STUPID UNNECESSARY VEHICLES

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Don Quijote, Apr 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brent P

    Brent P Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Mike S. wrote:

    > Limiting the horsepower of all cars because cars with big engines/high horsepower pollute more?

    All passenger cars regardless of power output must meet the same standards with regard to emissions.
    Light trucks have a lesser standard last I checked.

    > Limit the size of cars, because cars over a certain size take more material to build? because
    > they're "more dangerous" to smaller cars because they outweigh them?

    Passenger car CAFE already effectively limits the size of passenger cars. That's why people started
    buying SUVs. Light truck CAFE is significantly less and easily met by sales of ordinary 4cyl compact
    pickups and minivans to offset the large ones. The higher passenger car CAFE requires the sale of
    geo-metro sized vehicles to offset something like a full-size station wagon. There are too few
    buyers of mini-cars in the USA.

    > Hell, I don't think that the majority of the people that own SUVs need them, but I'll defend their
    > right to own one because the alternative scares the shit out of me! Just where do the laws that
    > limit freedom stop?

    Then act to remove CAFE and other regulations that encourage SUVs and discourage passenger cars
    instead of defending the SUV regulatory advantage.
     


  2. Chris Neary

    Chris Neary Guest

    >> In a perfect world, the things would be legal, but the states would (legitimately) make the cost
    >> of owning one prohibitive.
    >>
    >So where does that line of reasoning stop?
    >
    >Limiting the horsepower of all cars because cars with big engines/high horsepower pollute more?
    >
    >Limit the size of cars, because cars over a certain size take more material to build? because
    >they're "more dangerous" to smaller cars because they outweigh them?

    In Taiwan automobile registration costs are based on engine displacement.

    Just a data point.

    Chris Neary [email protected]

    "We will teach our twisted speech to the young believers"

    -- The Clash
     
  3. "Mike S." wrote:
    >
    > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > None of my neighbor's homes have any likelihood of crashing into me as I drive. They don't have
    > > bumpers that aim at my driver's window. They don't have headlights that are so high they tend to
    > > blind me, nor driving lights or fog lights that are nearly at the same height. They don't take
    > > up two parking spaces due to their size, or because their owners can't maneuver them properly.
    > > They don't block my view in traffic. None of them have super-knobby tires that make excessive
    > > road noise. And the owners of those bigger houses don't display aggressive tendencies while
    > > moving them around, like tailgating. Finally, those houses have to meet exactly the same safety
    > > and pollution standards that my house does.
    > >
    >
    > Ahh, so EVERY car driver doesn't tailgate, doesn't have those nifty blue high intensity discharge
    > lights (that blind even me in my full size P/U), that don't have idiots behind the wheel weaving
    > in and out of traffic with only inches to spare, or anything else that you just ascribed to SUV
    > drivers.
    >
    > The way around someone blocking your view of the road ahead is to follow at a safe distance. Works
    > for me, you should try it.

    I never tailgate. Never. When I talk about "blocking my view", I mean that when driving in traffic,
    one can see through the windows of the surrounding cars and get better knowledge of _all_ the
    traffic flow. This gives earlier warning of potential problems. But one can't do that if the
    surrounding vehicles are SUVs.

    Interestingly, I came closer to a crash last night than any time in the past 30 years. I had the
    ROW, proceeding through the top of a T intersection from left to right (heading east). Some woman
    exiting a parking lot (heading south) at the top of the T nearly pulled into my drivers door. She
    stopped about 18" short. Why didn't she see me coming? The westbound traffic at the top of the T was
    backed up, and her view of me was blocked by an SUV.

    > The only time I follow closer than safe ...

    It doesn't matter what you say next. If you follow "closer than safe" you're an incompetent driver.

    > I've seen studies that show at highway speeds, having the AC on is more efficient than opening the
    > windows. If you're so darn environmentally conscious, why are you wasting fuel with your windows
    > open at highway speeds? If you've got the windows closed, you don't hear the tires nearly as much.

    Where on earth did _that_ come from? Where did you get the idea I was talking about air
    conditioning, freeway speeds, or anything else you're mentioning? Those noisy tires bother me when
    they're driving by on the highway near my back yard!

    Again, the vehicles you're defending have lots of negatives that you don't address. Don't pretend
    it's sour grapes. I could buy one tomorrow (cash) if I were foolish enough to want one.

    Vaguely related: our local paper today featured an article about a woman paralyzed from the chest
    down, who's undergone experimental surgery to repair her severed spinal cord. She hopes to be able
    to walk again, someday, using a walker and special boots.

    Her spinal cord was severed in a rollover in her SUV.

    --
    Frank Krygowski [email protected]
     
  4. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > To begin with you assumption are not correct. Light trucks which, includes SUV's, must meet the
    > exact same safety and pollution standards as automobiles. Some SUV actually get better fuel
    > mileage than some cars, so that comparison is useless. According to government figures available
    > on the net, SUV's as a group exceed their CAFE standard by a greater amount than cars as

    You are incorrect here; right now, there is no CAFE requirement for light trucks which, as you say,
    includes the larger SUV's. Many of the safety requirements, such as passive restraints, also do not
    apply to light trucks.

    ....

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  5. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > "Mike S." wrote:
    > >
    > > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > None of my neighbor's homes have any likelihood of crashing into me as
    I
    > > > drive. They don't have bumpers that aim at my driver's window. They don't have headlights that
    > > > are so high they tend to blind me, nor driving lights or fog lights that are nearly at the
    > > > same height. They don't take up two parking spaces due to their size, or because their owners
    > > > can't maneuver them properly. They don't block my view in traffic. None of them have
    > > > super-knobby tires that make excessive
    road
    > > > noise. And the owners of those bigger houses don't display aggressive tendencies while moving
    > > > them around, like tailgating. Finally, those houses have to meet exactly the same safety and
    > > > pollution standards
    that
    > > > my house does.
    > > >
    > >
    > > Ahh, so EVERY car driver doesn't tailgate, doesn't have those nifty blue high intensity
    > > discharge lights (that blind even me in my full size
    P/U),
    > > that don't have idiots behind the wheel weaving in and out of traffic
    with
    > > only inches to spare, or anything else that you just ascribed to SUV drivers.
    > >
    > > The way around someone blocking your view of the road ahead is to follow
    at
    > > a safe distance. Works for me, you should try it.
    >
    > I never tailgate. Never. When I talk about "blocking my view", I mean that when driving in
    > traffic, one can see through the windows of the surrounding cars and get better knowledge of _all_
    > the traffic flow. This gives earlier warning of potential problems. But one can't do that if the
    > surrounding vehicles are SUVs.
    >
    > Interestingly, I came closer to a crash last night than any time in the past 30 years. I had the
    > ROW, proceeding through the top of a T intersection from left to right (heading east). Some woman
    > exiting a parking lot (heading south) at the top of the T nearly pulled into my drivers door. She
    > stopped about 18" short. Why didn't she see me coming? The westbound traffic at the top of the T
    > was backed up, and her view of me was blocked by an SUV.
    >
    > > The only time I follow closer than safe ...
    >
    > It doesn't matter what you say next. If you follow "closer than safe" you're an
    > incompetent driver.
    >
    > > I've seen studies that show at highway speeds, having the AC on is more efficient than opening
    > > the windows. If you're so darn environmentally conscious, why are you wasting fuel with your
    > > windows open at highway speeds? If you've got the windows closed, you don't hear the tires
    nearly
    > > as much.
    >
    > Where on earth did _that_ come from? Where did you get the idea I was talking about air
    > conditioning, freeway speeds, or anything else you're mentioning? Those noisy tires bother me when
    > they're driving by on the highway near my back yard!

    You bitch about the rice rockets, hot rods, motorcycles, and semis too? If so, why single out SUVs
    as a major contributor to noise pollution? My guess is that the noisy tires you're hearing are from
    the lifted 4x4s not SUVs. Mickey Thompson Mudders and the like are the ones that make lots of tire
    noise. The all weather tires on most SUVs aren't much (if any) noisier than normal car tires.

    > Again, the vehicles you're defending have lots of negatives that you don't address. Don't pretend
    > it's sour grapes. I could buy one tomorrow (cash) if I were foolish enough to want one.
    >
    >
    > Vaguely related: our local paper today featured an article about a woman paralyzed from the chest
    > down, who's undergone experimental surgery to repair her severed spinal cord. She hopes to be able
    > to walk again, someday, using a walker and special boots.
    >
    > Her spinal cord was severed in a rollover in her SUV.
    >
    >...and Christopher Reeves was thrown from a horse, but we're not up in arms
    to have all horses modified not to throw people... Idiots are idiots in cars no matter WHAT they're
    driving. Americans basically don't know diddly about driving anyway, a trip down any freeway in any
    metropolitan area should show you that.

    The only reason I'm defending SUVs is because not to defend the right to choose is an even worse
    thing than defending them. I personally don't think that they're that great of a vehicle for most
    people, BUT being denied the right to choose not to drive the most efficient car, the smallest car
    that fills the need, or anything else is antithetical to what I believe that I'll defend them
    anyways. Good intentions pave the way to hell, so to speak.

    Mike
     
  6. W K

    W K Guest

    "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > W K wrote:
    > >
    > > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > If WK is claiming better than 35 mpg at 85 mph with a tandem on the roof, I'm thinking WK
    > > > doesn't know how to calculate miles per gallon.
    > >
    > > I wasn't actually. There were different claims there, and I was being deliberately economical
    > > with the truth.
    >
    > IOW you were lying? I'm not surprised.

    Read the thread. I claimed to get less than 50mpg in such circumstances.

    I later said: "Had I got an engine larger than 1300 cc I'd probably go faster, and perhaps get less
    than 40 mpg."

    Hints that I get more than 40mpg in such circumstances but does not make the claim.

    > > Also, I do not spend my life working out fuel economy.
    >
    > IOW you don't even know what gas mileage you really get? Again, given your claims, I'm not at all
    > surprised.

    Not generally done once or twice. I used to do it a lot, and managed similar sorts of figures but
    not as good with good old 2 valve per cylinder and non injection engines.

    > > However, recently a long trip+business with hours at 80-90mph I did
    manage
    > > to get 40mpg.
    >
    > Bullshit.

    Have you any experience of a small and spartan stickshift with a modern economical engine at 80-90
    mph? Damn sure that you haven't. You seem not to know where its possible to go at 85mph for 2
    hours anyway.
     
  7. In article <[email protected]>, David Kerber <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote:
    >
    >You are incorrect here; right now, there is no CAFE requirement for light trucks which, as you say,
    >includes the larger SUV's.

    Incorrect. It's medium-duty trucks for which there is no CAFE requirement. I believe among SUVs this
    includes only the Excursion and some models of the Suburban.
    --
    Matthew T. Russotto [email protected] "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and
    moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of a
    modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
     
  8. Archer

    Archer Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > In article <[email protected]>, David Kerber <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote:
    > >
    > >You are incorrect here; right now, there is no CAFE requirement for light trucks which, as you
    > >say, includes the larger SUV's.
    >
    > Incorrect. It's medium-duty trucks for which there is no CAFE requirement. I believe among SUVs
    > this includes only the Excursion and some models of the Suburban.

    Ok.

    --
    David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
    it's morning".

    Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.
     
  9. MelvinGibson

    MelvinGibson Guest

    You are entitled to you opinion and can believe what ever you choose to believe but you are not
    entitle to your own facts on which to base that opinion. I can only repeat, your assumptions are
    incorrect. Light trucks which, includes SUV's, must meet the exact same safety and pollution
    standards as automobiles. Some SUV actually get better fuel mileage than some cars, so that
    comparison is useless. Although the CAFE for light trucks is lower, government figures, available on
    the net, show that SUV's as a group exceed their CAFE standard by 3.5 MPG, a greater amount than
    cars as a group.

    mike hunt

    David Kerber wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > > To begin with you assumption are not correct. Light trucks which, includes SUV's, must meet the
    > > exact same safety and pollution standards as automobiles. Some SUV actually get better fuel
    > > mileage than some cars, so that comparison is useless. According to government figures available
    > > on the net, SUV's as a group exceed their CAFE standard by a greater amount than cars as
    >
    > You are incorrect here; right now, there is no CAFE requirement for light trucks which, as you
    > say, includes the larger SUV's. Many of the safety requirements, such as passive restraints, also
    > do not apply to light trucks.
    >
    > ....
    >
    > --
    > Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
    >
    > REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  10. Archer

    Archer Guest

    You are partially correct. I was incorrect in stating that light trucks have NO CAFE standards.
    The facts are that the current CAFE standard for light trucks and SUV's (those up to 8500 lb
    gross wt) is
    20.7 mpg. The CAFE standards for passenger cars is 27.5. Ref
    http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/press/108ltr21.htm. therefore, even if light trucks
    exceed their standards by 3.5 mpg, they still don't reach the basic CAFE standards for passenger
    cars. Moreover, unless you can provide a reference to the contrary, I still do not believe that
    light trucks have the same safety standards as cars. Heavier SUV's (such as the Suburban and
    Excursion) and pickups, those with >8500lb GVW still have no such CAFE standards.

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > You are entitled to you opinion and can believe what ever you choose to believe but you are not
    > entitle to your own facts on which to base that opinion. I can only repeat, your assumptions are
    > incorrect. Light trucks which, includes SUV's, must meet the exact same safety and pollution
    > standards as automobiles. Some SUV actually get better fuel mileage than some cars, so that
    > comparison is useless. Although the CAFE for light trucks is lower, government figures, available
    > on the net, show that SUV's as a group exceed their CAFE standard by 3.5 MPG, a greater amount
    > than cars as a group.
    >
    >
    > mike hunt
    >
    >
    >
    > David Kerber wrote:
    > >
    > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > > > To begin with you assumption are not correct. Light trucks which, includes SUV's, must meet
    > > > the exact same safety and pollution standards as automobiles. Some SUV actually get better
    > > > fuel mileage than some cars, so that comparison is useless. According to government figures
    > > > available on the net, SUV's as a group exceed their CAFE standard by a greater amount than
    > > > cars as
    > >
    > > You are incorrect here; right now, there is no CAFE requirement for light trucks which, as you
    > > say, includes the larger SUV's. Many of the safety requirements, such as passive restraints,
    > > also do not apply to light trucks.
    > >
    > > ....
    > >
    > > --
    > > Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
    > >
    > > REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
    >

    --
    David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
    it's morning".

    Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.
     
  11. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "archer" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > You are partially correct. I was incorrect in stating that light trucks have NO CAFE standards.
    > The facts are that the current CAFE standard for light trucks and SUV's (those up to 8500 lb
    > gross wt) is
    > 20.7 mpg. The CAFE standards for passenger cars is 27.5. Ref
    > http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/press/108ltr21.htm. therefore, even if light trucks
    > exceed their standards by 3.5 mpg, they still don't reach the basic CAFE standards for
    > passenger cars. Moreover, unless you can provide a reference to the contrary, I still do not
    > believe that light trucks have the same safety standards as cars. Heavier SUV's (such as the
    > Suburban and Excursion) and pickups, those with >8500lb GVW still have no such CAFE standards.
    >
    So, let's see: the CAFE standards for light trucks/SUVs is 20.7 and they beat that figure by 3.5mpg,
    that means that the "average" SUV is getting
    24.2mpg, which isn't too much less than the CAFE standard for cars. Hmmmm. Interesting.

    There goes one of the arguments...

    Mike
    >
    .
     
  12. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > Could be, but I saw both vehicles and you did not. No intersection involved, although it could
    > have happened at the on/off ramp for the highway. It's true I do not know the fate of each driver
    > but the SUV clearly seemed to get the worst of it. Most studies, of which I am aware, rate
    > rollover as one of the most deadly accidents a vehicle can have.

    And yet, it's one of the least common resulting in death.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
     
  13. MelvinGibson

    MelvinGibson Guest

    When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car carries four
    that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the environuts use for
    public transportation. ;)

    mike hunt

    "Mike S." wrote:
    >

    > So, let's see: the CAFE standards for light trucks/SUVs is 20.7 and they beat that figure by
    > 3.5mpg, that means that the "average" SUV is getting
    > 24.2mpg, which isn't too much less than the CAFE standard for cars. Hmmmm. Interesting.
    >
    > There goes one of the arguments...
    >
    > Mike
    > >
    > .
     
  14. Archer

    Archer Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car carries four
    > that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the environuts use for
    > public transportation. ;)

    Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of miles are done with either 1 or 2
    people in the vehicle.

    ....

    --
    David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
    it's morning".

    Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.
     
  15. On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, archer wrote:

    > [email protected] says...
    > > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car carries
    > > four that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the environuts use
    > > for public transportation. ;)
    >
    > Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of miles are done with either 1 or
    > 2 people in the vehicle.

    Fair enough. Now, what are we going to do about all these giant, smoke-belching, diesel-gulping
    buses carrying four or five people?

    DS
     
  16. > > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car carries
    > > four that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the environuts use
    > > for public transportation. ;)
    >
    > Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of miles are done with either 1 or
    > 2 people in the vehicle.
    >
    > ....

    Also, I'll have to look into it, but I'm pretty sure that many of these SUVs are not rated to carry
    the weight of more than a couple of passengers. SUVs are not masterpeices of engineering.

    Peter

    --
    Stupid news server won't let me post unless there is more new text than quoted text. Hence this
    useless signature.
     
  17. Buck

    Buck Guest

    "archer" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car carries
    > > four that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the environuts use
    > > for public transportation. ;)
    >
    > Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of miles are done with either 1 or
    > 2 people in the vehicle.

    And how is that any different than most forms of public transportation? Have you looked at ridership
    for buses and trains?

    I know, you will argue that we can make the people switch! This is not a viable solution because of
    how our cities have developed. We cannot provide enough transportation routes to cover all of the
    places a person might go and certainly cannot meet the schedule most people follow!

    -Buck
     
  18. "Peter Gardner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    | > > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car carries
    | > > four that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the environuts
    | > > use for public transportation. ;)
    | >
    | > Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of
    miles
    | > are done with either 1 or 2 people in the vehicle.
    | >
    | > ....
    |
    | Also, I'll have to look into it, but I'm pretty sure that many of these SUVs are not rated to
    | carry the weight of more than a couple of passengers.

    Yes, do check back with that info when you find it.

    I'm interested in seeing which SUVs aren't rated to carry an additional 500-600 lbs.
     
  19. Brent P

    Brent P Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Daniel J Stern wrote:

    > Fair enough. Now, what are we going to do about all these giant, smoke-belching, diesel-gulping
    > buses carrying four or five people?

    The funniest thing is the full-size city bus with a handful of people on board bleching black smoke
    with the sign reading 'this bus saved 50 car trips' or something like that...
     
  20. Daniel J Stern wrote:
    >
    > Fair enough. Now, what are we going to do about all these giant, smoke-belching, diesel-gulping
    > buses carrying four or five people?
    >

    I'm in favor of replacing them with smaller vehicles. One city I lived in had "buses" with, oh,
    maybe 12 seats. Those would be better. For many routes, an 8 passenger van would be better yet.

    However, even in that service, an SUV wouldn't make the grade. Not enough carrying capacity.

    So, we should be done changing the subject. Back to the subject at hand: personal vehicles.

    --
    Frank Krygowski [email protected]
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...