Confess! Who here drives an SUV?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Japher
From Templar:

So, since you don't want to others can't? Communist sociopath.

Your actions impact my life, mine impact yours. If Rah buys an SUV to be safer, he endangers everyone else to do so. Actions do not occur in a vacuum.

I am not going to argue the "gas" thing, as I know they do, but it is our choice and not yours what we choose to buy... Welcome to the free market economy.

Welcome to market failure you mean. For a market to function properly, the coast of every transaction must be payed in the transition. In the USA, cheap gas externalizes the environmental costs. That is, what you pay for gas does not represent the damage done to my lungs, flora, fauna, and the asthema rates among poor kids who live near the highway. Make the price of gas reflect the cost and you have a market.

[Japher]

bumper-to-bumper collision

Cars these days don't have bumpers, they have a thin peice of fiberglass attached to a plastic frame.

I want metal between me and all the little zippidy-dos speeding around at 100mph in their tin can death traps... Don't know about you, but that is my choice.

Speaking of which how high does the speedometer on your little, non-SUV, vehicle go? My truck only goes to 95... My wives little car goes up to 135!!!

While you say my large, metal, gas guzzling, safe vehicle is the problem I say fast (which takes up more gas), crumpled, unsafe vehicles are the problem.

Why not everyone be required to drive a SUV then there would be no problem... Except for the environment, but then how much pollution does a properly maintained vehicle put out compared to equal amount of energy production from a coal powered plant?

Silly, hybrids

[mindseye]

And last time I checked, I haven't killed anybody on the road, so that arguement has no validity with me.

Do you think that most auto-related deaths are incurred by repeat killers?

[MikeH]

I'm going to drive an Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank because I'm concerned about the safety of my family. It's tracked so it's great in the snow and it has chobham/steel armour which makes it very safe in crashes. I only live 10 miles away from work so the 3 litres per mile fuel consumption (optimum) is OK. Also I never have to worry about finding a parking space.

[rah]

Even as absurd as it sounds, if you could afford it, (hahahaha), more power to you.

I don't think my having a small SUV endangers other drivers any more than other vehicles already on the road. I have a better driving record than 98% of the people on the road. (according to my insurance company).
We should outlaw all sportscars that speed, since they are a bigger danger. We should outlaw 99% of all teenagers from driving because they're a bigger danger.
We should outlaw all semi's because they're a bigger danger.
We should outlaw all police cars, because they're a bigger danger.

So cut the I'm a bigger danger to you crap. It just doesn't wash.

[MikeH]

The point is that a driver in an SUV is a bigger danger than they would be if they drove a normal car.

I'm sure you are a very safe driver. That doesn't mean everyone else who drives one is. The main problem I see is that the more SUVs are around the more people feel they need them for safety, cause getting hit by an SUV if you are in a normal car is going to hurt a lot. If everyone feels they need an SUV for safety then the world's fuel consumption rockets and that's not something the world can afford.

[Asher]

The biggest dangers to drivers on the road are the morons who can't drive, not SUVs.

Ban Liberals from getting behind the wheel and everyone will be better off.

As for whoever said front wheel drive is anywhere near as good as 4WD in the snow, who are you kidding?? Have you ever driven in snow?

I'll give you an example of why the SUV can kick ass:
Last term during finals, we had a huge sudden storm which occured after the plows had been put away for the summer, which caused a huge delay in getting them out. My friends and I had a final exam at 3pm that day, and it was not cancelled because it was too late to cancel (although, the people who missed it [a LOT of people] could take it weeks later -- that sucks).

I took the SUV, the side of the roads and residential streets were literally littered with cars stuck and abandonded. The SUV (four wheel drive, winter tires, ABS, vehicle skid control) took it no problem. It was a bit bumpier, but that was it. I ended up picking up four of my friends and giving them a ride, two of which called me from their cell phones because their cars got stuck when they tried to get to school.

The skid control itself came out at least half a dozen times. It constantly analyzes your velocity and detects oversteer, understeer, and general sliding and skidding, then computers take over and apply individual braking and gas to every wheel to ensure you go where you intended to do, rather than slide, and beeps when it does so.

If it wasn't for the SUV, would've been screwed.

Never underestimate the power ofSUVs in winter weather -- there's a reason they're so insanely popular in my area.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MikeH
The point is that a driver in an SUV is a bigger danger than they would be if they drove a normal car.

I'm sure you are a very safe driver. That doesn't mean everyone else who drives one is. The main problem I see is that the more SUVs are around the more people feel they need them for safety, cause getting hit by an SUV if you are in a normal car is going to hurt a lot. If everyone feels they need an SUV for safety then the world's fuel consumption rockets and that's not something the world can afford.

On the bright side, as fuel consumption increases, the quicker the cheap oil (i.e. the oil that can be had cheaply) is going to run out. Thus, the quicker all those expensive SUVs will become driveway sculptures.

Then Rah and his family can take the subway (which BTW is even safer than either an SUV or a minivan).

[Asher]

People usually ask me for weed when I take the LRT.

Anyone in a hoody is a stoner, you know.

Oh, you also gotta love the drunk natives all the time...

It's only safer if you don't take into account how many muggings and assaults take place in and around LRT/subway stations.

[Japher]

normal car

You hurt my truck's feelings.

Please note that the SUV fuel consumption is not THAT high compared to what is used to burn and create energy for green peace hippies to ignorantly plug their hybrid into.

Also, please note that as early as 20 years ago cars were getting much worse gas millage when compared with cars of today and fuel consumption was much less, even with the advances of PT (which, by the way, uses more fuel than my truck does... maybe even per capita in some areas). My 66 Malibu get 15 mpg, and so does my truck.

Also, note, that emission controls are highly regulated here CA more than any where else in the world. Complaining about emissions is a regulation and device argument, not a fuel economy and car size argument.

The only good argument I do see is that a SUV, poorly driven, is a bigger risk than any other "car" that is poorly driven. I think the speed issue, however, makes it much less of an issue. Yet, an SUV can turn a fender bender into a $5,000 repair job. That, for the other car, where the SUV has but a scratch...

Therefore, I complain about people not driving a car made out of what they should be made out of; metal!

That is why a suggest that they require SUV drivers to pass a different drivers test than with other cars. They are more difficult to drive, and stupid people don't realize this...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by The Templar
I'd just as soon ban all non-commmercial non-cars from public roads. In fact, I'd just as soon tear down public roads and let everyone use mass transit. Even Amtrak is safer than driving.

Cool. Let me know when passenger rail gets within 100 miles of my house.

[Asher]

I don't think many Europeans understand how painful mass transit is in North America where everything isn't piled on top of eachother like their continent...

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't think many Europeans understand how painful mass transit is in North America where everything isn't piled on top of eachother like their continent...

More North American cities should have built themselves to resemble New York and DC (two cities where I have lived without a car quite confortably). New Orleans, if they increased streetcar coverage could have a transit system that links most of the city. The problem is poor urban planning and the "white flight" phenomena from the 70s and 80s. (And poor urban and regional planning is why you don't have passenger rail nearby dv8ed.)

Oh, and if the cost of roads were passed on in full to the users of roads, you woundn't see so many damn cars in North America. The fact is, non-drivers (like myself) help subsidize the roadways.

Japher:

Yes, electricity should be wind or solar generated and distributed in the form of hydrogen so that ZEVs do not depend on a fossil fuel down the line for energy.

Oh, and you can put all the catalytic converters on a car that you want, but burning a hydrocarbon like gas for fuel is going to produce CO2. You know, CO2, that greenhouse gas. But again, this cost is externalized on to the rest of us ...

[rah]

Originally posted by The Templar
Then Rah and his family can take the subway (which BTW is even safer than either an SUV or a minivan).

Unfortunately I have to drive to the subway/train.
In fact, our company is moving into the city next year. The best train station is right next to our current office location, so I'm going to have to drive to where I used to drive to work. (pay for parking, which i don't have to now) and get on a train for 45 minutes to get into the city. It's going to suck.

And no, I will not drive into the city unless it's for a special reason.

[Verto]

Originally posted by rah
You must look at the situation and not just spew generalizations.

Don't condemn everyone who drives an SUV. I come from a large family, and we needed a car that fit our needs. Not everyone who drives an SUV does it because of a "my-car-is-bigger-than-yours" syndrome. Some of us need to be able to carry more than 3 people when we drive around, as well as cargo in the back and on the roof, in addition to a trailer for vacations or trips. The only hybrid I know that could fill my needs is the Ford Escape Hybrid, which isn't out yet.

There are valid reasons for driving an SUV. People who spout off about how they guzzle gas and support terrorism need to go after the families of 3 who "support terrorism" by keeping their 17,000 square foot mansion at a crisp 72 degrees all day long.

My SUV gets 18 mpg in the city, and 25 on the highway. I know people with Camaros and Mustangs who get the same kind of mileage. Which is worse? Packing a V8 in a sports coupe, or putting it in an SUV where it will be used for valid purposes?

EDIT: And SUVs have been redesigned to be "more safe" in SUV-dinky car collisions.

And there seem to be a lot of people who blame the SUVs for being too big, too bulky, and too dangerous. Well, I blame the little econoboxes for being too small and too lightweight. Is it our fault your car is designed to be light and get 30 mpg, at the cost of having no protection in the event of a crash?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The fact is, non-drivers (like myself) help subsidize the roadways.

While non-riders help subsidize the subways as well.

The reason non-drivers pay for roadways is because they bring greater economic prosperity. Even if you don't use them, you most definetly benefit. For example, I'd wager that most of the food you eat comes from trucks travelling over the interstate highways of this country.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The fact is, non-drivers (like myself) help subsidize the roadways.

While non-riders help subsidize the subways as well.

The reason non-drivers pay for roadways is because they bring greater economic prosperity. Even if you don't use them, you most definetly benefit. For example, I'd wager that most of the food you eat comes from trucks travelling over the interstate highways of this country.

I know it does - but why should I externalize the costs for my food transactions onto others?

(1) Internalize the costs of the roads by only funding them through taxes on only those who use them.

(2) Commerical users (like food shippers) will recoup the expense by passing the tax onto the consumer.

(3) The cost of food will now include the cost of transportation - thereby internalizing the cost of food.

Do you have a problem with this?

[Asher]

Most of the people who are so anti-SUV are probably pretty self-centred. So much so that because they don't need one, no one else does either.

The world would be a such better place if everyone else drove a Toyota Echo or Prius.

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Templar
I know it does - but why should I externalize the costs for my food transactions onto others?

(1) Internalize the costs of the roads by only funding them through taxes on only those who use them.

(2) Commerical users (like food shippers) will recoup the expense by passing the tax onto the consumer.

(3) The cost of food will now include the cost of transportation - thereby internalizing the cost of food.

Do you have a problem with this?

Oh, what a bloody brilliant idea -- increase everyone's food (well, not just food, just about everything comes by truck somehow) cost because a tiny minority of people don't use the roads themselves.

Why don't we just eliminate subsidized mass-transit, internalize the cost by making people who want to use it pay for it only?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by rah


Unfortunately I have to drive to the subway/train.
In fact, our company is moving into the city next year. The best train station is right next to our current office location, so I'm going to have to drive to where I used to drive to work. (pay for parking, which i don't have to now) and get on a train for 45 minutes to get into the city. It's going to suck.

And no, I will not drive into the city unless it's for a special reason.

This is exactly why I hated having a car.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Asher
The world would be a such better place if everyone else drove a Toyota Echo or Prius.

Hmmm, there's a new ad campaign for Toyota.

I suppose I'm also self-centered for wanting to ban the discharge of firearms inside the city. After all, why should my desire not to get shot outweigh the desires of some New Year's Eve revelers to shoot their guns in the air?

[SpencerH]

If you actually look at the specs of most SUV's you'll see that they arent any heavier or gas guzzling than other non-compact size vehicles such as minivans or decent size quality cars. Most of them are actually built on 1/4 ton chassis so they're hardly monsters. Yes they're tall, and I agree that it can be a problem to see around them, but so are vans and trucks. Shall we ban them too?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by The Templar
(And poor urban and regional planning is why you don't have passenger rail nearby dv8ed.)

Urban? Um. "Urban" is about 230mi. from here. As far as regional planning...ok. Say you have a fairly widely distributed population (for instance, 145,000 spread over 3400 sq. miles) Please design a passenger rail system which efficiently and cost-effectively meets the transportation requirements of all of these people.

(This, by the way, is Penobscot county, ME, which is the most built-up part of central Maine. If you want more of a challenge, try Aroostook county with 73,000 people in 6700 square miles, most of which is terrain which is not particularly suited for rail service. If you want to try level three, how about Blaine County, MT, pop 6870, area 4226 sq. miles.)

[Asher]

How about Canada.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That's level 4. This is kinda like the bridge building game...we start slow, then ramp up from there...

[Jac de Molay]

And there seem to be a lot of people who blame the SUVs for being too big, too bulky, and too dangerous. Well, I blame the little econoboxes for being too small and too lightweight. Is it our fault your car is designed to be light and get 30 mpg, at the cost of having no protection in the event of a crash?

Since when did road travel become a version of the Road Warrior? So now everyone has to buy a truck the size of a Sherman Tank to go to Starbucks and back?

And FYI, it's many of those econoboxes that garner five-star safety ratings, compared to the pitiful safety record of SUV's. Anyone getting smashed by a GMC Leviathan going 80 mph is in a world of hurt, no matter what. Trucks that size aren't meant for highway/high speed travel.

[Japher]

So now everyone has to buy a truck the size of a Sherman Tank to go to Starbucks and back?

Sounds stupid, huh?

How do you think it sounds to hear "everyone should buy a small, disintigrate on impact car?"

To me, it sounds stupid.

[Jac de Molay]

How do you think it sounds to hear "everyone should buy a small, disintigrate on impact car?"

It doesn't sound any better, but at least those trucks should be held to the same standards as smaller cars (with far higher safety ratings). The sky shouldn't be the limit on height and curb weight, just like every other large vehicle on the road.

[Imran Siddiqui]

(1) Internalize the costs of the roads by only funding them through taxes on only those who use them.

(2) Commerical users (like food shippers) will recoup the expense by passing the tax onto the consumer.

(3) The cost of food will now include the cost of transportation - thereby internalizing the cost of food.

Do you have a problem with this?

Yes. Can you imagine the other costs that will arise from this? It means more tolls for one, right? Well, studies have shown that tolls (and the parking stops that result) result in more pollution. They also slow down travel, which will have a somewhat negative effect on the economy.

I'm sure the poor people would love having their food cost more because the government wants to charge more tolls for food carriers.

[The Templar]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes. Can you imagine the other costs that will arise from this? It means more tolls for one, right? Well, studies have shown that tolls (and the parking stops that result) result in more pollution. They also slow down travel, which will have a somewhat negative effect on the economy.

I'm sure the poor people would love having their food cost more because the government wants to charge more tolls for food carriers.

Are you pro-market or not? Markets only function properly (i.e. reflect actual preferences of the actors)when costs are fully internalized. If the cost of food goes up, then there was some externalized cost that was not taken into account.

Tolls? Who said tolls? But now that you mention it - putting a smartpass thing on cars and setting up readers on poles above the road (without stopping traffic or even slowing it) might work.