Advocacy & Safety - The other side

Website for defenders of monster SUVs. (Note the Suburban icon.) Cal Worthington is leading the charge against higher gasoline taxes and CO2 emissions limits.

http://www.wedrive.org/

Yes, I shall contact my legislator, but not in the way these guys hope!

AB 1058 will limit your choice of vehicles. It really is an attempt to force Californians into smaller, less powerful cars. That’s not fair to low and middle income families and working Californians.

huh? how is this not fair, smaller cars cost less and use less fuel, not to mention, generally have less of a insurance permium. Is it not fair for low and middle income families to save money? :lol:

secondly, the little ad they have on the site, says that legislation will reduce speed limits, which will make vehicles procede at a more efficient rate. (i.e. lower speeds = less fuel consumption). Why is this bad? lower speed also would mean that (if obeyed) accidents would not be as severe...

are car companies paying to have that site up? :rolleyes:

The fact that the SUV supporters feel they have to defend them is further proof that SUV's are losing their 'cool' status.

More and more, SUV's owners are becoming the brunt of jokes. Suddenly, SUV's aren't so cool anymore.

Watch the pendulum drift in the opposite direction.

As usual, these lobbyists are trying to scare people by telling them, "This bill will take money right out of your pocket," when the real deal is that it will take money out of the pockets of exceedingly rich people that have profited profusely in the sale of these overpriced behemoths called, "sports utility vehicles." Then, true to form, they will pass the cost of these "lost" profits on to the consumer, rather then feel the pinch themselves.

I would think people would get the idea after being called, "consumers," instead of, "people," for so long. But, that's how they see us, as a piece of their puzzle.

Originally posted by mike
The fact that the SUV supporters feel they have to defend them is further proof that SUV's are losing their 'cool' status.



More and more, SUV's owners are becoming the brunt of jokes. Suddenly, SUV's aren't so cool anymore.



Watch the pendulum drift in the opposite direction.

I can see budding rap stars going off about how many freaky hos, gats, and "fotys" they can pack in their Geo Metros...

huh? how is this not fair, smaller cars cost less and use less fuel, not to mention, generally have less of a insurance permium. Is it not fair for low and middle income families to save money?

Hey VegasCyclist, great minds think alike.:D I was going to say exactly the same thing.

The sad thing for me is that I have seen a number of VERY LARGE American cars on the road recently made by GMC? (I think). They look like secret service vehicles. The Ford (exploder) Explorer is also on sale now.:mad:

Just what we need big cars with Roo bars.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

CHEERS.

Mark

I agree with the site, what's next, .10 a mile tax on riding your bike? $2.00 toll to use the bike lanes, OH wait, there are no real bike lanes! What it appears you are missing is the fact they are forcing them (trying) into cars still. Why not require them to create alternate transportation before they can enact some inane law. If they want to reduce traffic, dedecate a lane on each street, or a wide path on each, to HPV. After they give us other choices, than lets talk socialism.

fofa,

your comment to tax bikes, while i'm sure meant to be sarcastic, is obviously way off base... if you don't already know, auto users, even in progressive CA, don't pay their share of road costs through auto registration, gas tax and toll fees --- the majority of the funding comes from general sources like income and property taxes... and bike users pay these other taxes just like auto drivers... and require fewer road services and cause less road damage (actually if it were to be 'fair', then pedestrians and cyclists would get money back for not driving or taking transit)

and while i agree that it would be nice if some alternate transportation were also offered, that is a separate issue - i know that CA has a number of initiatives for public transit... (CALTRANS for example)

the main complaint on the site is that there is a goal set, but it is not stated exactly how it will be met --- oh and the 'horror' of what THEY (the horrible government) might do --- having large-scale (statewide) legislation on such an issue that covers every implementation detail is virutally impossible to get passed and usually not the best solution b/c making such small level decisions in a legislative committe is just not practical (local leeway with oversight is usually better) - they don't have the direct contact with the issues that maybe DMV or CHP or other groups have...

and then their main argument: "AB 1058 will limit your choice of vehicles. It really is an attempt to force Californians into smaller, less powerful cars. That’s not fair to low and middle income families and working Californians."

most of these will not force anything - yes, it might make people who are now able to afford to do things at the expense of others no longer able to, but wah... so some rich people will have to pay more

not being fair to lower and middle class Americans... this is one of those word tricks::most lower and middle class Americans don't need or often buy the hugely expensive and inefficient vehicles, it's the affluent people who mostly do (how many low income people buy Ford Excursions or Mercedes SUVs). Actually this bill is asking those rich people to pay their fair share that now the general public (lower/middle class) must now pay for them.

raising the gas tax can be detrimental to some lower class people who depend on cars... this is a negative side-affect but combined with your suggestion to provide public transit the answer can be found

yes, maybe this bill would be better is it also required a like increase in public transit options or maybe an offset program where people could buy reduced cost transit passes or whatever, but my guess is that the people who are against this bill would be still as against it even if this were included and beautifully solved (i.e. the opostion aren't really concerned about the lower/middle-class Californians, they just don't want to have to pay for their SUVs and gas-guzzling luxury vehicles)

i think this bill sounds just about right on... (although i haven't read the full text)

I totally agree that this bill is great. Make drivers pay their fair share. If the gov't isn't going to give peds and cyclists money back, then they should charge drivers more. But I can also see how some aspects could hurt the poor. Because of cities with horrible public transit, some people do have to drive. One would end up with two people, one rich and one poor, both driving ten miles to work. They would pay the same per mile tax. However, the other aspects of the law might balance it out more, so that the wealthier do foot more of the burden. If anything this bill would at least help all drivers realize the true costs associated with their transportation, even if they have no choice.

Clay

nathank:
Quote from site:
• Another 50-cent-per-gallon increase in gasoline taxes.
• A two-cent tax on every mile driven for all passenger vehicles.
• Extra fees of $3,500 on minivans, light duty trucks, sport utility vehicles, and others to discourage consumers from buying them.
• Reduction of the speed limit to 55 miles per hour.
• Recommending new designs for vehicles and engines.
End of quote:
If anyone uses any kind of transportaion that is powered (not human), than the 50 cents a gallon would effect them. If they (poor and middle class) have a car then the .02 per mile tax would effect them. BUT here is the problem as I see it
Quote from your post:
and while I agree that it would be nice if some alternate transportation were also offered, that is a separate issue
End of quote:
Why is alternate transportation a separate issue. Do you work for the government, sounds like it? If the government wants to tax us more to get around, why is it unrealistic to expect the government to supply some resonable alternatives at the same time? Maybe something as simple as additional bike lanes? as an example, just this weekend my daughter and I went on a hunt to get to our grocery store on our bikes, without having to go on the main artery which it is on. Closest we could get would mean walking our bikes through a 1/4 mile of woods, then crossing this main artery without an intersetion in site, and crossing a field. The main artery has no shoulder/sidewalk, and fast, heavy traffic. So I must continue to use my truck. Then my wife who has MS has a minivan which is much easier for her to drive, and can carry the additional equipment she needs like walker and/or wheelchair. A car, especially a small one would be impractical, so would I have to pay an additional $3500 to have the priviledge of buying one? If the government wants me to cut back, allow me too. I think they should be the same issue to me, not separate.

O.K., time to hear from an SUV Driving, Gun-Totting, Conservative, Less Government, God Fearing, American!

Wake Up People! Do you want the Government telling you what you can and can't do? That's what I read from this bill!

I don't, but if I were in CA, I'd be firing off a letter in protest to this bill, not just because I drive an SUV, but because I hate giving up my right to decide whether I can or cannot!

I don't smoke, but I'm strongly against any anti-smoking regulation! I'm against ANY regulation that limits my freedom of choice! That limit of freedom and the exhorbinate taxes are exactly what a forefathers were fighting when they revolted against England! They shouted NO MORE TAXES and FREEDOM! From what? Everything you're willing to give up today.

The thought is, well the rich can afford it! That's B.S. and a turn down the road to SOCIALISM!

Why should I have to pay more taxes to drive a vehicle that has more room, is more comfortable, and is much SAFER? I already do, the gas milage is lower, and that's an expense I'm willing to bear. The initial cost is higher, it's bigger, has a more powerful engine, has airbags, anti-lock brakes, and I can fit my family (including my Dog), my bikes and all my camping gear inside when we want to go on vacation. These things I'm willing to pay extra for, they're important to me. I'm NOT rich. To use a quote, "I'm above the lower and below the upper" - Jodi Macena, I have enough, but not so much! The expense of this vehicle is a lot of my budget, but I feel it's the safest vehicle for my family and I, so it's important to me. But that's MY choice, I don't want the goverment trying to disuede me from buying this vehicle by imposing a higher tax on it!

Why should MY insurance go up, when it's a safer vehicle? Because small cars that are about as strong as aluminum cans get damaged more when in accidents with SUVs. How about making small cars stronger and safer! I like my STEEL Frame Chassi, it's saved my LIFE! I like having an airbag, I like having anti-lock brakes. I don't mind paying more for these features, but to pay a higher tax, that's gone too far!

What's next guys? Hey, I know, what about a 10% additional tax on any titanium made frame, due to the environmental damage created by the mining of titanium? Well, if you're rich, you can afford it! Or better yet, how about a 20% disposal fee charged to each and every bicycle tire and inner tube you buy! Don't even get me started on grease and chain lubes, I see a 200% tax due to the hazards of the environment by the use of these products.

(The last paragraph was complete sarcasm for you "socialist minded" folk out there! Don't get any ideas you fundamentalist!)

This bill is imposing a tax to cover the governments butts for inefficient budgeting! I believe in paying taxes, but not anymore than I already do! I believe in a straight line tax. If everyone, paid 10%, we'd have more than enough money in the federal budget. To impose a graduated tax puts a hamper on motivation. The way I see it, "the more I work, and the more money I earn, the more the government TAKES and the less I have!" Talk about a motivation killer! No wonder more and more people are seeking governmental assistance. Get money for doing NOTHING! Sure beats working your a$$ off!

I suggest paying taxes with an attached spreadsheet showing where and how I want my money spent. If this is a government, "For the People, by the People" Let "the People" decide how to spend their own money! I would prefer to have a tax cut, over of a piece of public art!

L8R

Flame away if you want, but I believe any restriction of my Freedom is anti-american and contrary to the foundation of this great nation!

Wait a second...now, the way I read this, the bill is a call for the reduction in greenhouse gases, and the tax and all are just suggestions (or scare tactics) of ways to comply with the law if it were passed.

While I confess that I haven't read the actual bill (not enough time at the moment to concentrate on any legal speak), this is the link of the state assembly...

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

Originally posted by a2psyklnut
Why should I have to pay more taxes to drive a vehicle that has more room, is more comfortable, and is much SAFER?
BicycleNut,

Don't take this the wrong way, I respect your right to see it your way. But...

SUV's have not been demonstrated to be safer than cars. Sheer size and weight do not create safety for the passengers. Many other factors are involved. Many SUV's are subject to rollover, and some have been found to be less safe than other vehicle types. And what about the safety of
others who may get in an accident with a huge SUV?
Their safety is important, too.

Also, the "right" to do whatever you want has limits. In this case, driving low-mileage vehicles (especially when there are no passengers or loads) is wasteful and polluting, which affects everyone. Therefore, everyone should have a say about your right to create that pollution. Higher taxes is not my idea of freedom, but your freedom to drive and my freedom to breathe clean air are in direct conflict.

Remind me of the "Not Safer", the next time you're rear ended by a fully loaded tanker truck on the interstate! If I were in a compact car, that's what I'd be right now, COMPACT!

As far as roll over, that's FORD! I wouldn't drive one of those anyways!

Which, brings me to my next topic. If there is going to be regulation for SUV's, why not strickter regulation for Semi-Trucks.

The Logical reasoning would be, if an SUV does 5% (making this # up for the sake of discussion only) of the damage due to size of the vehicle and pollutants of combustion how much is made by a Diesel tractor trailer? I'd be guessing 20%! They are regulated, but the sheer number makes the amount caused by minivans and SUV's almost insignificant!

L8R

Trent Lott is watching this one closely:

Must Be True (http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/031502.asp) ;)

Originally posted by a2psyklnut
Remind me of the "Not Safer", the next time you're rear ended by a fully loaded tanker truck on the interstate! If I were in a compact car, that's what I'd be right now, COMPACT!

As far as roll over, that's FORD! I wouldn't drive one of those anyways!

Which, brings me to my next topic. If there is going to be regulation for SUV's, why not strickter regulation for Semi-Trucks.

The Logical reasoning would be, if an SUV does 5% (making this # up for the sake of discussion only) of the damage due to size of the vehicle and pollutants of combustion how much is made by a Diesel tractor trailer? I'd be guessing 20%! They are regulated, but the sheer number makes the amount caused by minivans and SUV's almost insignificant!

L8R

Everybody can pull some sort of story to support their arguements. My girlfriend's ex was rearended by a semi on an interstate and he survived with only cuts and bruises. He was driving a Hyundai Excel. There was a guy in Kansas City a few years back who was driving a Saab and went head-on into a Blazer. He walked away, the folks in the Blazer all died.

We already regulate what people can and cannot drive. I cannot drive a tank on the road even if I could afford one. The government has limited my choices, and rightly so. But you are right, it is a slippery slope. Somebody could try to pass a law to outlaw cycling except in bike lanes and bike paths. Or outlaw bikes that don't have training wheels, because we could tip over and hurt ourselves. Then cyclists would be on the other end of the loss of choice.

So how do we get around this conflict? We exercise the rights that we have in a democratic republic. We contact our representatives and let them know what we think about the issue. And they decide. Because that's the way it works here. And I'm pretty sure that's what the founding fathers had in mind.

andy

Originally posted by a2psyklnut
Flame away if you want, but I believe any restriction of my Freedom is anti-american and contrary to the foundation of this great nation!
Please spare us the jingoism. Freedom does not mean 'doing whatever I want'. The logical extension of your philosophy is that any laws limiting our right to kill someone, to take an extreme example, is an affront to freedom.

No-one, and no law can restrict your freedom: you can only do that yourself.

As attractive as I find a libertarian philosophy, I am also painfully aware of the vast societal and environmental external costs of motoring. Also, as Allister's post strongly implies, well-conceived rules and regulations actually enhance our freedoms. A well-engineered, well-maintained public roadway with strict rules governing speed, position, right-of-way, legal accountability, and even bumper height, gives me a freedom of mobility that would probably not be available in a laissez-faire system.

Motorists, myself and my wife included, foul our air and water, alter our climate, and deplete our childrens' natural resources. I do not think it is unreasonable to close the longstanding Excursion-size legal loophole under which SUVs and minivans, which are used as passenger cars most of the time, do not have to conform to the same safety, emissions, and fuel efficiency standards as cars. A university engineering lab has demonstrated that a hybrid-electric Chevy Suburban with regenerative braking can top 20mpg in urban-cycle driving. With a little push from the legislature, I am confident that GM's vast engineering resources can do an even better job. Increased fuel efficiency is a worthwhile goal which will create engineering jobs, save resources, and slow global warming.

CARB has forced mandates on industry for years. How effective have the mandates been?

Emissions for light trucks were addressed a few years ago:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr061490.htm

Cleaner gas? Been there, done that:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr112291.htm

Its for the children!
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr040192.htm
Helps the poor, too! :D

By God we demand cleaner diesel!
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr060292.htm

As for diesel - money talks, CARB walks. Or, oops, we went too far again:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr101793.htm

In the news today, Kalifornia treehuggers were arrested for lewd and lascivious conduct with trees in response to this:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr092893.htm



:D :D
Some of the madness our design team was involved in years ago when I was a Detroit slave:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr061693.htm
Where are all these friggin things now? Oh yeah, they worked great but cost about $150,000 to produce. At least our heart was in the right place!
:beer: :beer:

I don't smoke, but I'm strongly against any anti-smoking regulation! I'm against ANY regulation that limits my freedom of choice! That limit of freedom and the exhorbinate taxes are exactly what a forefathers were fighting when they revolted against England! They shouted NO MORE TAXES and FREEDOM! From what? Everything you're willing to give up today.a2psyklnut

OK, i guess i kind of started a hot one here...

OK, i'm not a history expert but i'm pretty sure the US revolutionary slogan was 'no taxation without representation', not 'NO MORE TAXES and FREEDOM!' as you claim - there's a huge difference. The US has had taxes from the beginning, but taxation WITH representation.


Flame away if you want, but I believe any restriction of my Freedom is anti-american and contrary to the foundation of this great nation!a2psyklnut

i just don't get it when Americans interpret 'Freedom' as the right to do whatever they damn well please - come on that's just childish and unrealistic... 'hey this is a free county, so why can't i set off nuclear tests in my backyard? it's MY property so why should the government be able to tell ME what to do MY PROPERTY? oh, AND i ALREADY pay taxes so i deserve to do as i please...'

and fofa, as Tina already stated, these are only EXAMPLES of what the government COULD do - and i'm sure they chose the most 'scary' ones to incite people to oppose the bill...

i strongly support the US government system as it was founded and for the most part practiced (minus all the money-corruption that the powers-in-control don't want to end...), and i just don't get how so many Americans seem to fear, mistrust and hate the government. The 'government' is exactly that which gives you all these rights and freedoms... i just don't get it. without the governement you hate and fear and mistrust that's always taking your 'hard-earned money', who's protecting your Freedom?

aturley, right on man!

Well, I just spent half an hour writing a two page response to this, and it just...dissappeared into the ether.

I am going to go quietly beat some Opera developers into hamburger, now.

I can summarize it thusly: a2, you're a tool. America isn't about "F*** you, Jack, I got mine!", it's supposed to be about respecting the rights of others. SUVs are inherently dangerous to anyone *not* in an SUV, and I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be anything other than FYJIGM.

Originally posted by Matadon

...SUVs are inherently dangerous to anyone *not* in an SUV, and I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be anything other than FYJIGM.

With your line of reasoning, 18 wheelers would be equivalent to instruments of mass destruction. Perhaps the wheels of interstate commerce would be better served by horse and buggy?

For that matter, we should all be in horse and buggies? Think it through though. If that were the case, think of the ground water contamination from the natural exhaust of the horses!

Thank you Opera developers for your magician's act. :crash: :D

Originally posted by martin




With your line of reasoning, 18 wheelers would be equivalent to instruments of mass destruction. Perhaps the wheels of interstate commerce would be better served by horse and buggy?



For that matter, we should all be in horse and buggies? Think it through though. If that were the case, think of the ground water contamination from the natural exhaust of the horses!



Thank you Opera developers for your magician's act. :crash: :D

False analogy. 18-wheelers are operated by people who are specially trained and held to very strict standards. If you have a Class 'A' license (required to operate *any* commercial vehicle), you can have it taken away for even a .01 BAC (which is legally sober), even if you are driving your own personal vehicle at the time.

SUVs require no licensing or training beyond that of driving an ordinary motorcar; furthermore, when compared to even a pathetic Geo Metro, SUVs have far worse breaking and maneuvering characteristics, yet the majority of SUV drivers treat their vehicles as if they were like any normal car. I can't even begin to recall the number of times I've been passed whilst driving on the freeway by idiots in SUVs who are pulling close to 95 mph on the speedometer; I don't drive at those kinds of speeds in my *sports car* unless I'm on a racetrack!

Originally posted by John E
Motorists, myself and my wife included, foul our air and water, alter our climate, and deplete our childrens' natural resources. I do not think it is unreasonable to close the longstanding Excursion-size legal loophole under which SUVs and minivans, which are used as passenger cars most of the time, do not have to conform to the same safety, emissions, and fuel efficiency standards as cars. A university engineering lab has demonstrated that a hybrid-electric Chevy Suburban with regenerative braking can top 20mpg in urban-cycle driving. With a little push from the legislature, I am confident that GM's vast engineering resources can do an even better job. Increased fuel efficiency is a worthwhile goal which will create engineering jobs, save resources, and slow global warming.

I agree John, but as you may know, when car manufacturers figure a way to make a engine or fuel system more efficient they normally will use that knowledge to make a bigger and more powerful car, negating the gained efficiency.

Originally posted by Matadon


False analogy. 18-wheelers are operated by people who are specially trained and held to very strict standards. If you have a Class 'A' license (required to operate *any* commercial vehicle), you can have it taken away for even a .01 BAC (which is legally sober), even if you are driving your own personal vehicle at the time.

You stated that SUVs are inherently dangerous in your earlier post. Actually, all motor vehicles are inherently dangerous. Welcome to Reality 101.


Originally posted by Matadon

SUVs require no licensing or training beyond that of driving an ordinary motorcar; furthermore, when compared to even a pathetic Geo Metro, SUVs have far worse breaking and maneuvering characteristics, yet the majority of SUV drivers treat their vehicles as if they were like any normal car. I can't even begin to recall the number of times I've been passed whilst driving on the freeway by idiots in SUVs who are pulling close to 95 mph on the speedometer; I don't drive at those kinds of speeds in my *sports car* unless I'm on a racetrack!

So you are saying that SUVs should require special licensing due to their vehicle design characteristics. Actually, let's not stop there!
Sports cars should require special training and licensing since they can go fast. That little Geo Metro needs a special license because of its small size and lack of horsepower. Vans should require a special license due to their reduced visibility. Vehicles valued above a certain dollar figure should require special licensing - what if a wicked carjacker struck?

There are incompetent drivers behind the wheel in all makes of vehicles, both commercial and noncommercial. Hopefully, you are adult enough to take responsibility for your own life and train yourself to deal with the nutcases. Cops and government can't be everywhere - unless you prefer a police state.

Mr. Eldon,

I agree.

It seems motorized transport will always take the path of least resistance, meaning alternative power/fuels will remain experimental until gas becomes too expensive.

Chris L. ("Fatal Justice")--isn't this what you've been saying?

Originally posted by John E
I do not think it is unreasonable to close the longstanding Excursion-size legal loophole under which SUVs and minivans, which are used as passenger cars most of the time, do not have to conform to the same safety, emissions, and fuel efficiency standards as cars.

I totally agree with this. In fact I believe that the manufacturers saw this loophole early on and encouraged people to buy SUVs as a way to skirt CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) and safety standards.

Personally, although I don't care for SUVs I think they are being unfairly persecuted by many people. Americans in general have always favored large and powerful cars. I don't see people in an uproar over the tanks of the '50s or the muscle cars of the "60s. Or how about the Mustangs, Camaros, and Corvettes still being made that get about the same fuel milage as an SUV and are often driven recklessly endangering the safety of everyone.

If you're concerned about green house gases, did you know that a commercial airliner emits roughly 800 lbs of CO2 per mile flown for each passenger. Certainly a bigger fish to fry than the SUV.

I have tried to figure just what it is in the SUV that annoys so many people. What I have come up with is that the SUV is a symbol of our wastefullness as a society. I believe that the only way to change our wastefulness is by changing our belief system.
This cannot be achieved through government regulations or taxation.

Originally posted by a2psyklnut
and is much SAFER!


This is my main complaint with SUVs. I frequently hear people saying that they bought the SUV for the safety of their children. SUVs are less safe than a comparably sized car. Modern cars have things called crumple zones that are designed to absorb the impact of a crash. The car sacrifices itself to save the passengers. Your body on frame SUV is great for hauling weight and bashing around off road but is not good in a crash. The weakest point of that frame is somewhere under the occupants and in an impact this is where it will bend.

If you really purchased the vehicle for safety then you were deceived. Large unibody passenger cars like a Buick Park Avenue, Pontiac Bonneville or Toyota Avalon are much safer and get better fuel milage to boot. Unfortunately these cars are only fashionable with senior citizens.
:D

Originally posted by John E
...as Allister's post strongly implies, well-conceived rules and regulations actually enhance our freedoms.

Close. While laws and regulations are necessary for the operation of an orderly society, they really don't impact on our freedom. In fact it's the other way around. If we were truly free, there would be no need for formal, or external laws, as we'd all be governing our actions according to our own sense of right and wrong - our internal laws if you will.

The freedom I'm talking about here is the freedom to choose to do what's right from moment to moment without habit or prejudice or any other fantastic idea interfering with it. This is Good in the absolute sense ie. for the good of everyone. This requires some measure of awareness and intelligence, not to mention willpower and discipline. The attitude of 'doing whatever I want and everyone else can go hang' is a sign of someone in whom this capacity is severely limited, and is in fact quite the opposite of freedom - they are bound by preconceived ideas, slaves to the ego and incapable of seeing things as they truly are. Every single one of us has this problem to a greater or lesser degree.

What freedom means here is the ability to obey the law without allowing our own selfish attitudes and ideas to interfer with it. This doesn't necessarily mean laws shouldn't be questioned or changed, but the impetus for change should be reason, not selfishness. The question should be, 'is this law good', not 'is this law good for me'. One of the hallmarks of ignorance is when you can tell the difference between the two.

So the things that enhance our freedom are awareness, truth, compassion, self-discipline and intelligence, to name a few. The law in itself is not as important in enhancing freedom as is our response to it.

...John, I reread my post...

Your point is that SUV's, and all motorized vehicles, can be re-engineered to get much better gas mileage.

I agree.

I was part of the design group that did the R&D work for Chrysler on this many years ago. NOTICE THE DATE? The CARB link is: http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr061693.htm


Release 93-12

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jerry Martin
June 16, 1993 (916) 322-2990
www.arb.ca.gov


ARB Certifies First Detroit Produced Electric Vehicle

SACRAMENTO - The California Air Resources Board (ARB) today certified for mass production the first electric vehicle produced by a major manufacturer to meet its 1998 Zero Emission Vehicle rule.

Chrysler Corporation's Dodge Caravan, certified for sale as a 1994 model, is powered by 30, six-volt batteries, either nickel-iron or nickel-cadmium, both of which have life expectancies of 100,000 miles and an operating range of up to 80 miles between charges.

The 5900 pound, five passenger can also has an added load capacity for 75 pounds of cargo and is equipped with air conditioning and heating systems, in addition to a regenerative braking system, which helps recharge the batteries when the brakes are engaged. The Caravan has a maximum speed of 65 miles per hour and accelerates from 0-50 miles per hour in 27 seconds.

James D. Boyd, Air Resources Board executive officer said, "While the Caravan has some drawbacks, it still represents a significant step toward the realization of the ARB's vision of reducing California's air pollution problems with
pollution-free electric vehicles.

"The executive order for this vehicle was especially pleasurable to sign," he added, referring to the documentation of the Board's decision, "because the date on this order is four years ahead of the schedule the ARB called for when we adopted the standard in 1990, when many people were saying that an electric vehicle couldn't be built even in eight years."

In 1990, the ARB adopted the world's only zero emission standard for new cars as part of its Low Emission Vehicle program, which will reduce emissions of all other cars by 50 to 85 percent by 1998.

The ARB expects that as many as 40,000 new electric vehicles will be sold in 1998, when two percent of each major manufacturer's California production is required to be zero-polluting. That percentage rises to five percent of all new cars
sold in the state in 2000 and ten percent by 2003.

California, with the worst air quality in the nation, is the only state with its own emission standards for new model cars, which typically require the world's lowest polluting models. The ARB has estimated that, throughout a 100,000 mile
road life, an electric car is 200 times less polluting than the cleanest models running on any other fuel, when power plant emissions are considered. As a result, even a small number of electric cars contribute more to clean air than the small number of them would suggest.

While the Caravan represents the first Detroit-produced electric vehicle to be approved in California, the ARB has certified one other ground-up electric design; the Kewet El-jet commute car, and has also approved aftermarket electric conversion from nine different manufacturers.

# # # # #

Switching to electric and/or hybrid cars will not solve the problems that come from owning personal motorcars. To understand why go read "Asphalt Nation" by Jane Holtz Kay.

Originally posted by martin




You stated that SUVs are inherently dangerous in your earlier post. Actually, all motor vehicles are inherently dangerous. Welcome to Reality 101.


Ad absurdium; everything in *life* is inherently dangerous. The mere act of walking outside can get you killed. The goal isn't to alleviate all danger, but instead to have reasonable and sane safety measures in place when the life more than one individual is involved (people do have the right to die however stupidly they wish). More on this after your next point:



So you are saying that SUVs should require special licensing due to their vehicle design characteristics. Actually, let's not stop there!

Sports cars should require special training and licensing since they can go fast. That little Geo Metro needs a special license because of its small size and lack of horsepower. Vans should require a special license due to their reduced visibility. Vehicles valued above a certain dollar figure should require special licensing - what if a wicked carjacker struck?


You're really good at making bad analogies and playing on slipperly slopes; if I'm in a Geo (economy car), Opel GT (sportscar), Subaru WRX (station wagon), or BMW 740i (expensive car), and I slam into the "average" car at 60mph, both myself and the driver of the other car will likely emerge from the accident *unscathed*, because we are driving vehicles with modern safety systems, that have simliar ride heights and centers of gravity, and that are of roughly similar weight.

Move one of us an additional eighteen inches off the ground, take away the crumple zones and the rigid steel-monoque frames, and try the collision again, and one of us may walk away; the other (the one in the smaller car) will be dead, or close to it, assuming the same speeds involved, and the same type of collision. Again; same situation, only this time, somebody dies.

As to your comment about expensive cars, how does the cost of a car relate to the amount of damage it can cause? Oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't.



There are incompetent drivers behind the wheel in all makes of vehicles, both commercial and noncommercial. Hopefully, you are adult enough to take responsibility for your own life and train yourself to deal with the nutcases. Cops and government can't be everywhere - unless you prefer a police state.

Fallacy of the excuded middle: I agree; cops and government can't be anywhere, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any regulation whatsoever. It's not a choice between "police state" and "anarchy"; there exists the middle ground where government can oversee and regulate certain harmful things. This is why there are stringent tests on prescription drugs, strict regulatons on food purity, and laws against child abuse. By your logic, we should just let pharmicutical companies and the food industry regulate themselves (government can't be everywhere), and let people who desire to viciously beat, ****, and murder their kids do so at will (cops can't be everywhere).

It's not just a matter of taking personal responsibility; I'm happy to take responsibility for *my* actions, which is why I don't drive like an utter nutcase, and why I pay attention to traffic laws whilst on my bike. I am not, however, responsible when some moron decides to mow me down because they're too busy with their cellphone, screaming kids, and electric shaver.

The problem with these SUV drivers is that they *aren't* getting themselves killed; that would be the ultimate form of personal responsibility. Instead, they get away with wrist-slap sentences when they murder others who chose to drive smaller, more sensible, and overall safer vehicles[1]. Getting these things off the road isn't "protecting people from themselves", its protecting others from vehicles that are *more* dangerous, by far, than the average.

[1] Safer when colliding with similar-sized vehicles, or honesly, even cyclists and pedestrians. You're much more likely to survive being hit by a Mercedes (over the top of the car), than you are being run down by an Explorer (you will likely go under the car and become very well-acquainted with the workings of the undercarriage and rear wheels).

Originally posted by cycletourist
Switching to electric and/or hybrid cars will not solve the problems that come from owning personal motorcars. To understand why go read "Asphalt Nation" by Jane Holtz Kay.

And how! Good book, too. Buy the "CARtoons" by Andy Singer as a fun supplimental read.

Most folks I know that have a SUV have one becuase of space. You can haul a family and a lot of "stuff" in one. Tow a boat or trailer. Since they appear to need one for all that duty, you can just use it to go to work or what ever also. An extra car would cost to much. Most places here in the US you either drive or bike (usually on roads shared with cars). Unlike the orient or many places in Europe where a short jaunt from your door step and you can buy what you need. I think if they put as muh attention into creating decent bike lanes, more people would naturally choose to use a bike. I mean, I would much rather ride the 3 miles to the store on my bike than in my truck, but there are no lanes going there. The main road I would have to ride on is way to dangerous in my opinion. Lay off the SUV's and create more bike routes!
:beer:

Matadon,
I've enjoyed our sophomoric banter, but will close it with this post to preserve bandwidth.

The vehicle manufacturers and their child industries are the largest employers in the country. Politicians that alienate this industry group and their union laborers aren't politicians for very long.

Environmentalism is fashionable only when the wallet and way of life aren't threatened. In an ideal world that wouldn't be the case. We don't live in an ideal world.

This legislation could very well pass in your state, but, it is DOA elsewhere. Politicians enjoy politicking too much to see their lifestyle changed by being voted out of office.

Originally posted by martin
The vehicle manufacturers and their child industries are the largest employers in the country. Politicians that alienate this industry group and their union laborers aren't politicians for very long.
This is what needs to change.

Originally posted by a2psyklnut
O.K., time to hear from an SUV Driving, Gun-Totting, Conservative, Less Government, God Fearing, American!

Wake Up People! Do you want the Government telling you what you can and can't do? That's what I read from this bill!

[snip]

...but if I were in CA, I'd be firing off a letter in protest to this bill, not just because I drive an SUV, but because I hate giving up my right to decide whether I can or cannot!

IFlame away if you want, but I believe any restriction of my Freedom is anti-american and contrary to the foundation of this great nation!

I'm all for freedom of choice, but people should PAY the costs of their choices and not expect the rest of society to pickup the costs.:mad: :mad: :mad:

Gas is kept artificially cheep in this country. If gas was priced to reflect it's true costs (I'll just mention one: the cost of foreign wars to ensure a cheap, continuous flow of oil!:mad: ), it would be an order of magnitude more expensive.

So SUV drivers like a2psyklnut above spouting off about their so-called "rights" is total and complete bullsh*t!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

Originally posted by martin
Matadon,
I've enjoyed our sophomoric banter, but will close it with this post to preserve bandwidth.

The vehicle manufacturers and their child industries are the largest employers in the country. Politicians that alienate this industry group and their union laborers aren't politicians for very long.

Environmentalism is fashionable only when the wallet and way of life aren't threatened. In an ideal world that wouldn't be the case. We don't live in an ideal world.

This legislation could very well pass in your state, but, it is DOA elsewhere. Politicians enjoy politicking too much to see their lifestyle changed by being voted out of office.

Sadly, what you say may very well be true. Ignorance is on the rise worldwide, and showing no signs of abating.

The world is in the *****. The easy solution is to learn to enjoy *****. Me, I'm a slow learner.

Originally posted by martin
Matadon,

I've enjoyed our sophomoric banter, but will close it with this post to preserve bandwidth.



The vehicle manufacturers and their child industries are the largest employers in the country. Politicians that alienate this industry group and their union laborers aren't politicians for very long.



Environmentalism is fashionable only when the wallet and way of life aren't threatened. In an ideal world that wouldn't be the case. We don't live in an ideal world.



This legislation could very well pass in your state, but, it is DOA elsewhere. Politicians enjoy politicking too much to see their lifestyle changed by being voted out of office.

And I, with a simple response to your quote:

We may not live in an ideal world; I accept that. But *nothing* has ever been accomplished by men who simply give up against overwhelming odds. That is why I cycle, why I talk about it to everyone I can, and why I try and make people as aware as possible. Will I change the world? Probably not; but the deluge begins with but a single raindrop.

We may not live in an ideal world; I accept that. But *nothing* has ever been accomplished by men who simply give up against overwhelming odds. That is why I cycle, why I talk about it to everyone I can, and why I try and make people as aware as possible. Will I change the world? Probably not; but the deluge begins with but a single raindrop.Matadon

right on man!

i agree that many of the problems here are huge in scope and are supported by large powerful heavily-financed powers with vested interests (auto maker, oil companies, etc), but that doesn't mean we should just say it's hopeless and give up. Obviously a few of us already view it differently and if a majority of us were to...
hopefully, at some point in 30,50 or 80 years people will look back and say"what were they thinking?" as we now do in regard to slavery... (another practice that was 'just part of the system' and 'financially backed') ok, i'm only making a refernce here, not saying our use of huge, wasteful, dangerous cars is like slavery...

i too may not change the world, but i have changed myself - i grew up in Texas buying in to the whole AUTO culture and 'the car makes the man' belief, worked 2 years (age 15-16) just to buy my first car (at 16) and spent the next 2 years street-racing cars and 'cruising' then at 21 bought a huge pickup truck with a 454 motor and lifted the body 4" with 32x10.50" FB Goodwrench AT tires and put glass-packs on it (yeah it sounded cool and i thought i was waaaay cool)... for the last 4 years my primary transportation has been by bicycle and my last car was a subaru wagon only for longer weekend trips with bike rack for 4 bikes and lots of space for 5 people and gear -- but better gas mileage and more space than than my SUV (Cherokee) and less threat to others... for the last 13 months i've been car-free mostly riding the train for long-distance transport (or riding with friends in a group)

and i'm not some kind of a 'freak environmentalist' who believes we should all live w/o electric power or something... but we can use our technology to make life better, safer, more pleasant and more enjoyable --- rather than competing with the Jones' to have the biggest toughest SUV ---- now, through our wasteful application of technology and the auto-oil-money-making-engine, it's less safe (when adjusted for overall improvments in safety - i.e. auto is #1 killer under 35 years of age) and less pleasant to walk or cycle in our neighborhoods that ever before in history --- yes there are other factors like kidnapping, but if there weren't, how many kids today would be allowed by their parents to walk or bike to school and to their friend's houses and after school activities???

i agree with a previous comment: it's not just SUVs or pollution, but the entire auto-centric culture that is destroying the "liveablilty" of US cities.

I think that's an interesting idea, some sort of extra tax on SUVs. But I don't understand the name, "sports utility vehicle" anyway...what do these tanks have to do with sports? Most of the people I see driving them are fat and couldn't even lift a ping-pong racquet.
I don't know about the safety of SUVs, but I know my Volvo is safe, and small.
I think raising gasoline taxes would adversely affect lower-income families, and also give airlines, taxis, busses etc. an excuse to raise their prices. But isn't gasoline in Europe much more expensive than in the US? They seem to deal with it there. Maybe it would give people more of a reason to explore other forms of transportation.
Brian

meradi, not sure how the name SUV got started --- probably a marketing idea from the auto companies... many are marketed as being for outdoorsy sports people (like the XTerra with admittedly cool comercials of mountainbikers and snowboarders)... but as you said, the average SUV owner doesn't really fit the image (maybe they want to...)

as far as Europe: yes, gas costs between 3-4 times as much as in the US and in most countries (i live in Germany now) your auto registration fees (not sure, but $500 for a normal European car and i think like $2000 for a Porsche or SUV) are considerable higher than the measely "processing fees" in the US (typically $20-80/yr) and usually have extra "luxury" or "gas-guzzling" taxes that make it quite expension if you have a big engine - i think Germany taxes based on every .1 liter of engine displacement after 1.0, so a Ford Mustang 5.0 is quite expensive to register, much less a Ford Excursion...

but the big difference in the US and Europe is that public transit is far superior in Europe - reasonable bus, rail or some transit service is available for virtually every person to get to work or school and back and whatever else they need to do... in the US it often takes 3 times longer or more to take the bus instead of drive or mabye the bus starts at 6:00 and you have to be at work at 5:45... ---> in Europe driving is still a luxury, but in the US it's virtually a necessity

i personally am in favor of rasing the gas tax in the US to more represent the real presently subsidized cost of driving (infrastructure, roads, highway patrol, and pollution, military action in the Middle East,etc)... but i don't believe it should be raised to $4/gallon overnight b/c of the adverse effects on the American people who currently depend on cars and cheap gas for their daily lives (and American business who also need time to find alternatives or efficiencies)... so some system of gradually increasing taxes for the next 25 years to provide incentives for other options and allow people to prepare...

yes, Volvos and many other normal passenger cars typically reveive much higher safety ratings than most SUVs - actually most SUVs (except i think Mercedes) are generally pretty unsafe in test-crashes as someone else has already said --- cars like Volvos are designed around safety, SUVs are designed around high clearance and lots of room...

I think gradually raising the price of gasoline in the U.S. is part of the solution. (This is going to happen over the next 50 years, as the world's petroleum resources are consumed.) My compromise position in a non-ideal world is to select large compact / small midsize cars (e.g., 1.8 litre VW Passat station wagon, ULEV emissions rated, big enough for safety and versatility, small enough for nimble maneuverability and passable fuel economy -- this is a genuine SPORT UTILITY vehicle ;) ) and to travel by foot, bicycle or public transit whenever practicable.

SUV bumper heights are a huge safety problem for all other road users. Since modern society accepts regulation of motor vehicle design, I would support legislation to establish a maximum permissible bumper height. (Semi-relevant ironic sidenote: my son, who is learning to drive, hit the bumper of a truck with the right headlight lens of my Dodge Spirit. Repairs to the truck's plastic bumper coating will be several times more expensive than my new $40 headlight lens assembly.)



--- I live in San Diego, where someone really did steal a military tank (the ultimate SUV) and drive it on the Interstate.

Originally posted by meradi
I don't understand the name, "sports utility vehicle" anyway...what do these tanks have to do with sports? Most of the people I see driving them are fat and couldn't even lift a ping-pong racquet.
That's why I call them Suburban Umbilical Vehicles... or just "gated communities on wheels."

Originally posted by velocipedio


That's why I call them Suburban Umbilical Vehicles... or just "gated communities on wheels."

I prefer "Go-Tards".

John-E
To remark on the bumper height regulation idea--I love it. It wasn't until paramedics got tired of cleaning up decapitated corpses that the gov't finally made trailer-trucks put lower bumpers on. There is no reason this shouldn't be so for ANY vehicle with this potential problem.

Clay

Originally posted by Allister


Sadly, what you say may very well be true. Ignorance is on the rise worldwide, and showing no signs of abating.

The world is in the *****. The easy solution is to learn to enjoy *****. Me, I'm a slow learner.

Right on. People in developed countries use astronomical amounts of energy per capita compared to those in developing countries. But the latter learn fast, partly because we're such good teachers.

China and India combined account for approximately 40% of world population, and if they all decide to drive SUVs when they get the chance in the future, there'll be nothing "slow" about global warming and other environmental disasters. Actually, an SUV is an extreme example, as a fridge for every family will do the trick as well. But they have the right to excercise their freedom, right? What are we going to tell them? That they cannot take the easy way as we did? That they must show the kind of responsibility we cannot or will not show?

--J

Juha,
You are very right. If the West is, by default at this point, the model the world immulates, then we need to become something worth copying. If we are seen driving effecient cars only when necessary, using public transit, biking, or other things like using high efficiency refrigerators run off of our solar panels on the roofs of our passive solar heated homes, then these things may well become "prestige" items. Of course, what the world sees of us is from TV, and TV does not reflect reality, so we may not have any positive influence no matter what we do. Our only hope, since we will never give up our consumer based economy, is to convince corprations to produce environmentally conscious products for us, and convince them they can still make their money--this involves us actually buying them. They will will then advertise heavily as usual and the world can get a new picture of how it is "supposed" to be. Or something like that.

Clay

Originally posted by jimlady


I'm all for freedom of choice, but people should PAY the costs of their choices and not expect the rest of society to pickup the costs.:mad: :mad: :mad:

Gas is kept artificially cheep in this country. If gas was priced to reflect it's true costs (I'll just mention one: the cost of foreign wars to ensure a cheap, continuous flow of oil!:mad: ), it would be an order of magnitude more expensive.

So SUV drivers like a2psyklnut above spouting off about their so-called "rights" is total and complete bullsh*t!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

We, who own cars, trucks, etc., DO pay the costs. We pay high insurance costs, sales taxes, excise taxes, gas taxes, registration fees, title search fees ... need I go on. I think we do PAY.

Maybe Europeans pay more for their gas, but you know what ... they still drive their gas guzzling, fast cars, trucks, etc.

If you look at crash test data, SUV's & pickups are not safe. If anything, they need to be built stronger. I was going to get one until I saw a few crash tests. They fold up horribley. Crumple zones are a joke. It's just a way to sell more cars when they gets totalled from a 25 MPH fender bender.