My community is working on updating its community plan. Densification is the buzz word of the day now, and it's a concept I support.

Comparing where I live now (Capitol Hill in DC) with suburban-type areas I've lived in before, I much prefer the denser neighborhoods.

There are more people to meet and more places to go in a smaller space, especially for a single guy like myself. I can't imagine living in a widely-spaced neighborhood with half an acre that only exists to burn gas out of a lawnmower. I don't have to go far at all for groceries, restaurants, or public transit.

Some people like the suburb because they say it's quiet. To me, it's just dead. Well-groomed, usually, but dead, with empty streets and non-walkable distances to anything interesting or commercial.

...But people still want single family homes with yards...
Personally, I'd prefer a luxurious roof garden for my personal oasis space. Other urban alternatives to grass based yards include semi-private courtyards, public plazas, and parks.

The key to making urban parks safe and pleasant is to have them surrounded by residents who can keep an eye on what happens there. This is a fundamental principle from Jane Jacobs' books on urban architecture and it applies also to plazas and sidewalks.

ex-freakin-zactly

I couldn't agree more, and I'm so sick of hearing the "let's all switch to more fuel-efficient cars' mantra being mindlessly repeated. Even in planning meetings I attend, I hear the same crap being repeated. Is it good for people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles? Yes. Is it good to perpetuate automobile culture further and increase per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT's) to the point that our fuel savings are erased by increased VMT's caused by ever more suburban development miles and miles away from employment centers and older downtowns? Nope, that, my friend, is complete and utter lunacy. I swear to god, I will quit my job and devote my life to campaigning for any candidate who actually has the brains to mention more dense, compact development patterns that support transit and walking as an alternative to SUV's and cars, period. Knowing that not one of these enviro-chickenhawks will utter anything like that any time soon, I'm not too worried about having to brush up on my campaigning skills.

I agree that long term we need drastic changes to urban design such as densification. However, at this time what provides an economic incentive for making these drastically expensive changes in urban patterns?

How do you feel, for example, about measures such as high gas taxes, gas rationing, and/or mandated fleet fuel economy standards? Do you think these measures would be effective deterrents to VMTs, in turn putting indirect pressure on cities and developers to design sustainable cities?

Personally, I'd prefer a luxurious roof garden for my personal oasis space. Other urban alternatives to grass based yards include semi-private courtyards, public plazas, and parks.

The key to making urban parks safe and pleasant is to have them surrounded by residents who can keep an eye on what happens there. This is a fundamental principle from Jane Jacobs' books on urban architecture and it applies also to plazas and sidewalks.

Jane Jacobs was an absolute genius who saw this coming before the true hey day of the automobile even began hitting its stride. I was just in Toronto this past week, and I have to say that I saw a LOT of stuff about Jane Jacobs everywhere. It seems like she was at least a very valued resident of the community.

How do you feel, for example, about measures such as high gas taxes, gas rationing, and/or mandated fleet fuel economy standards? Do you think these measures would be effective deterrents to VMTs, in turn putting indirect pressure on cities and developers to design sustainable cities? I don't know. As a government actor, I realize how unlikely it would be for any of these ideas to ever take hold in most of America. My personal opinion is that every single penny of tax dollars used to subsidize car culture should be charged in the form of gas taxes and tolls. Not one penny of money used to build or WIDEN a road should ever come from a general tax. 100% from gas taxes. If every cost used to support automobile infrastructure were internalized to support itself, I think many people would very well start making different choices in where their next house was located and how many miles per week they drove. Obviously, that's not the only way to encourage better development. Education is key, too. Had I never read Jim Kunstler or Jane Jacobs, I may very well have never understood what our current development patterns were doing to our communities.

...However, at this time what provides an economic incentive for making these drastically expensive changes in urban patterns?...
How about this. The market for suburban real estate is glutted for the next ten years. That's probably true for high rise luxury condos too. If anyone wants to stay in the real estate business, they'll have to cater to the last undeveloped market, the one that's been ignored for so long - us traditional urbanists.

I don't know. As a government actor, I realize how unlikely it would be for any of these ideas to ever take hold in most of America. My personal opinion is that every single penny of tax dollars used to subsidize car culture should be charged in the form of gas taxes and tolls. Not one penny of money used to build or WIDEN a road should ever come from a general tax. 100% from gas taxes. If every cost used to support automobile infrastructure were internalized to support itself, I think many people would very well start making different choices in where their next house was located and how many miles per week they drove. Obviously, that's not the only way to encourage better development. Education is key, too. Had I never read Jim Kunstler or Jane Jacobs, I may very well have never understood what our current development patterns were doing to our communities.

There seems to be some political will for higher gas taxes. Several reps and senators have floated the idea, and a lot of the op-ed pages have done pieces about it. It's very far from a done deal, obviously.

As for not using general revenues to increase road capacity, I'll go you one further. I believe there should be a total freeze on all projects to increase capacity. Revenues from higher gas taxes should be used exclusively to fund R&D for alternative energy and to improve the infrastructure for non-motor traffic.

As for not using general revenues to increase road capacity, I'll go you one further. I believe there should be a total freeze on all projects to increase capacity. Revenues from higher gas taxes should be used exclusively to fund R&D for alternative energy and to improve the infrastructure for non-motor traffic.
Well, yeah. That would be fantastic; but, again, political feasibility amongst a largely clueless population would be a major issue. I've said in meetings before that public transit should be free and funded by gas taxes, but that's gotten me into some trouble before, as it would punish serve to punish drivers for driving...

well, yeah... that WAS the point...

How about this. The market for suburban real estate is glutted for the next ten years. That's probably true for high rise luxury condos too. If anyone wants to stay in the real estate business, they'll have to cater to the last undeveloped market, the one that's been ignored for so long - us traditional urbanists.

I think that's a very good point. To tell you the truth, from what I can see, the rehab market is still going pretty strong, even if the dire predictions and indicators of an entire economy based on the building and accoutrement of destructive suburban sprawl are true. Yes, cheap new vinyl village tract housing for those with shaky credit isn't going to be the norm anymore. New subdivision plats here in Indy are just not happening anymore, but that's only bad news if you buy into the idea that "housing starts" are the only way to fuel an economic engine. From everything I can see, though, we're still dealing with just as many issues related to rehab construction as ever before.

Some people like the suburb because they say it's quiet.

Some places out on Capitol Hill are much quieter than where I lived in the suburbs. I've been biking
through Capitol Hill to work over in Anacostia lately. Except for the main roads that handle the suburban traffic like Penn. Ave. it was much quieter than N. Va. Suburbs. The Penn. Ave part of my commute was on par with the suburbs. The same goes for my neighborhood over by the zoo. I think suburbanites only see the main arteries and don't know what a city neighborhood is like. In DC it is easy to see by looking at license plates how much of the traffic is city traffic and how much is suburban. I had that same suburban point of view shattered when I moved into the city and noticed how much quieter my neighborhood in Mt. Pleasant is than the Fairlington, Rosemont, Old Town and Del Ray neighborhoods I lived in in Alexandria. I think the reason is that fewer people in the city drive everywhere they go so there is less traffic on the residential streets.

Shouldn't small cars like accords get MUCH BETTER mileage than what they do?
So many small cars only average 25mpg. Not all that much better than an SUV.
GM has a hybrid suburban coming out that get 30mpg.
The real secret gass guzzlers-small cars that are way overpowered.

Shouldn't small cars like accords get MUCH BETTER mileage than what they do?
So many small cars only average 25mpg. Not all that much better than an SUV.
GM has a hybrid suburban coming out that get 30mpg.
The real secret gass guzzlers-small cars that are way overpowered.

Good point. The hatred of SUVs is overstated, for sure. Average MPG for the US fleet was higher 25 years ago than it is now, even if you don't count the SUVs and pickups that are much more common now.

Well, yeah. That would be fantastic; but, again, political feasibility amongst a largely clueless population would be a major issue. I've said in meetings before that public transit should be free and funded by gas taxes, but that's gotten me into some trouble before, as it would punish serve to punish drivers for driving...

well, yeah... that WAS the point...

I know very well that freezing road construction is not feasible, but we're actually pretty close to it already. I dont have the figures handy, but I believe new road construction has been very low in the US for the last couple decades. They just make the old roads hold more traffic with narrower lanes, higher speed limits and tricked out intersections. Very bad approach for us cyclists!

Bad issue framing: Americans should give up their SUVs.

Better: Let's make it easier for people to get by with less driving.

+1 I couldn't have put it better!

Cars have been marketed as providing freedom. This is especially true with sport utility vehicles, but it's also true of other motor vehicles, and it has been true for at least the past 50 years.

There is a small degree of truth to this claim. With a car and under ideal conditions, one can get around quickly, easily and without waiting for public transportation. But the freedom of a car come with a high price, or more accurately, a number of prices. There's the cost of the car itself, the annual cost of licensing and insurance, the cost of fuel, the cost of maintenance and the costs of parking. When a new car can easily cost one year's take-home pay, things are out of control. And when the insurance costs alone approach the price of a year's supply of transit passes, something is very wrong.

A car is not an investment; it's an expense. Driving does not provide unlimited freedom; it demands valuable resources of the owner's time in order to earn the money to keep the car on the road.

At this point I am only going to vote for someone who will eviscerate the republican plan. The only thing that they seem to care about is helping big business. Edwards is too weak to get r done. I don’t care if it is a woman, a man, anarchist, atheist or even a Christian. I want much better health care, I want higher priced gas, I want less billion dollar roads to nowhere. I want less subsidies for ancient technologies and crops. Edwards, his hybrid SUV, and crys to abandon those other more gas guzzling suv world eaters, just is not enough to cut it.

We need someone who can manage the American fear machine and lead us to a better way.

My SUV has been parked for the past 3 months, anyone want it?

Cars have been marketed as providing freedom. This is especially true with sport utility vehicles, but it's also true of other motor vehicles, and it has been true for at least the past 50 years.

There is a small degree of truth to this claim. With a car and under ideal conditions, one can get around quickly, easily and without waiting for public transportation. But the freedom of a car come with a high price, or more accurately, a number of prices. There's the cost of the car itself, the annual cost of licensing and insurance, the cost of fuel, the cost of maintenance and the costs of parking. When a new car can easily cost one year's take-home pay, things are out of control. And when the insurance costs alone approach the price of a year's supply of transit passes, something is very wrong.

A car is not an investment; it's an expense. Driving does not provide unlimited freedom; it demands valuable resources of the owner's time in order to earn the money to keep the car on the road.


Good point(s), the only thing that you left out was the environmental impact:D and many cases I don't know if that can even be completely and accurately measured. As well as the cost to the general public. I honestly believe, as was pointed out earlier, that if the car and truck owners had to bear the full true cost of driving, they would seek alternative transportation.

I remember when SUV's really started to hit the market and they were interviewing some guy in NYC. He was waxing poetic over how great this "thing" was and why did it take so long for them to develop it. Then he goes on to say he might just buy himself some camping equipment and get back to nature and all, now that he has an SUV:rolleyes:...I have never lived in NYC but have visited plenty of times. I would NEVER imagine wanting a car in that madhouse.:p

Aaron

I agree that long term we need drastic changes to urban design such as densification. However, at this time what provides an economic incentive for making these drastically expensive changes in urban patterns?

How do you feel, for example, about measures such as high gas taxes, gas rationing, and/or mandated fleet fuel economy standards? Do you think these measures would be effective deterrents to VMTs, in turn putting indirect pressure on cities and developers to design sustainable cities?

I favor an incrementng Carbon Tax. It offers, by far, the most bang for the buck.

Shouldn't small cars like accords get MUCH BETTER mileage than what they do?
So many small cars only average 25mpg. Not all that much better than an SUV.
GM has a hybrid suburban coming out that get 30mpg.
The real secret gass guzzlers-small cars that are way overpowered.

The Accord is not a small car, it is a mid-size car. Also an average 25mpg is a whole lot better than the average 16mpg a ford explorer gets. As for a Suburban getting 30mpg, I will believe it when I see I unbiased 3rd Party (i.e. not the U.S. government) report that fuel consumption.

If every privately owned vehicle averaged 25mpg, this country would be generating a lot less C02 and burning a lot less gas.

Good point. The hatred of SUVs is overstated, for sure. Average MPG for the US fleet was higher 25 years ago than it is now, even if you don't count the SUVs and pickups that are much more common now.

I don't think SUVs are hated enough. If everyone stopped driving them, it would make a much bigger impact to gas consumption than everyone who has gone car free. It would also significantly enhance road safety.
Carfree isn't going to work for most people in the U.S. anytime soon. Mass transist just isn't good enough. SUV free is a viable lifestyle for almost everybody.

SUVs are for people too cowardly to drive a station wagon or minivan.

I favor an incrementng Carbon Tax. It offers, by far, the most bang for the buck.

A gas tax is a carbon tax.

I remember when SUV's really started to hit the market and they were interviewing some guy in NYC. He was waxing poetic over how great this "thing" was and why did it take so long for them to develop it. Then he goes on to say he might just buy himself some camping equipment and get back to nature and all, now that he has an SUV:rolleyes:...I have never lived in NYC but have visited plenty of times. I would NEVER imagine wanting a car in that madhouse.:p

Aaron

Plenty of people do though. There are parking garages in Manhattan charging $1000 a month.

SUVs are for people too cowardly to drive a station wagon or minivan.

I know one man, an artist, who needs a vehicle to transport his paintings to the various galleries and exhibits. He and his wife want to get a sport utility vehicle for this. They don't like the soccer mom or family man stigma associated with a minivan.

The minivan was one of the most practical motor vehicles ever designed. It can haul groups of people or, with the rear seats removed, it can handle a lot of cargo. It's also fairly fuel efficient. The SUV however is one of the least practical motor vehicles available. It offers a lot of excess weight without good capacity for hauling people or cargo. It's marketed for an image, not a purpose.

I know one man, an artist, who needs a vehicle to transport his paintings to the various galleries and exhibits. He and his wife want to get a sport utility vehicle for this. They don't like the soccer mom or family man stigma associated with a minivan.

With a little work, even a Honda Odyssey can be a little sexy..

http://www.mugen-power.com/street/odyssey/index.html ;)

The Accord is not a small car, it is a mid-size car. Also an average 25mpg is a whole lot better than the average 16mpg a ford explorer gets. As for a Suburban getting 30mpg, I will believe it when I see I unbiased 3rd Party (i.e. not the U.S. government) report that fuel consumption.

If every privately owned vehicle averaged 25mpg, this country would be generating a lot less C02 and burning a lot less gas.

Utter nonsense. A car that size should be getting 40mpg pr more like a corolla does, The amount of horse power designed into the size of an Accord is decadent. You're either ignorant or simply hate SUV's for their size. One or the other.

I know one man, an artist, who needs a vehicle to transport his paintings to the various galleries and exhibits. He and his wife want to get a sport utility vehicle for this. They don't like the soccer mom or family man stigma associated with a minivan.

The minivan was one of the most practical motor vehicles ever designed. It can haul groups of people or, with the rear seats removed, it can handle a lot of cargo. It's also fairly fuel efficient. The SUV however is one of the least practical motor vehicles available. It offers a lot of excess weight without good capacity for hauling people or cargo. It's marketed for an image, not a purpose.

That says its ALL they have fallen prey to marketing! FWIW I think station wagons are one of the most sensible forms of automobile if you have to have one. I had a 1982 Honda Civic wagon for a few years and still regret selling that car. I currently own a truck because I have to have one for work. If I had a choice and had to own an enclosed motor vehicle I would have something like a Ford Focus wagon...unfortunately discontinued for the 2008 model year. We are our own worst enemy...

Aaron:)

The phrase "lead by example" comes to mind. As in, Edwards does not. I would vote for someone who does. I guess that eliminates all the candidates. Bummer.

That's just the thing, isn't it? The leaders (also known as "them")-- want followers (that would be "us", except of course, we on this forum don't have SUV's anyway). If Edwards gets ten thousand people to sacrifice their SUV's, he will have done a lot of good.

Edwards is not a fringe candidate. And anyone who took sacrifice seriously is going to be a fringe candidate. Didn't Jimmy Carter try that "lead by example" thing in a wool sweater, once upon a time? He got my vote, but did not win the reelection, suggesting that leading by example has done as much harm to the environment as Edwards can do in a lifetime.

original accord had 68hp from a stratified charged engine(vary rare setup) and had a curb weight around 2700lbs.........todays accord weighs 1000lbs more and has about 4 times the horsepower and gets about 10-15 mpg LESS mileage

all the progress has been pointed at performance instead of mileage, we have made ZERO progress

a mere 3 mpg increase in fleet mileage means the US would not have to import middle east oil, its that simple, we have no excuses

I know one man, an artist, who needs a vehicle to transport his paintings to the various galleries and exhibits. He and his wife want to get a sport utility vehicle for this. They don't like the soccer mom or family man stigma associated with a minivan.



I knew an artist who was thinking along the same lines. I told him to look around at the people who drive SUV's. He got a station wagon, I think a Taurus. I got in a bike crash one morning and he drove by in his station wagon and gave me a ride to the emergency room.

all the progress has been pointed at performance instead of mileage, we have made ZERO progress

Of course, remember that the original Accord (and every other "fuel-efficient" car from that era) didn't have to carry airbags, passenger cells as stiff as roll cages, power accessories, lots of trim & sound deadening, etc etc.

"Performance" is only partially to blame. Safety regulations and comfort items add weight, and that doesn't help efficiency one bit. Try to push today's 3000-lb small car with 68 hp and it'll be lucky to make it up a hill in anything higher than first gear.

I can take possibly 500 lbs out of my '02 Civic, making it close to 2500 lbs w/ driver, but it'll be loud as hell, uncomfortable, and illegal to drive on the street.

Utter nonsense. A car that size should be getting 40mpg pr more like a corolla does, The amount of horse power designed into the size of an Accord is decadent. You're either ignorant or simply hate SUV's for their size. One or the other.

Apparantly it is you who are ignorant. A Corolla is a much smaller car that the Accord and it is aimed at a completely different market segment. If you want to compare the Accord with a Toyota, the Camary would be an apples to apples comparison.

I hate SUVs for three reasons:

1) They guzzle gas (16mpg is appalling).

2) They are unsafe both to the occupants and to anyone unfortunate to get in their way.

3) They often seem to be driven by complete jerks with no understanding of the laws of physics.

I am happy to see the sales of SUVs have fallen dramatically. The subprime meltdown may help accelerate that decline but a $1 a gallon gas tax wouldn't hurt.

I can take possibly 500 lbs out of my '02 Civic, making it close to 2500 lbs w/ driver, but it'll be loud as hell, uncomfortable, and illegal to drive on the street.

And you would be killed if some idiot in an SUV hit you.

And you would be killed if some idiot in an SUV hit you.

Well, that's beside the point. ;)

Heck, part of that 500 lbs would be replacing the stock doors -- and their side impact protection -- with full carbon doors. By that point, though, I should also get a cage built & welded in there, which would negate some of the weight savings (not all, just some), and I'd then have to wear a helmet & harness to avoid getting banged up by the cage.

And you would be killed if some idiot in an SUV hit you.

unlikely

been there done that, I've had two small cars get hit by much larger vehicles and I was unhurt, not that it means a whole lot, but IMO the "safety" factor is highly over hyped, its just yet another rationalization used to justify over consumption

Of course, remember that the original Accord (and every other "fuel-efficient" car from that era) didn't have to carry airbags, passenger cells as stiff as roll cages, power accessories, lots of trim & sound deadening, etc etc.

"Performance" is only partially to blame. Safety regulations and comfort items add weight, and that doesn't help efficiency one bit. Try to push today's 3000-lb small car with 68 hp and it'll be lucky to make it up a hill in anything higher than first gear.

I can take possibly 500 lbs out of my '02 Civic, making it close to 2500 lbs w/ driver, but it'll be loud as hell, uncomfortable, and illegal to drive on the street.

could also remove about 50hp and the car would be fine

65 mph up a 6% grade is all that the car has to be able to do, and going back 30 years some cars wouldn't even do that and people bought them anyway

cars have gotten bigger and heavier, this is a LUXURY, not a NEED, small cars can be more than safe enough and get decent mileage and perform well enough

Large and heavy vehicles (such as SUVs) offer better protection in a crash than smaller cars. But small cars are much more agile than large cars, so it's easier to avoid accidents in the first place.

"Performance" is only partially to blame. Safety regulations and comfort items add weight, and that doesn't help efficiency one bit. Try to push today's 3000-lb small car with 68 hp and it'll be lucky to make it up a hill in anything higher than first gear.

You can still get a 2400 pound hatchback just like in the 1980's (scion xA, toyota Yaris) but the mileage in MPG isn't as good. Bigger 'performance' engines are one problem, extra emissions controls are probably another. I'm still getting 40 MPG mixed usage on mountain roads in my 1987 Corolla hatchback, on a tired old engine.

Mountain & back roads would be great; I get my best MPG when I'm going no faster than 60 mph with few-to-no stops. Going 70+, just to keep with traffic, starts killing mileage again

When I do have to drive (sorry, still not car-free), I can be flexible enough to often stay out of rush hour traffic, which also helps my mileage. My worst MPG comes from in-town daylight driving (no surprise) and the few occasions when I can race (again, no surprise; but at least it's not a Corvette ;) ).

3) They often seem to be driven by complete jerks with no understanding of the laws of physics.



Now it's your ignorance which reveals itelf when you paint with such a broad brush.
25mpg is appalling, but you can't even see the forest for the trees.

Did you even read posts 78 or 81? You got totally pwned.

Now it's your ignorance which reveals itelf when you paint with such a broad brush.
25mpg is appalling, but you can't even see the forest for the trees.

Did you even read posts 78 or 81? You got totally pwned.

I have seen a lot of SUVs in ditches. On one occasion it was some idiot who blew by me at high speed in a snow storm. Another time I saw an SUV on its side at a ski area, it hadn't even made it out of the parking lot.

Of course I read post 81, I wrote it. I also read post 78 which detailing how much larger the Accord has become. So what, its still a lot smaller than a Ford Explorer or a Crown Victoria. If you want something the size of an old Accord just buy a Civic (or Corolla).

25mpg might seem appalling some day, right now it seems pretty good when compared to the 16mpg the Ford Explorer manages.

Plenty of people do though. There are parking garages in Manhattan charging $1000 a month.

with waiting lists too.

I have seen a lot of SUVs in ditches.

I've even seen SUV's flipping end-over-end 10 feet in the air. (No, not in a movie)

you know, this is kind of a silly argument... I used to really hate SUV's and not that I like them, at all really. But one day while commuting up to Minneapolis for the weekend I noticed a much larger issue than vehicals that only get 14mpg.

Look at the traffic going in and out of cities, during these times tens of thousands of cars are standing still on the freeways. No matter who you are and what you drive you are adding tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. The average SUV probably doesn't have to drive more than 15-30 miles. Which if it wasn't sitting in traffic for 45 minutes wouldn't be so terrible. If you could eliminate rush hour traffic by getting people on buses, fitting 8 people in your escalade.

Even better, urban sprawl should be eliminated. Have the people who work in the central business district live near there. There need to be more small businesses, self supporting towns blah blah blah so all the suburbanites don't have to drive 30 miles to their job.

The whole "look who's talking" argument really doesn't hold much merit anywho, and if you don't vote, and you sit on the internet and ***** all day you're just kind of sad.

Even better, urban sprawl should be eliminated. Have the people who work in the central business district live near there. There need to be more small businesses, self supporting towns blah blah blah so all the suburbanites don't have to drive 30 miles to their job.
How do you make this happen? Short of fuel rationing, there's really no way to mandate people to drive less.

How do you make this happen? Short of fuel rationing, there's really no way to mandate people to drive less.

Fuel rationing would be a good start. The US getting serious about GHG caps would be another. Mandatory fuel economy, banning gas guzzlers, carbon taxes, a freeze on building new road capacity, a freeze on extending utilities into undeveloped areas, higher gas taxes and user fees on roads, making cities more bikeable and walkable, better mass transit, a serious financial commitment to develop alternative energy.

Any and all of these proposals would mandate people to drive less. Some ideas are better than other. None are easy or popular. Where should we start?

^ start by taking away Americans freedom of choice. Then you will have no problem goosestepping down the street, dictating what the people may or may not drive. :)

dont like SUV's? dont buy one. Simple. Dont like cars? don't buy one. Simple. If someone likes an SUV, thats their choice, not yours to attack. Quite simple really.

:)

Where should we start?

In America, with that list, nowhere. Nobody (in round numbers) would go for any of it. At all.

What is defined as an "SUV" these days is a joke.

I have a Toyota Highlander. Toyota and the DOT call this station wagon an SUV.:roflmao:

dont like SUV's? dont buy one. Simple. Dont like cars? don't buy one. Simple. If someone likes an SUV, thats their choice, not yours to attack. Quite simple really.


Well, he subsidizes cars and SUV's, so he at least gets a say, yes?

Seriously. Drive whatever you want, just stop asking me to pay for your choices.

^ start by taking away Americans freedom of choice. Then you will have no problem goosestepping down the street, dictating what the people may or may not drive. :)

dont like SUV's? dont buy one. Simple. Dont like cars? don't buy one. Simple. If someone likes an SUV, thats their choice, not yours to attack. Quite simple really.

:)

It's not nearly as simple as you think. In a society, the actions of the individual weigh on other individuals and on society as a whole.

If you don't understand this basic concept by now, you never will, so I'll just cut it off here. :)