How SUVs are the problem

[Odin2006]

Thats crap logic. SUVs are the cause of global warming? Please. Your right to choose what kind of car I drive ends at what I want, not what you want.

WTH difference does it make if someone uses more gas than you? If they can pay for it, let them have it.

Whats next...you going to go around neighborhoods to make them turn off porchlights?

What a bunch of BS "only the individual matters" and "the Market is God" logic. What a person does affects everybody. There is a reason people are not allowed to drive drunk, why you must wear seat belts, etc.; for the greater good of society.

 

[Odin2006]

Yes, but who are you to decide what I need?

I find it funny that a fundie like MobBoss is compainiing about messing with people's lives. Yep, let's legislate morality but don't touch my SUV.

 

[bhsup]

You know, that thinking can be flipped right back at you. You're all keen on telling someone what they should drive, but heaven forbid trying to enforce any sort of decency.

 

[CartesianFart]

I find it funny that a fundie like MobBoss is compainiing about messing with people's lives. Yep, let's legislate morality but don't touch my SUV.

I find it funny that a fundie like Odin2006 is complaining about messing with people's lives.Yep,let's legistlate morality but don't pollute my earth.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm just trying to open people's eyes to the big picture. Wasting energy is unpatriotic!

 

[El_Machinae]

who would be worse?

That's not something you can qualify, really (but on the face of it, it seems to make sense to move closer to work). What the question is, is: am I wasting energy without needing to? What utility am I getting from living far away (or near)? What utility am I getting driving a gas-guzzler?

I fully acknowledge that some people need to drive inefficient vehicles. They cannot afford better, they use the space for tools or people, etc. But some people are driving inefficient vehicles out of some sort of pride or need for a certain type of status.

 

[newfangle]

I find it funny that a fundie like MobBoss is compainiing about messing with people's lives. Yep, let's legislate morality but don't touch my SUV.

How is it any different from not legislating morality, but touching the SUVs?

Yet again, liberals and conservatives are caught up in their ridiculous dichotomy of freedoms.

 

[CartesianFart]

How is it any different from not legislating morality, but touching the SUVs?

Yet again, liberals and conservatives are caught up in their ridiculous dichotomy of freedoms.

Or morality as well.I feel sometimes a long time ago,a republican and a democrat traded issues like they were trading baseball cards.

 

[Oerdin]

Just to add another element into the mix, who would be worse? Someone with a big SUV who drives it 10-15 miles a day, or someone with a very economical car who drives it 60-70 miles per day?

It depends on exactly the numbers involved, if they're free way miles or stop and go miles, if we consider the amount of pollution released per mile, the amount of wear caused to roadways by the two vehicles, and numerous other things (everything from cradle to grave costs to finding parking or building parking).

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Is it just me, or wouldn't legislating SUV usage = legislating morality.

This is a morality issue right? Don't waste fuel, don't harm the environment, greater good of society, etc.

 

[Oerdin]

I say let everyone drive what they want but we need higher CAFE standards, tighter pollution laws, and SUV's need to held to the same pollution & crash standards as cars. No more playing games with CAFE numbers by excluding SUVs because the automaker says SUVs are all being used by patriotic farmers and construction workers who need them for work. They're driven to the mall and back by soccer moms so they need to be held to the same standards as cars.

 

[Sidhe]

Let's face it most of the reason anyone would by an SUV is ego, it's not safety features it's I got a big expensive car, I'm the big man look at me, pretty much. Any other consideration is secondary to all but the working minority who'd need one. To be honest I fail to see the point of them, hugely expensive and if you hit anyone you'll probably live, but the poor driver and passangers you hit will probably have to be scraped out of the car with a spatula. Fine if you want the huge overheads and you don't care about polution. Otherwise not very wise at all.

SUV worship is one step away from the sort of people who are easily distracted by shiny objects IMO

 

[El_Machinae]

Is it just me, or wouldn't legislating SUV usage = legislating morality.

I actually disagree. I think that some laws (the ones not legislating morality) are actually designed to allow society to function properly and efficiently. We all have laws that say 'drive on the right side of the road, and obey stop signs'. These allow traffic to proceed efficiently and with fewer accidents. I'd hardly call these laws "morality laws".

For a similiar reason, cutting down on pollution and increasing fuel efficiency both benefit the country and the local society. It allows society to function at a better way, if the goal is to maximize wealth and reduce complications.

I'd put environmental laws more on the 'drive on the proper side' or 'you cannot drive without insurance' end of morality.

Am I right?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ Oerdin -

I agree with you. The government's own silly rules with obvious loopholes strikes yet again.

Let's face it most of the reason anyone would by an SUV is ego, it's not safety features it's I got a big expensive car, I'm the big man look at me, pretty much. Any other consideration is secondary to all but the working minority who'd need one. To be honest I fail to see the point of them, hugely expensive and if you hit anyone you'll probably live, but the poor driver and passangers you hit will probably have to be scraped out of the car with a spatula. Fine if you want the huge overheads and you don't care about polution. Otherwise not very wise at all.

SUV worship is one step away from the people who are easily distracted by shiny objects IMO

Bold by me.

Post #29:

As for collisions, it's what we in the Navy used to call 'The law of gross tonnage', mainly that a heavier object will bounce a lighter object out of its path, usually to the detriment of the lighter object and its occupants.

A full sized SUV is the best possible vehicle to be in during a wreck.

Post #14:

I sit up high with a commanding view and know that if I do get into an accident I will be much, much more likely to be uninjured. Have you ever seen what happens when a full size vehicle crashes with a tiny little car? I really don't want to die or have my legs amputated or my body crushed in some hideous way all because I wanted to save a few gallons of gas or not contribute to global warming. I always wear my seatbelt so even in a rollover I should walk away. Whenever I ride in a tiny car I always feel exposed and at risk. Death by auto accident is a very popular way to die and I'd prefer not to be such a statistic.

@ Sidhe -

You claimed to fail to see the point of an SUV, then later in your post mentioned what was the exact point - safety. Once you have a family you are responsible for protecting then you may see them as more important than the other guy who may be hurt worst than you due to a collision.

I've tried to explain in detail in earlier posts about both of these points.

Oh look! Something shiny!

 

[Sidhe]

Plenty of cars have a high crash mortality rate, I just don't see it as a big enough excuse, to me it's about the prestige more than anything else, be honest it's the ego thing pretty much isn't it.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I actually disagree. I think that some laws (the ones not legislating morality) are actually designed to allow society to function properly and efficiently. We all have laws that say 'drive on the right side of the road, and obey stop signs'. These allow traffic to proceed efficiently and with fewer accidents. I'd hardly call these laws "morality laws".

For a similiar reason, cutting down on pollution and increasing fuel efficiency both benefit the country and the local society. It allows society to function at a better way, if the goal is to maximize wealth and reduce complications.

I'd put environmental laws more on the 'drive on the proper side' or 'you cannot drive without insurance' end of morality.

Am I right?

Bold by me.


Properly would be more a functional issue not involving morality. Your example of all of us driving on the right side of the road was perfect.

Efficiently IMHO would lean more toward morality. For example if I said "I don't care one bit if my vehicle runs efficiently or not" you could object to my wastefulness on moral grounds. If you passed a law forcing me to care you would be forcing me to act morally.

I can live with this being a shades of grey issue. Acting for the good of society is certainly moral. I guess the acid test would be the exact law enacted and even more importantly what the reasoning behind it would be.

 

[sanabas]

A full sized SUV is the best possible vehicle to be in during a wreck.

Crash test data?

What sort of wreck? Collision with another car, collision with a wall, side impact, etc? There's plenty more to determining safety than just the size & mass of the vehicle you're in.

I used to have a 4WD ute, aka an SUV for americans. I'd happily say it would suffer less damage in a low speed crash, carpark demolition derbies, etc. No way it would have been safer in a crash on the highway when compared to a normal car.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Plenty of cars have a high crash mortality rate, I just don't see it as a big enough excuse, to me it's about the prestige more than anything else, be honest it's the ego thing pretty much isn't it.

Let's assume for a moment that you are correct and that a SUV buyer doesn't care about safety but does buy one just for status (as I'm sure some people do).

Is it right for us to tell that person they can't buy or drive one? What about sports cars that get bad mileage, they are even less practical than a SUV? Do we really want the government to tell you what you can spend your own money on?

 

[El_Machinae]

Efficiently IMHO would lean more toward morality.

Yeah, maybe, I can see that. Just like laws prohibiting a breach of contract allow more efficiency (since people will then go into contracts), or laws forcing people to have insurance before they drive allow efficiency too.

So, a similar type of law would be forcing a company to provide warnings about side-effects of their products. Is it forcing morality? I don't think so, it's boosting efficiency by creating a market where you can trust your purchase a little more (and thus, increase the market). But it is a law against fraud.

I can see how it's a morality issue, but so are laws regarding assault, theft, murder, etc. I guess another similar law is one that forbid purgery - it allows the legal system to run more efficiently.

I'm actually harping on SUVs for two reasons - unneeded pollution and unneeded waste. Legislating against pollution makes as much sense as legislating against assault. Legislating against waste is more sticky, because it's similar to legislating taxation laws to collect money for schools (the entire country benefits long-term if schools are properly funded)

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Crash test data?

What sort of wreck? Collision with another car, collision with a wall, side impact, etc? There's plenty more to determining safety than just the size & mass of the vehicle you're in.

I used to have a 4WD ute, aka an SUV for americans. I'd happily say it would suffer less damage in a low speed crash, carpark demolition derbies, etc. No way it would have been safer in a crash on the highway when compared to a normal car.

In a collision with anything. We are comparing small, economical cars with large full-size gas-hog SUVs. A big, heavy steel box will protect you better than a small, light-weight steel box.

I don't care about damage to the vehicle, but only to the damage to my family that's in the vehicle.

And yes, I make everyone wear seatbelts.