AND AFTER THE WATERMELONS ARE FINISHED WITH SUVs ,,,

[Todd]

I'm including this bit in today's notes just to make it a part of the official Nealz Nuze record. In about a year I'll refer you back to this day to say "I told you so."

The Watermelon crowd (green on the outside, red on the inside) is currently waging its war against the evil sports utility vehicles (SUVs). Forget this nonsense about fuel economy -- that's not the reason. These leftists don't like SUVs because (a) they're expensive and, thus, generally owned by higher income people, and (b) People who ride in SUVs are safer on the highways than those who can't afford them. Rich people have no right to be safer on the highways than poor people. Rich people should die in accidents at the same rate as poor people, if not faster. Get those SUVs off the highway and maybe the rich will die in the same numbers as the poor.

The battle against SUVs isn't over yet. Gas prices are dropping, though, and this is going to take a bit of the edge off.

But, while gas prices may be dropping, there's always the current electricity crisis. Maybe this presents the Watermelons with yet another opportunity to launch a public relations broadside against the evil rich.

The next battlefield? Large homes. Large expensive homes. Homes only evil rich people can afford. These homes take much too much energy to heat and cool. There are too many extras -- second kitchens, home theatres, hot tubs, swimming polls, multiple garages to hold multiple SUVs. It's just all way too much for a small family. These huge homes are just exhibitionist energy wasters. The rich should be buying smaller homes and using the money they same to provide low-income housing for the "less fortunate."

How will this battle shape up? Well, there are two possible game plans the leftist {not the Democrats } could initiate:

(a) Propose surcharges on energy usage over that amount of energy that would be required to heat and cool a 2,500 square foot home.

(b) Reduce or eliminate home mortgage interest deductions on all homes which exceed the median appraised value for various communities. if the rich want to live in their large homes, make them pay more taxes.

OK --- I'm on the record here. We'll just sit back and wait for the "I told you so."

 

[Closet Desire]

Sometimes...

...you haven't got a clue.

SUV's are rated as trucks which means they do not have to and DO NOT meet the same safety standards as cars. The chassis are more rigid which means that your body and not the metal absorbs more of the impact. Death rates in SUV's are substantially higher.

Jealous of people who drive SUVs. Nope, annoyed. We can't see around you and SUV drivers often don't seem to be looking.

One person driving two tons of metal and using more fuel than necessary for either transportation or luxury. It's just waste.

Expensive? There aren't many SUVs, if any, that cost more than my Mercedes.

 

[lavender]

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Not to stir any shit but here goes *ducks and covers* I most often find (in my community) it is those that are against pollution that oftne have the worst cars or habits to help the enviroment. Mind you I said in my community, not making any generalized statements.

 

[Weevil]

Not to stir any shit but here goes *ducks and covers* I most often find (in my community) it is those that are against pollution that oftne have the worst cars or habits to help the enviroment. Mind you I said in my community, not making any generalized statements.

Fuck you Bitch, I drive an Electric car.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

In my community, or have you forgotten how to read everything before you shoot your mouth.

 

[Weevil]

It is, however, a gross generalization and one that I'd strongly disagree with you on. Mainly because I don't see how you could be right.

People who profess to care about the environment will always do more than those who don't. Even if it's just sorting paper and plastics.

Also, for all I know your community could be mine.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Well in my area (central Minesota) people will profess to one way of life, but adhere to another set of rules whenever they arent in some sort of spotlight.

 

[lavender]

 

[Weevil]

Well in my area (central Minesota) people will profess to one way of life, but adhere to another set of rules whenever they arent in some sort of spotlight.

Well, I can't speak for all Minnesotans(Althought it may be the State I feel is the closest thing to a kindred spirit I have in the US) but I don't even see how that could be close to the truth.

I'd be the first to admit, and probably know it a lot better than you do, that alot of people who work to make the world a cleaner place aren't 100% dedicated to everything in the idealogy. But that is an unrealistic standard and one I don't hold anyone to.

Many people who vote green drive SUV's. Some are more careless than they should be when Recycling. Many even commit the cardinal sin of working for Companies that pollute.

But they all do something. And when you weigh that against the scores of people who don't do anything(And the people who dispute that there's anything they need to do) that there's no way that your original statement could be accurate.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

It may be inaccurate (probaly is for all I known) but I am speaking from experience.....ok lets see.... we have a recycling thingy here and we are basically forced into it and I follow that law, so would I be classified as one of those that cares even though I dont? Or just someone who follows the rules that the local government has imposed on us?

 

[Weevil]

It may be inaccurate (probaly is for all I known) but I am speaking from experience.....ok lets see.... we have a recycling thingy here and we are basically forced into it and I follow that law, so would I be classified as one of those that cares even though I dont? Or just someone who follows the rules that the local government has imposed on us?

Not what you said, tho. You said "People that are against Pollution" which you are pretty clearly not.

I assumed that what you meant by that was people who are vocally anti-pollution.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Ok after you point that out I admit I am most likely wrong about that. (Ok ok I give in, you win lol) But I am sure there are people who 'vocally' denounce pollution that will still be some of the worst, law of averages says so, may be 1 out of 100,000 but it still makes my statement partly true.

 

[Weevil]

Ok after you point that out I admit I am most likely wrong about that. (Ok ok I give in, you win lol) But I am sure there are people who 'vocally' denounce pollution that will still be some of the worst, law of averages says so, may be 1 out of 100,000 but it still makes my statement partly true.

Heck, Roald Dahl apparently was bad to his wife and kids so I suppose anything is possible.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Like the great Homer Simpson said " You can get statistics to prove anything, 75% of people know that". But I think I have hurt my self-loathing image by posting something other than " I am ugly" but I guess everyone has to show they have some sort of rational thoughts every once in awhile.

 

[Weevil]

Actually Homer said "You can get statistics to prove anything. Forfty percent of all people know that"

EBW "King of CorrectionS"

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Thanks, I figured I would have it wrong cause I havent seen the episode in quite awhile.

 

[Closet Desire]

Figures don't lie...

...but liars figure.

I have to agree that "activists" often do miss the target because what they are wrapped up in is often narrow and short sighted. For example, the PETA activists who release animals from laboratories into the wild where, because they are not adapted, will die.

But this misses the fact entirely that there are large groups of people who do make a broad effort to be energy and environmentally conscious. They do so quietly because it is a part of their lives.

I'm no patron saint of the green movement, but I fill my car up about once a month and walk into town. I recycle most of what comes through our house. We have double glazed windows and a computer controlled heating/hot water system. Our appliances were all chosen for features that reduced energy and water consumption. All the lights in our house are flourescent and use 12 watts instead of 60. A nation where even half of the people are doing this overwhelms that actions of a few extremists.

So, I'm saying that while extremists may get a lot of attention Ben Franklin was right about "moderation". A large group of people making a modest and manageable effort will achieve significant results.

As for SUV's being a toy of the wealthy...here I just notice that they are toys of the pretentious middle class. Three years ago that same group was buying BMWs, now it's Landrovers. I've still got the same Mercedes parked in the drive while I walk to town (and it gets the same fuel mileage my Honda did in the states).

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Good job Closet!

Good job Todd!

When they get this pissed, someone is hitting close to home.

I LUV IT!

By the way...


Did you know everyone lies?



And I am the dumbest one on the board!



But I want to be free to own a SUV.



Think I'll buy a tractor rig and just drive it in town. I can put all my stuff in the big back trailer and burn the dirtiest, nastiest, deisel fuel I can!

 

[Closet Desire]

Actually...

...I don't get pissed. I think you should be free to buy and drive whatever you like, BUT you should have to pay for it. There's a little thing called "externalities" which in most capitalist societies are only starting to get paid for. This is cost of cleaning up after the product you bought. Things like air, contaminated soil from the manufacturing process, disposed of tires, disposed of repair parts, etc. No objection from me because these things do eventually come full circle.

California is getting a lesson first hand. They thought they could place an arbitrary cap on electricity rates without really taking into account what it really cost in terms of investment, distribution, and so forth. Now the largest utility is bankrupt and the users are about to pay for the caps with the largest rate hikes any state has ever seen in one fell swoop.

If you wanna dance ya' gotta pay the piper.

 

[BrainyBeauty]

Closet Desire,

I am so glad to see you back on the boards! I have certainly missed your perspective and your presentations.

Funny thing about this topic - I read an article in yesterday's paper along similar lines. I wanted to start a thread about it. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it online.

The title was "What would Jesus drive? NOT an SUV!" and the thrust of the argument was that SUVs are harmful to the environment and, thus, should not be driven. (Not because rich people are driving them in some sort of nose-thumbing to the have-nots, Todd.)

I totally agree with you CD. As with any political stance or philosophy you will have people who rant and rave and protest and scream loudly about the inequity of the situation. They often do more harm than good for a cause. Extremists rarely command respect. Yet, they believe that making bold statements or outrageous actions will garner support. Nine times out of ten, they are wrong. Zealots never recognize this though.

Then you will have the moderates who actually believe in 'the cause' yet remain above the fray. Those are the ones who demonstrate their commitment, albeit, sometimes silently. They put their money where their mouth is. Their actions do speak louder than words. Closet Desire, you are one of those. I consider myself another. The reference to Ben Franklin was a stroke of genius. And it is something I ascribe to as well. Moderation in everything.

As for the environment, I try to do my part as well. But I was raised that way - so it isn't anything new. For me, it isn't the latest bandwagon to jump on - as many people are wont to do. It is a lifestyle choice.

Growing up we were taught to conserve energy and other natural resources. We turned off lights in rooms that were not in use. We replaced most of our incandescents with fluorescents. We consolidated our errands into ONE round trip per day. I remember wondering what my neighbors were doing when, as a child, I watched them coming and going every 30 minutes or so. If I forget something at the store, I don't make a return trip. I wait till the next day and swing by there on the way home from work.

To this day I cut my grass after six o'clock in the evening, I fuel my car after the sun goes down as well. Recycle? I don't bother with that - at least not sending it anywhere. I reuse and recycle here at home.

I am not a political activist, but I do care about the planet. I don't litter. I reuse grocery bags. I want to live in a world where I can safely drink uncontaminated water and breathe unpolluted air and I would love to be able to pass that along to the succeeding generations that come after me.

I think I can forego driving a monster truck/SUV just to keep up with the Joneses. Besides, there really just is no way to climb up into one of those things when you are wearing a miniskirt!
(And maintain any kind of decorum)

 

[jcgirl]

I have an SUV. I most certainly do not consider it useless. I use it for everything from lugging hiking gear to getting thru the god awful snow we get here in the winter. I got it for luxury, yes. Partly. The luxury of not worrying about having to tie my trunk down when I have alot to tow, the luxury of knowing that I can get my family and friends safely to and from work in the winter. And hey, Who the hell says just because I drive a big vehicle that I dont pay attention while Im driving? Fuck that. Who the hell do the people in the clunkers who can barely reach 30 mph on the turnpike think they are? And how about the people who cut me off just because they think that large vehicle = slow moving? I worry more about the people in rear wheel drive, sport suspension, no anti lock brakes barreling down the highway, weaving in and out of traffic more than I do a guy driving a Cherokee at a decent mph. ANd I dont see any freaking Miata drivers bitchin when we come along and push thier tin can outta the snow ditch.

 

[Closet Desire]

Nobody...

...said anything about useless or about the way "you" drive. I got the impression that the comments were general impressions. I will say that my rear-wheel drive car can cruise at 140+ like it's on rails and has never needed an SUV for help although plenty get out of the way when they see the badge coming up the tailpipe. I will also point out that you don't see many "cars" flipping over and killing their occupants when a tire deflates or when it hits an uneven surface. SUVs do, time and time again.

While it may fit the fashion statement SUVs are not usually purchased for traversing off-road, in the snow, or on the ice. They are purchased because somebody liked the "idea" of thinking it would look cool. In practice there are plenty of cars that are far superior in terms of safety and winter handling than SUVs. Sorry, but tests bear this out. The weather can be as bad in northern Europe as it gets in Pennsylvania, but SUV's aren't the first choice for most people.

As who cuts who up. You'll find that people in SUVs or any large vehicle for that matter often lose their perspective of where they are. Unless they are experienced drivers who compensate for this they will ride closer behind, cut closer in front, and come closer to the side than the SAME driver in a lower, smaller vehicle. The vehicle takes up more space, takes more room to turn, and is more difficult to maneuver (especially here where the roads are narrower). It's not necessarily that they are arrogant or careless, but it sure can seem that way to someone who's just nailed the brakes to avoid one.

Let's not get into this "my car's better than your car" because nobody here has really said that. Obviously I prefer what I'm driving because that's what I own and I'm fortunate enough to own what I want. What has been said is the obvious and enough folks have been saying the obvious in other forums that you might want to consider their viewpoints and how you might be perceived. Frankly your comments sort of match many people's impressions of SUV drivers.

Hey BrainyBeauty! Yeah...works been a killer (finished another book). Wont' be here long...gotta finish an academic book now...arrrggghhh.

 

[Pyper]

Let's take some perspective here. Some people need SUV's. My parents have two very large, very furry, very drooly greyhounds. Before they got an Explorer, the dogs couldn't go anywhere. Both of them couldn't even fit in the van. Now they both have room to get nice and comfy on rides to all kinds of places. And we can even get the groceries in too.

I agree that SUV's as off-road vehicles are rather silly. I've driven the Explorer, and I hate it! That thing can't handle worth crap! But let's face it, some people have a shitload of crap that they need to haul around, and SUV's are the best things for the job. Not all owners should be villified as uppity middle class who think they need to look cool with a big car.

 

[Closet Desire]

Greyhounds...

...don't really need SUV's because they can't get a license to drive--even in California!

Seriously, I don't really concern myself with what people choose to buy or their reasons for buying an SUV. It's legal and it's their business. As to whether people "need" an SUV I'm inclined to say that 99.9% don't need it, they want it. People don't "need" to take their pets everywhere they go--in fact many of us would prefer they don't--but it's their choice. Need and want are two very different things. Take a drive through a shopping mall car park and see how many SUVs are loaded up with "needed" crap. See how many on the freeway are carrying large numbers of passengers or hauling things. In the grand scheme it's pretty insignificant. Heck, families aren't even as big as they used to be so using children as a justification isn't really valid either. People should admit that they "want" it and not try to rationalise it away. Most of us don't really "need" most of the things we have. We just want them and, if we can afford them, we get them.

As for perspective, here's one. SUVs and light trucks are attracting attention for a lot of very practical reasons. They now account for half of all vehicle sales in the US and in effect manage to sidestep a lot of consumer protection and environmental quality issues that were enacted a couple of decades ago.

Safety--SUV's and light trucks are exempt from meeting the safety requirements of passenger cars. Some owners mistakenly think that "size matters" but in fact it's engineering that makes vehicles safer. Not only are passengers in an SUV at more risk, but passengers in vehicles they collide with are at greater risk because of differences in mass and vehicle heights. Pedestrians, who will likely survive a 30mph collision with a car will not survive a similar collision with an SUV or LT. Believe it or not, cars are now being designed with the survival of pedestrian collisions in mind...important in cities where pedestrian/vehicle collisions are rather common.

Insurance--SUV's and light trucks have fared terribly in minor collisions. Quite the opposite of what you would expect from such "macho" vehicles. Low speed collisions (2-5 mph) with barricades and poles which would have left a car relatively unscathed resulted in bills as high as $6,000 for a Toyota SUV and over $2,000 on the Ford Explorer (search CNN.com for the recent test results). SUV's and LT are currently involved in more issues of litigation over product liability than any other type of vehicle. From rollovers, to unsafe passenger compartments, to fire and explosion, the SUV and LT class are a litigator's delight. Insurance will pay most of the cases, but ultimately it's ALL drivers who foot the bill.

Environment--Those of us old enough (I can't believe I'm saying this!) to remember the oil embargo of 1973 know only too well the dramatic impact of an oil shortage. It isn't about running out of oil, it's about events that prevent getting petrol to the stations. We had a blockade here in the UK last year and within days everything came to a standstill and it was nearly a month before things were back to normal. The response to this in the US was the CAFE which sought to increase the average fuel economy of America's fleet of cars. SUV's and LTs are, you guessed it, exempt from the legislation. America has fallen far short of the goals it set in this regard largely because of the popularity of SUV's and LTs. Oh, SUV drivers can afford the fuel? That isn't really the issue. When you burn a gallon of fuel that's a gallon of fuel that someone else in the world can't buy...at any price. America's hunger for fuel also drives up the prices for others in the world...you know...supply and demand and the big pig gets all the milk. Also consider that when you put 20 gallons of petrol in your vehicle it means you have just pumped about 100 pounds of various chemicals into the atmosphere which the entire world will have to eventually deal with.

How's that for a perspective? (smile)