cycletourist

A crumple zone is NOT a joke. It absorbs the crash energy so the passengers don't have to.

Bicycle helmet designers use the same principal. A bicycle helmet is a crumple zone for your head.

Stor Mand

Crumple zones are only safe if the entire vehicle does not cave in around the people inside. The tests I've seen on SUV's/trucks are bad - the floor will push up into the passenger compartment from the tires - chassis bend and buckle - all of which trap passengers in the twisted, low quality steel. Maybe the crumple zone should stop before the passenger compartment.

Teresa

Stor Mand,

People aren't paying the true costs of their cars. Yes, we pay for gas, insurance, etc., but the truth is that roads and the like are subsidized by the American government. We don't pay for them directly. Yet people complain about subsidizing Amtrak and other public transportation options. Sometimes public transportation appears more expensive than simply driving because the government isn't subsidizing it. And sometimes it's because people don't have a real grasp of what they pay (and therefore don't understand how much they really don't pay). Much of this information can be found in the book Asphalt Nation.

I've been to Europe a few times. They aren't driving the gas-guzzlers we do on this side of the pond. I really enjoyed being in London recently because there were few SUVs, more cyclists, and more people taking public transport. I was amused to note that the only person suffering from road rage over there also happened to be driving the only Ford Explorer I saw during my visit.

If people really need SUVs and larger vehicles, they should be allowed to have them. But I see too many people driving them because they think they are cool. Most of my friends are 20-something singles who REALLY don't need them, but can afford them. It drives me crazy. Along with those who have a child or two and think they need a minivan (as one of 5 kids, I can tell you when you really need a minivan).

Anyway, just some food for thought.

Teresa

Amir R. Pakdel

Jump all over me if you will

but I find it amusing that so many people think that SUVs are the root of most of this world's problems.

If you are the kind of person that doesn't buy laundry detergent because they cause problems down the drain and instead makes his own from baking soda, then I think you would have the right to critisize others.

I remeber my Bio teacher.
She drove a SUV. Most here wouldn't hesitate to jump all over her too.

But what you don't know that most of her free time went into valounteering at a local salmon hatchery. Because of her years of work, there is now more salmon in the streams.

Yeah, she drove an SUV, but you could point a gun to her head and she wouldn't put oil down the drain.

Change doesn't start from other people, it starts from you.

Oxymoron

OK I'll take you up on your offer--I don't make my own laundry detergent, but I do buy a non-harmful kind from the local food co-op and it doesn't cost me any more. But nobody's perfect. I had an extremely environmental philosophy teacher once who laughed at all the "hypocrits" he met--people who said they cared about the enviro., but when you went to thier house they lived like everyone else (packaged foods, big cars, no storm windows, etc.) I realized then that I wanted to improve, but that there can be no absolutes. We can only minimize our impact on the world. I'm not going to quit buying potato chips (yum yum) because they're in a non-recyclable bag--though I do feel a little guilty sometimes, but I can do little things like drive less, or have a vehicle that is just big enough for my NEEDS. No one thing is purely at fault, or purely evil, but we do need to be aware of what is plain wasteful and eliminate or reduce its use.

Clay

Matadon

No need to jump all over you, but your Bio teacher is the exeption -- not the rule. I'm sure we're all aware that there are people that use SUVs and other such vehicles for the things that they are intended for. The majority of SUVs are used as kid- and grocery- movers, however; tasks that would be better suited to station wagons, sedans, and bicycles.

As to the above poster, complaining about how he "pays" for the use of the roads: Interstate highways are funded by income tax dollars, not just by taxes on gasoline. The reason why it costs *so much* to drive a car in Europe is that the vehicle owners *do* pay for the expences that society incurs from their usage of a motorcar; it's why a driver's license is over $2000 in Germany, and why there are additional costs for vehicles with large engines or low fuel economy.

As to the Euros driving "gas-guzzlers", I've got news for you: There are some *incredible* bits of automotive technology available in Europe that can't be found here, because Americans would never buy it. Look at Volkswagen's TDI engines; 50mpg, ULEV-compliant, and utterly unavailable in the U.S. (other than a few select models that sit on the Jetta chassis). There is a veritable cornucopia of cars available in Europe with low-displacement engines, that get incredible mileage and are very low-pollution, and that won't sell in the U.S. because we want "power".

Teresa

Amir,

Your post made me laugh. I have to remember sometimes that picking on just one thing doesn't explain WHY I think doing that thing is wrong.

SUVs aren't the real root of all evil, but they are a symptom of what I think is wrong in the world. The fact that people choose to drive them shows how little they think about how their impact on the world. Most don't think about environmental consequences, or safety (besides theirs), or even how much money they are going to owe on that 5 year loan.

SUVs also seem excessive, especially when you see how other cultures get along without them. The same could be said for many of the things people use. SUVs are just a convenient target, especially in this forum.

Teresa

Matadon

True. We are a bunch of "pansy cyclists", after all.

JimQPublic

For those who are interested in the bill that started this thread, here's a link to the text:
https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/a...ended_sen.html

And here is the Assembly analysis:
https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/a...asm_floor.html

The claims made by https://www.wedrive.org are not based on the bill. The bill requires CARB to study the issue and come up with a plan to reduce vehicular greenhouse gas emissions. The plan MIGHT recommend fees, fuel taxes, etc., but the bill does not mandate any such thing. It specifically forbids the prohibition of any class of vehicle, including SUV's.

If you feel that the government has no business regulating air pollution then, to quote from Monty Python's Holy Grail, "I fart in your general direction". https://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0071853

Jim

Stor Mand

Now I do realize that we are getting away from the original post but eff it.

I didn't see the complaining post. I saw one (mine) stating facts about the costs of driving. Some states are very expensive to drive in, especially Taxachusetts. If states actually used tax revenue toward what the tax was intended to pay for ... never mind, that is a whole other issue.
Many drivers feel it is their "right" to drive and use resources as they wish. Well, it's not a right, it's a privledge (also another issue).

I've been there (Europe, love the place) and there are "incredible bits of automotive technology" but I've got news for you also: they have gas guzzlers also - Mercedes, BMW, Porche, any Japanese sports cars ... they have them (gas guzzlers) just not in the form of SUV but equally bad mileage.

No matter how "environmentally concious" some of you feel you are, you are still part of the problem. Look at the clothes you wear: anything synthetic? Even if not synthetic, there is still processing and dyes. Is there plastic that you use for anything? Do you cook or have electricity or heat? The bike you ride didn't just grow out of the ground, there was a manufacturing process.

Get off your high horses, because there isn't one of us that is not part of the problem with this world unless your walking around naked and eating everything raw.

skol

Amir R. Pakdel

That's fair, and I understand that.
There are many things that we do wrong in this world, and I'm just as bad as any North American.

But...

my point was that it's rather idealistic to lable people that like to drive SUVs as "the other side" and us, those who enjoy biking as completely different.

So the guy is saying he has the right to choose what he wants to drive, and no, nothing in this world is as black and white as it may seem.

I'm buying a road bike next week and I know the process of making the bike is too environmentally destructive itself to give me the right to yell out "I'm doing this for the environment". Heck, I know the very jersey I wear is everything but environmentally friendly.

All I'm saying is that don't be quick to draw a line to seperate people into groups.

I ride a bike for fun and exercise.
I walk occasionally to avoid using a car.
I don't throw plastic into the trail because I know it's bad.
And sure I like SUVs cause they are fun to drive and in winters they have no problem making over the huge snowy hill to my house.

If anyone else wants to drive an SUV go ahead. The way I see it there is way too many things wrong with this world for me to get anal about this one thing.

Roughstuff

Well lets deal with what the legislation is about.

(1) preventing an increase in gasoline taxes. I think that is an excellent idea. Government spending is always inherently wasteful and less efficient than funds spent in the private sector, so I will ALWAYS oppose an increase in taxes (esp at the federal level) unless someone gives me a compelling reason otherwise. I don't see it here, at all. Higher gas prices are in the cards anyway as a result of refinery limitations and other factors, and I would rather see those funds go to oil companies (who will need the money to build new capacity, anyway) than to Ted Kennedy and his buddies on the hill.

(2) not reducing CO2 emissions. Of course cutting CO2 is the inevitable knee jerk sop to the global warming crowd. Again i am not convinced. Most countries that try and get US to reduce our CO2 emissions are, themselves, destined to overwhelm us with their own CO2 emissions in the near future (e.g. china). They are asking us to take the economic hit for their future profligacy. Second CO2 is only one of many, and not by a long shot the most powerful, greenhouse gas. Third the development of new technologies to reduce fuel consumption (motivated tby the prospect of higher prices, mentioned above) will have a far more powerful effect on CO2 output than taking a few SUV's off the road.

Face it: what bothers some people about SUVs is they are big, oafish representation of the american obsession with individual compared to mass transit. Despite all the cackle about the latter being 'more efficient' it is so ONLY when people are located in a densely populated area (such as big cities). Even THEN folks need cars for when they leave the city; businesses need delivery vehicles that don't have to adhere to restrictive schedules, and time is wasted with local stop after local stop. I might also add that mass transit makes cities vulnerable to strikes by public employees, as happens repeatedly in European cities such as London and Paris.

roughstuff

Amir R. Pakdel

Ok, this is getting off topic, but I'll nod to that.
In Vancouver the buses are very unrealiable to most areas except in downtown and main city.

And they had a strike last year for 6 months or so. What fun that was. That teached people a good lesson about relying on public transit.

Their strike dragged on for so long that by the time it was resolved with higher ticket prices, majority of people didn't really care, including me who used be an avid bus rider.

fofa

I agree with this, I work in the oil industry and could use a raise.
Actually, Some study/ies I have seen in the past said one of the largest producers of "green house gas" are cattle. And along with that one of the biggest consumers of CO2 are plants. It would seem then we should eat more beef and less vegetables.
OR we could just have the Gov. tax vegetables to cut back on the adverse effect killing them has on the environment.

Matadon

We totally agree on that one.


I never said that they had *no* gas guzzlers. The difference is that the proportion is quite lower; have a gander at the number of SUVs, big trucks, and other gas-hogs that live on the freeway during rush hour, relative to the number of economy cars. Now, look at the Autobahn during its rush hour -- Porsche 911s and Mercedes S-class vehicles are more the exception than the rule; the average vehicle is more likely to be a small-engined Volkswagen, Puegot, or BMW.

Furthermore, in America, it is almost *mandatory* that one drive; find me a hundred people over the age of sixteen that don't have a driver's license and access to a car -- good luck. In Europe, many people don't buy cars until much later in life, because its sooooo expensive to do so. That, and with the rather decent public transit, it's not needed.

I'm not saying that the Europeans are perfect, but they're still kicking our collective a** here.

Now we're at the <i>ad absurdium</i> level; everything we do is going to "damage" the environment in one way or another, that's a given. The goal is, then, to reduce the amount of damage as much as possible, and to find ways to repair the damage we've caused. I'll wager, that my two bicycles, all of my lycra, grease, and cycling gear amount to less than one percent of the total energy expenditure required to manufacture a SUV; that hardly puts me at the same level of pollution generation as an SUV owner.

LittleBigMan

It was written on the back of one of my monthly MARTA transit cards that the "average" Atlanta driver contributes 3400 pounds of exhaust gasses to our air every year.

I will ride a bike.

nathank

Stor Mand

yes, there are some SUVs here in Europe, but far-fewer and more important: THEY PAY A LOT! some time here i will look into finding the relavant info and find out how much it costs to register an S-Class Mercedes or a Ford Excursion (never seen one here). The point is that they pay for their priviledge to drive such a powerful monster and pollute more than the 'normal' fuel-efficient cars...

Europeans drive less, but more importantly, they drive more fuel-efficient cars. small cars are popular, normal people pay more for cars with high-tech fuel-efficiency improvement technology, wagons that offer more space for the same fuel are popular too. but yes, especially in Germany, powerful luxury or sports cars are popular, maybe even more so than the US b/c you can actually legally drive your Porsche 170mph -- it's just that people pay for the privilege!

and every little difference in the average makes a huge difference: when millions of people drive a little less and use cars that average 32mpg instead of 17mpg, collectively it makes a big difference...

nathank

skol

OK, your comment really isn't worth much in my opinion, but i'll attempt a response anyway... just because you can't do something perfectly does not mean that you shouldn't try...

as someone else already stated: yes, just living uses resources and causes pollution, so the point is to use resources wisely and efficiently such that it justifies the gain. as a Texan, i grew up with absolutely no concern whatsoever for the environment and my impact on the world.

Over the years, i have changed so that i consider the impacts of my choices and when reasonable i try and make environmental friendly choices. i enjoy snowboarding and i could afford to go heli-boarding, but i don't b/c i don't see the polluton/nature disturbance justification when i have 2 legs that i can use to walk up the mountain (i'm also a backcountry snowboarder/skiier and did a few thousand meters this last winter)

to me making environmental choices also means many other things, but it's up to the individual: not buying disposable products unless absolutely necessary, only buying things that i really need, then buying extemely long-lasting high-quality products when i do buy something, cycling or walking when possible, using the train if practical, driving a fuel-efficient car of the size that i need if i do drive (a minivan or VW bus for 4 to 6 people with travel gear is quite reasonable in my opinion), recycling when possible, buying products made from recycled materials, avoiding certain pollution-intensive materials like stryofoam, insulating my home, wearing my clothes more than once before i wash them, using a re-usable sponge instead of paper towels for everything, choosing my residence/work such that i can bike or take transit, etc. i don't have a hard number, but i think my annual pollution/energy consumption is now about 1/5 to 1/10 of what it was when i was in Texas and drove a 7.1 liter pickup truck, ate fast food and used plastic dishes... yes, a lot of pollution was created for my 4 bicycles, but i will have them for many years (my oldest is already 13 years old) and the energy i will save as compared to having bought and maintained and driven a car for the thousands of kilometers i ride ever year is surely significant (ok, much of it is for fun rather than pure transportation, but i ride 20,000-25,000km per year - about 7,000km/yr for pure transportation). i enjoy travelling, but flying is not particularly enviro-friendly, but i have considered the issue and accept the pollution and energy caused by my travels. If someone tells me they need 4-wheel drive b/c they live on unplowed roads with heavy snow in the winter and usually drive with a full load of gear or family or whatever, then it sounds like a reasonable use of resources... but driving an Excursion solo to work every day...

as someone else has said: it works for Americans now b/c we're the only ones who can afford to and choose to be so wasteful, but we're setting the wrong example for the developing world who is rapidly 'Americanizing' and very soon we're going to have a huge problem and then the US will be viewed very hypocritically as we scream how others can't do what we've done b/c it will mess up what we have (what if we get acid rain from China?)... China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, all these places and others are ramping up to be just like us a drive fast cars and eat fast food and wear fancy clothes... and there are a lot of people in those countries...

if you value the future on this planet, or a future for your children (i plan to have kids some day here), how can you not take a few simple steps to improve that which others after you will have? Do you really need the extra 15hp that reduce your mpg from 25 to 17mpg? just think about your choices and make reasonable informed decisions... it's not that hard

nathank

Teresa

hey, love your comment there - could have almost come out of my mouth...

my favorite is this: when we use public money to build new roads or add more lanes or put in traffic lights or whatever, it's an investment in the community but when we spend money for the train system it's a subsidy.

there was a huge debate a few years ago and lots of complaining that Amtrack was not profitable. Now since when should a transporation system for the public be profitable? and how exactly is the road system profitable? sure, care companies and oil companies all make money, but we put huge amounts of tax dollars into bulinding and maintaining roads --- and where's the profit? how much did the DMV or Highway Department earn last year? of course they lost millions, but it's an investment.... just the bias difference between cars and trains in the US

to the Massachusetts post about car users already PAYING all their taxes and fees:: you're wrong! sorry i don't have a link here on hand... but even if you only consider the direct costs - building roads, snowplow services, road maintenance, etc. it's still way more than what's collected from auto registration, gas taxes and driver licensing fees... then if you consider indirect costs such as police service to implement traffic laws, pollution, military operations to maintain cheap gas supply, environmental costs from oil-refining, tanker spills, etc. drivers pay are only a small fraction of their societal costs to use and operate thier vehicles

John E

Perhaps the best solution is to identify and to phase out all economic subsidies for motoring. If motorists truly paid their own way, the market would demand fuel-efficient cars, big SUVs would become special-purpose rental vehicles, and alot more people would be carpooling or bicycling. (American members of BF -- remember the consumer responses to the gasoline "crises" of 1973 and 1979?)

Roughstuff

Actually it need not be hard to keep this thread on its message as long as we concentrate on encouraging people to cycle and WALK whenever the opportunity presents itself.

--all this stuff about whether roads/cars/SUVs pay their own way with local taxes/their share of national defense/blah blah blah is a blind alley. Government accounting is sufficiently abstruse and meaningless that you can reach whatever conclusion you want on allocating expenses and revenues, and such research was discredited years ago. Sure we spend alot of time defending oil fields; but to suggest that all of those $$ have to be attributed to autos and SUV's is ridiculous. Alot of energy is used in commerce, heating, cooling, and industrial production. One of the most crucial aspects of a country's economy is the integrity of its transportation system. That means good, solid highways such as the interstates, which have paid for themselves a zillion times over. I think we could do better and charge user fees for the interstates. We have had the techology to do that for decades, but the public employee unions have opposed automated toll booths and meters, knowing that their jobs would be on the line. (all the more reason to not put our fate in the hands of public unions for mass transit).


--glad to see that some agree about the basic inefficiency of mass transit. Buses engage in the most wasteful of all driving: stop and go, stop and go. And this is from a vehicle whose weight and bulk make an SUV look like a moped! As for trains, they are fine for the timely delivery of bulk items. But despite massive subsidies they never have attracted any substantial user base: as soon as a person earns enough to have a car, they buy one and the train is history. Nor should these trains receive subsidies...they own rights of way on the east and west coasts worth billions of dollars, and could easily use those assets to borrow the money needed to upgrade their service. But they don't: why should they, knowing congress will throw a few billions to them every couple years?

--taking a positive approach, I think a great case can be made for coupling a nationwide physical fitness program with a commitment to better urban transit. People should be ecnouraged to walk and bike more. Overweight americans would trim down, saving billions in future health care costs, as well as improving our air and general city environment. We have done such a good job cutting smoking in the USA, I am sure a similar long term commitment to walking for health would work wonders.


roughstuff

Feldman

Roughstuff, you're the veteran and not me but I'll keep mentioning this: For the forseeable future, we will still buy oil from some guys with diapers on their heads and camel dung on their schlongs. These guys are NOT our friends ("our" friends meaning Americans and/or westerners in general.) ANYTHING including gratuitously high gas taxes and/or heavy handed government regulation of motor vehicle choices and behavior is a good thing--it is a patriotic thing.

Green Fascist in Washington

joeprim

I mostly agree with L8R. I might think that a higher gas tax to cover the expenses and not take as much from the general fund makes sense, but I am against all the other proposals.
Joe

velocipedio

Try to keep the racist epithets to a minimum, Feldman. They are both unnecessary and offensive.

John E

I like Roughie's suggestions: 1) set a positive example (as he and many of us already do); and 2) promote a national "aerobic transportation / fitness" campaign, particularly for those who claim they "simply don't have time to exercise."

Yes, give motor vehicle buyers freedom of choice, but make sure the market reflects the myriad external societal costs of those choices, and hold motorists (and everyone else, for that matter) truly accountable for their individual actions. Funding the "War on Terrorism" with a petroleum consumption tax, instead of entirely out of the general tax fund, might be a good start.