Should SUV's be banned?

[okiemax]

The Mayor of London hates them. Paris may ban them. Why? SUV's pollute, hog space, and are a hazard to others. See article:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.suvs/index.html

What is your view on SUV's where you live? If you believe they are a problem, what measures would you recommend to discourage their use?

[FLZapped]

The Mayor of London hates them. Paris may ban them. Why? SUV's pollute, hog space, and are a hazard to others.

1) Every gasolne or diesel powered combustion engine powered automobile pollutes. Especially those not cared for properly.

2) Hog space? How? What, because they are longer? They still take only a single parking space at the mall. Bad drivers "hog" more space than any vehicle. Sounds like someone is afraid they'll be late for work if they aren't three feet closer to their destination because of a vehicle length.....maybe they should just start out 3 seconds earlier......

3) Hazard: really? Bad drivers are far more dangerous.

These are truely bad examples, of the many that coule be cited.

-Bruce

[okiemax]

1) Every gasolne or diesel powered combustion engine powered automobile pollutes. Especially those not cared for properly.

2) Hog space? How? What, because they are longer? They still take only a single parking space at the mall. Bad drivers "hog" more space than any vehicle. Sounds like someone is afraid they'll be late for work if they aren't three feet closer to their destination because of a vehicle length.....maybe they should just start out 3 seconds earlier......

3) Hazard: really? Bad drivers are far more dangerous.

These are truely bad examples, of the many that coule be cited.

-Bruce

If you don't think SUV's hog space, you have never tried parking a Hummer between two Land Cruisers in a shopping center parking lot.

[Resident Loser]

...25 yrs. now...not too many on the roads then, sorta' like an exclusive club...other CJ owners would wave and we would wave back...but now, you have these poseurs in their pig-mobiles casting a pall on the old guard...soccer moms and little puke-ball wannabees, cup-holders, carpeting, leather upholstery, CONVENIENCE OUTLETS!!! DVD players!!!...they ruined 'em in my book...turnin' them into gas-guzzlin' land yachts...gimmie my old four-banger and a canvas top...

jimHJJ(...and then, of course, you have the tax-dodge...right Phil?...)

[Chris]

Wait - isn't this America? Why would we ban a vehicle because some think it's too big and pollutes too much? We Americans enjoy over-indulging, having more than we need, and being pampered. SUVs are great for larger families, but some people just want the extra capacity to haul stuff around and don't want a truck.

Are we going to ban people from having big houses next? They require more electricity, use more water, and take up too much space - requiring more trees to be cut down...

Come on people, think about what you're saying. If you think SUV's are bad, don't buy one. Don't try forcing your beliefs on everyone else though, because there are many other arguments and comparisons that can be brought up. If you want to cut down on pollution so bad, why not also talk to your congressman and have them do something to tighten the belt of the big factories that dump emissions into the air. Nobody seems to care as much about industry pollution which affects the air AND the water. That's what gets me. Let's go after the over-indulging Americans for being Americans.

[JSE]

Should SUVs be banned?

Hell no! I'm tired of all these eco-freaks saying SUVs will cause the end of the world. Stupidity will cause the end of the world, not my Tahoe. Let's not stop at SUVs, let's ban pickups, gas guzzling high end luxury cars, 18 wheelers, large ships, airliners, trains, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah blah, blah.

On the way home today, I am going to drive my BIG A$$ TAHOE in 2nd gear all the way home thus making the engine turn at a higher RPM which will in turn burned more fuel and thus bring this world of ours to an end 1/100,000,000,000 of a mili-second quicker. I will then consume some Abita Amber Ale to wash away the guilt I will be feeling knowing that my distant relatives will have one less 1/100,000,000,000 of a mili-second to live before our world ends. Of course that's assuming I can afford the beer after putting $45 more worth of fuel the the SUV after driving in 2nd gear.

JSE

[Resident Loser]

...overindulgence is the culprit behind many problems in this country...think about it...if folks lived within their means we wouldn't need two income families...kids would have an adult supervising them at all times...people would be eating fresh healthy food rather than Macwendybell swill...I could go on...instead we have a fat, self-indulgent population who wants everything yesterday, is constantly told by the media they can have it all and are in debt up to their eyeballs...most of the time is spent keeping up with the Jonses...or sitting on their lard-@$$es rooting for some overpaid, overblown hype of an "athlete" whose lifestyle is hung out like a carrot in front of a pony and the circle goes unbroken!!!

Why don't more people use public transportation? They're too busy "multitasking"...couldn't stand the inconveniece of it all...Industry? That's nearly a laff! Everything is made in China...the only thing we produce here is self-centered, pill-popping, spoiled brats and their gas-bag parents who think something is owed to them just for being Americans!

jimHJJ(...you want fries with that?...)

[gonefishin]

I don't have a problem with a ban on SUV's and large trucks at all!

If any individual wishes to ban an SUV or large truck. By all means...they have the right to do so.



leaving my truck out of this for a moment...and bringing it on the subject of audio. Howabout we ban all class A amplifiers! :) oh...and inefficient loudspeakers (oops...that ain't such a good idea)


jimHJJ,
lol...I fogot all about the CJ wave :D boy did that bring back a few memories.


oh...if you want to get rid of several problems (without banishing pctower)...get rid of credit cards and raise the qualifications back up when a person tries to get a loan.
my guess, not only would people soon be living (closer) to within their means...but they would also eat out less and be far skinnier (as a whole) ;)


(lock'em in and) take care>>>>>>>

[Woochifer]

As much as I loathe and laugh at SUVs, whether as a driving enthusiast or as someone who has to deal with driving around them on the road, I think it's ridiculous to suggest banning them outright.

However, I will add that I think they should either be subject to the same safety, emission, and fuel economy regulations as passenger vehicles, or we should just dump those types of standards for all cars. The vast majority of SUVs now serve the same function as passenger vehicles, so they should be treated the same way. I mean, if a performance vehicle like a Mercedes AMG is subject to a gas guzzler tax, then why shouldn't an SUV be subject to that same tax if its gas mileage qualifies it as a gas guzzler. By extension, if a Honda Civic is required to have side impact protection in the doors and 5 MPH bumpers, then why shouldn't a Ford Escape be required to have those same features? And if we're going to have a ULEV emission mandate in California, then why would that standard not apply to SUVs? Aside from SUVs being very profitable for domestic auto producers, there's no justification to this double standard whatsoever. Either regulate or don't regulate, but don't tell me that it's logical to subject a Mazda 6 wagon to stricter safety, emission, and fuel economy standards than a Chevy Trailblazer, when both vehicles basically serve the same function.

Personally, I believe that people should make their own choices about the type of car that they want to own. And if that entails overpaying for a bloated gas hog with inferior performance and outmoded technology, then so be it.

[Woochifer]

leaving my truck out of this for a moment...and bringing it on the subject of audio. Howabout we ban all class A amplifiers! :) oh...and inefficient loudspeakers (oops...that ain't such a good idea)

Actually, not out of the rhelm of possibility. I read that the European Union is trying to come up with a uniform energy efficiency standard for electronics, and things like amplifiers would potentially fall under that standard. After protests from some European component manufacturers, supposedly they are trying to work around this so that things like Class A amps don't get banned unnecessarily.

[Woochifer]

Why don't more people use public transportation? They're too busy "multitasking"...couldn't stand the inconveniece of it all...Industry? That's nearly a laff! Everything is made in China...the only thing we produce here is self-centered, pill-popping, spoiled brats and their gas-bag parents who think something is owed to them just for being Americans!

jimHJJ(...you want fries with that?...)

LOL, I feel your pain! Actually, I take public transit to work, and it's MUCH easier to multitask on the train than in my car (if I'm really industrious, I can actually do 1.5 hours of billable time during my commute and leave the office early). Ever try using geographic information system software while behind the wheel? Yah, that's what I'm talking about!

[Resident Loser]

...drivin the rugrats to soccer practice, yappin' on the cell and eatin' an EggMcMucous...

jimHJJ(...that's "multitasking" to some...)

[cam]

The Ford Escape can now be ordered with hybrid technology. 2.3L and battery powered, and so I am told when you floor it, it has the acceleration of the 3.0L. But if someone needs the cargo capacity of the escape just so you know there is 8 cubic feet more cargo capacity behind the seats in the Focus wagon. But the wagon just wouldn't be cool so alot of morons will opt for the GAS HOG SUV.

[Justlisten2]

Actually, not out of the rhelm of possibility. I read that the European Union is trying to come up with a uniform energy efficiency standard for electronics, and things like amplifiers would potentially fall under that standard. After protests from some European component manufacturers, supposedly they are trying to work around this so that things like Class A amps don't get banned unnecessarily.


They'll have to pry my Class A monoblocks from my cold, dead fingers, hehe. Once you've gone hot there's no turning back. Since I run Class A monblocks, I guess I can't complain about the 'wastefulness' of SUV's. Personally, I'd prefer a Porsche, but to each their own. What seems weird to me is that I see far more women driving SUV's then men. I have 8 sisters, 4 drive SUV's. They wouldn't be caught dead in a mini-van, that's so soccer mom, LOL! Women rebelling against the soccer mom label seems to be whats fueling the SUV sales. :rolleyes:

[Justlisten2]

What is your view on SUV's where you live? If you believe they are a problem, what measures would you recommend to discourage their use?

I think raising gas prices is punishment enough. ;)

[okiemax]

I have views similar to yours. My main concern is the social costs of motorists driving vehicles that are much larger than what they need, and the inadequate efforts by the Federal Government to discourage the practice. This would be a problem regardless of whether the large vehicles are SUV's, vans, or sedans. Hopefully, people who like SUV's( but don't need much passenger and cargo capacity) will find the smaller versions more appealing in the coming years.

[Woochifer]

The Ford Escape can now be ordered with hybrid technology. 2.3L and battery powered, and so I am told when you floor it, it has the acceleration of the 3.0L. But if someone needs the cargo capacity of the escape just so you know there is 8 cubic feet more cargo capacity behind the seats in the Focus wagon. But the wagon just wouldn't be cool so alot of morons will opt for the GAS HOG SUV.

Doesn't surprise me one bit, SUVs have got those huge exterior dimensions, yet they also have to sacrifice a lot of interior space and raise the center of gravity to accommodate a four-wheel drivetrain and qualify for all those "light truck" exemptions. I once rented Chevy Blazer for a conference in the mountains, and while I normally love driving through winding mountain roads, that SUV just sucked all the fun out of the drive with its poor handling, extreme body lean, oceanliner-like road feel, and inadequate brakes. I couldn't believe how piss poor that thing was for cargo hauling because of how awkwardly dimensioned the interior was, presumably to accommodate that four-wheel drivetrain (which the majority of Blazer owners don't order).

At least something like an Audi Quattro has all-wheel drive for performance reasons, rather than providing "offroading" capabilities that 90% of SUV owners will never use and compromise the performance and safety of the vehicle in all other normal driving situations. With the base 2WD Ford Escape, you got the worst of all worlds -- a slow, poor handling, overweight, and awkwardly proportioned box on wheels, that has cramped interior space, and paperthin bumpers and zero side impact protection in the doors to boot.

[Resident Loser]

...that the drivetrain in no way impinges on the vehicle's interior dimensions...the transfer case(the thingee what splits motive power front to rear) is really the only "add-on". In a properly designed(read: REAL) vehicle it resides between the frame rails, below the floorboards and is protected by a skid-plate. The front axle is where it belongs(under the engine) and the rear end is where it belongs, 2WD or 4WD...Stow-away seats, hidden compartments...some of the things I'm complaining about, can be responsible for the lack of real estate...of course, if the designer caters to the wannabees who can't step up into the vehicle and designs it to be lower, then that can also affect payload...it also reduces ground clearance and wheel articulation as does the independent suspensions now infecting the breed, rendering it useless for those of us who require those things...they have become bloated cars for all intent and purpose...diluted to the point of "why bother?"...but the poseurs wannabe cool and rugged and everybody has one and...it's just an old fashioned p!$$!n' match...why not get a decent mini-van, at least they fall under guidelines...

Problem is they aren't cars, don't handle like 'em...anyone who thinks they are any safer is a fool...with ABS, 4WD and electronic traction controls, they give the morons who buy 'em a false sense of invincibility...if anything you have to be able to actually drive to use one safely...and Lord knows, few really do know how...

Like every other thing, people get sold a bill of goods and the market drives the mfrs. and so on...how else could you account for bloated beasts like the H2, or the Excursion or the Escalade...a Caddy or Lincoln pick-me-up truck? What a load...and the mfrs. love the "gray" areas which lets them fudge the CAFE numbers; as do the accountants who advise their clients to buy a truck for the write-off...

jimHJJ(...and ifn' yain't gonna use 4WD, buy a friggin' car and rent a truck when you need to...)

[RGA]

You want people to get out of cars and into Public transit - make public transit relaly cheap and charge $50.00 a litre for Gas. Then when people have to pay more to get to work and back than they actually made working they might clue in.

But the oil industry - and therefore the power behind the American Government would much rather you buy a Hummer than a Honda Hybrid. And no amount of attacking other countries is going to prevent the innevitable - delay it maybe.

Problem is in a lot of cities like mine the public transit is just so pathetic that people don't even consider it an option if they have the money for a car.

But if I lived in Vancouver with Busses going up and down the street every 5 minutes and skytrain that will get you from Surrey to downtown Vancouver in Rush hour in roughly 40 minutes - even if you own a Ferrari that trip is over an hour. And yet people still drive it - and pay over $10.00 a day to park? That boggles the mind.

But i have no right to tell people what they can choose to own - we can all vote to tax extra those people or punish them in various financial ways higher insurance, higher gas, in Canada Luxury taxes on vehicles over $30K etc. If you choose to pay those taxes and be a George Steinbrenner - it may be bad for the environment it may be a meanie thing to do but you're playing by the rules so can't complain.

But if some eco group splaches paint all over your Hummer - please don't expect sympathy from me - I will just give you a big chortle and a "oh well just another downside to owning the vehicle - if you want to wear mink Coats and drive Hummers you are welcome to do so - you want to be a racist KKK you are welcome to do that as well. But you are welcome to have me laugh at your plight. you got enough money for a Hummer and you don't care about the environment and you're dumb enough to have such a poor reliable vehicle(per Lemon-aid) don't wine about the the Eco-freaks who paint and or set fire to your vehicle - just be thankful you were not in it. The police are there to protect you - but sympathy? hahaha.

[Bryan]

So then those Eco-freaks (rightly named I might add) shouldn't complain when the owners of gas-guzzling vehicles either set fire to or otherwise damage their personal property. A person having or not having money offers no excuse to your being a jerk.

SUVs get an un-deserved bad rap. Pickups, vans, etc. all get about the same MPG. Hell, an SUV is no more than a pickup with a topper and the interior and bed fancied up. It is a cross between a pickup truck and station wagon.

Do people have a problem with the vehicle itself or the person driving that vehicle? My guess the answer is 80/20 in favor of the person rather than the vehicle.

Public transportation, while an excellent option, is not a viable solution for me.

1. It doesn't meet my schedule. I want to get from home to work and back again yet the buses run once an hour. Half the time it would be faster for me to walk.

2. It doesn't go where I need it to. Why would I want to go downtown or change buses when the direct route is best? Taking the bus would add well over an hour each way to my commute. Taking my vehicle it takes 12 minutes or less.

3. It doesn't afford me cargo space. Not a good option when you need to move things, get groceries, or pick up material for DIY projects.

4. Did I forget to mention the hours of operation?

Perhaps it would work in cities designed around public transportation. However, since where I live isn't designed for public transportation I choose to drive a vehicle and will comfortably park between the Hummer and Land Rover.

[Resident Loser]

...public transit WOULD be nice when and where it's possible, but that's not my main b!tch in all this. Actually, I wish the sheep would find a new trend du jour and cease turning Jeeps and Toys and such into bloated school buses...leave the trucks alone!!!

jimHJJ(...all it would take is to have the "Governator" or some other high-profile type apply the "cool" factor to something else...like a Mini-Cooper...)

[Woochifer]

...that the drivetrain in no way impinges on the vehicle's interior dimensions...the transfer case(the thingee what splits motive power front to rear) is really the only "add-on". In a properly designed(read: REAL) vehicle it resides between the frame rails, below the floorboards and is protected by a skid-plate. The front axle is where it belongs(under the engine) and the rear end is where it belongs, 2WD or 4WD.

Compared to a rear-wheel drive vehicle, that's true. But, a front-wheel drive passenger car (which represents most of the passenger cars sold) generally has a flatter floorpan and a lot more versatility for the designers to configure the interior space. Comparing the Ford Focus wagon with the Escape (a friend of mine and his wife own each of them), the interior of the Focus is far more efficiently laidout, yet it's lighter, faster, more agile, with more safety features and bumpers that actually prevent expensive damage to the body in low speed collisions.


Problem is they aren't cars, don't handle like 'em...anyone who thinks they are any safer is a fool...with ABS, 4WD and electronic traction controls, they give the morons who buy 'em a false sense of invincibility...if anything you have to be able to actually drive to use one safely...and Lord knows, few really do know how...

Even worse are the SUV owners who try to pilot those things like sports cars. Several years ago, a friend of mine who worked as an engineer at Nissan told me that rising demand for SUVs would eventually kill the sports car market because early on it was mostly former sports car owners (presumably after starting a family) who were driving the demand for SUVs (presumably because they didn't want to be seen in a minivan or wagon). Doesn't surprise me that driving habits formed around the capabilities of a 300ZX or RX-7 or Supra would still rear their ugly head after trading those high performance cars in for three-ton behemoths with oceanliner-like responsiveness.


jimHJJ(...and ifn' yain't gonna use 4WD, buy a friggin' car and rent a truck when you need to...)

Couldn't agree with you more. I just can't see putting up with the inferior performance and
gawdawful driving experience of a SUV on a daily basis, just so I can have a contingency for those occasions every few years where I might actually want 4WD or offroading capabilities. I mean, what does it say about a class of vehicles if a Toyota Camry can outhandle nearly all of them? If I ever actually need a SUV, Avis is right around the block.

[Woochifer]

So then those Eco-freaks (rightly named I might add) shouldn't complain when the owners of gas-guzzling vehicles either set fire to or otherwise damage their personal property. A person having or not having money offers no excuse to your being a jerk.

Aside from those two dealer fires in California, how often do SUVs get torched? That example is hardly representative of people like me who don't like SUVs.


SUVs get an un-deserved bad rap. Pickups, vans, etc. all get about the same MPG. Hell, an SUV is no more than a pickup with a topper and the interior and bed fancied up. It is a cross between a pickup truck and station wagon.

Actually, the minivans typically get higher mileage than the SUVs. (Just compare the Dodge Durango to the Caravan) While it's true that SUVs are often nothing more than pickup trucks with a fully fitted interior, that interior adds a lot of weight to an already heavy vehicle. The difference between SUVs and station wagons are that wagons are lower to the ground, have higher emission and fuel economy standards, and more required safety features.


Do people have a problem with the vehicle itself or the person driving that vehicle? My guess the answer is 80/20 in favor of the person rather than the vehicle.

I have no problem with people choosing which car they want to own. I just have no desire to own something that's so antithetical to the concept of a "driver's car" and has so many performance compromises built around offroading capabilities that around 90% of SUV owners admit that they never use.

[RGA]

Woochifer makes the case. People who own trucks and have some point to owning them I have no p[roblem with whatsoever - you run a painting business you need to lug pain cans around kinda thing. Why 50% of vehicles sold here are some truck variation is inexcusable. Barely anyone off-roads and those SUVs are mostly a Joke for true offroading.

I did not say it was acceptable for eco people to fire bomb Hummers - there are laws - I just don't feel sympathy for people who choose to leave a bad foot print on this planet to such a huge degree with the idea that don't worry God will fix it later - or having oil companies pay scientists off for LYING to the public that everything isn't nearly as bad as people think. PPG&E has demontrated that on numerous occasions getting scientists into their pockets - and they're chumps compared to big oil.

The Hummer is attacked because for consumer use it is totally unnecessary vehichle in every regard. You can take your kids around in a Honda Civic - Last I checked most cars hold 5 persons. If you need more fine - the word need is in there.

Excuses overpoor public transit - well is true because not enough people take it they don't offer the service - and because they don't offer the service few take it - so it's a chicken and the egg deal.

In London a car is not required - you will no doubt take 3 times longer to get ANYWHERE with a car. But it's a great system. Most downtown cores of major cities don't require owning a car. If you want to go on a road trip rent one - emergency trip take a taxi. Adding these odd trips up would still pocket you loads of money so you could afford to get a nice Audio Note stereo :-)

Certainly some people need trucks and some people need a Mini-van or Station wagon - but all those people who are SERIOUS about fighting terrorism frankly would fight it where it really has any power at all - with your pocketbooks - stop supporting Saudi Arabia - the core of terrorism and where your gas money indirectly ends up.

[Mash]

"While it's true that SUVs are often nothing more than pickup trucks with a fully fitted interior, that interior adds a lot of weight to an already heavy vehicle. "

Not true. Full-size pickups have very strong frames (with the exception of the POS 2000-2003 Ford F150 that was screwed up by Nasser & his cronies. The screwed-up 2000-2003 Ford F150 is why Bill Ford kicked Nasser out of Ford and took direct control of Ford Motors.)

SUV's are pieces of fashionable crap that lack any crashworthiness combined with poor handling. Have you noticed that as the SUV population increases more and more SUV drivers are winning Darwin Awards?

I use my Ford F150 for tasks such as hauling trash and towing our boat. Moving our boat up and down a launch ramp is zero challenge because my F150 has limited slip front and rear axles and I use low-range on the ramp. But I do NOT commute in the F150. A Toyota Camry meets all of my car-driving tasks.

[mtrycraft]

I think raising gas prices is punishment enough. ;)

That punishes everyone though:)

[mtrycraft]

As much as I loathe and laugh at SUVs, whether as a driving enthusiast or as someone who has to deal with driving around them on the road, I think it's ridiculous to suggest banning them outright.

However, I will add that I think they should either be subject to the same safety, emission, and fuel economy regulations as passenger vehicles, .


I agree with this fully :) That would be only fair. But, money talks. :(

And now you hear that the oil reseves may not be accurate but inflated:(

Stand by guys and gals.

[Chris]

Again, we live in a country where our forefathers fought so that you have the freedom to own (or drive) whatever your heart desires, yet you criticize people for owning something they don't "need"? How about all those people who buy the 4-door trucks or the super high-end luxury cars? Why not just ban every car that isn't a hybrid? Nobody "needs" a car that can't get less than 40 mpg... they can get to point B using a small hybrid econobox. Since when did we start forcing people to buy only what they "need"? I personally have no desire to own an SUV myself, as I feel trucks are more useful. But being a homeowner, I can easily appreciate the versatility an SUV offers - especially when our family begins to grow.

Why are SUV owners the target of all of this instead of the factories/industries who pollute? I'll tell you why - everyone knows how much gas mileage an SUV gets - its easy info to find. Nobody will put the time and effort into learning how much a local factory pollutes. Why do you think factories move out of the US? Cheap labor is only half of it - it's because the pollution laws are much less strict everywhere else... let's force all US-based corps who move out of the US to still abide by the same pollution laws no matter where they move to. Imagine how much longer we could make the world last then.

[JSE]

To Wooch and others who dislike SUVs due to poor performace and handling. Not everyone wants a race car. I have owned 2 Toyota Turbo Supras and 2 Corvettes and I now own a Tahoe. I could never go back unless it's for second vehicle. Sure the Tahoe does not perform like the Supra or Vette but it's extremely comfy and believe it or not rides very well and despite what others have said, is safe and can be used for just about anything. I like to camp, mountain bike, fish and I can throw a ton of photo equipement in the back. What better vehicle could I have? Plus, I live in Houston which has horrible traffic. I could not take advantage of a vehicles performance on Houston roadways 99% of the time. I don't care what people say, I would also like to take my chances in an accident with my Tahoe over an Accord any day. I bet I will win! That sounds harsh, but it's reality.

JSE

[okiemax]

Again, we live in a country where our forefathers fought so that you have the freedom to own (or drive) whatever your heart desires, yet you criticize people for owning something they don't "need"? How about all those people who buy the 4-door trucks or the super high-end luxury cars? Why not just ban every car that isn't a hybrid? Nobody "needs" a car that can't get less than 40 mpg... they can get to point B using a small hybrid econobox. Since when did we start forcing people to buy only what they "need"? I personally have no desire to own an SUV myself, as I feel trucks are more useful. But being a homeowner, I can easily appreciate the versatility an SUV offers - especially when our family begins to grow.

Why are SUV owners the target of all of this instead of the factories/industries who pollute? I'll tell you why - everyone knows how much gas mileage an SUV gets - its easy info to find. Nobody will put the time and effort into learning how much a local factory pollutes. Why do you think factories move out of the US? Cheap labor is only half of it - it's because the pollution laws are much less strict everywhere else... let's force all US-based corps who move out of the US to still abide by the same pollution laws no matter where they move to. Imagine how much longer we could make the world last then.

What a person does can have an adverse effect on other people. Many activities that may be pleasurable to some people are illegal because these activities harm other people. Smoking in public places is a good example. The harm that can be done by a motor vehicle is related to its size. Although large vehicles mean more fuel consumption, more pollution, and more danger for drivers of smaller vehicles, trucks and buses used in economic activities provide benefits to society that outweigh theses costs. Does the pleasure that people get from owning large SUV's outweigh the costs to people who don't own them?

SUV's probably would not be an issue with me if their number was relatively small. RV's are much larger than SUV's, but I don't see enough of these homes-on-wheels to get upset about them. I shudder to think about a surge in the popularity of RV's. If this "bigger is better" thinking goes any further, I may in self-defense have to replace my economy car with an eighteen-wheeler(those big Kenworths are cool). Yep, it will be all about me and what I want, and to hell with everyone else! Chris, do you think our our forefathers would approve of this change in my philosphy about freedom of choice?

[Bryan]

SUVs are not a problem yet there is where the focus lies. That MPG sticker posted on most, if not every, new vehicles is prior to a/c. Turn it on to cool down and see what your MPG is afterwards.

If I could afford one I would have a motorcycle in addition to my truck. I don't need both but the bike could get me around town much more economically. I even used to be able to carry around a bag of groceries when needed. My needs and wants have changed. The truck is more in line with what I need and want. Its purpose is to haul things, anything from furniture to a boat in a few years. It is a vehicle bought for the long haul whereas the bike could be for everyday use.

People buy vehicles for different reasons. You may only see the family of four driving around in a SUV but you don't know they use it for towing, camping, hunting, etc. You can buy whatever vehicle you wish, be it a Lexus or monster truck (5 gallons per mile, BTW).

You need transportation, be it public or private. You decide what transportation you can afford and what you want to drive. It could be a bicycle or Jeep. You know what you need it for and what you want it to be able to do. If you can afford it and are capable of driving it then buy whatever it is you would like to, even if it is that 18 wheel Kensworth.

[Woochifer]

To Wooch and others who dislike SUVs due to poor performace and handling. Not everyone wants a race car. I have owned 2 Toyota Turbo Supras and 2 Corvettes and I now own a Tahoe. I could never go back unless it's for second vehicle. Sure the Tahoe does not perform like the Supra or Vette but it's extremely comfy and believe it or not rides very well and despite what others have said, is safe and can be used for just about anything. I like to camp, mountain bike, fish and I can throw a ton of photo equipement in the back. What better vehicle could I have? Plus, I live in Houston which has horrible traffic. I could not take advantage of a vehicles performance on Houston roadways 99% of the time. I don't care what people say, I would also like to take my chances in an accident with my Tahoe over an Accord any day. I bet I will win! That sounds harsh, but it's reality.

JSE

I'm not asking for a race car, I'm just looking for something that can perform ON PAR with an AVERAGE sedan, and most SUVs out there can't even meet that minimal criteria. Sure, a lot of them have big enough engines to match the 0-60 times, but in terms of roadholding, emergency avoidance, safety features, and braking, almost all SUVs on the road are inferior to even middle-of-the-pack sedans.

Sure, your Tahoe has enough heft to mow over another vehicle if that's a goal (sorry, but in a collision EVERYBODY loses, so your gloating about winning in a collision is hardly worth cheering about), but the majority of collisions are not the bumper to bumper variety. In a rollover, a side impact, or solo accident, SUVs are more dangerous than a passenger car. And with their compromised handling and braking, it's more difficult to avoid an accident in the first place when driving one of those. THAT's reality.

On one of those winding mountain roads, give me anything but an SUV and I'll feel a lot safer. Been there, done that, never again. Unless you're talking about traveling on dirt roads or needing lots of towing capacity, I don't see any benefit to an SUV for camping either. If I need an SUV for traveling on dirt roads, Avis will still take my money and at the end of the trip I don't have to lug that thing back home with me.

[Woochifer]

SUVs are not a problem yet there is where the focus lies. That MPG sticker posted on most, if not every, new vehicles is prior to a/c. Turn it on to cool down and see what your MPG is afterwards.

For an average car, the AC's supposed to lower the MPG by about 10 percent, but it affects all vehicles equally, so a SUV with lower mileage will still have lower mileage whether the AC's on or off.

On those mileage ratings, I have no clue about the EPA's current procedures, but I know that years ago the mileage was calculated using a dynamometer. Problem with that procedure is that it did not factor in the aerodynamics, and the fact is that the more aerodynamic a car's body shape, the less power is needed to maintain highway speeds. And in general, SUVs have much higher drag coefficients than passenger cars or even most minivans.


You know what you need it for and what you want it to be able to do. If you can afford it and are capable of driving it then buy whatever it is you would like to, even if it is that 18 wheel Kensworth.


If this "bigger is better" thinking goes any further, I may in self-defense have to replace my economy car with an eighteen-wheeler(those big Kenworths are cool).

Funny that both of you would mention Kenworth!


http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.jpg

http://poseur.4x4.org/dominator.jpg

The Grand Dominator

The site is supposed to be satirical, but why would I not be surprised if someone actually created a behemoth like this? Anyway, the site is linked below. Check out the list of options. Pretty hilarious (I especially like the heliport and boat rack options).

http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html

[Woochifer]

Again, we live in a country where our forefathers fought so that you have the freedom to own (or drive) whatever your heart desires, yet you criticize people for owning something they don't "need"? How about all those people who buy the 4-door trucks or the super high-end luxury cars? Why not just ban every car that isn't a hybrid?

The benefits of hybrid technology have only scratched the surface so far. I can't remember if it was GM or Chrysler, but one of those companies has now licensed Toyota's hybrid design. And Honda's now working on a next generation hybrid sports car that will generate almost 400 horsepower AND get over 30 MPG on the highway.


Why are SUV owners the target of all of this instead of the factories/industries who pollute? I'll tell you why - everyone knows how much gas mileage an SUV gets - its easy info to find. Nobody will put the time and effort into learning how much a local factory pollutes. Why do you think factories move out of the US? Cheap labor is only half of it - it's because the pollution laws are much less strict everywhere else... let's force all US-based corps who move out of the US to still abide by the same pollution laws no matter where they move to. Imagine how much longer we could make the world last then.

Believe me, the air pollution control districts in California work the industry angle every bit as intensively as the various vehicle emission programs. They've put a LOT of time and effort into studying the impacts of fixed point-source pollution sources (and I've participated in a few of them), and the mandated emission reductions on industry have been every bit as punative as anything that's been done with auto emissions. In the studies I've done, these types of emission regulations are very low on the list of things that drive industry overseas.

SUVs are singled out because they are used like passenger vehicles, yet regulated as trucks when it comes to mileage and emissions. The truck standards work on the premise that trucks are needed for commerce and having a lowered standard for trucks is a way of keeping business costs down. They were not drafted as a permit for one family to generate more pollution than another, nor as an avenue by which auto makers can pad their profits by withholding their best engine control technologies from SUVs.

Passenger cars that meet California's strictest PZEV emission standards actually clean the air during unhealthful smog conditions (because the tail emissions are actually cleaner than the air that the engine pulls in during smoggy conditions) and are better for the environment than even electric vehicles if you account for point source pollution by power generating plants. Thus far, not a single SUV meets the PZEV standards, while a growing list of passenger cars meet them, including the BMW 3 series, VW Jetta, Ford Focus, Mazda 3, Toyota Camry, and Honda Accord. IMO, when it comes to SUVs, either regulate them as passenger vehicles or give passenger vehicles the same exemptions that SUVs get.

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-neil9jun09,1,1649115.story

[okiemax]

For an average car, the AC's supposed to lower the MPG by about 10 percent, but it affects all vehicles equally, so a SUV with lower mileage will still have lower mileage whether the AC's on or off.

On those mileage ratings, I have no clue about the EPA's current procedures, but I know that years ago the mileage was calculated using a dynamometer. Problem with that procedure is that it did not factor in the aerodynamics, and the fact is that the more aerodynamic a car's body shape, the less power is needed to maintain highway speeds. And in general, SUVs have much higher drag coefficients than passenger cars or even most minivans.





Funny that both of you would mention Kenworth!


http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.jpg

http://poseur.4x4.org/dominator.jpg

The Grand Dominator

The site is supposed to be satirical, but why would I not be surprised if someone actually created a behemoth like this? Anyway, the site is linked below. Check out the list of options. Pretty hilarious (I especially like the heliport and boat rack options).

http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html

I wouldn't be so sure that PACCAR Corporate Headquartes isn't giving thought to producing these monster SUVs . If not, some outfit that does custom work probably is considering it. Buy one and see owners of those piss-ant Hummers turn green with envy.

However, as much as I want one of these ultimate SUVs, I must be practical and stick with a tractor that can pull a trailer in case I need to help friends move or haul anything big. The Peterbilt shown on the following link is just what I need:

http://www.peterbilt.com/index_home.asp

Ain't she a beauty!

[RGA]

Cool - maybe we can get the Queen Mary and put wheels on it - Or the Exon Valdez and drive it down the road - kind of like James Bond with automatic oil slicks.

I find it amusing for the State that supposedly cares about fuel emissions has Mr. Hummer himself Ahnold running the State. Sometimes I'm glad I'm in Canada.

[JSE]

I'm not asking for a race car, I'm just looking for something that can perform ON PAR with an AVERAGE sedan, and most SUVs out there can't even meet that minimal criteria. Sure, a lot of them have big enough engines to match the 0-60 times, but in terms of roadholding, emergency avoidance, safety features, and braking, almost all SUVs on the road are inferior to even middle-of-the-pack sedans.

Sure, your Tahoe has enough heft to mow over another vehicle if that's a goal (sorry, but in a collision EVERYBODY loses, so your gloating about winning in a collision is hardly worth cheering about), but the majority of collisions are not the bumper to bumper variety. In a rollover, a side impact, or solo accident, SUVs are more dangerous than a passenger car. And with their compromised handling and braking, it's more difficult to avoid an accident in the first place when driving one of those. THAT's reality.

On one of those winding mountain roads, give me anything but an SUV and I'll feel a lot safer. Been there, done that, never again. Unless you're talking about traveling on dirt roads or needing lots of towing capacity, I don't see any benefit to an SUV for camping either. If I need an SUV for traveling on dirt roads, Avis will still take my money and at the end of the trip I don't have to lug that thing back home with me.


I'm not gloating about a winning a collision, I'm just saying that I would rather be safer. And, you are incorrect when you say the majority of accidents are not of the Bumper-to-Bumper variety. The fact is, this is the most frequent type of accident. Side impacts are right behind. Roll overs and solo accidents are far behind. I know this. I investigate fraud for an ins. company and I see stats on this all the time. I can also tell you this, SUVS are safer in rollovers. I see them all the time in my work and I can honestly say that people fair much better inside an SUV in a rollover than in sedans or other traditional car designs. Side impacts? They are seem to fair better in this type of accident as well. People sit higher up and usually avoid the direct impact to their body from the other vehicle's bumper. This of course is assuming the other vehicle is not another SUV, Pickup or large truck. In general, SUVs, Pickups, etc, tend to have much less damage when in an accident. Of course you can always take the other side and say because of SUVs, other smaller vehicles receive more damage in general.

In my experience, I can tell you this. SUVs are not the problem some people make them out to be. A bigger problem is people being to distracted while they are driving. If people would stop talking on their cell phones, watching the navigation systems, fooling with the radio, eating and drinking while in their vehicles, we would have far far less accidents. When I used to work "normal" auto accidents I can say that at least 80% of the accidents involved some kind of driver inattention.

Banning cell phone use in vehicles would go much farther in terms of saving lives than banning SUVs.

JSE

[JSE]

Sometimes I'm glad I'm in Canada.

So are we! :D

JSE

[Swerd]

I agree, it’s wrong to try to ban SUVs outright. But, like Woochifer pointed out, the same safety, emmission and fuel economy regulations that apply to passenger vehicles should also apply to SUVs and other light trucks.

In addition, I would add that the federal government should not subsidize the purchase of SUVs. In the past year or so, anyone owning their own business could deduct the purchase cost of an SUV, up to $100,000, from their income for tax purposes. Until the recent upswing in fuel prices, this change in the tax law has driven the high sales of high-priced SUVs. Prior to 2002, this tax deduction was limited to farm owners who purchased farm equiptment that cost up to $25,000. SUVs, as a light truck, were included as eligible vehicles.

It is difficult to understand how the current admistration decided that this new tax policy was in the best interest of the nation. It has allowed thousands of lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, doctors, etc. (none of whom are farmers) to buy these light trucks with a glandular problem at taxpayers expense.

[Woochifer]

I find it amusing for the State that supposedly cares about fuel emissions has Mr. Hummer himself Ahnold running the State. Sometimes I'm glad I'm in Canada.

California's had the strictest emission standards in the world since well before the Gropinator set foot on U.S. soil. Be glad you're in Canada, but your cars still spew more pollutants into the atmosphere than what gets sold in California.

[Woochifer]

I'm not gloating about a winning a collision, I'm just saying that I would rather be safer. And, you are incorrect when you say the majority of accidents are not of the Bumper-to-Bumper variety. The fact is, this is the most frequent type of accident. Side impacts are right behind. Roll overs and solo accidents are far behind. I know this. I investigate fraud for an ins. company and I see stats on this all the time. I can also tell you this, SUVS are safer in rollovers. I see them all the time in my work and I can honestly say that people fair much better inside an SUV in a rollover than in sedans or other traditional car designs. Side impacts? They are seem to fair better in this type of accident as well. People sit higher up and usually avoid the direct impact to their body from the other vehicle's bumper. This of course is assuming the other vehicle is not another SUV, Pickup or large truck. In general, SUVs, Pickups, etc, tend to have much less damage when in an accident. Of course you can always take the other side and say because of SUVs, other smaller vehicles receive more damage in general.

Bumper to bumper collisions are the most frequent type of accident, but not the majority. In a side impact, at least a passenger vehicle has mandated side impact protection beams in the door. SUVs aren't required to install them, and judging by the weight of the doors for the various SUVs I've ridden in and driven, I doubt they're there.

Also, SUVs are multiple times more likely to get into a rollover in the first place, and the mortality rate in a rollover is higher than a frontal or side collision. How they fare in rollovers is something I don't info on, but a friend of mine who used to work as an engineer at Nissan told me that the safety cage designs that are standard practice with passenger cars are far stronger and safer than what's typically designed into a truck or SUV. Also, the chassis certification requirements for passenger cars are stricter than for light trucks.

And with the rigid frame construction used on truck-based SUVs, much more of that blunt force gets transferred directly into the passenger cabin. Transferring that collision force away from the passenger cabin is whole reason why engineers started designing crumple zones and unit body construction into passenger cars over 30 years ago. And even with that rigid frame, the bumpers on those SUV will take on far more damage in a low speed impact than a passenger car will.

If maximum cargo hauling capacity does not need to be a design goal for a vehicle (and I doubt too many SUV owners will ever need something that can handle a three-ton+ load), then why saddle it down with all the weight, directional stability, and safety compromises that go along with that kind of design? Leaf spring suspensions and rigid axles date all the way back to the horse carriage era, I would expect a car to at least have technology that's more in line with the 20th century. Personally, I would rather drive a car that gives me more of a fighting chance at avoiding an accident in the first place or can give me those extra feet of reduced braking distance.


In my experience, I can tell you this. SUVs are not the problem some people make them out to be. A bigger problem is people being to distracted while they are driving. If people would stop talking on their cell phones, watching the navigation systems, fooling with the radio, eating and drinking while in their vehicles, we would have far far less accidents. When I used to work "normal" auto accidents I can say that at least 80% of the accidents involved some kind of driver inattention.

Banning cell phone use in vehicles would go much farther in terms of saving lives than banning SUVs. JSE

I'll agree with you on this point. The whole move towards in-dash navigation systems, DVD surround systems, internet connectivity, power ports for laptop computers, on top of the preexisting radio, make-up, dashboard dining, and cellphone distractions, scares me a lot more than any SUV ever will.

My problem with SUVs is that I simply can't stand how they drive. I mean, a station wagon gives me far better handling, visibility, and road feel than any SUV I've ever tried out. And I avoid them on the roads as well, since I can't see potential hazards as well whenever I'm around them, and I know from almost daily experience that they can't see me all that well either.

I've never said anything about banning SUVs, and would oppose any efforts to do so. If people want to put up with something that undriveable IMO on a daily basis, then they have my blessing. My main point has been to put them on an equal plane with passenger cars, since the rationale for regulating them as trucks has pretty much turned into a joke. Whether that means lowering passenger car standards or raising those for SUVs or eliminating them altogether, so be it.

[mtrycraft]

Now to rezone the residential place for commercial parging:) And a new garage:) Wonder how a sub, many subs, would work in that :D

[mtrycraft]

- Or the Exon Valdez and drive it down the road - .

No, no, not that. Too oily :) But it sure has a large fuel tank :)

[Chris]

I guess I don't disagree that SUVs could be held to the same emissions standards as passenger cars, in fact, that should really be looked into. Whether you like it or not though, some people have a use for them. If you own a home, have a family, have stuff to haul around/tow, or all of the above, you know what I mean. One could argue that a truck makes more sense, but a truck doesn't always do it all. This day and age, it's all about finding the vehicle that will do it all - that's why SUVs sell so well. Sure many people who don't need them buy them, but the same could be said of trucks. So what are the options? Lower their emissions or make people fill out applications to make sure they actually need them? Forcing the same standards as passenger cars sounds more realistic - but even that sounds like a stretch.

Again, I personally would rather have a truck, but my mother-in-law's Durango has come in handy everytime we needed it (long trips, home depot, camping, home depot, dump runs, home depot, etc). A truck would have only worked out in half of the cases we used the SUV.


Although large vehicles mean more fuel consumption, more pollution, and more danger for drivers of smaller vehicles, trucks and buses used in economic activities provide benefits to society that outweigh these costs. Does the pleasure that people get from owning large SUV's outweigh the costs to people who don't own them?
Well, that's assuming everyone who owns an SUV doesn't need one. How do you separate the people who use them to their full potential (carpooling, hauling, towing, etc) from those who could get by just as well with a passenger vehicle? You can't group everyone together - so then what? Start suing people individually for damages? I think people have good intentions and even some good points here, but many of the arguments just don't hold water. Fighting to ban public smoking is one thing, but trying to ban SUVs because they might "have an adverse affect on others"? Please. Why don't we just skip to the root of the problem and see about getting "stupidity" and "inconsideration of others" banned too?

[jeskibuff]

Why don't we just skip to the root of the problem and see about getting "stupidity" and "inconsideration of others" banned too?Actually, that's the best idea I've heard today! :D

[okiemax]

I guess I don't disagree that SUVs could be held to the same emissions standards as passenger cars, in fact, that should really be looked into. Whether you like it or not though, some people have a use for them. If you own a home, have a family, have stuff to haul around/tow, or all of the above, you know what I mean. One could argue that a truck makes more sense, but a truck doesn't always do it all. This day and age, it's all about finding the vehicle that will do it all - that's why SUVs sell so well. Sure many people who don't need them buy them, but the same could be said of trucks. So what are the options? Lower their emissions or make people fill out applications to make sure they actually need them? Forcing the same standards as passenger cars sounds more realistic - but even that sounds like a stretch.

Again, I personally would rather have a truck, but my mother-in-law's Durango has come in handy everytime we needed it (long trips, home depot, camping, home depot, dump runs, home depot, etc). A truck would have only worked out in half of the cases we used the SUV.


Well, that's assuming everyone who owns an SUV doesn't need one. How do you separate the people who use them to their full potential (carpooling, hauling, towing, etc) from those who could get by just as well with a passenger vehicle? You can't group everyone together - so then what? Start suing people individually for damages? I think people have good intentions and even some good points here, but many of the arguments just don't hold water. Fighting to ban public smoking is one thing, but trying to ban SUVs because they might "have an adverse affect on others"? Please. Why don't we just skip to the root of the problem and see about getting "stupidity" and "inconsideration of others" banned too?

Would you agree that driver's who don't need large vehicles should not be encouraged to buy them? If you do agree, do you know we have no Federal Government policy to discourage the use of unnecessarily large vehicles? In fact, Federal policy does just the opposite. See Swerd's post on the income tax deduction for SUV purchases up to $100,000, allowed to doctors, lawyers, and other self-employed workers.

[JSE]

discourage the use of unnecessarily large vehicles?

Who determines what is a "unnecessarily large vehicle"? So, we should just ban or discourage vehicles that are "unnecessarily large" for the particular person buying it? I have an idea, let's just create another department within goverment who will go around interviewing each person who wants to buy a SUV to see if they really need it. I can see it now, "I'm sorry Mr. JSE, you don't need the Chevy Tahoe, you really need the Toyota Matrix. Granted, your knees will be jammed into the dash at all times, your head will be crushed into the roof and you will feel like your being crammed into a jar but hey, that's what we feel you need."

While we're at it, let's cut horsepower down in all vehicles as well. Does anyone really need 300 HP? Does anyone really need a car that can do 0-60mph in under 5 seconds. Oh, and what about the street racers. They convert primarily foreign cars into street racing KILLING MACHINES! Let's just be safe and ban cars made by Honda, Toyota, Mitts, Nissan, etc.

I hate to be harsh or rude, but GET OVER IT! Drive your small a$$ car and deal with it. It ain't gonna change! SUVs are never going to be banned. They may be held to the same rules in the furture but then it will be my choice if I want one.

JSE

[gonefishin]

okiemax, what's the maximum square footage that you feel should be allowed to a family of three? How about a family of four? or a single person living alone (perhaps it would be best if we had government "recommended" living laws) Maybe only allow those with heart conditions to own and run air conditioning in hot climates. Or better yet...require them to move to a cooler climate. If they choose not to move to a cooler climate (because of their heart conditions) then their government funded health insurance would be denied.


What size home do you feel is in excess of living comfortably?

It's easy enough to discuss the ramifications of owning/building/maintaining a large home. So what size is too big? Let's think about the trees used to produce the lumber...the toxins used to make and clean the various chemicals used to make the building materials...the coal or nuclear power used to produce the electricity for the materials to be built to build the house of excess...and the power used to heat/cool the "too large home"...the oils used to make the building materials...the oils burnt up while workers at each individual factory use while driving to and from their jobs...to make the materials. The homes that they live in. Not to mention that union laborers are usually paid better than non union workers...so it's very possible that the workers at the factories, where your getting your building supplies from, are also living in excess.

What size house do you own?

Do you own a furnace or air conditioner? Do you use them?

Do you own a second home?


Do you keep your house clean?

What do you clean it with?

How many (and what type) of vehicles do you own?


Do you use fertilizers on your lawn shrubs or garden?

What crops do you plant in your garden?

How far do you drive to work?


How many miles do you put on your vehicles (all) each year?

(I'd be willing to bet that your burning more fuel per year than my family (full size truck and mini-van). We actually moved close to where we work. Would you suggest that a family moves closer to their employment to save on the amount of fuel used per year? )

(when talking about fuel usage) Isn't that what it really comes down... not so much how much fuel a vehicle uses...but how much fuel the owner requires that vehicle to use per year)

[kenk]

Just let the gas $ goes up to about $4.00 a gallon by adding more taxes, then there will be less SUV! Plus it will solve our deficit problem in no time :)

[JSE]

Just let the gas $ goes up to about $4.00 a gallon by adding more taxes, then there will be less SUV! Plus it will solve our deficit problem in no time :)


Maybe it's just the end of the day and my mind in fried but, Huh? Are you talking about the tax breaks being done away with? Please clarify how this will help the deficit if other than SUV tax reform.

JSE

[okiemax]

Who determines what is a "unnecessarily large vehicle"? So, we should just ban or discourage vehicles that are "unnecessarily large" for the particular person buying it? I have an idea, let's just create another department within goverment who will go around interviewing each person who wants to buy a SUV to see if they really need it. I can see it now, "I'm sorry Mr. JSE, you don't need the Chevy Tahoe, you really need the Toyota Matrix. Granted, your knees will be jammed into the dash at all times, your head will be crushed into the roof and you will feel like your being crammed into a jar but hey, that's what we feel you need."

While we're at it, let's cut horsepower down in all vehicles as well. Does anyone really need 300 HP? Does anyone really need a car that can do 0-60mph in under 5 seconds. Oh, and what about the street racers. They convert primarily foreign cars into street racing KILLING MACHINES! Let's just be safe and ban cars made by Honda, Toyota, Mitts, Nissan, etc.

I hate to be harsh or rude, but GET OVER IT! Drive your small a$$ car and deal with it. It ain't gonna change! SUVs are never going to be banned. They may be held to the same rules in the furture but then it will be my choice if I want one.

JSE

You have misread me, but you aren't alone. I have never said SUVs should be banned. I believe the use of unneccesarily large vehicles should be discouraged. I will make an addition to the base post to clarify things.

[okiemax]

okiemax, what's the maximum square footage that you feel should be allowed to a family of three? How about a family of four? or a single person living alone (perhaps it would be best if we had government "recommended" living laws) Maybe only allow those with heart conditions to own and run air conditioning in hot climates. Or better yet...require them to move to a cooler climate. If they choose not to move to a cooler climate (because of their heart conditions) then their government funded health insurance would be denied.


What size home do you feel is in excess of living comfortably?

It's easy enough to discuss the ramifications of owning/building/maintaining a large home. So what size is too big? Let's think about the trees used to produce the lumber...the toxins used to make and clean the various chemicals used to make the building materials...the coal or nuclear power used to produce the electricity for the materials to be built to build the house of excess...and the power used to heat/cool the "too large home"...the oils used to make the building materials...the oils burnt up while workers at each individual factory use while driving to and from their jobs...to make the materials. The homes that they live in. Not to mention that union laborers are usually paid better than non union workers...so it's very possible that the workers at the factories, where your getting your building supplies from, are also living in excess.

What size house do you own?

Do you own a furnace or air conditioner? Do you use them?

Do you own a second home?


Do you keep your house clean?

What do you clean it with?

How many (and what type) of vehicles do you own?


Do you use fertilizers on your lawn shrubs or garden?

What crops do you plant in your garden?

How far do you drive to work?


How many miles do you put on your vehicles (all) each year?

(I'd be willing to bet that your burning more fuel per year than my family (full size truck and mini-van). We actually moved close to where we work. Would you suggest that a family moves closer to their employment to save on the amount of fuel used per year? )

(when talking about fuel usage) Isn't that what it really comes down... not so much how much fuel a vehicle uses...but how much fuel the owner requires that vehicle to use per year)

I think my base post may have led you to believe I am in favor of banning SUVs. I have never said SUVs should be banned. I believe the use of unneccesarily large vehicles should be discouraged. I will make an addition to the base post to clarify things.

[okiemax]

I'm not for banning SUVs, but the title of my base post may have suggested I favor banning. I am for government policies that discourage people from using motor vehicles that are larger than they need. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

While I don't favor a ban, I detest large SUVs. But when I analyze my feelings, I realize it is the drivers of large SUVs that anger me. There were always drivers who were rude, inconsiderate, or incompetent, but driving a big high-profile vehicle seems to make their behavior even worse. A jerk tailgating me with a Lincoln Navigator is more of a menace than a jerk doing it with a Porsche. A driver who needs two attempts just to get a small car parked properly may need four or five with a large SUV, while others are waiting to get past. Cell phone use while driving(bad enough in a small car) adds to the problems.

I'm sure many people are good at rationalizing their need for a large SUV. "I need it for those times I carry heavy cargo and large numbers of passengers over dirt roads and across fields and creeks." Yea sure, and how freqently is that? You sure it's not for image?

Don't get me wrong. If I lived in rural Alaska, I would consider buying one of the things. But I think large SUVs for the most part are a case of social responsibilty and practicality taking a back seat to fashion.

[RGA]

Maybe it's just the end of the day and my mind in fried but, Huh? Are you talking about the tax breaks being done away with? Please clarify how this will help the deficit if other than SUV tax reform.

JSE

That poster might be Canadian. in Canada the gas is taxed by the federal and possibly the provincial governent which is basically 60% of the price of gas here. We pay 96.5-99.5cents CDN right now per litre. Though there is a bit of a difference with our metric system more or less litres fill a gallon or something can't recall off hand.

So he is saying if we add $3.00 a litre in tax then SUV owners will help us pay for social programs or highway construction etc. I don't necessarily mind such a proposition because the owner of said vehicle STILL has the choice as to what he or she can buy. Butt after it costs more in gas than the lease payment they may decide to make another purchase. It's like a SIN tax. Smoking here is subject to government taxes - the government claims that the HIGH cost of medical care and cancer should be paid by smokers who know it's bad but do it anyway so that's fine you can if you want to but bloody hell you are going to pay through the nose for those smokes. Alcohol tax pay to to scoop up drunk drivers and victims from the highways and AA support.

The car population and oil reserves are in an inverse near exponential rate which some suggest could be gone as early as 2050. I was taking an Environmental science course last semester which was interesting. Of course there is debate on these numbers but some arguemnts that we're ok speak of Canada's supply of oil in the tndra or some such nonsense which cannot be feasibly accessed so I don't buy those oil company we're ok nonsense.

I'm not a big Green Peacer by any stretch but each person does leave a foot print on this planet - and where possible it would be nice if we could take care to at least TRY and do a bit to lessen that impact. It's not practical for everyone to become a tree hugging Vegan - it would probably destroy the economy. But if buyers were united the folks at GM and Ford and Honda etc could certainly build Hybrid SUV's that get 80Mpg - they don't because the demand isn't there - and the oil suppliers would not make as much profit.

I don't think you can ban such things - people need cargo vehicles. My folks have a Kia Sedona which is horrible on gas but it was the cheapest vehichle that could also pull a tent trailer - they're retired and that's what they do. They used to have a V10 Dodge Ram and a big fifth wheel - people learn to downsize and it's not the end of the world.

We've all got it to easy in cushy ol North America - and the mentality of screw everyone and everything it's my right because it's written in a constitution 200 years ago is a cop out. I don't rely on a 200 year oild Doctor for my surgery or to build me a stereo so why do people continually site the constitution - for heaven sake let's THINK in modern times. But then hay people rely on the Bible for everything as well - so what am I thinking,.

[topspeed]

I'm not for banning SUVs, but the title of my base post may have suggested I favor banning. I am for government policies that discourage people from using motor vehicles that are larger than they need. That seems like a no-brainer to me.Okie, let me tell you what I'm in favor of: The government keeping their damn hands off my freedom of choice. Define "unnecessarily large." While your at it, why don't you define "art" vs. "pornography" too, or would rather commence with the book burnings? "No brainer"...amazing, that's what I was thinking too!


While I don't favor a ban, I detest large SUVs. But when I analyze my feelings, I realize it is the drivers of large SUVs that anger me. There were always drivers who were rude, inconsiderate, or incompetent, but driving a big high-profile vehicle seems to make their behavior even worse. A jerk tailgating me with a Lincoln Navigator is more of a menace than a jerk doing it with a Porsche.Are you sure it was the tailgating Navigator that got you flustered or the maniac in the Porsche that just cut in front of you going 30mph faster then traffic?


A driver who needs two attempts just to get a small car parked properly may need four or five with a large SUV, while others are waiting to get past.Two attempts?! Learn how to drive. I feel sorry for the wife of anybody that can't get their car in on one try. Seriously, if you f*#k like you park, you'll never get it in.


Cell phone use while driving(bad enough in a small car) adds to the problems. Driving an suv and talking while driving are completely unrelated. Personally, I detest people talking on cell phones while driving. Your phone came with a free ear bud, use it and keep both hands on the wheel. While they're at it, they can stop putting on their make-up, reading the paper, putting creme in their coffee, and unwrapping their taco. Until cars drive themselves (coming soon to a highway near you), the lugnut behind the wheel is in charge. Act like it.


I'm sure many people are good at rationalizing their need for a large SUV. "I need it for those times I carry heavy cargo and large numbers of passengers over dirt roads and across fields and creeks." Yea sure, and how freqently is that? You sure it's not for image?I'm quite sure. In fact, I'm so damn good looking I could drive a Hyundai and still be better looking than Pierce Brosnan. Lemme ask you a question as you deem yourself the omniscient one, how exactly would you like me to tow my boat with my sports car? I know it carves thru mountain passes like Woochifer wants it to, but with a 20' boat and trailer, umm not so much. Ya know, another problem is squeezing the car seats and related kid gear into the convertible and still have room for luggage, strollers, portable cribs, beach chairs, etc.. But you're right, I can fit all that into a Prius and I'm sure the electric motor won't have a problem pulling it up Boyd Grade. What was I thinking!!! That's me, Topspeed the planet killer and most disrespectful human on the face of mother Earth.


Don't get me wrong. If I lived in rural Alaska, I would consider buying one of the things. But I think large SUVs for the most part are a case of social responsibilty and practicality taking a back seat to fashion.That's called freedom of choice. If you don't like it, there are any number of countries that I'm sure would be more to your liking. I hear Turkey is nice...North Korea should be beautiful this time of year. In the mean time, you can keep your big government to your self.

Now if y'all excuse me, I'm going to go run over an endangered plant species in my SUV (maybe twice so I can use more gas), go eat an 18oz Porterhouse, and maybe take up smoking just for the helluva it.

[Woochifer]

Now if y'all excuse me, I'm going to go run over an endangered plant species in my SUV (maybe twice so I can use more gas), go eat an 18oz Porterhouse, and maybe take up smoking just for the helluva it.

Hey ts -

I think you need to ease up on this low carb thing! Go ahead and eat some pasta, and maybe your local Toyota dealer can bump you up to the top of the waiting list for that Prius you were eyeballing before Mr. Atkins got a hold of you. :)

[topspeed]

Hey ts -

I think you need to ease up on this low carb thing! Go ahead and eat some pasta, and maybe your local Toyota dealer can bump you up to the top of the waiting list for that Prius you were eyeballing before Mr. Atkins got a hold of you. :)
Atkins can kiss my round ass! I'm in "The Zone" baby! ;)

[Mash]

RGA posted "That poster might be Canadian. in Canada the gas is taxed by the federal and possibly the provincial governent which is basically 60% of the price of gas here. We pay 96.5-99.5cents CDN right now per litre. ..........."

3.8 litre = 1 gallon, so 96.5-99.5cents CDN averages 3.72 CDN/gal or US$2.70/gal .... somewhat more than USA

UK ran 79 pence/liter or about $5.51/gal.......... I saw VERY FEW SUV in UK. Heck, I had a harrowing time fitting a Montero into a Cardiff 6-floor parking building........

[okiemax]

Because fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource and burning them pollutes the air, discouraging their needless use is a no-brainer. What is needless use? I say put a use tax on gas guzzlers and let the drivers of these vehicles decide. A tax would be fair. Those who are not interested in conservation and clean air would still have the freedom to drive road hogs(albeit not as cheaply) and the rest of us, including future generations, would receive some compensation for this behaviour.

Yes, under my plan to make the world a better place, everyone would get something. Except topspeed, who probably should be tied in a chair and force-fed tofu until he promises to change his ways.

[Bryan]

I'm rather surprised there aren't hybrid boats out yet or ones that take full advantage of solar panaling in addition to either sails or gas/desiel engines for power. Seems the boat market is a little slow to catch on.

[topspeed]

I'm rather surprised there aren't hybrid boats out yet or ones that take full advantage of solar panaling in addition to either sails or gas/desiel engines for power. Seems the boat market is a little slow to catch on.
Ain't that the truth! It was only through local guidelines mandating 4 stroke PWC's that forced the manufacturers to start really innovating on the 4 stroke side. I don't see hybrid boats ever coming to market simply because their function would be lost on the way boats work. In cars, under light loads the electric motor powers the car with the combustion engine only coming online when extra power is need, such as hard acceleration, passing, steep grades, etc. or to recharge the batteries. With boats, particularly ski boats, you just nail the sucker right out of the blocks which would bypass the electric motor alltogether. Still, electric motors are suppossed to have tons of torque so you never know...

Taxes being applied as a detriment/penalty, huh? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this philosophy? Okie, congrats on making your inability to recognize satire so painfully obvious.

[okiemax]

Ain't that the truth! It was only through local guidelines mandating 4 stroke PWC's that forced the manufacturers to start really innovating on the 4 stroke side. I don't see hybrid boats ever coming to market simply because their function would be lost on the way boats work. In cars, under light loads the electric motor powers the car with the combustion engine only coming online when extra power is need, such as hard acceleration, passing, steep grades, etc. or to recharge the batteries. With boats, particularly ski boats, you just nail the sucker right out of the blocks which would bypass the electric motor alltogether. Still, electric motors are suppossed to have tons of torque so you never know...

Taxes being applied as a detriment/penalty, huh? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this philosophy? Okie, congrats on making your inability to recognize satire so painfully obvious.

Topspeed, you got me confused with this satire thing. I don't know what to make of your following statement: "Taxes being applied as a detriment/penalty, huh? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this philosophy?" Is that intended as satire? I'm going to guess it's not, and answer straight.

Whether you like it or not, tax has been an instrument of public policy for centuries and likely will continue to be used that way. It's the carrot/stick approach.Tax incentives for buying hybrid cars are an example of the former, and the so-called "sin tax" on alcohol and tobacco is an example of the latter.

I'm sorry I overlooked the satire in your other post. Perhaps it was a case of subtlity concealing wit. Good satire ain't easy to do, but don't give up. Now that I know what you are up to, I'll look forward to your future efforts.