No more gas hogs in LaLa Land

Waco Tribune-Herald ^ | Rowland Nethaway

[medved]

If the environmental whackos didn't put up numerous barriers to domestic oil exploration, especially off the North Slope of Alaska, the Pacific Coast, and the Atlantic Coasts, the US could produce an increased amount of oil and natural gas, thereby reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies.

All of that is true. Nonetheless you are not likely to rid the nation of democrats or environmentalists soon and even if you were magically to convert them all into intelligent people, it would be several years before we could build our own production up to meet our needs. There's no telling what might happen this winter with the war against Iraq and the real possibility Saudi Arabia could fall into the hands of Al Quaeda or similar lunatics, and they could very easily be rationing gasoline by December. All I know is that if I owned an SUV, it wouldn't be the only vehicle I owned.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"Listen buttplug"

Ooooh, with intellectual statements like this, I'm so impressed. What's next, going to call me other bad names. I'm so impressed. I'm sure JR will be also.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Oh, I've just read them in this thread to be honest. It's pure entertainment value when a communist gets cranked up on this board. I just love tweaking them with that once word that terrifies the hell out of them:

Freedom

[Eva]

Well, we have owned an SUV since 1989 and never had a problem or an accident with one. We did replace alot of tires, however. There have been many times when my husband would not have been able to get to work without a four wheel drive vehicle (fifteen or so inches of snow, with drifting and hills). Neighbors used to look out their doors, watching enviously.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"All I know is that if I owned an SUV, it wouldn't be the only vehicle I owned."

Then why infringe on the rights of everyone else to own one? You've never addressed that issue. Just generalities and Neon salesperson bovine scattalogy. We have the right to buy whatever vehicle we want in this country. If the politicians attempt to change that, I can gurantee you, they will be replaced. At least in the other 49 relatively normal states, with Commiefornia being the exception. Freedom of choice is not a right, it's an implied part of our nation's heritage and necessary for capitalism to work. If you don't like capitalism, then why bother living here? Sweden would love you.

[medved]

Then why infringe on the rights of everyone else to own one?

Aside from the little problem of putting more money than necessary in the hands of our enemies which you refuse to acknowledge, there's another problem, and that problem might not even exist in California, which I assume is where you are writing from, but it's a fact of life on the East coast.

The problem is that if SUVs were the occasional vehicle here and there, they would not obstruct everybody's vision in dangerous ways but, when one out of three or one out of four vehicles in the daily rush hour is a van or SUV, then nobody including the SUV and van drivers can ever see further than one or two cars in front of him, and that is dangerous.

The question is not individual rights. The question is, do you and other SUV owners have some sort of a group right to endanger yourselves and everybody else in such a manner?

Like I say, the guy driving an SUV off road, on a hunting trip, to the beach or whatever does not bother me. It doesn't consume that much gas or cause that much danger. The guy driving an SUV with three or four people in the HOV lanes does not bother me either. The guy driving an SUV as a commuter vehicle with just him, which appears to be most of them, I would tax into tommorrow.

[Charles Martel]

The problem is that if SUVs were the occasional vehicle here and there, they would not obstruct everybody's vision in dangerous ways but, when one out of three or one out of four vehicles in the daily rush hour is a van or SUV, then nobody including the SUV and van drivers can ever see further than one or two cars in front of him, and that is dangerous.

If you're driving close enough for lack of forward visibility to reach the point of being "dangerous", you are too damned close to the driver in front of you. There have always been full-sized pickup trucks, vans, buses and assorted other vision-blocking motor vehicles on the road. When the SUV became popular, all that happened was that the ride height of the average "station wagon" was lifted to be more equivalent to that of the pickups and vans. Small cars have always been at risk of being squashed (Gee, go figure...). If the roads were still chock-full of Ford Country Squires and Oldsmobile Vista Cruisers, the small-car advocates would still be out there, crying: "Unfair! Unfair!" It is by pure happenstance that the SUV turned out to be the automotive "whipping-boy" of choice.

The question is not individual rights. The question is, do you and other SUV owners have some sort of a group right to endanger yourselves and everybody else in such a manner?

That question has been posed to motorcyclists many times. The answer is that everybody makes their own choices, no groups are involved. FWIW, it could also be asked of drivers who prefer sub-compact cars, sports cars, or drivers of older cars with no anti-lock brakes, etc. and so forth. Take your pick, each of them is at risk and is a risk to others. Each of us is, too - every time we pull out of the driveway.

Like I say, the guy driving an SUV off road, on a hunting trip, to the beach or whatever does not bother me. It doesn't consume that much gas or cause that much danger. The guy driving an SUV with three or four people in the HOV lanes does not bother me either. The guy driving an SUV as a commuter vehicle with just him, which appears to be most of them, I would tax into tommorrow.

Who are you, the watchdog for Approved Vehicular Usage? The guys who you see "most of the time" might have dropped off the kiddos at school a few minutes earlier, or be hauling something in the back for a co-worker, or be leaving after work to hitch-up the boat for a weekend at the coast. The truth is, you can only guess at how the vehicles that you see are being used by their owners. Do try to mind your own business when it comes to other people and their money, Mr. "Tax-'Em Into Tomorrow".

[Nuke'm Glowing]

" Aside from the little problem of putting more money than necessary in the hands of our enemies which you refuse to acknowledge, there's another problem, and that problem might not even exist in California, which I assume is where you are writing from, but it's a fact of life on the East coast."

Hands of our enemies? Texaco and Exxon are now our enemies? They have a large vested interest in ARAMCO. I've already stated in several postings my opinion about the Saudis. Glass 'em and take the oil if they don't play ball. Period end of conversation on that point. I'm from Florida also, and as per my earlier postings, we don't really care what the rest of the nation thinks about the South. We have been and always will be freedom and independent minded.

" The problem is that if SUVs were the occasional vehicle here and there, they would not obstruct everybody's vision in dangerous ways but, when one out of three or one out of four vehicles in the daily rush hour is a van or SUV, then nobody including the SUV and van drivers can ever see further than one or two cars in front of him, and that is dangerous."

Based on that logic, all buses, semis and delivery trucks should be banned from driving in any urban area from 6 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3 p.m to 7 p.m. daily. That would be disasterous for commerce. The danger is not the SUV, it's the driver. And an idiot in a Dodge Neon is as dangerous as an idiot in an Expedition. The difference is one idiot has more money than the other one. Based on that apporach we should have means and intelligence tests for driver's liscenses. I'm all in favor of that. It might get the bad drivers off the road who are on motorcycles and do wheelies on our back streets also.

"The question is not individual rights. The question is, do you and other SUV owners have some sort of a group right to endanger yourselves and everybody else in such a manner?"

I never said it was a right. It's a privelage. It's also about freedom of choice. First we ban smoking period. Then drinking. Then fast food. Then SUVs. It's a slippery slope and we're already on it. Where do you stop? When they ban you because you're too short, too fat or too liberal? Will you be supportive of banning individual choice when you can only eat red tofu on Tuesdays and white tofu on Fridays? This was America, not North Korea.

" Like I say, the guy driving an SUV off road, on a hunting trip, to the beach or whatever does not bother me. It doesn't consume that much gas or cause that much danger. The guy driving an SUV with three or four people in the HOV lanes does not bother me either. The guy driving an SUV as a commuter vehicle with just him, which appears to be most of them, I would tax into tommorrow."

We already are taxed into tommorrow. It's called the gasoline tax. But as long as those of us with the means and income to afford it are willing to pay it, then we're fine. The base cost of gas is only about .68 cents per gallon. It's the taxes that make it extreme. If I elect to commute in an SUV by myself, which I do all of the time, it's my choice. But remember your words. Soda pop is already taxed in Commiefornia. Smoking is overtaxed now in NYC. What you may wish for may end up with everything you enjoy in life being taxed to an extreme where you do not have the means to afford it. Those of us that can still afford it will laugh. And that's when you'll wake up and realize that you supported the stripping of individual freedom of choice. It's the path of least resistance chosen by the left. And it's the path our nation is following now. The "blame the other guy" game. Sad. I like the stars and bars much more than the hammer and sickle on our flag.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

You beat me to the response! But mine took longer to type. I can't wait to see what U.N. commission he approves of to determine vehicle usage and assignment.

[Kozak]

There are legitimate uses for vans and SUVs, and occasionally you see somebody using one in a rational manner. The guy who uses a van or SUV to commute or drive around in, which, near as I can tell, is 90% of van and SUV owners, is a pig.

I love the Commisar attitude. So you are the PUBLIC ENFORCER OF APPROPRIATE VEHICLES. Bet I could go over YOUR life and find any number of things to tut tut and lecture you over. Oh yeah, Sieg Heil, Comrade.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Just to clarify an earlier point.

The right I stated has been declared and implied by the Supreme Court and the capitalist system iteslf:

Freedom of Choice

The privelage is to drive a vehicle on publically funded roads.

[medved]

If you're driving close enough for lack of forward visibility to reach the point of being "dangerous", you are too damned close to the driver in front of you.

You've obviously never driven around the Washington D.C. area. "Too close" around D.C. is all the room you'll ever have for much of the day.

[Cloud William]

You've obviously never driven around the Washington D.C. area. "Too close" around D.C. is all the room you'll ever have for much of the day.

C.M. may not have had the pleasure of driving in the District, but I have. It is truly insane... but then so is L.A., Chicago, Atlanta, etc. Your comment takes the topic off on the "overly-aggressive driving" tangent. I see people deliberately accelerate to block out cars that are trying to merge in front of them - happens all the time. Give me SUVs over those a-hole drivers any day of the week.

[PLMerite]

No lie. I drive an SUV in self-defense. They guy who rear-ended me with a little Nissan really got the short end of the deal. :)

[medved]

Your comment takes the topic off on the "overly-aggressive driving" tangent. I see people deliberately accelerate to block out cars that are trying to merge in front of them - happens all the time.

What you're really seeing most of the time is people in the left lane closing up to prevent some idiot from trying to gain one or two car lengths by passing on the right; I rarely see anybody trying to cut anybody off from a legit merge situation. That sort of thing is normal D.C. driving.

GIVEN that the traffic is that close much of the day, I would REALLY like to be able to see ten or fifteen cars down the road, rather than just the back of the van or SUV one or two cars in front of me, i.e. have some inkling that I was going to need to use brakes before the brake lights in the van or SUV one or two cars ahead came on but, lo, I can never do that anymore because one in every three or four cars in the mix is a van or SUV, almost invariably with just the one sorry turkey in it. Like I say, don't ask me to sympathize. A $15,000/yr tax for using such a vehicle that way would be about right.

[Paradox]

Why? It should be good sport to pass them on the winding roads with your Z!

Hah! I do that alot, but what is really.. funny.. is this INSISTANCE on the part of many SUV drivers to actually try and RACE me! On the highway no less! Its hilarious. I think that the low end grunt and takeoff that many SUV's are geared for, fools the drivers into thinking their vehicles are faster than they really are.

Back when I used to be a bad man, I would indulge them, and allow them to try and follow me onto my favorite 70 MPH curve.. oh, did I say 70? I meant is was a 50 MPH curve, which my car could easily take at 70, 80 if I was in a hurry. Seeing one of those beasts tip onto two wheels was enough to stop me from doing that again, I mean, it wouldn't be my fault, but I would still feel terrible if something awful happened.

[billbears]

If you want more power they make one with 215 horses

No offense but anything under 300-325 is still pretty weak. I say to each his own, you drive what you want to drive, and I'll drive what I want to drive. FWIW, you'll never catch me driving an SUV or minivan either

[medved]

My recommendation to you would be either a Mustang of some sort or a Maserati Merak or whatever today's equivalent of that would be if that's no longer being made. Those are cuter than hell and you used to be able to find them with 20 - 30K miles on them, four or five years old for $25K or thereabouts around New York. I would guess that was still possible.

[CJinVA]

Ford is coming out with a 4.6 liter V-6 diesel to put in the F-150 and Explorer. 2003 for the F-150, and 2004 for the Explorer. My F-250 diesel don't have or need a cat.