Student charged with firebombing SUVs

[2jaded2care]

I thought it was all the (illegally) overloaded dump trucks tearing up our roads and bridges. Surely they weigh more than SUVs or minivans.

I'm no fan of SUVs, but some people need them. Others just want them, and they have the $$$ to throw away on metal, gasoline, and self-delusional ego. I don't.

I just hope the guy has to reimburse the insurance companies (our premiums, btw) for the damage he caused. In addition to the jail time for violating property rights.

The ends do not always justify the means.

 

[Frohickey]

I take it youve never been to LA. Try driving on the 405 and NOT being close to the car in front of you. Oh, and the fast lane here is FULL of SUVs. What about city streets where im not "drafting at 60 miles per hour." I dont have to be TAILGAITING to have my vision obscured by a huge vehicle.

Regardless, accidents happen, and everyone knows that. It is irresponsible and very selfish to buy a car knowing you will be safe when your vehicle plows into a smaller car. If everyones car was around the same size, or at LEAST the bumpers lined up and what not, injuries on BOTH ends could be reduced.

Night vision? im not sure what you mean, im talking about adjusting my mirrors so im not blinded. Im not rich and cant afford night vision for my mirrors (whatever that is). Oh and I paid for my car myself (not that its any of your business), what makes you think my parents paid for it?

Next time leave a note. Oh, and I dont have time to go find the parking lot manager everytime I park to complain. Sorry.

Tell that to my friend who just lost his father a few months ago over there. I doubt that would have happened if Iraq had no oil.

I was raised in LA traffic. When I had to contend with LA traffic, I changed my schedule so that I'm either on the other direction when everyone else is the other, or I change the time I have to be on the road so that I miss traffic. What do you do when you are behind a big semi? Same thing as you do when you are behind a SUV. SUVs are easier, since you can see from behind them through to the front, can't do that with semis.

Irresponsible and selfish to buy a car that has a greater likelihood of saving you in case of an accident? I buy the vehicle I want, you can buy the vehicle you want. Everyone has their wants, everyone is happy. Are you going to make a law saying people can't raise their 4x4 trucks?

Just be a safe courteous driver. Thats what most people here have forgotten. When I drive a SUV, I drive on the slow lanes, leave plenty of stopping room, and signal waay ahead of time. It seems that you are railing against the inconsiderate drivers, and you see the inconsiderate SUV drivers more because the vehicles are bigger.

 

[vwcruisn]

I was raised in LA traffic. When I had to contend with LA traffic, I changed my schedule so that I'm either on the other direction when everyone else is the other, or I change the time I have to be on the road so that I miss traffic. What do you do when you are behind a big semi? Same thing as you do when you are behind a SUV. SUVs are easier, since you can see from behind them through to the front, can't do that with semis.

Irresponsible and selfish to buy a car that has a greater likelihood of saving you in case of an accident? I buy the vehicle I want, you can buy the vehicle you want. Everyone has their wants, everyone is happy. Are you going to make a law saying people can't raise their 4x4 trucks?

Just be a safe courteous driver. Thats what most people here have forgotten. When I drive a SUV, I drive on the slow lanes, leave plenty of stopping room, and signal waay ahead of time. It seems that you are railing against the inconsiderate drivers, and you see the inconsiderate SUV drivers more because the vehicles are bigger.

you cannot compare semis to suvs.. sure they are relatively the same size They are for a different purpose. Do you know anyone that buys a semi to drive their kids to soccer practice? Would you have a problem with everyday citizens buying semis to drive to work and back everyday (assuming their profession is NOT a truck driver of course)

Raise your 4x4? Sure raise it as high as you want. Just keep it off the streets. Those things that look like Bigfoot (monster truck) should be strictly for offroad use only. What a hazard to society.

Again you take me out of context. Of course it is not irresponsible and selfish to buy a car that will make you safer in an accident. But when that safety is at the expense of crushing me into a twisted hunk of metal, then yes, it is.

I am a very safe and coureous driver, thanks. I have never been in an accident or received a ticket (aside from parking tickets )

No I am not railing against inconsiderate drivers. Someone asked how their SUV inpedes on my liberties and I was stating the numerous reasons I could think of offhand.

 

[MrMacMan]

you're kidding yes???

Heck no.

They owned a Hummer Repair Station nearby me.


They really need new security. Metal Chain fences = teh lame.


Please guys, atleast barbed wire if not the ones that really hurt -- razor wire.

 

[G4scott]

Instead of firebombing (which I agree does more to the enviroment then the acual car would for a year of ownership -- unless you have a hummer, firebomb that POS, in 3 months you do more damage to the envirement then I could blowing up your car several times) I prefer just a normal slash the tires, key the car and bash in all of the windows.


Less jail time... and it doesn't kill the enviroment.

Uh, tires, windows, and paint all take their toll on the environment too. I think it'd be safer to stick to more 'peaceful' means, like picketing. Vandalizing cars because you don't think they're good for the environment is a stupid idea. You can organize protests, send letters to your congressman, start a petition, and do one of many other things to get your point across.

As to the idea of not being able to see around SUV's, I seem to have a problem seeing around 18 wheelers when I drive my family's Suburban. I keep my distance, but I don't feel sorry for the geo metro who gets between me and the 18 wheeler.

As for SUV's polluting, you don't know how many small cars that I see that put more smoke in the air than all 4 cars my family owns combined. SUV's may burn more gas, but a well maintained SUV is better than that smoking Honda Civic that hasn't been inspected in years. Instead of just targeting SUV's, go after poorly maintained cars too.

 

[vwcruisn]

Instead of just targeting SUV's, go after poorly maintained cars too.

we have been for years now. ever heard of a "smog check?"

You can also dial 1800 CUT SMOG to report smoking vehicles here in california. I would expect other states have the same sort of program.

 

[G4scott]

we have been for years now. ever heard of a "smog check?"

You can also dial 1800 CUT SMOG to report smoking vehicles here in california. I would expect other states have the same sort of program.

There are numbers here in Texas for that, but 1.) nobody knows about it, and 2.) half of the cars are from Mexico.

If I see so many smoking cars, then apparently something isn't working, and should be fixed. Just because there's a number to call doesn't mean that people will call it.

 

[Mantat]

ok here are some facts why SUV are dangerous:

Cars are designed to handle collision with vehicules within a range of 500 pound of their weight. So when an accident involve a car and a SUV, the death rate of the people in the car IS higher. And dont even think about saying that its the fault of the car driver. Lost of control is more common in the case of SUV drivers than car drivers by a large amount.

now pollution:
(taken from the web)
Since SUV's are not considered to be in the same class as passenger cars, they are not required to abide by the same laws as the passenger cars. SUV's are included in the class with light trucks and thus, are not required to achieve the goal of 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger cars. But instead, they are to achieve a goal of 20.7 miles per gallon and some SUVs, such as the Ford Excursion, are not even considered light trucks and do not have to achieve any certain fuel economy level. As SUV's are not required to maintain efficient fuel economy levels, they release much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

And I dont know who is the idiot who said that SUV tires arent inflated as much as the one on cars. This is a ridiculous argument. Tires should ALWAYS be well inflated, else they will be even less full efficient. I know that for a car, if the tires arent inflated well, the car can burn more than 5% more fuel.

As for damaging the road, as I said, it is more relevant here (canada) because of the freezing / unfreezing than in the states.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

And I dont know who is the idiot who said that SUV tires arent inflated as much as the one on cars. This is a ridiculous argument. Tires should ALWAYS be well inflated, else they will be even less full efficient. I know that for a car, if the tires arent inflated well, the car can burn more than 5% more fuel.

As for damaging the road, as I said, it is more relevant here (canada) because of the freezing / unfreezing than in the states.

I am the idiot with the underinflated tires. Perhaps I shouldn't have let my membership in the SAE lapse but the last time I checked there are recommended maximum inflations for tires on different vehicles and the recommended inflation for SUVs is lower in order to improve handling and decrease the risk of accidents. (Lower inflation->soft tire->more deformation-> greater surface area on the road->better traction and handling) This of course comes at the expense of tire life and fuel efficiency.

The wear on roads from tires is related to the tire diameter, the Young's modulus of the road and the tire, the weight of the vehicle and the amount of travel. I don't remember the equation off hand but if you pick up a copy of Mark's Handbook and look for roller bearings and wear you should find it. The curvature of the road also enters the equation but since it is so much greater than the tire radius for most purposes it drops out of the equation.

I live in central PA and drive a small car. I am just about the only one I know without a pickup or SUV and I got stuck last weekend at scout camp on a paved road. Freezing is more of an issue here since there is the shift from below freezing to above which is where the damage really occurs.

 

[jsw]

ok here are some facts why SUV are dangerous:

Cars are designed to handle collision with vehicules within a range of 500 pound of their weight. So when an accident involve a car and a SUV, the death rate of the people in the car IS higher. And dont even think about saying that its the fault of the car driver. Lost of control is more common in the case of SUV drivers than car drivers by a large amount.

So now we can all agree that SUVs are safer in accidents. Sounds like an argument in favor of getting an SUV if you care about the safety of those who will ride in it.

now pollution:
(taken from the web)
Since SUV's are not considered to be in the same class as passenger cars, they are not required to abide by the same laws as the passenger cars. SUV's are included in the class with light trucks and thus, are not required to achieve the goal of 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger cars. But instead, they are to achieve a goal of 20.7 miles per gallon and some SUVs, such as the Ford Excursion, are not even considered light trucks and do not have to achieve any certain fuel economy level. As SUV's are not required to maintain efficient fuel economy levels, they release much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Hybrid engines. In 5-10 years, this will all be a memory. So, the main argument isn't that SUVs are bad, it's that SUVs pollute too much, right? Of course, you should probably look up major sources of CO2 pollution to ensure that SUVs contribute a significant amount before you rail against them. They might pollute twice as much as cars but still not enough to make a difference. But, I'd agree that, all things considered, it'd be a lot better if they polluted less. Same for all cars, lawn mowers, factories, cows, etc.

And I dont know who is the idiot who said that SUV tires arent inflated as much as the one on cars. This is a ridiculous argument. Tires should ALWAYS be well inflated, else they will be even less full efficient. I know that for a car, if the tires arent inflated well, the car can burn more than 5% more fuel.

Handled by a previous post. "Not inflated as much" doesn't mean underinflated.

As for damaging the road, as I said, it is more relevant here (canada) because of the freezing / unfreezing than in the states.

It's an issue in northern US as well.

 

[Frohickey]

As for SUV's polluting, you don't know how many small cars that I see that put more smoke in the air than all 4 cars my family owns combined. SUV's may burn more gas, but a well maintained SUV is better than that smoking Honda Civic that hasn't been inspected in years. Instead of just targeting SUV's, go after poorly maintained cars too.

Its just not going to happen.

You see, the ones that are going after SUVs are nothing if not Politically Correct.

Politically Correct people do not go after people in poorly maintained older year vehicles. The reason they do not is because these people are most likely poor, or not so rich. Another reason could be that these people are more likely to be illegal aliens that buy used cars because they can't go through the checks that a financing/credit check would expose them to. (Okay, anecdote from a car salesman that I asked.)

Politically Correct people would never dream of targetting the poor or illegal aliens.

 

[jsw]

Its just not going to happen.

You see, the ones that are going after SUVs are nothing if not Politically Correct.

Politically Correct people do not go after people in poorly maintained older year vehicles. The reason they do not is because these people are most likely poor, or not so rich. Another reason could be that these people are more likely to be illegal aliens that buy used cars because they can't go through the checks that a financing/credit check would expose them to. (Okay, anecdote from a car salesman that I asked.)

Politically Correct people would never dream of targetting the poor or illegal aliens.

Amen.

I'm not saying to target the poor. I'm just agreeing that it is hypocritical to blame the rich when the poor are doing the same thing.

 

[G4scott]

Politically Correct people would never dream of targetting the poor or illegal aliens.

Which is why politically correct people are often BAD!!!

The only problem is that you can't just target these people, you have to make a way available for them to get their cars fixed. That, of course, is probably never going to happen, because nobody wants to do anything with the problem...

 

[jsw]

Which is why politically correct people are often BAD!!!

The only problem is that you can't just target these people, you have to make a way available for them to get their cars fixed. That, of course, is probably never going to happen, because nobody wants to do anything with the problem...

Yup. Always so much easier to protest against something than to come up with a legitimate solution.

 

[MarkCollette]

So now we can all agree that SUVs are safer in accidents. Sounds like an argument in favor of getting an SUV if you care about the safety of those who will ride in it.

Hehehe, that's an interesting spin. Think of it this way:

If you and I run into each other, probably neither of us will really get hurt. It doesn't matter if you're a weight lifting guy and I'm a scrawny momma's boy, because we're still within a certain range of mass, and given an equivalent velocity, then our momentum is close enough, that our body structure will be strong enough to protect us.

Now say that you weigh 3 times as much as me, so you're like 450 lb and I'm 150 lb. Hell, you just sitting on me is gonna hurt So yes, it is safer to be you than me, so that kind of is an endorsement for your weight. But, if you weren't so overweight, then you wouldn't be a risk to me, other around you, the furniture you sit on, and your own heart. Hmm.. maybe I'm getting a little off-topic here.

Ok this is fun, so I'm going to use another analogy:

It's probably safer for you to run around with a spear pointed out, since that will keep you from stubbing your toe against other people, but now you're a homocidally dangerous threat to those around you.

So, back to the car vs. SUV thing then. Assuming we all screw up and get into accidents at a comparable rate, then if you SUV people are killing more people, then you are a threat to our safety, and so we're obviously going to try to stop you murdering bastards - umm, I mean, inconsiderate people.

And now for the serious reasons that haven't been mentionned yet:

1) While SUV owners have lower injury rates, they have higher death rates, do to roll-overs. So, you're safer in a minor accident, but less safe in a major accident. So when your SUV rolls over and squishes in your wife's skull, and you're holding her limp corpse in your arms, crying to the heavens, don't expect much simpathy from all the people whose kids were smashed to little peices from some other SUV.

2) The bumpers on SUVs are higher than on cars, for no real reason, other than aesthetics. This causes the SUV to go over top of the car, where it has very little protection, like the glass, decapitating the car-ists (and of course leading to our favorite roll-over for you). So, if that was rectified, then maybe SUVs would be safer for everyone, and we could all sing and dance in harmony. But they're not, so we hate you.

Hopefully that dispelled your illusions about SUVs and that all against them are PC

 

[jsw]

Hehehe, that's an interesting spin. Think of it this way:

If you and I run into each other, probably neither of us will really get hurt. It doesn't matter if you're a weight lifting guy and I'm a scrawny momma's boy, because we're still within a certain range of mass, and given an equivalent velocity, then our momentum is close enough, that our body structure will be strong enough to protect us.

Now say that you weigh 3 times as much as me, so you're like 450 lb and I'm 150 lb. Hell, you just sitting on me is gonna hurt So yes, it is safer to be you than me, so that kind of is an endorsement for your weight. But, if you weren't so overweight, then you wouldn't be a risk to me, other around you, the furniture you sit on, and your own heart. Hmm.. maybe I'm getting a little off-topic here.

Ok this is fun, so I'm going to use another analogy:

It's probably safer for you to run around with a spear pointed out, since that will keep you from stubbing your toe against other people, but now you're a homocidally dangerous threat to those around you.

So, back to the car vs. SUV thing then. Assuming we all screw up and get into accidents at a comparable rate, then if you SUV people are killing more people, then you are a threat to our safety, and so we're obviously going to try to stop you murdering bastards - umm, I mean, inconsiderate people.

And now for the serious reasons that haven't been mentionned yet:

1) While SUV owners have lower injury rates, they have higher death rates, do to roll-overs. So, you're safer in a minor accident, but less safe in a major accident. So when your SUV rolls over and squishes in your wife's skull, and you're holding her limp corpse in your arms, crying to the heavens, don't expect much simpathy from all the people whose kids were smashed to little peices from some other SUV.

2) The bumpers on SUVs are higher than on cars, for no real reason, other than aesthetics. This causes the SUV to go over top of the car, where it has very little protection, like the glass, decapitating the car-ists (and of course leading to our favorite roll-over for you). So, if that was rectified, then maybe SUVs would be safer for everyone, and we could all sing and dance in harmony. But they're not, so we hate you.

Hopefully that dispelled your illusions about SUVs and that all against them are PC

Good points.

But perhaps I'm including my vehicles (Jeep Liberty and Jeep Grand Cherokee) in a discussion that's mainly about the real beasts out there (Ford Excursion, etc.).

I believe that there should be a standard bumper height. Period. That would make a lot of things safer. I also think that the old "5 mph" bumpers should be brought back - ugly or not - because it sucks to do $5K of damage by backing up at 4 mph into a wall or post or whatever. But that's another story.

I think that higher death rates in SUVs are due mainly to the false perception that AWD or 4WD makes it possible to stop fast just because it makes it easier to go fast in the snow. Idiots will be idiots. I think that a properly driven SUV is no more likely to get into an accident than any other vehicle. I'd guess that sports cars also have higher death rates for similar reasons.

However, I do believe that, in a society with many, many SUVs, it is better to drive one than to worry about being hit by one. If someone hits me, then it's too bad for them if they're in a small car. I'd rather be the one who isn't hurt. Since I have a spotless driving record, I'm not too worried about the "smashed kids" scenario. I'm more worried about getting hit.

 

[MarkCollette]

But perhaps I'm including my vehicles (Jeep Liberty and Jeep Grand Cherokee) in a discussion that's mainly about the real beasts out there (Ford Excursion, etc.).

Hmm, yes but jeeps still have the higher center of gravity that leads to roll-overs. On a sidetrack I'll tell you something funny I heard. The humvee was the successor to the jeep (in the military?) for various reasons, one of them being its lower center of gravity, to reduce roll-overs. Then the humvee became commercialised, and sold to the public. It was quite popular. Then, out came the humvee2, which *drum roll please* raised the center of gravity way back up, thus putting us back to square one

I believe that there should be a standard bumper height. Period. That would make a lot of things safer. I also think that the old "5 mph" bumpers should be brought back - ugly or not - because it sucks to do $5K of damage by backing up at 4 mph into a wall or post or whatever. But that's another story.

I think that higher death rates in SUVs are due mainly to the false perception that AWD or 4WD makes it possible to stop fast just because it makes it easier to go fast in the snow. Idiots will be idiots. I think that a properly driven SUV is no more likely to get into an accident than any other vehicle. I'd guess that sports cars also have higher death rates for similar reasons.

Totally, 100% agree.

However, I do believe that, in a society with many, many SUVs, it is better to drive one than to worry about being hit by one. If someone hits me, then it's too bad for them if they're in a small car. I'd rather be the one who isn't hurt. Since I have a spotless driving record, I'm not too worried about the "smashed kids" scenario. I'm more worried about getting hit.

And here we have the problem, where the only logical choice for you, is to become a part of the problem for others. It's a race to the bottom.

So, we need to fix the problem that leads to this whole situation occuring. Now, just to be clear, I am in no way advocating that you lose your choice, I'm just saying that we need to tweek the input variables that everyone uses to make their decisions. Ie:

1) Do all the safety things we've both mentionned

2) Either remove the tax exemption for SUVs, or apply it to safer vehicles as well, or just all cars, etc. Essentially, level the economic incentive playing field. Hell, it might even stimulate the automotive industry and the economy

3) Use intelligent regulations to encourage technological advances to solve these problems. For example, legislate a set of required maximum stopping distances for velocities. Then the car companies could lower the vehicle mass, improve breaks, improve tires, etc.. Whatever their smart people can come up with to make things safer. Hell, maybe someone will come up with a huge external air bag. Whatever, just let the market choose the methods.

 

[Frohickey]

2) Either remove the tax exemption for SUVs, or apply it to safer vehicles as well, or just all cars, etc. Essentially, level the economic incentive playing field. Hell, it might even stimulate the automotive industry and the economy

3) Use intelligent regulations to encourage technological advances to solve these problems. For example, legislate a set of required maximum stopping distances for velocities. Then the car companies could lower the vehicle mass, improve breaks, improve tires, etc.. Whatever their smart people can come up with to make things safer. Hell, maybe someone will come up with a huge external air bag. Whatever, just let the market choose the methods.

It is not a tax exemption. What it is are CAFE standards, no its not something that Starbucks has on their corporate policy statement. It stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Which is a way of saying everything Ford sells has to hit a certain MPG overall. Still, its a bad idea overall, and this is why. You now have another bean counter over at Ford making sure that they have the right mix of CAFE, too many Excursions, time to make more Fiestas. Then, you have another bean counter over at the government making sure Ford follows the CAFE standard. How about just let Ford and its customers decide what to make and what to buy?

Each gallon of gasoline is taxed at a certain rate. If the car guzzles too much gas, then the tax paid to run that car is more. If a car sips gas, then the tax paid to run that car is less. Each customer can make up their mind how much they want to pay for gas. And they can base their buying decision on that. Enough people want gas-sippers, Ford sells more gas-sippers and starts designing cars that sip even less. Enough people want gas-guzzlers, same thing.

The way it is now, Ford needs to make some Excursions, and some Fiestas, enough to satisfy the CAFE, but if the Fiestas are not sold, they are scrapped or sold at a loss. How is that good for the wise use of resources?

Read this, from an engineering magazine talking about SUVs and injuries.

As we reflect on the willingness of our astronauts and military personnel to lay their lives on the line for the sake of higher causes, we realize that there are values more precious than safety. Freedom is almost always obtained at the expense of safety, and requires an assumption of personal responsibility Responsibility for the consequences of our choices gives us dignity in spite of our imperfections.

I'll take freedom over safety any day. I'll be responsible for my freedom that I do not hurt your safety. But if you take away my freedom, you will never be safe from me.

 

[MarkCollette]

It is not a tax exemption. What it is are CAFE standards

Actually, there are tax writeoffs in the USA for entrepreneurs getting light trucks. Probably to help construction people or something like that.

Read this, from an engineering magazine talking about SUVs and injuries.

That was funny, thanks for the link

I'll take freedom over safety any day. I'll be responsible for my freedom that I do not hurt your safety. But if you take away my freedom, you will never be safe from me.

Yes, but if you're dead, it's hard to enjoy that freedom There has to be balance. That's why we have things like the FDA, to restrict our freedom to choose substandard options that don't add value, but just hurt us.

 

[ddtlm]

Hmm, yes but jeeps still have the higher center of gravity that leads to roll-overs.

It is a contibuting factor in rollovers, as are all sorts of other things such as vehicle load, speed and the ability of the driver to handle adverse situations.

On a sidetrack I'll tell you something funny I heard. The humvee was the successor to the jeep (in the military?) for various reasons, one of them being its lower center of gravity, to reduce roll-overs. Then the humvee became commercialised, and sold to the public. It was quite popular. Then, out came the humvee2, which *drum roll please* raised the center of gravity way back up, thus putting us back to square one

You may have noticed that the H2 is a re-skinned Chevy/GMC Suburban. There's nothing Hummer about it but the shameful price tag. Who buys those anyway...

And here we have the problem, where the only logical choice for you, is to become a part of the problem for others. It's a race to the bottom.

Yes, for safety the logical choice is to get a heavier vehicle, and it will remain so until the rules of the game are changed for everyone. The people who can't afford big fancy cars/trucks will die more, that's how it is, that's how its been. I guess it's an incentive to move up the economic food chain.

 

[vwcruisn]

It is not a tax exemption. What it is are CAFE standards, no its not something that Starbucks has on their corporate policy statement. It stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Which is a way of saying everything Ford sells has to hit a certain MPG overall. Still, its a bad idea overall, and this is why. You now have another bean counter over at Ford making sure that they have the right mix of CAFE, too many Excursions, time to make more Fiestas. Then, you have another bean counter over at the government making sure Ford follows the CAFE standard. How about just let Ford and its customers decide what to make and what to buy?

you never cease to amaze me. are you actually saying you want the fuel efficiency regulations to be taken away? can you HONESTLY sit there and tell me that if they were not in place, that cars would be getting the MPG that they are today (technically, they should be getting more.. but thats another story). seriously tho... do you REALLY believe that the car companies would be putting as much time money and research into fuel effieciency standards if it werent required of them? surely you dont, that would be naive.. plain and simple.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

you never cease to amaze me. are you actually saying you want the fuel efficiency regulations to be taken away? can you HONESTLY sit there and tell me that if they were not in place, that cars would be getting the MPG that they are today (technically, they should be getting more.. but thats another story). seriously tho... do you REALLY believe that the car companies would be putting as much time money and research into fuel effieciency standards if it werent required of them? surely you dont, that would be naive.. plain and simple.

I don't know if he does, I do. They set up some unusual design constraints, they hurt vehicle safety, and they set a target for the auto companies. Most of the companies will only invest dollars into engineering to meet the requirements. If they can meet the requirements in other ways they will likely try that first(beancounters look at the CAFE requirements and everyone reaches for the most familiar tool) Additionally, why push efficiency to 80 mpg when you only need 40?

When the gas prices go up (like they are now) people look to get more fuel efficient cars. The goal of the car companies is to maximize profit. When people start looking for more fuel efficient cars the companies will design them. If there was clear profit in it then they would spend more money than they do now.

 

[jsw]

Actually, there are tax writeoffs in the USA for entrepreneurs getting light trucks. Probably to help construction people or something like that.

The only tax exemption I know of - for those of us who are not entrepreneurs - is on cars like the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, etc.

Thus, the economic incentive would seem to be to buy a hybrid. I think we can all agree this is good - same power, better mileage, less polution.

Of course, the main argument seems to be that SUV's are roving deathtraps, out to squish little cars like bugs. To that, I must agree with Frohicky. Buy a bigger car, or at least a Volvo.

And, yeah, if everyone drove semi's, I'd drive one too. Seems like the safest option. Otherwise, I'll stick to my Jeeps. And, for what it's worth, in ten years of Jeep driving - four different Jeeps between my wife and myself - I have not ONCE even come close to rolling the Jeep. Not even close. And I drove a sports car before that (Mazda RX-7...ahh, how I miss that car), so I was used to cornering a lot faster in the past. The fact that that rollover more easily does not mean that the rollover easily.

 

[2jaded2care]

The SUV tax break benefits not just "entrepreneurs", but anyone who can claim to be self-employed: "The tax break has encouraged people from all lines of work, including real-estate agents, lawyers, consultants, and many others-for whom this provision was never intended-to purchase a luxury SUV instead of a luxury automobile, which is not eligible for the same deductions." Link:

http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction.htm

It was intended to help farmers and small businesses, but it was (surprise!) extremely poorly written legislation and has become a "gimme" which benefits the rich and luxury automobile manufacturers. A "gimme" which results in lower tax revenues, which we all get to compensate for.

There are moves to get auto makers to lower SUV bumpers, which will help the safety issue.

As far as rollovers, I once had to swerve drastically to avoid an object in the road. I barely managed to keep my Honda on the road. I am firmly convinced that if I had made the same reflexive move with a Bronco, I would have rolled several times into oncoming traffic. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence.

Also recently we had a college official killed when his SUV rolled over. He was trying to avoid a dryer which had fallen from a pickup.

I'll stick to my Honda.

 

[MarkCollette]

It is a contibuting factor in rollovers, as are all sorts of other things such as vehicle load, speed and the ability of the driver to handle adverse situations.

You're so right, in the end it really comes down to operator error.

I'll tell you guys a story, since for some reason I just keep on taking up space in this thread When my brother died of cancer, some of my mother's friends drove down to come to the funeral, to be supportive, etc. Well, there was an elk or something like that in the road, and the wife of the couple swerved to avoid it, then she overcompensated to correct, and rolled the vehicle. The roof crushed in and killed her. Her husband and son survived because they were both asleep, and had their seats reclined. If she wasn't going so fast, or didn't overcompensate, then they'd all be alive today. But, to a lesser extent, maybe they would be too if the vehicle had been made safer. Who knows, but in reality, it was her fault.

Now, I'm such a sick bastard, that I'm not actually telling you guys that story to preach, but actually to ask: I wonder how many people die trying to go to funerals? Are there long chains of people going to funerals because someone died going to a funeral, because someone died going... you get the idea

Yes, for safety the logical choice is to get a heavier vehicle, and it will remain so until the rules of the game are changed for everyone. The people who can't afford big fancy cars/trucks will die more, that's how it is, that's how its been. I guess it's an incentive to move up the economic food chain.

How about this one: all the poor people are still driving second hand cars, back from the day that they were made of solid steel, and all the rich people are driving new light-weight crumple zoned cars. So, the poor people might well be safer than the rich