R.I.P. to the SUV?

Washington Times ^ | 8/07/02

[Grit]

Your questions were not directed at me, but since we are all in favor of butting in...and these are just too good.

So in other words if I drove a Sherman Tank, I'd be even safer.

Yes, but we are not talking about Sherman Tanks.

The fact that I tear up the roads,

Again, we are not talking about Sherman Tanks.

use an ungodly amount of a finite resource for no good reason,

Other than I purchased that resource with my own hard earned 'certificates of performance' [cash]. I own the resource - I use my property how I see fit, comrade.

or am a clear and present danger to any and all other drivers on the road is of no moment.

I am not responsible for other people's safety. Is the Excursion more of a clear and present danger than the 18-wheelers that outnumber them 100-1?

I drive a Taurus which I think is excessive and my next car will be smaller and more fuel efficient.

Good for you.

Why do you feel free to waste oil and make our nation increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of energy?

My use of my oil does not make us dependent upon foreign oil. We have enough oil in this country, but it is being guarded by rabid greenies.

[11th Earl of Mar]

You can take my SUV's when you pry them from my cold dead fingers.

[martin gibson]

Very soon, with your help, we shall all be permited to own one forty watt bulb (per household), a rice bowl and a bicycle.

Behold the glorious red dawn of a worker's paradise! All praise to mother Giya.

Welcome to the board. Thank you so much for your stimulating and thoughtful posting.

[The Raven]

Ford Motor Co. let it slip July 31 that the Excursion — at 19 feet and 3.5 tons the biggest SUV ever — would likely be cancelled after the 2003 model year. It lasted just four years.

To be replaced by a newer model — at 23 feet and 6.2 tons and a two-driver cab

[peteram]

If an SUV driver crashes into a Yugo shouldn't he be the one who pays the damages, rather than focusing on the vehicle of the more injured party.

If the SUV driver was found to be at fault, yes. However, if the little Yugo broadsides the SUV and the Yugo driver is severely injured, the SUV driver should not be responsible simply by virtue of the fact that he had an SUV. It would be the Yugo drivers fault.

[Grit]

If an SUV driver crashes into a Yugo shouldn't he be the one who pays the damages, rather than focusing on the vehicle of the more injured party. The average and median costs of damage by an SUV are far greater than those of smaller vehicles. Shouldn't the SUV driver pay more?

What are you talking about? If the SUV driver is at fault of course he (or his insurance) will pay and pay more because he likely will have destroyed the Yugo. The Yugo would be totalled and the insurance would pay the value of the car about: $50 - $75. Meanwhile, the SUV driver goes to the body shop and spends a $200 to get the dent out of his bumper and is good as new.

[Grit]

zhabutinsky,

I've got to run...I'll check back later to see if you survive slings and arrows of the SUV crowd.

Btw, Welcome to FR. :o)

[Wonder Warthog]

"No the greatest environmental threat in Kalifornistan is GrayDown and his enviro wacko cohorts."

Ah, but right now, they ARE the government!! Which is the fundamental point---ANY ideology that gains control of the power of the state and uses that power to further its own agenda over individual liberty is dangerous--be that agenda of the left OR of the right. Stick to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and trash all the extraneous garbage added due to political correctness, and we will ALL be better off.

[tcostell]

And please tell me where precisely I demanded government intervention.
It is however true that in this narrow circumstance government intervention would be warranted. The gas-guzzling SUVs are a far greater aid to our enemies in the War on Terrorism than all the illegal drugs in the US taken together.

Thank you for that introduction to "demand side" economics. I guess that English literature degree can be put to some use after all huh?

Prove to me that keeping a large SUV on the market actually increases our national gasoline consumption, and by how much, and then we can talk about how some housewife from the valley is actually doing more to kill American soldiers than the guy who buys heroine from an Afghan warlord. (don;t talk about mileage, we know large engine burn more gas than small ones. Talk about consumption. Large engines only burn more gas if you drive them. Also, only 9% of our total oil imports come from Saudi Arabia. this should be included in your consumption research.

Please include statistics concerning vehicle usage (if 10 people can ride in an SUV, rather than 5 each in 2 station wagons, it should be included in your analysis.) Please also include the statistics concerning total sales of SUV by size.

As for myself, I drive a 6 cylinder car. It's not a question of my personal sacrifice (at least, not to me) it's a question of evidence. As far as I can tell you have none. Just politically correct assumptions, and heartfelt innuendo.

I believe you mean well, but your data is faulty. Next you'll be saying how it's only the rich "parasites" who drive SUV's anyway, and that the only solution that will provide "social justice" is if the people seize the means of production, and make only cars with electric motors.

Doesn't the left have any NEW ideas?

[Wonder Warthog]

"I drive a Taurus which I think is excessive and my next car will be smaller and more fuel efficient."

Good for you, but that is YOUR choice. The idea of using the power of the state to FORCE others to adopt your way of thinking against their wishes is simply WRONG. If they want to pay the extra bucks for the gas, that's their problem-NOT YOURS! The eco-nut agenda is all about FORCING other people to do things "their way" (not even the "best" way for the environment, as witness the massive forest fires due to "wilderness-worship" and "roadless areas" that allowed massive buildups of flammable detritus).

The cure is worse than the disease.

[ReadMyMind]

SUV's are fun to drive. Trundling through the backwoods of the UP in a beat-up old Isuzu Trooper is a blast. Driving them in the snow in a Minnesota winter is great. Running over Yugos and Escorts and Honda Civics is like hitting a speed bump.

The only serious threat to the existence of the SUV as a class of vehicle is the cost of gasoline and the generally low milage of these vehicles. If gas prices were to go above $5 / gallon in 2003, people would abandon SUV's in a big hurry. Note that I'm not predicting gas price increases, I am merely putting forth an extreme example of the kind of thing that would cause Americans to do away with SUV's.

P.S. $3 to $5 / gallon is not an unheard of price range for gasoline in Europe. At least, not that last time I checked.

[Wonder Warthog]

"There is no question that SUVs because of their greater weight do greater damage to our already shabbily constructed roads. This is an unnecessary cost to the rest of us."

ABSOLUTE BULLBLEEP! The roads are engineered for multi-ton 18-wheelers (which are what ACTUALLY damages the road, due to running over weight allowances). An SUV is a flea on compared to that.

[lstanle]

" Shouldn't the SUV driver pay more?

If I can develop the model successfully, I'll save the drivers of smaller cars lots of money while passing on the costs to the SUV drivers who cause the damage in the first place. It's the free market at work."

Shouldn't the person responsible for the accident pay more, regardless of the size of his or her vehicle?? Simple Fairness at work.

[marron]

People like large vehicles simply because they can fit their whole family in it. The need to haul passengers has never gone away, and will not go away.

Whatever the MPG cost of a large vehicle, it is less than that of two cars making the same trip.

And, it is an MPG cost the owner has decided he is prepared to pay.

Burning more fuel does not make us "dependent" on foreign sources of oil. Those foreign sources of oil are all, without exception, dependent on the oil business. They cannot afford to "not" sell their oil. Any barrel of oil not sold by one country is immediately made up by one of their competitors, so to cut production is to give up market share. And the oil business will only become more competitive over the next couple of years, as Central Asian oil, and Siberian oil, and Iraqi oil are rapidly finding their way to market.

Oil may one day become hard to find. That day is not now. The only oil shortages we have seen so far have been self-inflicted. There is a shortage of refinery capacity, but it is impossible, impossible, to build a new refinery in the US. So if a refinery is down for maintenance, you see an immediate, but temporary, spike in the price of gas.

Likewise it is difficult to get permission to build pipelines in the US, so if there is a problem, there is no alternate path and the price of natural gas spikes upward. Temporarily.

These problems, the lack of refining and pipeline capacity, are going to get worse as long as we keep electing morons to office, and as long as the government continues to treat the energy business as an adversary.

But your Suburban has nothing to do with that.

[kapn kuek]

if we stopped driving SUVs and other penis-substitutes instead of a more normal size vehicle, we would reduce our nation's oil consumption

I have a better idea! Those that drive subcompacts and other clitoris-envy vehicles should be forced to use the mass transit system. After all they are so worried about fuel consumption why not go all the way and save the fuel for the rest of us. As an added bonus, we wouldn’t have to keep hitting the cheap and ugly death traps.

I love my GMC Yukon and GMC Sierra. You should try riding in comfort and safety for a change. I had a Toyota Corolla and will never go back to a small car.

[kapn kuek]

Why do you feel free to waste oil and make our nation increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of energy?

We would not be dependent of foreign oil if we drilled our own oil in Alaska. Call Dasshole and give him the message!

[kapn kuek]

I work in the car business, trucks and SUV's currently account for 90 PERCENT of GM's business. They are going nowhere...

Thank you for some common sense here!

[Capriole]

I honestly think the real reason that the excursion died is that while it pulled the boat great on the wekends, during the week the wife couldn't park the thing. There are lots of them here in Atlanta, and they are almost all driven by women who have a hard time seeing in the beast.

I think there's a lot of truth in this. For many families, buying the biggest SUV on the lot is considered a gesture of love: "Look, honey, I love you so much that I'm gonna buy you a truck that will help you and the kids to survive even if you're dumb enough to run it into a semi." And the ladies are delighted, because the big SUV is such a status symbol: "Look what a successful husband I have and how much he loves me." Unfortunately the ladies are blissfully unaware that they are driving TRUCKS, with all the attention and control and responsibility that demands. They have no training at truck-driving, and they drive around the same way they did with the little Volvo: simultaneously trying to control the kids, talk on the phone, put makeup on, and sip coffee. As you note, they can't park the bloody things.

And so, with the biggest SUV off the market, the enviros may think they have us cornered. For those of us who really do have big trailer to haul and aren't buying SUVs to display success, exercise vanity, vent testosterone, intimidate others, or manipulate our spouses, we will simply buy Ford F-350s, hook up the horse van, and go merrily on our way. But we'll be fueling the F-350s with diesel, and the enviros won't like that a single bit. Talk about unintended consequences!

Will they come after our duallys next? Let 'em try! The kind of people who drive trucks are unlikely to be intimidated or impressed by a bunch of Alan Alda greenies who lecture them about fuel consumption. We have work to do.