frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:27 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Mark Shroyer wrote:
>>
>>>In article <P7D9j.67$dP...@newsfe02.lga>,
>>> DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>So if I cost other people money by driving a (larger) SUV, then how do
>>>>other people save me money by driving tiny cars? Because so far I
>>>>haven't seen a dime of that savings. Every time I fill up, it costs me
>>>>$45, $50 a tank, and somebody with a little car there is only paying $15
>>>>or $20! It's just unfair!
>>
>>>I was going to attempt some snarky mockery of this paragraph, but
>>>really, I think it's better for me to just let it stand on its own.
>>
>>>You make a conscious decision to purchase a vehicle that consumes more
>>>gas than a normal car, then you complain when confronted with the
>>>economic consequences of choice? Surely you must realize how
>>>off-the-charts childish and stupid this sounds?
>>
>>"Stupid" are the comments that somehow SUV's are a factor in
>>our foreign wars. We need to control Middle East oil to run
>>our SUVs; apparently there's a foreign oil market for SUVs
>>and one for fuel efficient vehicles. These wars then get
>>added to the "cost" of operating them.
>
>
> It's a little more complicated than that.
>
> SUV popularity is characteristic of the mindset and behavior that got
> us into the untenable position of importing the majority of the oil on
> which we run our economy, most of it from distant and rather sleazy
> countries.
>
> If, back around 1970, we had switched to a less profligate lifestyle,
> plus invested seriously in energy independence, we might be very
> disinterested in OPEC. We could probably have skipped Cheney's dream
> invasion of Iraq and all its expense. Hell, if the money spent there
> had been put into energy research, who knows? Even something as wild
> as cold fusion might be a reality. We'd _certainly_ be a lot less
> beholden to Middle Eastern dictators.
>
> But that wasn't the path that was chosen. Ronny Raygun famously
> ripped the solar panels off the White House. Alternative energy is
> not macho enough, obviously. Neither is conservation, even by the
> simple act of using the proper tool for the transportational job.
The SUV craze pretty much got under way during the 90's.
Wonder why Clinton and Gore didn't put a stop to it?
If you're a conspiracy type, you may see Al Gore setting
himself up for a Nobel Prize while Veep!
> And so we have tens of thousands of dollars of debt per American to
> pay for an invasion for oil. We have a military stretched to the
> breaking point. We have an economy that's looking shakier by the
> day.
The Lefties have been telling us how bad the economy is
now for several years. Eventually it will be true, although,
if liberals get the White House in 2008, I suspect negative
spin on the economy will quickly fizzle out.
> But no matter, darn it - we got BIG vehicles! It's the Ammerrikun
> Way!
No, we have too many vehicles, that dictate policy and living
conditions for *people*. We are willing slaves to our automobiles
that demand streets be straight and wide for fast travel, with
turn lanes that don't require stopping or slowing at intersections,
which produce shopping and eating and living locations with mass
areas of asphalt to accommodate them.
This is not a special requirement of "large" cars. It's a demand
of the automobile in general: SUV or Prius!
It will only go away when cars (not just SUVs) reflect the true
economic, environmental and social costs of their use. It won't
happen probably until everywhere is so congested that it actually
is faster to walk or bike somewhere! Some places are already
reaching that critical point. I understand the latest generation
(forgot their label) is more amenable to urban living and eschews
the suburban lifestyle, including ownership of a car (it's a liability
in an urban environment). Maybe things can change.
>>I pay more to run my pickup truck. Although I wasn't thinking
>>along the lines of $100/fillup, I did know it would be pricey
>>compared to a Civic, or even Buick LeSabre for that matter.
>>
>>I accept the costs as a choice I made. When I no longer am
>>willing to accept those costs, a new vehicle will be in my
>>driveway that matches what I'm willing to pay to run it.
>>
>>I *do* pay more to operate my truck than a Civic operator, which
>>includes state and federal taxes. I'm not getting a free ride.
>
> You seem to miss the fundamental concept, which is: Your payment do
> NOT cover the total cost to society of your choice. That's probably
> true for all drivers, but it's _more_ true for drivers of more
> wasteful, more dangerous vehicles.
This is true with *any* motor vehicle. Why do you focus only on
SUV drivers "not paying their fair share"?
> To take one small example: Large vehicles impose more injuries and
> fatalities on drivers of smaller vehicles, and on pedestrians, by
> virtue of their bumper heights and taller front ends.
>
> Then there's the research pointing out the difference in personality
> traits associated with vehicle choice. SUV drivers have been shown to
> be more selfish and aggressive than other vehicle owners.
I think this is nonsense. I have come to believe there is something
to the risk compensation effects in many areas of human activity.
But how significant it is remains uncertain to my mind.
Certain psychological "weaknesses" may manifest themselves in vehicle
selection (I'm fairly independent fellow and my truck and my bikes
are loaded with "stuff" I "might" need to get out of jam if need
arose), but I believe its psychoanalysts running rampant to say SUVs
attract selfish aggressive people. I was nearly run off the road
this morning by a kid weaving back and forth in his Corolla (??).
Maybe he just doesn't have enough money yet to buy his Expedition?
> Which is, I suppose, why they argue so hard to justify an obviously
> dumb vehicle.
A dumb vehicle for you is not necessarily a dumb vehicle for someone
else.
I chose to initially buy my truck because I towed a boat. There are
some that will argue I don't really need a boat, which is of course
true.
For thousands of years, humanity got by without engines on boats, so
I don't need an engine. A dumb purchase to my mind is hubby, wifey
and junior in a 5000 square foot home. Over half the world lives in
one or two room huts with no real issues, so why do we need homes with
parlors, living rooms, bedrooms, media rooms, cellars, attics?
It's dumb to have all those rooms in a house!
SMH