Log in

View Full Version : Gas headed to $3 per gallon - why don't we demand more efficient vehicles?



Pages : 1 [2]

Jay Zeno
03-23-2005, 06:23 AM
Seriously though, most people really don't need SUV's.

I agree.


They are status symbols for vain people because they are the trendy new thing and Americans like things "big".

We have no status and the lady is not vain.


I hate seeing a 110 pound woman in a three-ton vehicle for "safety" reasons.

Two tons. She feels safer. I hate to argue that she'd feel just as safe in something else, especially because it gives her the seat height and snow traction that gives her comfort.


Or the "but I have kids..." excuse irks me too. People have raised their kids fine without SUV's.

Yup, and without video games and pagers, too, but those are all part of the world now. The kids in my house sat in station wagons (with a bigger engine and probably greater weight than SUV now) and minivans. But she didn't want a minivan for her own car, and heaven forbid a station wagon. The kids she hauls around are not ours.


I'm sorry if your child has cello and soccer practice back-to-back, but that doesn't mean that the polar ice caps have to melt because your child is over-scheduled (again probably more for the parent's ego than for the child's own enrichment).

Um, no, she hauls the kids around because she likes being with them and takes them to the park and kids museums, drops them off at school, and stuff like that.


The auto industry published an internal study about SUV drivers and found them to be selfish and insecure and plays to all of that in the advertising. Their words, not mine. It's in the book "Fifty Things You're Not Supposed To Know".

She's certainly not selfish. She's insecure, but only because she doesn't realize what a truly wonderful person she is. We skip all the advertising, not being great TV watchers.

discretedancer
03-23-2005, 07:18 AM
JZ, I understand you want what you want - and in this case you want what she wants - and I really don't care if it's an SUV or not. They are not the enemy...the fact they're not built efficiently and don't qualify for clean air or emissions standars is!

But, as Americans we need to decide at what point personal wants don't overwhelm larger issues. If I wanted to drive an 18 wheeler rig everywhere, tearing up the roads (which Intetrnational is releasing as an SUV model soon) should I not be responsible for the increased impacts that vehicle has? Should that vehicle (used for personal transportation) be required to meet the best available standards for fuel economy and efficiency (let alone safety, for SUVs roll over too easily)?

SUVs are here to stay, we (as a society and as consumers) must DEMAND they are made efficient - in many cases this will require diesel engines and alternative /hybrid technology. All of these things are available now, but the advertisers keep us focused on DVD players, leather seats and "small cars are unsafe " (that crappy side impact "Compact VS Escalade" test that was run...push an 18 wheeler into an escalade and see how it does!) BS - we need to prove we're smarter than that!

ND's points are right on - even you see the one about insecurity.

Jay Zeno
03-23-2005, 07:43 AM
I pretty much agree. If I was charged more for environmental impacts because of her car, I'd either pay them, or we'd get something else.

I just don't care for stereotypes, especially when someone I love is a target of it. Her insecurity that I mentioned is a charming part of her personality, not some SUV-acquisition quirk, and is an example of her anti-vanity. Those who don't know her can stop denigrating her, either directly or implicitly.

discretedancer
03-23-2005, 07:45 AM
I agree with that...personal attacks have no place here...and I never meant any insult with my comments.

And stereotypes/labels ("Liberal freak" "Conservative Monger" etc) just serve to further polarize our country and reduce the possibility of concensus. That's deadly.

Muyaha
03-23-2005, 10:26 AM
I think honestly, especially in Metro areas of California were gas prices are skyrocketing, the SUV crazy will die out and the fuel effficent cars will become the new thing to have. For example the gas problem in the 70's made way for better fuel efficent cars (more than 9 mpg cars).

Melonie
03-23-2005, 02:22 PM
Actually, Europe already has a good answer for the issues of environmental and road impact of different vehicles. Each different vehicle model is assessed a different amount of tax, based on its own characteristics. I'd support this idea 100% for US use as well, because whenever accurate costs are assessed it de-politicizes the issue.

discretedancer
03-23-2005, 02:54 PM
If the math is fair (IE heavier vehicles pay more per mile than lighter ones, more axles and wider tires pay more, lower efficiency vehicles pay more, maybe even louder/more annoying vehicles pay more) I'm in favor of that too.

But it still leaves room for individual buyers and groups to pressure automakers to step-up. Auto fuel efficiency is the one area of our lives that hasn't advanced much (statistically not at all) in 20 years. THere's no reason for that.