LittleBigMan

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?

thbirks

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.

thbirks

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.

Allister

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.

LittleBigMan

...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.

martin

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: https://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.

# # # # #

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.

Matadon

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:

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.

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).

Matadon

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

fofa

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!

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.

LittleBigMan

This is what needs to change.

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.

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! ), 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!!

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.

Matadon

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.

nathank

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.

meradi

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

nathank

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...

John E

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.

velocipedio

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

Matadon

I prefer "Go-Tards".

Oxymoron

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

Juha

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

Oxymoron

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

Stor Mand

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.