You Are What You Drive?

andre1969 · May 2006

but it's past quitting time here, so I'm going to go climb up into my menacing baby-killer and go play Road Warrior. Or maybe I'll find a little orange-red Valiant to go chase down out in the desert for no apparent reason. Or knock the Mach V to the bottom of Lake IcyChill. Or load up with a truck full of Coors, transport it across state lines, and batter around some 70's police cars? Or maybe I'll just go find a few Priuses to terrorize. :P

john_324 · May 2006

or get in your Mach 1 and lead police on a wild chase that results in many many wrecked cars? Don't forget your fake mustache disguise... :shades:

grbeck · May 2006

li_sailor: Within the context of the discussion you lifted that from, yes. If the purpose is merely to disincent gas use, it doesn't matter what happens to the dollars. The point is to make the gas more expensive, period. Of course, from a fiscal POV, the $ should be used, duh.

Government - state or federal - is not going to pass anything that raises the cost of a staple like gasoline merely to "disincent its use" without spelling out a dedicated use of the money raised by the higher prices, and then making sure the money is used for that purpose.

And no government is going to pass legislation that merely raises the price of gas without offering some sort of side benefit to taxpayers.

li_sailor: Ok, you stay away from editing and I'll stay out of office.

When your posts improve, I certainly will. Until then, I'd better stay on the job.

li_sailor: Did you explain the big words first?

No words were in that post that we had any trouble understanding. A How Government Works course may be in order for you, however.

li_sailor: This unsolicited "education" is superfluous...see above.

No, it's quite necessary. Howlers such as "who cares where the money goes" show a fundamental ignorance of how government works.

Please, come to my office and over a nice cup of coffee and donuts, I'll explain how this all works. I'll even pay for lunch...you can choose the restaurant.

li_sailor: What offbeat, lunatic fringe groups are you listening to with beliefs like that? In any case, go google the term "sin tax" and then explain to us why your co-workers never told you about the thousands of such examples that exist today.

Well, you suggested it in your prior post, so if you want to call yourself "offbeat" and "lunatic," that is your perogative. I would imagine that the hosts don't care if we call OURSELVES names.

The use of gasoline hardly equals the use of tobacco or alcohol, so bringing up "sin taxes" is a nice attempt at a red herring, but it won't be accepted.

li_sailor: Just to make it clear, the discussion was about increasing the gas tax to lower consumption. The question of what to do with the money is a totally separate issue and irrelevant in the context it was brought up. Got it?

No, you brought it up in the first place (remember - who cares what happens to the money - we can burn it for fuel?), and I responded. If you don't want a response on a certain matter, then don't bring up at all. Got it?

andre1969 · May 2006

or get in your Mach 1 and lead police on a wild chase that results in many many wrecked cars?

That could be fun, but would be too politically correct in comparison to my other ideas, since Elinor was a low-slung ponycar, so she couldn't POSSIBLY do as much damage as a mammoth, hulking SUV! Although she did tale down a light pole pretty nicely, as i recall. :P

explorerx4 · May 2006

you are what you drive, huh?
RSX discontinued?... ouch.
..and i thought i didn't get no respect.

sorry, just having a little fun.

just reinstated the insurance on the mustang, so tomorrow, i'm going to be cool. :shades:

gagrice · May 2006

I would like to get on the list for one of these. Plus it gets 38 MPG on 100% Biodiesel.

Attendees at the 2006 National Biodiesel Conference in San Diego, California, U.S., joined singer and biodiesel advocate Willie Nelson in surprise when he received the Willies Willys, a biodiesel-powered recreation of a 1941 Willys pickup truck (pictured). The Institute of Ecolonomics and Ecosense Solutions made the presentation.

Each Willie Willys is powered by a 6.5-litre, twin-turbo diesel engine with the production version generating 350 horsepower. The transmission is a six-speed automatic. The truck has spark plugs, unusual for a diesel engine, which the designers state will help reduce particulate emissions. Tests indicated the truck should average thirty-eight miles per gallon.

And, of course, it runs on pure biodiesel.

While the frame is made of conventional stainless steel and the truck bed is oak, the body is made of a soy-based resin.

Each limited-edition Willie Willys costs $97,000.

Willie's Willys

li_sailor · May 2006

Government - state or federal - is not going to pass anything that raises the cost of a staple like gasoline merely to "disincent its use" without spelling out a dedicated use of the money...

Never said it would.

A How Government Works course may be in order for you, however.

I'm devastated. Please, stop before I genuflect.

I'll explain how this all works.

My shades aren't dark enough to handle your luminescence.

The use of gasoline hardly equals the use of tobacco or alcohol, so bringing up "sin taxes" is a nice attempt at a red herring, but it won't be accepted.

Any tax meant as a disincentive is a sin tax. Feel free to disaccept.

li_sailor · May 2006

you are what you drive, huh?
RSX discontinued?... ouch.

I guess I'm a classic, then

Oh well, all good things must end. I'll have to decide what's next in a few years, but I might keep this a long time. Best vehicle I've ever owned, love this car.

gagrice · May 2006

Best vehicle I've ever owned, love this car.

You should understand my feelings for all my Chevy PU trucks and the Suburban. They are far and away the best I have ever owned. That includes my wife's very fine LS400. Nice but not me. Plus, in 47 years of driving I have never invaded anyone's crumple zone. At 18 Pacific Telephone put me through a very fine defensive driving course that has served me well.

li_sailor · May 2006

I understand diversity

We certainly differ in our criteria of "quality" as well as (I'm sure) our vehicular requirements. Glad you're happy with your vehicles.

I'm also a defensive driver and in 34 years of driving I have also never had anything more than a "minor tap" type collision. But I recognize that it could happen, and it certainly happens far too frequently amongst the approx 200 million US drivers.

jipster · May 2006

do you think any significant number of SUV owners have a need for the specific attributes of an SUV

Well, I think the question irrelevant, but I'll answer anywho. Based on the criteria you set forth....no. Based on the criteria I set forth....yes.

But, if you personally know of no one in particular who has a "non essential" large SUV, then I would say your position on the matter is circumstantial and totally based on assumptions. Get out in the real world and talk to some people who own large SUV's. Hopefully they won't punch you in the nose when you speak of their irresponsibility and poor citizenship. Better yet, much safer on these forums.

and sure there is lots of other overkill

Overkill is overkill...whether it is in a large SUV, large sedan or midsize sedan. If you argue against one you have to argue against them all...which I don't see you doing.

Are you going off-topic again and getting personal?

No sir. I did include a little winkey eyed emotorcon indicating humor and not to be taken seriously.

But, now that you mention it

Your posts generally are difficult to follow at times due to the large magnitude of flip and sarcastic comments. In some of your posting with Brightness awhile back...I knew what you were against (anything brightness posted) but couldn't quite figure out what you were for. A good tactic by the way in having discussions such as these.

li_sailor · May 2006

But, if you personally know of no one in particular who has a "non essential" large SUV...

I know many. I said I wasn't referring to them, I didn't way I didn't know of any.

In any case, I think most mid/large SUV owners don't need them, meaning they have no tow/heavy haul/off road requirements. I base that on survey data I've read, trailer reg stats, observation and common sense. Can I prove it? No, but this is a discussion, so I don't have to.

Get out in the real world...

I don't know of any other and neither do you. Stick to the discussion, and try to keep the personal snipes down, ok? Seems impossible, so far.

Overkill is overkill...whether it is in a large SUV, large sedan or midsize sedan. If you argue against one you have to argue against them all...

LOL. Really. My posts will get very, very long if I agree to that

Let's just say I reject that assertion.

Your posts generally are difficult to follow at times due to the large magnitude of flip and sarcastic comments.

As I said, I respond in kind. If you can find a spot where I'm flip and sarcastic in response to a genuinely objective statement, let me know. You won't find one.

In some of your posting with Brightness...

If you've read and or exchanged posts with him as much as I have, you would understand my POV re him. But you don't have to. In any case, please try to keep from being personal, if you can.

gagrice · May 2006

it certainly happens far too frequently amongst the approx 200 million US drivers.

Precisely, we agree on that. It would then seem somewhat irresponsible to put your life and the lives of your loved ones into a small car that is definetly at a disadvantage against larger, heavier vehicles.

I think part of this discussion leaves out location. I have not been into NYC. I know in So. CA you are more likely to have an accident with a large PU truck or SUV that is raised 6-12" and has tires the size of Rhode Island, than in NYC. You cannot leave your home without seeing this type of vehicle. They are usually the first leaving the stop light and the last to slam on their brakes at the next. It is a jungle and unless you experience it day in and day out you would not understand. There are no lightly traveled rural roads in So. CA. We have way more vehicles than our roads should be handling. It's the weather. It is always conducive to recreational driving, 365 days per year. Any time of the day you are sharing the road with millions of other vehicles.

Would I be happy with a smaller vehicle. I think so, if it was the norm. It is not, and I am not willing to be the squashee. I would love to buy a Carrera. Where would I be able to really drive it? And I don't like looking to the right and the left at a stop light and only seeing lug nuts on wheels that should only be used on heavy equipment. At least in a 1/2 ton PU I can look out at the fenders on most of the vehicles.

PF_Flyer · May 2006

...if everyone would stop pulling quotes from each others posts and responding point by point in a personal manner.

This is pretty easy. The topics of discussion on these boards are not each other.

Let's get back to the topic with no "parting shots" please.

andre1969 · May 2006

what are you if you drive this?

:shades:

jipster · May 2006

I don't quite understand why pf-flyer is asking that we don't put others quotes in our post, it is generally helpful in being able to follow a "lengthy" discussion. But, I do agree with not making personal comments, whether done in kind or not.

So, you are what you drive(l)? You are what you wear? You are where you live? You are what you eat? You are what your job is? You are who your friends are?

All of these are a reflection on ourselves, but none by themselves define who we are. Take the recent unplesantness

with the large SUV discussion. To define someone(irresponsible) based on their choice of a "nonessential" large SUV is irresponsible in itself in my opinion. It is taking the responsiblity and free choice of an individual, because the assumption is that person is a poor driver and will become involed in an accident. Being responsible and a "good citizen" doesn't mean just taking as much as you need. It's taking what you've got and being responsible with it. Putting someone in "higher risk" is done every day when we get in our vehicles. So, the focus should be on driving the vehicle you have safely, responsibly...and maintaining it properly. Not on, "I can have my large SUV because I off-road and tow...but you can't have yours because you don't use it the way I think you should."

john_324 · May 2006

Hey, that thing gets terrible gas mileage, would crush a Honda Fit and on top of it all, promotes unhealthy eating. Sooo irresponsible!

li_sailor · May 2006

It would then seem somewhat irresponsible to put your life and the lives of your loved ones into a small car...

So I should drive an SUV or PU? For that reason? Gee, then some folks might say "do as I say, not as I do, scooby-dooby doo". Imagine the thought :=)

I drive what I drive because it closely matches my vehicular requirements. I think that's a good idea. You are free to do otherwise, even if it means stealing crumple zones.

You're right about NYC. I live in Suffolk County, though, an exurb where there are lots of SUVs and PUs as well as large trucks.

Would I be happy with a smaller vehicle. I think so, if it was the norm.

Fleet-wise, cars ARE the norm.

At least in a 1/2 ton PU I can look out at the fenders on most of the vehicles.

From above, you mean

li_sailor · May 2006

To define someone(irresponsible) based on their choice of a "nonessential" large SUV is irresponsible in itself in my opinion.

Actually, I think to define someone who defines someone based on that choice is irresponsible.

Hope your sense of humor is intact, I thought I would treat silliness in kind

...the assumption is that person is a poor driver and will become involed in an accident.

No, an average driver. For whom the odds are average. This is indisputable.

So, the focus should be...

The focus should match the context. When the context is safety in driving technique, it should be on driving safely. When it's on vehicle choice and its impact on the system, it should be on that.

li_sailor · May 2006

So, you are what you drive(l)? You are what you wear? You are where you live? You are what you eat? You are what your job is? You are who your friends are?

I think that what you drive often reflects, to varying degrees, who you are. I drive what I would describe as a sporty but practical car. It's a hatchback and gets great mpg, that's the practical part (hatchback is an absolute requirement for me). It handles superbly and effectively and can move quickly when I need it to. Even at my age, I engage in a lot of recreation activities, the most laid back of which is sailing. Primarily, I'm a runner, cyclist, kayaker and hiker. I feel the RSX matches me pretty well.

jipster · May 2006

I drive a minivan and a Buick Regal. I guess that would make me about 100 years old? But, the minivan is a Mazda(Zoom Zoom), and the Regal one of Buicks "sportier" vehicles...so maybe I'm not that old...just "practical"...like you.

I will agree it makes financial sense to only buy as much vehicle as you need. But, no matter how hard I try to look at it from your point of view sailor...I just don't see it. Does anyone else out there in cyberspace see it? I know it a faint possibility...but perhaps I am missing something in this discussion.

My main problem with your argument hinges on the principal that you can use big SUV "only" for the reasons you stated. If it a dangerous "crumple zone stealing, gas guzzlin, rootin tootin pollutin" vehicle...then no one should drive it...period. Which is a position many have taken. People can pull their row boats and go off roading in the pick-up trucks.

If someone wants to use large SUV for recreational purposes,( defined as enjoyment of life in non essential activites during ones spare time)then I don't understand how you can seperate pulling a sailboat and buying a large SUV solely for entertainment value of a big rig. I know your response, so no need to rehash old notes. But, if you have anything new to add?

li_sailor · May 2006

My main problem with your argument hinges on the principal that you can use big SUV "only" for the reasons you stated.

I don't think I've ever claimed "you can only use it for...". I simply said what I think it makes a person that uses a big SUV when they don't need it. And that's based on the wasted gas, extra pollution and increased danger to others. Those externalities are incurred, no doubt. The are incurred for no practical reason.

If one thinks that incurring those for a good reason is the same as for no reason, then there's no point in discussing it. That's really it in a nutshell.

If it a dangerous "crumple zone stealing, gas guzzlin, rootin tootin pollutin" vehicle...then no one should drive it...period.

Again, I've said nothing of the sort. I think that if it makes sense to own one, like if one tows something that requires an SUV or PU but that is a practical family vehicle like an SUV, then an SUV has a benefit that outweighs the externalities.

If someone wants to use large SUV for recreational purposes...

The fallacy lies in your categorization of "recreational use" as equivalent to "no use". Sorry, but that really makes no sense. By that definition, all use is for "no use" since we don't really "need" anything.

The difference is whether one actually has a use for the vehicle's HD capacity (which is the cause of the higher externalities) or if they don't. What they actually use those capabilities for is irrelevant.

To cut it down to a basic example, if someone drives a truck which gets 12 mpg because "they like driving a big truck" when they could drive a "non truck" and get 28 mpg while losing nothing except that "big truck feeling", then they are being irresponsible, "good citizen" wise. The endangering others and extra pollution just adds to the assessment.

Of course, no one is required to be a good citizen. It's one of the "features" of a free country. Or it is a bug?

:=)

john_324 · May 2006

"Of course, no one is required to be a good citizen. It's one of the "features" of a free country. Or it is a bug?"

Not that I want to join this spirited debate, but I can't resist mentioning by way of contrast that being a good citizen as definied by the authorities basically was a requirement in the former Soviet Union.

carlisimo · May 2006

"Not that I want to join this spirited debate, but I can't resist mentioning by way of contrast that being a good citizen as definied by the authorities basically was a requirement in the former Soviet Union. "

I grew up in the US, and the authorities that matter to me told me to be efficient and respect as well. Golden Rule, 10 commandments, yadda yadda. They must've made a good case, 'cause I fell for it, but I've seen the error of my ways! From now on I'll ask what my country can do for me, I'll sue my neighbors for not letting me host parties past 1am, and I'll run old people off the road. Ohhhhhhh yeah.

john_324 · May 2006

"I grew up in the US, and the authorities that matter to me told me to be efficient and respect as well. Golden Rule, 10 commandments, yadda yadda. They must've made a good case, 'cause I fell for it, but I've seen the error of my ways! From now on I'll ask what my country can do for me, I'll sue my neighbors for not letting me host parties past 1am, and I'll run old people off the road. Ohhhhhhh yeah."

Actually, not really my point. I was attempting to illustrate the one of the big problems with attempts to define and enforce "good citizenship", that's all. It was meant as hyperbole...my apologies.

carlisimo · May 2006

"It was meant as hyperbole...my apologies. "

No problem, mine was too =].

I do believe there is such thing as good citizenship, even if its definition can't be narrowed down (but the more extreme an action is, the more people will agree it isn't good citizenship). And I believe that what you drive reflects in your citizenship, a little bit.

A vehicle that has a loud exhaust, or has loud speakers, guzzles gas, spews smoke, blinds people with its headlights, intimidates other drivers, or is dangerous to others in a crash does say "I don't care about other people to an extent". (Culturally, we accept and encourage some of that, but we all draw the line somewhere and for some, certain street-legal vehicles fall outside that line. Not just SUVs, but anything "annoying" or "dangerous". Some people think it's just as rude to drive an ugly car. The big debate in here seems to be on where that line is, and people don't usually change their minds much on that.

li_sailor · May 2006

being a good citizen as definied by the authorities basically was a requirement in the former Soviet Union.

Well, what they meant by "good citizen" was of debateable value. But the key concept here is that here in the US, we are free. Well, mostly. Point being, free to exercise judgement. Some of us exercise it better than others :=)

...one of the big problems with attempts to define and enforce "good citizenship"...

Again, "enforce" is another context altogether. I'm just talking about voluntary actions. After all, one can choose to buy a vehicle that guzzles gas when they don't have to. Or not.

And while many aspects of "good citizenship" are debateable, it's pretty hard to argue that guzzling gas is not an act of poor citizenship.

li_sailor · May 2006

...and people don't usually change their minds much on that.

Boy, did you say a mouthful

IMO, this tiny topic (in the great scheme of things) reflects the theme of our times. Some wear a red uniform and some a blue one. And if your color is different than mine, I really don't care what you say, I ain't listening.

As Steve Stills once said, the signs (posts) mostly say "Hooray for our side". Certainly, this applies to politics, but it goes beyond that. And while it's tempting to pin "conservative republican" on anyone that thinks it's un-American to put any restrictions on vehicle purchases and to pin "liberal democrat" on anyone that espouses citizenship and ethics in this realm, I think it runs deeper than that.

But I certainly don't want to start a political debate here.

But I do think that driving a big honkin SUV when you don't have any need for it makes you one kind of person and having at least some consideration for society as a whole during vehicle selection makes you another. Sorta.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. In case you hadn't noticed :=)

jipster · May 2006

Those externalities are incurred, no doubt. They are incurred for no practical reason.

No practical reason to you obviously, but again, you can decide what's practical for you....not anyone else. A good reason for putting peoples lives in danger is hauling that big SUV down to the lake pulling your pollution spewing boats and jetskis, joyriding on your boat...doing cannonballs off the port side...according to your formula for "good citizenship". Taking ones big SUV out in the boonies, doing figure eights in the mud, is also a suffecient reason to risk others lives. But, if one purchases a large SUV for their family safty,for the power and commanding view, the ride or handling, the fun factor, or any other of these so called "non essential" purposes...they become an irresponsible and poor citizen, only looking out for themselves. Nonsense...IMO.

then a SUV has a benefit that outweights the externalities

Getting some sun floating on a body of water obviously has a benefit that outweights the large SUV's increased externalities...if one is to believe your position.

while losing nothing but that "big truck feeling"

That "big truck feeling" is just as much a part of that "recreational value" to them...as hauling your jet skis down to the lake is for you.

gagrice · May 2006

I would be willing to bet the folks that work in the GMC plant in Indiana that built my Sierra PU truck, would say I am an exceptionally good citizen and show a lot of responsibility. I would also imagine those same folks would consider anyone that bought a car not built in the USA a poor citizen.

It all has to do with perspective. From the angle on the road that I see things, little cars are a nuisance and dangerous especially to those that are in them. Saving a few bucks a month in gas is hardly a good reason to take the added risk. That was my biggest negative on the Passat Wagon I just sold. I felt vulnerable. That is definetly NOT ME.

li_sailor · May 2006

A good reason for putting peoples lives in danger is hauling that big SUV down to the lake pulling your pollution spewing boats and jetskis, joyriding on your boat...doing cannonballs off the port side...according to your formula for "good citizenship".

If that's not a good reason to use a vehicle, then no reason is good enough. Your argument becomes a nihilistic one.

You are trying to argue that using a vehicle for "recreation" is not a "legitimate" one. It's not much of an argument. If that were true, then almost nothing anyone does with a vehicle is "justifiable". Not visiting the relatives (just stay home), not getting food (grow your own, be a farmer), not getting stuff from Home Depot (be happy with what you have), not even commuting to work (you don't need any of that stuff anyway).

The question is, when one incurs the externalities of a big, heavy duty vehicle, but has no heavey duty tasks (whatever their ultimate purpose), then they are incurring those externalities unnecessarily.

...one purchases a large SUV for their family safty...

...by making everyone else less safe...

...for the power and commanding view...

Well, that's worth the extra gas consumed and increased danger to others.

...the ride or handling...

If someone thinks the ride or handling of a truck is desireable, they might just deserve it :=)

That "big truck feeling" is just as much a part of that "recreational value" to them...

Well, I ahve to admit, you're right. If one requires a "big truck feeling", then they need that big truck. And gol-durn it, it's worth using twice the gas fer that.

God Bless America.

li_sailor · May 2006

I would be willing to bet the folks that work in the GMC plant in Indiana that built my Sierra PU truck, would say I am an exceptionally good citizen and show a lot of responsibility.

LOL. And Ken Lay would have thought you were a fine citizen if you bought his stock before he cashed in.

It all has to do with perspective.

Sorry, I disagree. There are actually some absolutes in this world. Like, using twice as much gas for no good reason is irresponsible. No matter what your perspective.

From the angle on the road that I see things, little cars are a nuisance...

Really. Please explain how some attribute of the small car makes it that way. That ought to be good.

fintail · May 2006

I saw a WASPy looking maybe 70 year old guy in an Escalade with probably 24" wheels today...what is he?>

alp8 · May 2006

first, I am essentially anti-SUV

second, my right to drive an SUV for no good reason is equal to anyone else's right to drive one for work, for pleasure, for whatever "good" reason any of you can come up with

why should one person have more of a right to impose externalities than another person? If you are in my way, and I am in a rush, I have no greater right to knock you over than does some other guy on his way to a baseball game

now I'm not talking about emergency vehicles, and the like. I agree that they have a greater right.

but a plumber? Hey, choose a different line of work. It's not as if the job can't be done by a guy in a hatchback.

so you tow a speedboat? So what? so that means I can't drive an SUV??? What does some other guy's right have to do with MY right.

(I know we are not really talking "rights" - these are all privileges, so please don't nitpick me on that aspect)

Yes, it is "wasteful," but my right to waste is equal to anyone else's

Besides, you don't know what I do with the rest of my life. I may drive an 18 mpg vehicle, but spend all my waking hours buying, growing and conserving habitat that sucks millions of tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere. I'd say I'm a little better than carbon-neutral, eh?

and if I am a defensive driver (which I am - not a single accident since age 16 - which ain't ALL luck), I am at least minimizing the likelihood that I will steal someone else's crumple zone, though I do agree that that is a real issue - maybe the crumple-zone stealers should have to take an extra driving course once in a while, or watch a computer video or something. That wouldn't be too burdensome. I guess we could get carried away and require all truck-based SUVs that don' thave their own nifty crumple-zones (ala Volvo) to have Crash Avoidance Radar/Braking systems, or something. But I'm not a huge fan of government regulation unless lots of people are dying.

I struggle with the concept of you are what you drive. Rationally, I don't believe it, but I know that it drives my purchasing decisions. I really like the Cadillac CTS but driving a Caddy just seems ostentatious. (way more so than a Lexus, so just try and figure my brain out) I want to buy a roadster, but that looks wasteful, too. Can I find a $40,000 car that has 4 seats, is sporty to drive, comfy on the highway, and gets at least 28 mpg? Because that's me, all over. Well, that's who I want to be. If I didn't have the SUV already, I'd probably be driving the Lexus 400H.

alp8 · May 2006

what is he?

if he's not careful, he is about a hearbeat from getting carjacked!!

:P

gagrice · May 2006

I disagree. There are actually some absolutes in this world. Like, using twice as much gas for no good reason is irresponsible. No matter what your perspective.

Twice as much as whom? Again I would bet that we used less gas & diesel last year than the average good citizen. My truck will be one year old the end of June. I have 2797 miles as of today and have used 179.906 gallons since I bought the truck new. That is about 16 gallons per month. My Passat TDI that I sold averaged over 28 MPG for the 13 months that I owned it and had 8376 miles the day it sold. We put about 625 miles per month on the Passat. More than we would have driven if I was not trying to get the mileage up to sell it.

My proposal is each citizen is allowed an equal amount of fuel per month to do with as they please. The guy in the H2 will only get a third as far as you in the RSX and be 1/3rd the threat to crumple one of his fellow men.

It will cut down on pollution, consumption and traffic.

alp8 · May 2006

You can't avoid EVERY single accident, but very few crashes are truly an accident.

actually, I'm pretty sure you CAN

granted, someone can always hit you, and a deer could always jump in front of you, but odds are, you can avoid 99.999999999999999% of the "accident opportunities" out there. All you had to do was drive a little slower, or pay a little better attention. Many many many people go through the entire lives without having a single accident.

Slow down. Pay Attention. You will not have an accident.

If we could get every driver to do this, we could all drive tanks with metal spikes sticking out of them and no one would get hurt.

jipster · May 2006

You are trying to argue that using a vehicle for "recreation" is not a "letigitmate" one.

Yes...and you are trying to do the same thing. The only difference is that you are under the illusion you are Mr. Webster...and you get to define what "recreation" means. Useing big SUV to tow family chiwahwai(sp) is no different than using it to haul the family camper. Both put other drivers needlessly at risk for crumple stealing SUV's...that's according to your criteria not mine.

The question is when one incurs the externalities of a big heavy duty vehicle, but has no heavy duty tasks...

Again, that's you saying what a SUV should and should not be used for. I haven't read of anyone here that agrees totally with your position. So, maybe you are right and the rest of the world is wrong about this?

by making everyone else less safe

No, it doesn't make "everyone" less safe. Just the people who are careless and smash into one.

extra gas consumed and increase danger to others

Would that be the "essential" SUV or the "nonessential" Suv?

God Bless America

Your "God Bless America" statement and "dumb country boy" diolic is highly insulting and sterotyping. Can you figure out why?

alp8 · May 2006

I agree.

Some people drive their kids all over town to music lessons, soccer games, whatever, on top of a 50-mile/day commute, and THEY are Holier than Thou because they are in a Prius (or whatever) and I am in an SUV??? Why is that?

and don't forget, I beleive in conservation. I think it is a virtue. I think the world needs more of it.

The world is not going to hell because we drive SUVs.

The world may be going to hell because we drive using internal combustion engines. But that means you and your RSX are no Holier than me in my SUV. We're all driving the world to ruin, not just the SUV drivers.

Sailor: How about if the SUV-driver (or anyone getting less than 20 mpg) bought some emission offsets, so they were "carbon-neutral"?

Of course, I'd also like to make the guy in 4,500 square foot house do that, as well. ;-)

gagrice · May 2006

Really. Please explain how some attribute of the small car makes it that way. That ought to be good.

Here goes. Small cars as a group are not as safe, with a few exceptions. They do not get better mileage as a group than the midsize cars. They are always trying to hide in my blind spot so they can get hit and collect a big reward. You like to use the RSX as an example. It gets according to the EPA 24 MPG average. By contrast the much safer MB E320 CDI gets 30 MPG combined. According to the Insurance Institute the Acura RSX is a Substantially higher risk of injury than most of the small cars.

Again it is the persons choice to drive what they like. It is their responsibility to be prepared for the hazards that may await him on the highways.

http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/ictl_2dr.html

alp8 · May 2006

Sorry, I disagree. There are actually some absolutes in this world. Like, using twice as much gas for no good reason is irresponsible. No matter what your perspective.

Sailor: I can assure you that the average conservation-concerned Swiss thinks YOU use twice as much gasoline as you should.

and let's not even stop to consider how much more gas you use than the average Chinese

How long is your commute? Do you know how much energy it takes to get that train to Manhattan? It ain't free. And why do you have THAT job? Why not leave that job to someone willing to live within 5 miles of it? Think about how large your geographic spread is. You know there are people who live their life basically in a one-mile radius. The only reason you don't live such a simple life is because you want the money to have a nice car and a nice boat, and go to sail the boat, etc. YOUR lifestyle is killing this planet ALMOST as much as they guy with your SAME lifestyle who drives a 15-mpg SUV, instead of what you are driving.

You have lost your perspective. You must look at the ENTIRE footprint each person has, not just the vehicle choice.

alp8 · May 2006

by making everyone else less safe

No, it doesn't make "everyone" less safe. Just the people who are careless and smash into one.

well, actually, SUVs DO make other cars less safe. That's about the only point Sailor is right about. If you aren't in an SUV and one crashes into you or you crash into it, you are gonna wish that SUV was just about anything other thanan SUV. I'd say that is "making everyone else less safe"

PF_Flyer · May 2006

Drop the personal barbs now.

These discussions are not a place to discuss each other.

Believe it or not, sometimes you ARE going to see things that you disagree with here. That's not an excuse to start shooting off the zingers.

If you have a personal problem with another user, take it up with them in email. The forums are not a place to play out personal battles.

jipster · May 2006

Sorry pf. There's probably not anything being said that hasn't been said 3 or 4 times already(myself included). So, unless something new or interesting comes up....I'll take a breather.

sc00bs · May 2006

My main problem with your argument hinges on the principal that you can use big SUV "only" for the reasons you stated.

Most people who drive an SUV don't need to. They do so for vanity reasons, period. The same reasons why people pay top dollar for a Lexus, BMW, or other ridiculously expensive vehicles.

li_sailor · May 2006

Useing big SUV to tow family chiwahwai(sp) is no different than using it to haul the family camper. Both put other drivers needlessly at risk for crumple stealing SUV's...that's according to your criteria not mine.

Seems your POV is that no one should drive an SUV. Nothing like my POV, which is: if you have a need for it, it's reasonable otherwise no.

No, it doesn't make "everyone" less safe. Just the people who are careless and smash into one.

Um, no. Anyone that has a collision with one, regardless of fault.

li_sailor · May 2006

and THEY are Holier than Thou because they are in a Prius (or whatever) and I am in an SUV???

Who are you responding to that claimed this?

Sailor: How about if the SUV-driver (or anyone getting less than 20 mpg) bought some emission offsets, so they were "carbon-neutral"?

Then they would not have an emissions problem. That would be good, although they do not do this now and this doesn't affect the gas consumption or safety issues.

li_sailor · May 2006

I asked the basis for your claim: "From the angle on the road that I see things, little cars are a nuisance and dangerous..."

Here goes. Small cars as a group are not as safe, with a few exceptions.

They are less safe for their occupants, not anyone else. They are actually much safer to others in a collision. So I don't understand your point at all.

They are always trying to hide in my blind spot...

You think some drivers try to hide in a blind spot? Are you serious?

You like to use the RSX as an example. It gets according to the EPA 24 MPG average.

Um, no. I have a type S and its epa is 24/31, for a 28 mpg avg.

According to the Insurance Institute the Acura RSX is a Substantially higher risk of injury than most of the small cars.

To its occupants, like all smaller cars. Not to others. Externalities: I think we've covered this.

Again it is the persons choice to drive what they like.

Yes, we know this.

It is their responsibility to be prepared for the hazards that may await him on the highways.

Obviously. This has nothing to do with someone increasing those hazards unnecessarily.

li_sailor · May 2006

Sailor: I can assure you that the average conservation-concerned Swiss thinks YOU use twice as much gasoline as you should.

And a Sudanese farmer thinks the Swiss use too much. Not sure what the point here is.

and let's not even stop to consider how much more gas you use than the average Chinese

Ok, let's not :=)

And why do you have THAT job?

I don't. Can you please explain your point?

You must look at the ENTIRE footprint...

If I want to do...what? Post about what I think driving an H2 makes someone? If they are Mother Theresa, does that make driving an H2 a good thing?

gagrice · May 2006

They are less safe for their occupants, not anyone else.

That is a problem for all of us. It raises insurance rates across the board. Part of that safety issue is little tires wheels, light suspension and brakes. They fall apart with the higher speeds on the Interstate highways. I rented a Geo Metro years ago in Hawaii. It was a horrible car, unsafe at any speed. I kept it less than an hour and paid the higher price for a larger car. I don't want to be following someone in a little car when one of those little tires pop leaving me to bounce over the debris. Keep little cars off the main highways. They are fine for surface streets and that's it. It could be based on the Insurance statistics for that model of car.

OK, you got me on the blind spot. That goes for anyone in any vehicle, stay out of my blind spot and I will stay out of yours.

Sorry about the mileage error. I misread the EPA site on the type S RSX. Too much blogging for an old dude.

You Are What You Drive?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles