost-
Since you referenced a few of my comments, here is one for you:
Many people, myself included, feel that being “stylish” at the expense of the environment and road safety is nothing but selfish.
Bravo for you and all the vain soccer moms with your big bad stylish SUVs that can easily kill someone at low speeds, increases our oil dependence and pollutes twice as much. But hey, at least you think you look good, right? Nice priorities.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 08:46 PMRourkes Ghost-
Fear is the path to the dark side, mister. I’m not going to waste a ton of money on gas just so I can win the odd destruction derby on our highways.
It’s in our interest to push mileage up. The more efficientl use of fuel reduces the cost of travel, and reduces how much money we end up sending to fund political and religious turmoil in the Middle East. This can be done without your feared seizures of everybody’s automobile.
The Market is not always a friend of innovation, especially with all the subsidies and tax breaks given to our friends in detroit. You talk about a free market for cars, but there hasn’t been any such animal for some time now. You might pretend that the market for cars is free, but its anything but.
So ask yourself this, then: if the market is not free, why settle for an arrangement not in our interests?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2006 08:54 PMIt’s not a question of fear. Its a question of innovation based on market demands. Innovation for innovation’s sake is a form of self-expression, but not what we’re discussing.
I’m talking about the forces of the market in a capitalist system. When the market demands something, its usually produced. My assertion is that by paying attention to what the market wants, the keys to unlocking inovation for the sake of accomplishing good can work. Currently, the approach is for some to whine incessently about SUVs and the people who love them. That isn’t working. Since government regulation isn’t a rational or effective option, why not shape the newest technologies around what people want? One reason is the fear that the majority of people don’t care about pollution, don’t believe in global warming enough to take action. So the looters keep telling us what we need and how evil the american public is and blaming every ill of the world on our love of big, fast vehicles.
The market isn’t a friend to innovation for innovation’s sake. It’s fickle and decisive and has spurned some of the most brilliant engineering the world has ever seen. But, the market isn’t based on that. It’s based on people buying and consuming things they want. It’s what keeps us working, setting goals and driving an economic engine that’s the envy of the world.
The market for cars is free. If you build a business model that has a great deal of promise and that’s based on giving the market what it wants, you can attract capital, design and build vehicular and alternative fuel alternatives and compete in the market.
The turmoil in the middle east has existed throughout ancient history - even before oil was a precious commodity. To lay what’s happening over there on SUVs is irrational.
Kevin23:
Is selfish supposed to be evil? I support you and “many other people” in your freedom to drive what you want. I even support you if your decision is to walk everywhere. When more people feel as passionately as you do about driving tiny vehicles as an act of selflessness, then the SUVs you hate so much will cease to sell or be made. Until then, another option is fueling innovation that addresses what the american public wants - not whining or preaching.
Have you thought about the opportunity we have in our country to develop alternative fuels that people will buy? We have the most robust venture capital community on the planet and thriving marketplace eager to buy things. I don’t know about you, but I suspect most people that choose to drive tiny cars do so on the basis of wanting to save money - NOT improve the environment. If american innovation changes the equation by developing alternative fuels that give us power and size, I bet the majority of those driving small cars would want to drive larger vehicles and SUVs.
Jack said,
Of course the most environmentally friendly person is one who does not drive at all. I am against all the shifting of blame. People who drive make the problem. If you drive a lot and burn a lot of gas, you are a bigger contributor. What you drive makes less difference. The man who burns 100 gallons of gas each week in his Prius is worse than the one who burns 10 gallons in his SUV.
Of course, the person in the Prius can drive 4,550 miles on 100 gallons in a week or 650 miles per day while the SUV would need 285 gallons to drive the same distance at best, 455 gallons at worst.
Technology is a wonderful thing however without a radical change in physics a heavier and bigger vehicle isn’t going to get great gas mileage. Less clean air and global climate change is the result.
Posted by: Chris2x at October 19, 2006 09:44 PMGrowing up in the central San Joaquin Valley in California 30 years ago I use to see the snow-capped Sierras about 30 miles away every day. Those days are long gone as the valley chokes on smog created by cars, industry, and ag operations. The air quality is truly horrible and a trip into the Sierras is often depressing as one looks down on the brown soup in the valley.
I’m proof that government incentives work! If it wasn’t for the tax credit this year I would have bought a standard Honda Civic (the best and cleanest four cylinder engines made)instead of the hybrid Prius. The result is still cleaner air and less greenhouse gas emissions. I’m sorry if some of you libertarians think I or Toyota are getting some of your money. Clean air and less greenhouse gas benefits us all and if it takes the power of government to provide incentives to a short-sighted market so be it.
Your right to live your life as you see fit stops when it soils the air, water, and land to a dangerous and irresponsible degree. It is the perview of government to be steward of the land and its development because the “market” is just too short-sighted.
Many of us Californians are trying to mend our environmental ways but we realize it will have to be thru our elected government, regulation, and innovation of our businesses. The rest of us are moving to other parts of the country to ruin those areas with the same patterns that caused the ruin they object to today.
Rourke’s ghost-
“Until then, another option is fueling innovation that addresses what the american public wants - not whining or preaching.”
Have you seen the sales figures for SUV’s in the last year or so? Have you noticed that Ford and GM, whose bread and butter are big vehicles, are in dire straights because no one is buying anymore? I think there are many people who feel as I do. And not too many people believe that Ford and GM management has any clue what the American consumer wants. That is why they are quickly losing market share to Honda, Toyota, etc.
So I’m not buying your argument. And yes, selfish is closer to evil than not. Most people look down on selfishness. I’m sorry you do not.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 09:46 PMKevin 23:
First of all, GM and Ford have been losing market share to Toyota and others since Edwards Demming taught Toyota how to utilize excess-profit based mechanisms and J.I.T. methodologies for the production of vehicles. Ford And GM have hung on as long as they have - despite shoddy management and vicious labor union constraints - because of their SUV/Truck sales. I’ve seen the figures and I don’t think they tell me the same thing they are telling you.
Toyota is adding a V8 manufacturing facility in the US and is increasing their push in the large truck and SUV market - one they have played in for a while now (Landcruiser @ 11MPG), Sequoia). Nissan/Infiniti has followed suit with larger truck offerings (Titan @ 12MPG)and SUV offerings. Hyundai is developing a full-size SUV. We can go to Eurpoean manufacturers and see the Audi Q7 (V8), Mercedes’ massive SUV and a commitment from almost every major and secondary car manufacturer to provide size and power - predominantly via the V8. These asian companies are gearing up to build larger vehicles and more powerful V8 engines. Why? They state in their business plans that America wants power and size and that the SUV and Truck markets are still extremely ripe. If you really read their findings, they believe that Americans complain about the high gas prices, but enjoy the benefits of hauling capacity, power and features more. Toyota also is operating from their belief that the rest of the world will folow suit and that other emerging growth countries will follow with increased desire for these vehicles. Ford and GM make SUVs and trucks and they are losing share to Toyota and Honda - companies that make SUVs and Trucks. Their competitive positions are based on management, inefficiency and labor burden.
If you subscribe to selflessness as a virtue, then I wouldn’t expect you to buy or listen to anyone’s argument that differs from yours. Our selfish interests are our primary drivers - including yours. Your opinions are an extension of your selfish wants and interests - and that’s how it should be. What makes it dangerous is when you cloak it under the banner of selflessness. What’s interesting is that it sounds as if you prefer all of this acrimony to simple, proven methods of dealing with the issue at hand. Innovate based on market demand and not only can the problem be solved, but the key to taking care of your green concerns may be discovered as well.
That’s exciting. That’s positive. That’s American.
Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 19, 2006 10:34 PMI have 5 kids.
We transport our kids and their friends when we carpool to a)football, b) soccer, c) basketball, d) track events.
Am I supposed to strap my kids to the roof?
I drive a Chevy Suburban. Biggest engine they got. 4 wheel drive for our 5 months of snow and 2 months of snow/rain mix.
Oh, and God forbid there’s some negligence on the road. But lo and behold I’m protected by the size and weight of my vehicle with airbags, etc. I’ll squash any Prius or midget vehicle in my path.
I love my practical vehicle - my family and friends couldn’t survive without it.
I couldn’t care less about gas prices, they are what they are. And pollution - ha! please, older cars were 10x worse than my beauty.
Eat my dirt you little tin cans on wheels.
Posted by: echop8triot at October 19, 2006 10:39 PMHoudoin,
Calm down you are panicing. Please, again I ask, show me the risk analysis on human induced global warming impacts vs driving a smaller car - you attempt to show worry about your grand kids on this one is either grand standing or an indication that someone else has scared you into believing on faith something that should be looked at with a little more logic and rationality - have you been wathcing that Gore movie??:)
And please don’t worry about my driving - I do wear seat belts - my father was installing seat belts on every car we had before you could buy them from the auto companies.
As for the issue of control - you sound like you have been rather badly scared at some point. I am sorry that you have those feelings. I am just telling you that you do not have the right, even if you are scared, to interfere with the individual rights of others. It is a simple concept and worthy of some focus for those who don’t understand it.
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 11:05 PMDavid S.
As I said before your logic can be used to ban large demographic groups from driving because of poor statitics. Whe someone uses statistics to justify the interference in individual rights I know they are grasping at straws. You keep rehashing the same lines without dealing substantively with the arguements that I present supporting my position. End of story.
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 11:08 PMKevin23
My past driving record is evidence supporting my position - a position that you have been unable to refute. As I get older wisdom takes over for reflexes. Yet, interestingly, my 75 year old father still has the reflexes to catch flys in midair - I have never been able to do that - you?
Actually took a couple college classes in sociology. When you interfere with the rights of others or threaten to do so you cross the line from socialization into tyranny. That seems like a rather simple and fairly birght line to me.
Ah yes, free speech - the excuse to yell fire in a crowded theater - or make up statistics and use them to scare people - yep that must just be part of your plan for socialization of the masses…sounds like a typical liberal government backed plan to me.
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 11:18 PMDavid Gossman-
I see now that you are incapable of the advancement required for a legitimate debate. I think I need not say anymore. It’s not going anywhere because you are unwilling to let it. You are now so wrong, it is scary. The posts speak for themselves.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 11:23 PMKevin23
“�People�s thoughts�” yes Kevin. The thoughts that people have had, as individuals and collectively have promoted many acts of tyranny - take slavery for an example. Take the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII as another. I’m sure that if you took HS history you can think of a few more.
“And how exactly are these rights enforced? Through government or on the honor system?” Through a government formed by the people and for the people with a carefull balance of power that restricts its action to only those necessary to protect individual rights - that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. After that the right to bare arms was considered the next line of defense. While the system has cerainly not worked perfectly, it has worked better than any other that has been tried. I seem to recall that some of those who were involved in forming that government thought that there would still need to be a violent revolution every 50 years to clean things up. Good thing their plan worked better than they had expected.
“And I’m still laughing about the past driving record as “proof‎ of future safety. I need to call my insurance company pronto and get that premium reduced to zero (I have a clean record too). How long do you give me before they laugh me out of their office?” Funny - I get much lower insurance rates because of my driving record - guess you should find a new insurance company. On a realistic note there is of course no proof of future safey - just probability - that is why they call it insurance. Really - you are making this way to easy.
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 11:28 PMYou can’t be serious. WOW! Logic be damned!
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 11:31 PMHouduin
“And stats show that SUVs drivers and guns owners are more at risk to commit an homicide than non-SUV drivers and people who don’t own a gun.” More statitics being used to try to interfere with individual rights - really liberals need to come up with something that makes more sense. The simple fact is that a number of studies of legal gun owners show that they prevent violent crime without firing a shot far more often than they commit a crime. Concealed carry laws, when implemented almost automatically result in a decrease in violent crime. Those are facts. Or are you someone who honestly believes that those who commite crime would turn in their guns right along with lawful gun owners when you succeed in banning guns? If so you really should tell us what you are smoking - or maybe you shouldn’t.
“As a SUV driver, you’re at more risk to be responsible for an homicide than if you were driving a smaller car. Meanwhile, you also polute more. That’s your choice and you have the right to do this choice, but your past driving record give you nothing in the future nor it allow to polute more without paying more.
Your choice, your responsability. Take it all.”
I do. I also take responsibility to improve the environment in more ways than you can imagine - and these are real substantive ways - not something based on someone’s imagination. As for being more at risk of being involved in a homicide - do you even have statitics for that? I mean a real homicide - not an accident? Or are you playing with definitions to support your agenda?
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 11:39 PMRourke’s Ghost
Nice posts. I love your name as well. I wonder how many liberals in the thread understand the meaning.
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 11:49 PMKwevin23,
I was getting ready to say the same thing. I thought that some of these threads were going to focus on real ways to improve the environment and instead all I hear is ranting by those who want to control and interfere with the rights of others.
When someone wants to talk about recycling waste, dealing with invasive species and imprvoving wildlife habitat let me know.
As an example I brought up the issue of the environmental cost of dealing with the lead acid batteries from hybrids in my original post - for all the advocates of that technolgy in this thread I would have thought that someone would have already researched and had an answer to that one. Instead the tactic of personal attacks on the person with the bad news has been used…
Posted by: David Gossman at October 19, 2006 11:56 PMDave1-20-09
Just how often is that,e xactly, Ron?(insert smiley here)
Not very often. I got a speeding ticket around this time last year. That was my first ticket in about 9 years. I have a very good super dooper trooper snooper.
Philippe Houdoin
I’ve had to make several emergency stops over the years to avoid wrecks. I’ve also had to run off onto the shoulder of the road to avoid one. I have never lost my grip on the wheel. I’ve also been in only two wrecks in my life as a driver. Both times the other party was a fault. One time I was rear ended at a stop light. The other I was T boned by a driver that ran a red light. Neither time was I hurt and neither time was I wearing a seat belt.
And yes I am a race driver. Or was. I used to drag race (on the strip, only a fool races on the street). I know that seat belts hold you in place. But the belts (they’re really harnesses) used in race cars a far superior to the ones in productions cars. The ones in production cars aren’t worth a crap as they don’t really hold you in place all that good. You can slip out under them in in a wreck.
Also race cars are built a lot different than production cars. And I also know that at high speeds (50 mph and above)in a production car the passenger compartment is going to collapse in a wreck and the steering wheel is most likely going to end up in your chest.
If seat belts and air bags are so great why is it that folks are still killing themselves? Even while wearing the damned belts? And why do the damned air bags kill folks when the deploy?
echop8triot at
Five months of snow? Where do you live? Alaska?
I have to drive about 200 miles to even have the possibility of seeing snow. And I like snow enough to do that.