Goodbye "Hummers" & SUV's

[amicus]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090518/US.Obama.Autos/

This law, if it is put in place, will force smaller, more expensive cars only to be offered the American car buying public.

It will make American highways appear more, 'European', and cause at least a thousand more deaths per year because of smaller lighter built automobiles.

This is a 'California' standard that was rejected by automakers across the board several years ago, but now, since GM, Chrysler, are in government hands, they raised no objections.

While this is greeted by Environmentalists, it is the end of free market choice in America for those who might wish to own and drive a larger vehicle.

That, my friends, is another example of Socialism at work; equality for all by edict and not the free market place.

Such a deal.

Amicus

 

[Huckleman2000]

Good news. About freakin' time.

 

[amicus]

Yes, I would have expected you to think so as we make another lurch towards a 'green economy' and European styled socialism, oh well, what the hell, enjoy it while you may; it won't last long.

ami

 

[TE999]

I can just see those doodlebugs on Interstates. The first 18 wheeler that passes 'em will blow 'em into a ditch. I intend to drive my truck for as long as I can...it's nothing to get 200,000 mi if properly maintained...which mine is.

Are these dumbass fuel restrictions on the big rigs too? Try pulling a load of frozen vegetables with something that can't get out of it's own way. This sort of thing is moronic. What are we saving all this petroleum for anyway? So the Chinese can expand their economy while we shrink ours?

But at least the trees, bunnies and birds will be saved.

 

[amicus]

Sighs, not really...and rather ironic...with more mileage, people will drive more for recreational events at greater distances. The statistics are already available, (guess folks saw this coming), that indicate the actual gasoline usage will increase and that Hybrid cars, because of rechargeable batteries that have a limited lifetime, will pollute the environment in an even worse manner than at present.

So even da boids, bunnies & bugs don't get a break.

Ami

 

[Safe_Bet]

Sighs, not really...and rather ironic...with more mileage, people will drive more for recreational events at greater distances. The statistics are already available, (guess folks saw this coming), that indicate the actual gasoline usage will increase and that Hybrid cars, because of rechargeable batteries that have a limited lifetime, will pollute the environment in an even worse manner than at present.

So even da boids, bunnies & bugs don't get a break.

Ami

Ami you are even more full of crap than usual! I'm calling "bullshit" on you until you come up with some actual statistics that show people are going to drive more because their cars are smaller and that battery power is more poluting than fossil fuels (ever hear of recycling, BTW???) So prove your statements or stop making stuff up!

 

[amicus]

Ami you are even more full of crap than usual! I'm calling "bullshit" on you until you come up with some actual statistics that show people are going to drive more because their cars are smaller and that battery power is more poluting than fossil fuels (ever hear of recycling, BTW???) So prove your statements or stop making stuff up!

~~~

Safe_Bet, you might ask others before you criticize, I always back up what I post if called upon, however, for your own satisfaction, do your own search.

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2008/02/20/higher_mileage_stand.php

Because better gas mileage makes driving cheaper, it also makes people tend to drive more. This dampens the effect mandatory increases in fuel economy have on emissions; some economists have estimated that increased driving offsets 20 percent or more of the initial reductions in gasoline consumption.

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/106748/article.html

Are Smaller Cars as Safe as Large Cars?
By Mike Hudson, News Editor and Ronald Montoya
Email

Consumers shopping for a fuel-efficient vehicle will probably gravitate toward smaller cars. But by doing so, will they put themselves at risk in the event of an accident?

The cold hard facts show that smaller, lighter cars are generally less safe than larger, heavier cars.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/01/28/aa.smaller.cars.higher.insurance/index.html

AOL Autos)

-- When the economy goes into a downward spiral like it currently is, people scramble to find ways to save money, but it seems there's always a catch.

For example: when gas prices went up to $3-per-gallon (and beyond) over the last couple of years, many consumers began clamoring to get out of their big gas-guzzling SUVs and sedans, flocking to smaller cars that delivered better fuel economy.

But even before gas prices dropped to the $1.60 range in November; those new small-car buyers discovered a hitch in their plan to save money: insurance premiums for smaller cars are typically higher than for larger vehicles.

http://wikicars.org/en/Battery_Technology

Critics claim that batteries pose a serious environmental hazard requiring significant disposal or recycling costs. Some of the chemicals used in the manufacture of advanced batteries such as Li-ion, Li ion polymer and zinc-air are hazardous and potentially environmentally damaging. While these technologies are developed for small markets this is not a concern, but if production was to be scaled to match current car demand the risks might become unacceptable.

Supporters counter with the fact that traditional car batteries are one of the most successful recycling programs and that widespread use of battery electric vehicles would require the implementation of similar recycling regulations. More modern formulations also tend to use lighter, more biologically remediable elements such as iron, lithium, carbon and zinc. In particular, moving away from the heavy metals cadmium and chromium makes disposal less critical.

It is also not clear that batteries pose any greater risk than is currently accepted for fossil fuel based transport. Petrol and diesel powered transportation cause significant environmental damage in the form of spills, smog and distillation byproducts.

~~~

There are a few examples, smaller cars, better mileage means people drive more, twenty percent more, they are less safe than larger vehicles and it costs more to insure them.

There is some disagreement on toxicity, re-cycling and durability and consideration given to the $3,000 to $5,000 cost to replace a Hybrid battery.

The one thing not taken into consideration, is that the 'plug in' electricity required to maintain and recharge those batteries, must be generated somewhere and there is already a critical shortage of electricity and no plans to build more generating plants and a critical level of transmission capabilities so that the existing electrical grid will not accommodate the increased demand for electricity.

Try again sometime, sweety, but get ur ducks in a row foist, eh?



The always Adorable Amicus

edited to add" No apologies necessary, I know you meant well, heh....

 

[JericBuckley]

Ami, I don't know much about cars, so I'm gonna stay out of this one. But I have to ask:

Why are you trying to pass off opinion pieces as hard facts? You should know better than that.

 

[amicus]

Well, Jeric, think about it for a minute...at this point it is all opinion or speculation as we are not yet in the age of hybrid vehicles and battery evolution is still in process and most of them are made in Korea at the moment...yes, I can search that but I would rather you do so yourself.

That people drive more with lower gasoline prices or higher mileage vehicles is a fact, not opinion.

That small flimsy cars are more expensive to insure; is also fact, look it up.

The most important observation I omitted, is that American car driver's purchase the kind of car they want to buy, not what the government determines they will buy. In the Soviet Union, a potential buyer got on a five year waiting list and had but one choice of which car he would buy.

Izzat what you want for Americans?

Amicus the American

 

[Madmax77_1977]

Since I'm not american this doesn't affect me directly, but personally I'm not in favour of an outright ban of such cars.

Allow them, but tax whoever chooses to drive one heavily to pay for the environmental damage they cause.

 

[amicus]

Since I'm not american this doesn't affect me directly, but personally I'm not in favour of an outright ban of such cars.

Allow them, but tax whoever chooses to drive one heavily to pay for the environmental damage they cause.

~~~

Good morning over there in Suisse, Madmax, I drove a motorcycle through your beautiful countryside a way back when; remember going through Luzern and a meadow by a lake where I was serenaded by a bull Elk.

Not to really criticize Europeans and their postage stamp sized countries and automobiles, but most just don't understand the wide open spaces of America and how much driving is a part of our lives.

Burning hydrocarbons for fuel and energy does create pollution, so did coal when that was used to heat homes and wood before that and peat and dung before that.

There will come a time in the future when we look back upon gasoline and diesel power as ancient technology, I don't doubt that in the least. But let that time arrive at its' own pace, not mandated by government, but enabled by the free market place that guarantees personal, individual freedom along with scientific progress.

I once owned a big old black Lincoln Continental, a mile long and weighed at least two tons; I loved the comfort and luxury of that beast as others love their Cadillacs, Beamers & Bentleys, so, give us a break, eh?

They have already taxed the wealthy to the point where the richest one percent pay about half of all taxes and our corporate tax is the highest in the world, again, give us a break, eh?

Are all Swiss required to keep weapons at home, or was that a myth?



amicus

 

[slyc_willie]

I'm of mixed mind when it comes to this. I roll my eyes at seeing the big SUVs and their drivers, while commending the SO on her choice of vehicle (Ford Escape; about 28 mpg on the highway). The Hummer line of vehicles, to me, always seemed almost like a braggart's vehicle, especially since the first one ever produced in the US was purchased by Schwarzenegger. It was the sort of vehicle the rich would own simply because they could, and damn the cost of gasoline.

Watching TV tonight, I saw more advertisements for the Toyota Prius and other hybrid vehicles than I have ever seen before. A reaction to this latest tidbit of news you linked, Ami? Maybe. But it certainly seems that the gentle drive toward more "green" vehicles has become a little more escalated of late.

TE999 questioned in a post above about what measures, if any, are being made to govern the gas-guzzling big rigs which transport billions of tons of produce and product across the USA every day. Apparently, at the moment, not much. But I have seen, again on TV, more ads for shipping through railroad services that claim a higher fuel efficiency.

Perhaps big rigs may become a thing of the past in the next decade or so.

 

[JackLuis]

It is a reasonable argument that the Market should be free to choose the product. I think is also reasonable to determine if there was a free market for automobiles.

In the early 50's cars changed from very utilitarian to decorated monstrocities like the 1958 Buick as the advertizing agencies tried to lure buyers into showrooms. Now there was a wide range of cars, some even imported in the 50's.

Then the Bug showed up!

Ugly as sin, tough as a boot and fixable by the average shade tree mechanic.

The VW fit the bill for cheap transport at a time when the post war boom was fading. It paved the way for more imports of greater and lesser qualities, BMW, Renalt, Citron, the whole range of Fiats among others.

By 1970 the country was focused on the War in Viet Nam, the cars changed as the increased competition from foriegn suppliers began to effect the last decades growth in the Auto industry. America reacted to the invaders by supplying smaller cars. Ah the Tempest, Nova and the Vega, what a piece of work!

In the 80's the growth of American manufacturing industry was peaking, imports were high and after the fiasco's of the '70's American buyers would choose the quality and workmanship, reliability and efficiency of Toyota, Honda, which by that time were built (fianally assembled,) in the states.

America always built the best trucks, Dodge and GMC, even the Studebacker pick up was good. Now in the age of globalization, you see Volvos and Mercedes, and Asian trucks being used so the Auto companies are in a hard spot.

SUV's replace a lot of Pickups as the Suburban and the Dodge Van lead the way to be followed by more mini-vans and the avalance of SUV's on the market.

Then the Hummer came out, first for the Army, but the number the Army needed was too few to really light up the Assembly lines. The light came on and it was decided that they would build a Civilian follow on model to use up all the parts left over from the Army/Marines contracts and then trim the cost by removing most of the Mil-Spec components. While at the same time preserving the plant for special runs of the Mil-Spec product.

It was still too expensive, costly to operate and BIG! so enter the H-2.

Now there may be people who really need a Hummer, geoligists, ranchers, but to drive it around town to drop off the kids for Soccer pratice, really?

I doubt that people consider gas milage that much when it comes to buying a car, untill they are faced with a shortfall or expect one soon.

Will the emmissions CAFE standards make a difference in the American Auto industry? No doubt about that.

Is it going to be as disasterious as the last thirty years of American Auto Industry Management? I doubt it.

 

[Wyldfire]

Oh Jesus save me! Is this all about the Nation going to the California standard of cars? If so, please, as many Californians drive trucks, vans, and SUV's as anyone else. Damn, people get used to it.

 

[slyc_willie]

Now there may be people who really need a Hummer, geoligists, ranchers, but to drive it around town to drop off the kids for Soccer pratice, really?

Geologists and ranchers would do better to stick with an aging 70s-era Dodge pickup than a Hummer. From what I've seen, inside and out, there's as much room in those Hummer monsters as there is in a 1971 VW Bug. And the mileage is better.

Hummers are nothing more than status symbols for those who don't think beyond size. But hey, what do you expect from most Americans these days?

----

Sorry, Ami. I can't weigh in with you on this one.

 

[amicus]

"The child is father to the man..." Your reply to this post permits me to slip that in without being maudlin......

I have wondered for years why the technology did not allow vehicles to be used in urban traffic, with a range of perhaps fifty miles or so, even less, that could be perhaps rented, like taxi cabs, with a cost similar to mass transit or so.

I make no judgments on the kind of cars people drive, it is their choice, always, in my opinion. I see thousands of off road vehicles, snow mobiles, sea things, I forget the name, all consume fuel and most are for pleasure and entertainment.

I don't think any of this current conservation, ecological awareness is in the least bit necessary or important; I see it as a political movement for ulterior motives to bring the United States down to the level of our European counterparts and it angers me.

I also would have thought that when high speed rail became economical and practical, that it would take place here, in the United States, instead, both Japan and Europe arrived there first, although with heavy government subsidies and are both money losers.

I regret our differences but I am shamed by this current generation who seem to have forgotten that it was individual freedom and the free market place that brought us to the forefront in world affairs on all levels. That we are now letting political motives and weak ones at that, determine our future, sickens me and raises fear of where our children and grand children will turn to find the inspiration of free men in a free society.

Perhaps it is fitting that I approach my waning years...I should not like to be present when what I see coming, arrives.

Sorry for the tone of this...stuff happens I guess...

amicus

 

[Huckleman2000]

You know, Amicus, the benefits of a decent high-speed rail system do not have to accrue entirely to the bottom line. The fact that more people are moved in a more efficient fashion has secondary benefits - less traffic and upkeep on the highways, less pollution, more productive time spent on the train instead of driving, cleaner integration with city public transit...

Could New York function without the subway? That makes the systems' profitability sort of a moot point. It's essential infrastructure, and shouldn't be held to the same standards as private enterprise.

 

[amicus]

You know, Amicus, the benefits of a decent high-speed rail system do not have to accrue entirely to the bottom line. The fact that more people are moved in a more efficient fashion has secondary benefits - less traffic and upkeep on the highways, less pollution, more productive time spent on the train instead of driving, cleaner integration with city public transit...

Could New York function without the subway? That makes the systems' profitability sort of a moot point. It's essential infrastructure, and shouldn't be held to the same standards as private enterprise.

~~~

Huckleman....I really do not take great pleasure in being on the opposite side of most issues here on this forum or anywhere, I would much rather be in the majority and leave the wrangling to others.

Amtrack runs at a huge annual deficit and is subsidized by taxpayers who will never enjoy the services it offers.

I don't know any other way to express my thoughts than with blunt rhetoric, especially to those who hold unquestioned the ability of government to provide services that only the private sector is skilled to accomplish.

The 'bottom line' as you refer to the profit motive, is simple mathematics, you have to pay for what you get. When a society turns to or is forced to turn to government to provide a service, the cost goes up and the service deteriorates. The reason is simple, what is owned by all, is owned by no one and no one takes responsibility.

I am somewhat hoisted by my own Petard here, as I have often said that people learn things the hard way, by trial and error, we crawl before we walk and walk before we run and many, many falls interrupt the progress.

America has to, I suppose, experiment with socialism or quasi-socialism to learn the hard way that it simply does not work. Unfortunately in the learning process there is much suffering and indignation to undergo and freedom once lost is seldom regained and if so, at a heavy cost.

I heard the British MEP, Daniel Hannan, speak today, warning that England was on the verge of collapse because of its long experiment with social policies that have drained that once proud nation to a level of insignificance in world affairs. His warning to America was specific, don't go down the path to nationalizing medicine and transportation, housing and banking and the automobile industry as we did unless you want to totally bankrupt a once proud nation yet again.

You may chalk off all I said and have said as an ancient ideology no longer applicable to modern times, but I assure you that men of honor and dignity will not much longer remain silent in the face of the oppression that threatens them.

There will be blood...to take from a current film title...and soon.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

JackLuis, your post #13, exhibits somewhat of a Jekyl & Hyde persona that puzzles me.

"...Is it going to be as disasterious as the last thirty years of American Auto Industry Management? I doubt it..."

Had you stated and shown that the automobile industry under government edict has been forced to meet standards beyond technical abilities and had you noted the Labor Unions reluctance to modernize, because computer driven equipment displaces blue collar workers, you would have made a good point.

The cost of union labor employees the rules requiring seatbelts, impact bags, crash tests, a whole host of safety features, all well intentioned, but forced upon the buying public as was mandatory auto insurance, priced the American product out of the market place and allowed foreign manufacturers to garner a share of the market.

It was not the industry, but the Unions and the government that brought them to their knees. Detroit gave Americans the cars they wanted to buy; now they will be forced to produce cars that no one wants or will buy and nothing has been gained.

Amicus

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
The 'bottom line' as you refer to the profit motive, is simple mathematics, you have to pay for what you get. When a society turns to or is forced to turn to government to provide a service, the cost goes up and the service deteriorates. The reason is simple, what is owned by all, is owned by no one and no one takes responsibility.

I am somewhat hoisted by my own Petard here, as I have often said that people learn things the hard way, by trial and error, we crawl before we walk and walk before we run and many, many falls interrupt the progress.

America has to, I suppose, experiment with socialism or quasi-socialism to learn the hard way that it simply does not work. Unfortunately in the learning process there is much suffering and indignation to undergo and freedom once lost is seldom regained and if so, at a heavy cost.

I heard the British MEP, Daniel Hannan, speak today, warning that England was on the verge of collapse because of its long experiment with social policies that have drained that once proud nation to a level of insignificance in world affairs. His warning to America was specific, don't go down the path to nationalizing medicine and transportation, housing and banking and the automobile industry as we did unless you want to totally bankrupt a once proud nation yet again.

You may chalk off all I said and have said as an ancient ideology no longer applicable to modern times, but I assure you that men of honor and dignity will not much longer remain silent in the face of the oppression that threatens them.

There will be blood...to take from a current film title...and soon.

Amicus

Perhaps in the simple mathematical model you seem to cling to, private enterprise finds the most efficient, if not always virtuous, way. Where I would disagree is in the cost accounting - the enterprise always endeavors to dismiss the societal costs of its business. Monetary profit is not the sole, best means to judge success.

 

[amicus]

Perhaps in the simple mathematical model you seem to cling to, private enterprise finds the most efficient, if not always virtuous, way. Where I would disagree is in the cost accounting - the enterprise always endeavors to dismiss the societal costs of its business. Monetary profit is not the sole, best means to judge success.

~~~

Societal costs, an arbitrary and subjective term at best. I would suggest that Property Law, already on the books, if enforced, would have eliminated most of the environmental degradation, if that is to what you refer.

If you look with an open mind at the actual violation of the environment, you will discover that government licensed and approved the majority of it from strip mining to acid reflux to mine precious metals. Government approved the smoke stacks responsible for acid rain and the land fills, like Love Canal; all government approved and licensed with adjacent property owners rights violated.

If you were open minded enough to see an enterprise and judge it fairly for the social benefits it provides in terms of jobs, infrastructure, new communities and new infrastructure; those things far outweigh any of the social costs you arbitrarily assign.

Aside from the practical, utilitarian, pragmatic aspects, there is one underlying principle of human dignity that is lost when decisions are taken from free men and turned over to a committee of parasites who have no experience in anything but politics, which is what a bureaucrat is; and individual paid to follow rules in a book and forbidden to exercise his mind in judgment concerning the merits of his work.

And that is what you want to run this proud nation?

I think not.

Amicus

 

[Madmax77_1977]

Not to really criticize Europeans and their postage stamp sized countries and automobiles, but most just don't understand the wide open spaces of America and how much driving is a part of our lives.

hey, that's not true, our countries aren't postage stamp sized, they are at least twice that size

Burning hydrocarbons for fuel and energy does create pollution, so did coal when that was used to heat homes and wood before that and peat and dung before that.

I know, which is why it's smart to use as little energy as possible, no matter what fuel you use.

There will come a time in the future when we look back upon gasoline and diesel power as ancient technology, I don't doubt that in the least. But let that time arrive at its' own pace, not mandated by government, but enabled by the free market place that guarantees personal, individual freedom along with scientific progress.

the free market is all fine and dandy, but somebody has to bay for the environmental damage, and I would be in favour of having those who create the biggest mess should foot the biggest bill. Furthermore, I'm not sure if we really can allow it to arrive at 'its own pace', that might just be too slow. We only have one world, if we break that one, it's over.

I once owned a big old black Lincoln Continental, a mile long and weighed at least two tons; I loved the comfort and luxury of that beast as others love their Cadillacs, Beamers & Bentleys, so, give us a break, eh?

They have already taxed the wealthy to the point where the richest one percent pay about half of all taxes and our corporate tax is the highest in the world, again, give us a break, eh?

I don't want to take your ship-sized cars from you. But luxury always has come at a prize. Your right to own any car you like is all fine and well, but what about people's rights to clean air, a healthy environment, et al? (yes, I'm absolutely aware that car pollution is only part of our environmental problemes, but it does play a role).

Sure there's people that have reasonable reasons for their huge cars, but what about those freaks who drive a Hummer in the city? In Switzerland (and most european countries) gas is a lot more expensive than in the US because government taxes it much more heavily than in the US. And I, for one, wholeheartedly support that tax. Those who cause the biggest pollution should pay the biggest price.

Are all Swiss required to keep weapons at home, or was that a myth?

That applies only to males that are drafted in the army, like myself (ugh).

 

[amicus]

You tolerate Conscription, the Draft, in Switzerland? Oh, my.

Aside from the size issue of America and our love affair with the automobile, I suggest in the fifties more babies were conceived in the back seat of a 52 Ford during a drive-in movie, than anywhere else. (private joke) There is another thing to consider that most Europeans have never had a clue about: we Americans do not like to be told what to do or where to do it.

We never had a King here, we never bowed to a Pope or a State sponsored Church. While Australia may have been first populated by prisoners from British Colonies, America was first populated by people escaping the oppression of Kings and Gods in Europe and the majority of us sure don't want a Socialist government directing our actions towards some vague greater good or ecological goal.

I am an atheist and state that I have no faith in anything, but I have faith that the American People when they become truly aware of what is about to happen, will once again take Arms and set things right. And we do, as Europeans do not, have the right to own guns and we do, by the ton.

I have mellowed a bit with age, I suppose, but there are still millions of young whippersnappers out there that will kick ass when the time comes. I hope I live long enough to at least be a spectator to it.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Officials are itching to create lite rail here, but no one can answer the question:WHERE WILL THE TRAINS GO AND WHO WILL THEY BENEFIT. But they wanna spend 20 BILLION Dollars with plenty of enthusiasm but no plan.

I did the math using the budget for the public bus system and their own rider count. Riders pay ONE DOLLAR for every trip they make on the bus, and each rider costs the bus system TEN Dolllars. Riders pay a dime for every dollar the system spends.

Tampa built a trolley thats bankrupt. Every city block of track costs ONE MILLION Dollars to build.

Tampa did a study about public transportation costs. The study concluded that it would be cheaper to buy every rider a car.

 

[oggbashan]

If the UK's experience is a guide, the gradual result will be that SUVs and high gas usage vehicles will become less popular. Those vehicles will lose value faster than more efficient ones and be difficult to sell secondhand.

Manufacturers will change to more fuel-efficient engines, not necessarily the MOST fuel efficient, but engines that meet the government's defined requirements.

The engines and transmissions of heavy trucks are likely to change to become more fuel-efficient in use.

However there will always be a market for large-engined and extremely fast cars but they will depreciate very quickly as soon as they are out of the dealer's premises. In the UK a large quality car tends to lose a third of its value as soon as delivered and becomes very cheap to buy after five years (but NEVER cheap to run and maintain).

This is a first step for a US administration. Higher gasoline taxes might be on the way. If US gas prices ever get close to European levels then customer demand will drive the manufacturers to produce fuel efficient vehicles.

I would estimate that most US car owners won't need to alter their habits much for the next five to ten years. After then - they'll want fuel efficiency.

Og (whose large-engined car was a novelty in Normandy last week. French taxation laws make owning anything larger than two litres very expensive.)