So we should all vote for somebody who WON'T lead on this issue, at least until somebody who is "qualified" comes along?

'cause I don't see anybody else taking a stand....

Should we also require any Presidential candidate to be a practicing vegan-- see the NY Times piece about global warming and the meat industry (http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=338400)-- before we allow them to raise the issue of global warming?

Funny you mention that - Kucinich is a vegan.

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

I really feel like this isn't so much of a law making/dictating/punishment thing but more of a social construction thing. If there can be a certain promotion, draw to make people move closer to those areas. Something like gentrification, but not in a way that forces out lower income families and people. There is a lot of potential in a lot of big cities if opportunities were given. I think that Detroit is a good example of a place that could really substantially regenerate if there could be more factories, more businesses and less laying off and sending stuff over seas. There is a lot of area and properties that could be restored and rebuilt and with proper urban planning and public transportation they could grow to be fantastic place to live.

Just random thoughts, mostly.

...I think that Detroit is a good example of a place that could really substantially regenerate if there could be more factories, more businesses and less laying off and sending stuff over seas. There is a lot of area and properties that could be restored and rebuilt and with proper urban planning and public transportation they could grow to be fantastic place to live...
That trend could now be in place. The U.S. dollar has been falling relative to other benchmark currencies. This will tend to help domestic manufacturing, exporting, and it will make petroleum more expensive, all at the same time. It's possible that no political decisions will be needed. The free market may provide it own incentives for a corrective transformation.

I really feel like this isn't so much of a law making/dictating/punishment thing but more of a social construction thing. If there can be a certain promotion, draw to make people move closer to those areas. Something like gentrification, but not in a way that forces out lower income families and people. There is a lot of potential in a lot of big cities if opportunities were given. I think that Detroit is a good example of a place that could really substantially regenerate if there could be more factories, more businesses and less laying off and sending stuff over seas. There is a lot of area and properties that could be restored and rebuilt and with proper urban planning and public transportation they could grow to be fantastic place to live.

Just random thoughts, mostly.
Detroit has no desire for proper urban planning. What they do have a desire for is single-use zoning, big box, and freeways. Indy is very similar in that regard. We have an area here called Eagledale, which was one of the city's original post-WWII suburbs, just northwest of downtown. There, you'll see the original strip malls and big boxes, and all the trappings of suburban crap that has proved its utter worthlessness over the years. It's quite blighted now, but there is a group rushing to revive and spark reinvestment in the area. Now, you would think that anyone who has watched development over the last fifty years would know that you should probably avoid the same mistakes made in the past but....

The group's anchor for redevelopment?

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

WAL-MART!!! A big box, single-use store, surrounded by a sea of parking, made to last about 10-15 years, and given tax incentives, to boot. It's a relic of everything from which urban planning is moving away, a sad example that, even when the signs are all around us, we'll persist in making the same mistakes. Even in areas that really aren't that blighted, our fair city has subsidized other big box projects in the suburbs, hoping to spark redevelopment and create jobs. Part of a mall was torn down to make way for a Target (with taxpayer help), which actually added over 100 parking spaces in a center that already had about 1,000 too many (literally). When the City had the chance to demand a quality, mixed-use development that could have one day served as a transit hub or a viable, dense, mixed-use community like the one JUST west of it, it balked. By providing subsidy for such a project, it said, "We assume that the suburban nightmare that has become America will continue along, unimpeded, for generations to come." I'll never understand it, but it's much more common than cities that demand good, sustainable development.

It's stuff like this that makes me realize that I was never meant to be a planner. I care too much to see this kind of stuff happen.

To the north of me, Kelowna, B.C. has become what I call the world's longest strip mall. Along the highway are a myriad of shops of all sorts. There's also a nice downtown section in Kelowna, but it's nearly forgotten. Penticton, a smaller city, is moving in the same direction. This is becoming a trend in most communities in the Okanagan Valley. Commercial development is taking place along the highways instead of in town cores. Businesses ask for highway locations for the visibility. This request is understandable in an area where tourism plays a huge role, but it's also resulting in communities designed for motor vehicle traffic instead of people.

It's stuff like this that makes me realize that I was never meant to be a planner. I care too much to see this kind of stuff happen.

Maybe you just weren't meant to be a planner in Indianopolis. Have you thought about finding a different job? Maybe carfree cities (http://www.carfree.com/) or complete streets (http://www.completestreets.org/) has a position. There should be tons of jobs for a planner who actually has a clue about what cities should look like. :)

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.


Presumably those driving a Prius are adding no pollutants into the air when standing still. BTW you won't find many people willing to give up sitting in their car in traffic just to sit in a bus instead.

The simplest answer is more expensive gas. A $2 a gallon gas tax would be great. The money saved could be invested in rail lines.

Bad issue framing: Americans should give up their SUVs.

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

+!000

BTW, my wife and i own an SUV. We just got back from a trip to yellowstone where we hauled 6 people and a fair amount of gear. It has been used regularly to haul 6 or 7 people, a trailer, and lots of other stuff that would never fit in a Prius. If a big active family uses the full capacities of an SUV, it isn't a waste. What is a waste are all those singles or childless couples driving the SUVs and they never need the seating or towing capacity.

Oh, and human-caused global warming is a disastrous fallacy fostered by idiots (Al Gore) fear mongers, and scientists looking for research grants, and unfortunately, adoped by many well-meaning people. The world would be a much better place if bicycles were the main source of personal transportation. We don't need to manufacture make-believe catastrphes to prove that point.

BTW, my wife and i own an SUV. We just got back from a trip to yellowstone where we hauled 6 people and a fair amount of gear. It has been used regularly to haul 6 or 7 people, a trailer, and lots of other stuff that would never fit in a Prius. If a big active family uses the full capacities of an SUV, it isn't a waste. What is a waste are all those singles or childless couples driving the SUVs and they never need the seating or towing capacity.
There are situations where a sport utility or Chevrolet Suburban or four-wheel-drive vehicle makes sense. And there are situations where such a vehicle does not make sense. For instance, when a shiny, polished Hummer or Lincoln Navigator is in the driveway of an upscale house, especially in a mild climate, the choice of such a vehicle seems to be about making a statement about social status and lifestyle, not about providing reliable, practical transportation.

Oh, and human-caused global warming is a disastrous fallacy fostered by idiots (Al Gore) fear mongers, and scientists looking for research grants, and unfortunately, adoped by many well-meaning people.
Climate change is pretty much accepted fact within the scientific community and has been from well before Al Gore's film came out. And human-caused climate change isn't being questioned by the majority who study climate change. The questions to be answered are what if anything to do about it or, at the very least, how to cope with the changes.

Okay, I also have to confess. In the states, both my wife and I also drive SUVs'. First, we live in steep snow country (Northern California, near Ashland Oregon). We both frequently use the 4wd as a means to get or keep moving (I have to admit, sometimes I do not put on tyre chains because of the 4wd and studded tyres). We have a small farm and frequently carry sheep, hay, feed, or other stuff in them. However, she also, often has to carry people and does not want a big 4 door pickup.

Hers is a Toyota Rav4 with a 4-cylinder engine and a 5-speed (gets about 25-30mpg) several sales men said that they were not even made and kept trying to sell us the V6/auto version that gets about 17mpg. I still drive my '87 Suzuki Samurai (only gets about 24-27). Whenever I think of replacing it I have to ask myself, what will a new car do that this one will not? Then I reward myself by purchasing another toy, resulting on no net savings at all. Both cars have over 200k miles on them and our mechanic gets about $300-$600 per year out of us for various odds and ends (I do a lot of the minor stuff myself).

I do consider getting a more efficient car (but really, I would rather spend the money on a motorcycle[ now there is the real outrage, why motorcycles get such terrible millage]); however, I have to remember that, according to the Wall Street Journal, about 1/3 (or more, depending on model) of a cars total lifetime pollution occurs during production. The amount of water that goes into making a car is just shocking.

So, it isn't just the SUV, it isn't just the mileage, it is also the total service life of the vehicle. That final factor has more to do with owner choice than anything else.

We own a Toyt 4 runner and dont haul anyone around, we also own a Superduty F-250 diesel for work...Since both the 4Runner and F-250 will last longer than any Prius or its batteries I consider my self green !!! I also believe I should be entitled to Unverversal Mechanical care to keep em running efficiently..

Dunno if I posted earlier on not:o Trucks are for work, ditto SOME SUV's not for cruising the 2 miles to the local Starbucks. I own trucks, but I also farm and work construction. Quite often I have a 12,000# goose neck trailer full of equipment behind my truck. However it chaps my ass to have to drive that same truck into the city by myself. But I do it just seldom enough that I can't justify maintaining a second smaller vehicle for those trips. Mass transit doesn't exist where I live. We also own a small retail shop in a nearby small town. When in town I ride my bike everywhere. I keep one in the back of the shop just for that purpose.

We need to get people out of the one person one car mindset and figure out a way to tax the crap out of the non essential use of over sized vehicles. When I am sitting on an over pass watching traffic on the urban freeway and at least 65% of the vehicles passing below me are trucks or SUV's and over 90% of them only have 1 person in them we have a problem. FWIW they make smaller diesel powered vehicles but they haven't made them available in this country. I used to own a Isuzu PUP. It was small diesel 4x4 that would pull the house down, got 42mpg over the road at 55mph. It wasn't fast and never would win a drag race but it did the job it was designed for. I had to sell it when the body rusted so bad it fell off the frame.

But until the American Societal Attitude toward transportation changes we will probably remain at status quo...I honestly think we are headed for the crapper. If you want a glimpse of what this country may look like in the future, take a look at some of the Russian states after the collapse of the Soviet Union, places like Crimerea, Bulgaria, Bosnia and the like. I hate to be a wet blanket but all indicators are pointing that way if we don't change our ways and may go that way anyway.

Aaron:)

Edwards and Gore make me laugh, it will be a cold day in Hell before I ever give up my 07 Tahoe! I love the versatility and it carries my kids and bike gear to the trail head. What a joke he is. I know we should all drive a prius, but that wont work for all of the stuff I haul and they are ugly cars too.

Edwards and Gore make me laugh, it will be a cold day in Hell before I ever give up my 07 Tahoe! I love the versatility and it carries my kids and bike gear to the trail head. What a joke he is. I know we should all drive a prius, but that wont work for all of the stuff I haul and they are ugly cars too.

Let me get this straight, you feel you need a 1/2 ton truck to haul kids and a bike... :rolleyes:

Why is this forum starting to suck so badly? :(

I think, like I have mentioned in the past, that a car free, or even car lite, life has become tied to a particular political, and world, view. As I have mentioned in the past, my father rode his bike and/or used public transportation to get to work until he retired. He was what many would call car lite. However, if the current political attachement to, just plain, smart living had existed at that time, I really doubt he would have done it.

Living car free/lite has become more of a political statement than a part of a smart and healthy lifestyle. In order to achieve the goal of going mainstream and replacing the car culture, the care free/lite people need to jettison the radicals, not the radicals that want to live car free; rather, the radicals that seem to think that to live a smart and healthy lifestyle that you have to develop a knee jerk, foaming at the mouth hate for: George Bush, Republicans, NRA, Fundamentalist Christians... the list goes on.

I know I am often guilty of it myself. However, to promote car free/lite living as a smart and healthy lifestyle the politics and the wackos' need to be toned down. The people you hate will always be around, instead of just despising them, ask what can be done to help them change.

Let me get this straight, you feel you need a 1/2 ton truck to haul kids and a bike... :rolleyes:
absolutely!, considering the animals I share the road with, the more armor the better! I do all of my riding on trails away from cars.

Why is this forum starting to suck so badly? :(

Noobs.

Oh wait, I haven't been here long myself... ;)

... rather, the radicals that seem to think that to live a smart and healthy lifestyle that you have to develop a knee jerk, foaming at the mouth hate for: George Bush, Republicans, NRA, Fundamentalist Christians... the list goes on.

Not a hunter myself, but imagine a movement in the hunting community of taking mountain bikes instead of trucks and ATVs. ...um, never mind; how would they carry the carcass(es) back home?

I lived car free for many years and come to the conclusion that it doesnt work well in modern society especially after almost being killed a few times I decided that this isn't working well. I love the environment too as my Tahoe is a flex fuel vehicle, one of the deciding factors in buying it. I lived car free and rode my bike to work and to flying lessons. this worked well as I was single and really had no obligations to speak of, now getting a date without a car, forget it, wasn't happening as no car = loser in modern society, don't like it but it's fact. I suddenly got laid off and getting a decent job without a car, good luck with that one. I now have a nice house in the burbs ,2 kids and yes an SUV!, would I trade it for the car free life I had before um no. I love riding, but without a car in today's mobile society you are at a disadvantage, unless you can make a living at home that doesnt require a car at all, but even then with kids to haul all over the place some distances of 50 miles or more, extreme temperatures, people that drive like morons(another reason for the urban assault vehicle) it is just not practical. Been there done that, not going back.

Should we also require any Presidential candidate to be a practicing vegan-- see the NY Times piece about global warming and the meat industry-- before we allow them to raise the issue of global warming?

I think we should just require all Presidential candidates to be vegans., One, it would show us how ridiculous vegans are, (on the whole, pretty darn ridiculous) and two, it would show us how ridiculous non-vegans are (on the whole, pretty darn ridiculous).

I don't think vegan or non vegan has anything to do with can he do the job, does he have the best interest of the country in mind or is the candidate about money(most are) I hate both parties right now. we are losing more jobs in this country and more toxic Chinese crap is dumped in this country and we buy it up and think it's great to save so much money at Wall Mart. We want something for nothing, or next to it. I laugh at these limozine liberals preaching to us to give up our SUV's to save the planet, what a load of crap!

I lived car free for many years and come to the conclusion that it doesnt work well in modern society especially after almost being killed a few times I decided that this isn't working well. I love the environment too as my Tahoe is a flex fuel vehicle, one of the deciding factors in buying it. I lived car free and rode my bike to work and to flying lessons. this worked well as I was single and really had no obligations to speak of, now getting a date without a car, forget it, wasn't happening as no car = loser in modern society, don't like it but it's fact. I suddenly got laid off and getting a decent job without a car, good luck with that one. I now have a nice house in the burbs ,2 kids and yes an SUV!, would I trade it for the car free life I had before um no. I love riding, but without a car in today's mobile society you are at a disadvantage, unless you can make a living at home that doesnt require a car at all, but even then with kids to haul all over the place some distances of 50 miles or more, extreme temperatures, people that drive like morons(another reason for the urban assault vehicle) it is just not practical. Been there done that, not going back.

I hope you don't mind if I ask a personal question. What do you get out of this forum? I mean, if you are pretty much anti-carfree, as I read it, why do you spend a fair amount of time on a carfree forum? Is it just to get a rise out of folks, or do you have something constructive to add to the conversations here?

Just wondering. :)

I wonder if Edwards will give up his SUV collection? I have no respect for his ilk. He made his money suing hospitals and insurance companies...now you know part of the reason your medical bills and insurance rates are so affordable:rolleyes:

Aaron:)
:rolleyes:
actually, that's in large part due to insurance companies own financial mismanagement, but the millions they spend on lobying efforts has largely hidden that element of the issue.

let's not forget that doctors & hospitals kill through negligence more than 100,000 Americans every year. If a doctor or nurse's mistake kills your father, child, whatever you might feel differently

When they stop hurting, maming and killing due to their own errors or their colleagues own errors, then they'll get some pitty from me about unwarranted lawsuits, which by the way a judge has every opportunity to throw out.



as to suvs, it's hypocracy plain and simple. everyone gets a big v6 engine, drives too much, plenty of cars out there with 300hp engines, etc. It's not nearly the suv's fault. It's all of ours. That said, most ppls' rationalizations for suvs are flat out rediculous. SUVs make for convenient finger pointing because we're all too self absorbed to admit our everyday decisions are a major part of the problem.

"I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice,"

Sorry, I couldn't read past this little gem.

... Brad

Everyone I know isn't giving up their SUV, so Edwards is dreaming.

absolutely!, considering the animals I share the road with, the more armor the better! I do all of my riding on trails away from cars.

So you think driving a large truck with a live rear axle and a high center of gravity is safer? I guess you didn't hear about all those Ford Explorer roll over deaths (they were just the tip of the iceburg).

If you want a safe vehicle, you should buy a used S Class Mercedes (or perhaps an Ford LTD Crown Victoria if the S class is too expensive). If you must have an SUV, at least drive a crossover.

Everyone I know isn't giving up their SUV, so Edwards is dreaming.

I gave up mine and I know several ppl that have done the same. A couple of others have said when they finish their leases they aren't going the suv route again. They finally realized they owned a car for 10% of their actual use. It's like buying an eight bedroom house in case all the relatives are there at the same time.

So you think driving a large truck with a live rear axle and a high center of gravity is safer? I guess you didn't hear about all those Ford Explorer roll over deaths (they were just the tip of the iceburg).

If you want a safe vehicle, you should buy a used S Class Mercedes (or perhaps an Ford LTD Crown Victoria if the S class is too expensive). If you must have an SUV, at least drive a crossover.

Yes with the combination of safe driving and advances like Stabilitrak anti roll over technology and the sheer mass of the vehicle, yeah My family is safer than in a small car, oh and the 07 Tahoe get better mileage and is far more comfortable than an LTD or Crownvic.

Yes with the combination of safe driving and advances like Stabilitrak anti roll over technology and the sheer mass of the vehicle, yeah My family is safer than in a small car, oh and the 07 Tahoe get better mileage and is far more comfortable than an LTD or Crownvic.

Not according to Edmunds. The Crown Vic gets another 5mpg on the highway and 2 mpg in the City. It is not what I would call a small car. As for Stabilitrak, I have had it on various BMWs since 2001 so its not exactly new. Its also no substitute for a lower center of gravity and a properly engineered modern suspension.

BTW I read a story about a year ago about a women driving her kids home from a family vacation in her Chevy Suburban when one of her kids distracted her. The SUV hit the side of the road and flipped over. One of her children was killed, another paralyzed. Such stories are not that uncommon.

I also read another story about a women in a 7 Series BMW who was hit by a train on a Rail Road Crossing. She walked away from the accident.

Not according to Edmunds. The Crown Vic gets another 5mpg on the highway and 2 mpg in the City. It is not what I would call a small car. As for Stabilitrak, I have had it on various BMWs since 2001 so its not exactly new. Its also no substitute for a lower center of gravity and a properly engineered modern suspension.

BTW I read a story about a year ago about a women driving her kids home from a family vacation in her Chevy Suburban when one of her kids distracted her. The SUV hit the side of the road and flipped over. One of her children was killed, another paralyzed. Such stories are not that uncommon.

I also read another story about a women in a 7 Series BMW who was hit by a train on a Rail Road Crossing. She walked away from the accident.

BMW's are good car, but they don't make a large enough vehicle to suit my needs, that and maintenance costs on a BMW can be steep. I prefer to have some serious steel around me when mixing with the animals on the road and a bike is the last thing I want to be on. I ride dirt bike trails now too many close calls with cars. I would rather pay more money to be safer. lets face it careless driving will get you killed no matter what you drive,as long as you understand that a Tahoe is not a Corvette you should be ok.

Where are you living, Specialized fan? I'm asking because some areas seem incredibly good for cyclists while others are a nightmare. I'm in an area where cyclists are treated with respect most of the time and on most roads and highways. (There are always some exceptions.) But I've also heard of places where there's a lot of hostility towards cyclists. If you're in an area like that, it might explain your choice of a sport utility vehicle for transportation and cycling on trails as recreation.

Where are you living, Specialized fan? I'm asking because some areas seem incredibly good for cyclists while others are a nightmare. I'm in an area where cyclists are treated with respect most of the time and on most roads and highways. (There are always some exceptions.) But I've also heard of places where there's a lot of hostility towards cyclists. If you're in an area like that, it might explain your choice of a sport utility vehicle for transportation and cycling on trails as recreation.

Yeah I live in a large city where you need a large tank to survive and I drive the large tank to the bike trails.

:rolleyes: Man, I just can't bear to put him on my ignore list because I know the next thing he says will be even dumber.

BMW's are good car, but they don't make a large enough vehicle to suit my needs, that and maintenance costs on a BMW can be steep. I prefer to have some serious steel around me when mixing with the animals on the road and a bike is the last thing I want to be on. I ride dirt bike trails now too many close calls with cars. I would rather pay more money to be safer. lets face it careless driving will get you killed no matter what you drive,as long as you understand that a Tahoe is not a Corvette you should be ok.

SUVs are not safer and the statistics show that. It's just a rationalization about the car being safer because it's bigger. Your bigger car is also much more likely to cause injury to others due to bumer height discrepancies. Only Volvo and I think BMW put their suv's bumper heights at car bumper levels.

.....as long as you understand that a Tahoe is not a Corvette you should be ok.


I did a minute slalom manuver at freeway speeds in my SUV in order to miss a small object in the road, the next time I'll just hit it.

I would rather pay more money to be safer. lets face it careless driving will get you killed no matter what you drive,as long as you understand that a Tahoe is not a Corvette you should be ok.

I am not arguing with your wish for a safe vehicle nor your wish to avoid cycling with cars on the road. I just think you have picked an unsafe vehicle.

I actually rented a large SUV in Hawaii this year. I had reserved a small SUV (I was on the Big Island staying somewhere that wasn't on a paved road) but Hertz being Hertz gave me a large SUV instead. It only had 8 miles on the odometer though. My wife drove it once and complained it was too big and she couldn't feel the road so she refused to drive it again. BTW the current Explorer does at least have independent rear suspension so it is probably safer than the Tahoe.

I was involved in a highway accident driving a BMW about 10 years ago. A drunk driver swerved off the road on to the central median and then came shooting across the highway in front of me and clipped an 18 wheeler in the right lane. I was able to avoid him by hitting the brakes (I had been doing about 60mph). The car behind plowed into the back of me. My car was not that badly damaged (about $3,000 worth). Had I been in a big SUV, I doubt I could have avoided hitting the drunk driver or retained control of the vehicle. My suggestion, if you really want to be safe, buy a German car.

BTW the current Explorer does at least have independent rear suspension so it is probably safer than the Tahoe.



bad assumption

independent rear has its failings, depends on how its designed, but many of them tend to tuck a wheel and roll quite easily whereas a solid rear axle will not

I am not arguing with your wish for a safe vehicle nor your wish to avoid cycling with cars on the road. I just think you have picked an unsafe vehicle.

I actually rented a large SUV in Hawaii this year. I had reserved a small SUV (I was on the Big Island staying somewhere that wasn't on a paved road) but Hertz being Hertz gave me a large SUV instead. It only had 8 miles on the odometer though. My wife drove it once and complained it was too big and she couldn't feel the road so she refused to drive it again. BTW the current Explorer does at least have independent rear suspension so it is probably safer than the Tahoe.

I was involved in a highway accident driving a BMW about 10 years ago. A drunk driver swerved off the road on to the central median and then came shooting across the highway in front of me and clipped an 18 wheeler in the right lane. I was able to avoid him by hitting the brakes (I had been doing about 60mph). The car behind plowed into the back of me. My car was not that badly damaged (about $3,000 worth). Had I been in a big SUV, I doubt I could have avoided hitting the drunk driver or retained control of the vehicle. My suggestion, if you really want to be safe, buy a German car.



The new SUV are mandated to have a stability system, with mine does, with that said it doesnt give someone a licence to drive like an idiot ether.
SUV's get about the same mileage as large pick up trucks. I get so annoyed how SUV's are singled out. They could just ban all large non commercial vehicles right? My favorite one is the democrats want a .50 per gallon gas tax, nice way to kill the economy huh? Lets punish people for global warming that we didnt cause. I have noticed how certain groups love to try to control with fear and even go as far as vandalizing peoples SUV's especially all of the Hummer line, that is totally out of line. I think on the grand scale of things, we have bigger problems to worry about like an enemy that hates us no matter whether we all ride bikes or dive SUV's to carry our bikes and stuff.

I think on the grand scale of things, we have bigger problems to worry about like an enemy that hates us no matter whether we all ride bikes or dive SUV's to carry our bikes and stuff.

take that to P&R(where it will get ripped apart btw)

SUV's get about the same mileage as large pick up trucks. I get so annoyed how SUV's are singled out. They could just ban all large non commercial vehicles right? My favorite one is the democrats want a .50 per gallon gas tax, nice way to kill the economy huh? Lets punish people for global warming that we didnt cause. I have noticed how certain groups love to try to control with fear and even go as far as vandalizing peoples SUV's especially all of the Hummer line, that is totally out of line. I think on the grand scale of things, we have bigger problems to worry about like an enemy that hates us no matter whether we all ride bikes or dive SUV's to carry our bikes and stuff.

I think a $1 tax would be more appropriate, phased in of course. That would limit the use of SUVs and large pickups to those who really need them. The revenue could be used to repair bridges etc and to upgrade mass transit.

Our enemies will always hate us, that is why they are enemies. The ones you are presumably referring to are the ones we keep giving all are money to so we can fill up our SUVs etc.

bad assumption

independent rear has its failings, depends on how its designed, but many of them tend to tuck a wheel and roll quite easily whereas a solid rear axle will not

Interesting, so which car companies are selling cars or trucks with poorly designed independent rear suspension? Not the German companies of course. Ford and GM perhaps?

BTW The Explorer with the redesigned independent rear suspension when on the market after all those Explorer rollover deaths were reported and the redesign was intended to address those issues (they also widened the chassis).

The new SUV are mandated to have a stability system....

Electronic systems are only going to go so far. Have you been trained in driving your SUV in a closed environment to learn what it is and isn't capable of doing? Until you've actually spun out, you really don't know where the limits are.

They could just ban all large non commercial vehicles right?

Sure; I think you're onto something there. Quite a few cities overseas ban large vehicles from their urban centers. They could just tax the bejeezus out of them, too.

I think a $1 tax would be more appropriate, phased in of course.

A $1 tax would bring us closer to what most of the rest of the world pays for gas...

~snip~



A $1 tax would bring us closer to what most of the rest of the world pays for gas...

Actually I think it would take 2 or 3 times that...

Aaron:)

Well all can say is it is a good thing you guys are not in power as we would all be living in tents with no electricity just to save the world from the fictional global warming myth, not my idea of a good time. I love riding my bike, but I love my big comfortable house and the big comfortable SUV in the garage and my Star bucks lattes. I have lived care free for many years and it sucks big time and wouldn't go back. I must say there is some very interesting ideas here, too bad there not realistic I respect, but certainly don't agree on the Global warming thing or the evil SUV's are ruining the planet or a safety hazard as bad drivers can drive anything. I am just glad these ideas will never make into existence.

Yeah I live in a large city where you need a large tank to survive and I drive the large tank to the bike trails.
I don't think it's about the size of the city. I've lived in Toronto, with more than three million people at the time. It was much easier to go car-free than to drive there. I've lived in Winnipeg with 600,000 at the time. I didn't own a vehicle there. Between my bike and the transit system, I did just fine. I could be anywhere in the city in relatively short order. I've also known car-free people from the greater Vancouver area, which is around 1.8 million people as I recall.

As a cyclist, I've experienced very little hostility from motorists so I'm happy to keep on pedaling. But I've heard of some areas where cyclists are in constant danger from irate drivers. In those areas, cycling is not as safe as it has been for me. That would account for cyclists driving to the bike trails and not riding on the streets.

Well all can say is it is a good thing you guys are not in power as we would all be living in tents with no electricity...

Now you're just being irrational and selfish.

SUVs are unnecessary. When people use smaller vehicles, they learn to not carry so much junk with them.

If buying a car or SUV is actually an arms race (mine is bigger than anyone else's, so it's safer), it's just not going to end. We'll have to keep getting bigger and bigger versions just to feel.. well, "bigger" than the other guy.

In the long term, how does that make sense?

BarracksSi[/left];5357092]Now you're just being irrational and selfish.

SUVs
are unnecessary. When people use smaller vehicles, they learn to not carry so much junk with them.

If buying a car or SUV is actually an arms race (mine is bigger than anyone else's
, so it's safer), it's just not going to end. We'll have to keep getting bigger and bigger versions just to feel.. well, "bigger" than the other guy.

In the long term, how does that make sense?

Well let's see, today I loaded my mountain bike and Burly trailer in the back of my Tahoe , didn't eve have to take the wheels off ether. we went to some nice safe trails and had a nice ride, the day before we loaded the Barbie jeep in the back and went to the park, cost of Tahoe $40,000, utility/ safety and smile on kids faces, PRICELESS!
The SUV fits my lifestyle and all of the anti SUV haters in the world could never convince me to give it up. Try fitting all of the stuff I carry around in a small car, good luck!
I am so amused of the narrow minded thinking on this issue, it's actually amusing that people really think like this.
The sad thing is when the anti SUV crowed take it to the level of assaulting SUV drivers and vandalizing Suvs
.
I am glad that it is a very small minority that think like this and have no power to ban Suvs
as this is border line Communism to infringe on freedom of choice. I am sure if there were a large population of large cars like Mercedes or something like that would there still be the hatred? I think some people just hate people with money, why I don't know, wealthy
people I know encourage each other. They say birds of a feather flock together and I guess that is true and this has been an eye opening and amusing experience I must say.

A Barbie jeep? You couldn't leave that at home and have fun at the park on its own merit?

I see what you're doing -- you're bringing your home along with you.

I don't mind leaving home stuff at home.

"Freedom of choice" becomes a problem when it adversely affects others. SUVs in my area don't make any sense, and neither do large cars (since their footprint is as big as most SUVs).

Again -- have you gotten yourself trained in the at-the-limits behavior of your stability-controlled SUV?

A Barbie jeep? You couldn't leave that at home and have fun at the park on its own merit?

I see what you're doing -- you're bringing your home along with you.

I don't mind leaving home stuff at home.

"Freedom of choice" becomes a problem when it adversely affects others. SUVs in my area don't make any sense, and neither do large cars (since their footprint is as big as most SUVs).

Again -- have you gotten yourself trained in the at-the-limits behavior of your stability-controlled SUV?


Again -- have you gotten yourself trained in the at-the-limits behavior of your stability-controlled SUV?

I know the limits and I never go there, I never get to where the system is activated, it is just like insurance, yeah I have it but I would rather not have to use it. SUVs are not the blame of all of the problems, I see small car drivers drive like absolute morons as well. I realize my 5000 LB truck could do major damage and I respect that. I most likely piss people off by driving slow in parking lots and on crowded residential streets, like min has a speed limit of 25, I do 15 to 20, so yes I am a very cautious driver.

Again -- have you gotten yourself trained in the at-the-limits behavior of your stability-controlled SUV?

I know the limits and I never go there, I never get to where the system is activated, it is just like insurance, yeah I have it but I would rather not have to use it.

It's like how most drivers don't know what ABS really does and what its limitations are (same with 4WD, snow tires, etc). It's going to be really important to know what it does, because if it ever gets to that point, the situation will require maximum control of the vehicle. It'll help if you ever need to dodge one of those small-car morons, too.