SUVs should Get Tobacco-Style Warnings

srobert

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jan 7, 2002
2,062
0
I can't post the whole article here (All rights reserved. © 2004 yadda yadda yadda) but it's an interesting read.

SpaceDaily said:
Just like smokers in the European Union buy tobacco marked with "Smoking Kills" and other dire warnings, New Economics Foundation (nef) offered its own slogans for super-stickers which they said should be slapped onto the hoods and sides of cars.

"Global warming kills," "Climate change can seriously damage your health" or even "Driving seriously harms you and others around you" were among the list of warnings proposed by the London-based think tank.
—> Link <—

Should I have posted this thread in the political section? I know it's a touchy topic. Anyway, I think this article can be interesting to both parties (pro/con SUVs)
 

Inkmonkey

macrumors 6502
Oct 2, 2003
435
1
Calgary
srobert said:
I can't post the whole article here (All rights reserved. © 2004 yadda yadda yadda) but it's an interesting read.



—> Link <—

Should I have posted this thread in the political section? I know it's a touchy topic. Anyway, I think this article can be interesting to both parties (pro/con SUVs)
Great Global Warming Geladas! Unfortunately we can't all fit a family of 3 and a dog in a Smart car.
 

Mechcozmo

macrumors 603
Jul 17, 2004
5,215
2
Or a family of 5 with a dog that needs the space. And the roof rack. The people that have one person to an H2 is the kind of thing that gets me upset. Especially when they are never going to need that kind of vehicle for the weather here in San Diego!
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
The bigger SUVs are already outlawed in many of the places they are driven, but that doesn't seem to stop anybody. Keep your eyes open for weight limit signs, then look up the GVW for some of those beasts :p
 

Lord Blackadder

macrumors G5
May 7, 2004
13,523
2,558
Sod off
Mechcozmo said:
Or a family of 5 with a dog that needs the space. And the roof rack. The people that have one person to an H2 is the kind of thing that gets me upset. Especially when they are never going to need that kind of vehicle for the weather here in San Diego!
That's all I see every day during my commute. a solitary <censored> hurtling down the highway at 80mph in a 7 passenger, 3 ton SUV with a cell phone stuck to their head. :mad:
 

wrldwzrd89

macrumors G5
Jun 6, 2003
12,106
73
Solon, OH
Personally, I don't like SUVs that much either, and think the USA needs to use them less and buy fewer of them. If you asked me what my favorite kind of vehicle is, I would answer "the minivan". A warning to SUV buyers would help my cause.
 

Hemingray

macrumors 68030
Jan 9, 2002
2,913
25
Ha ha haaa!
I don't think this is a bad idea, however two major things:

1) Are they suggesting these stickers be permanently affixed to the car? Like the labeling on a packet of cigarettes? If so, that's ludicrous. I'm assuming they mean just have it next to the mileage label or something when people are looking to buy a car.

2) They don't differentiate between large and small SUV's. Cars like the Toyota RAV4, which is considered an SUV, gets the best mileage out of the SUV class that even rivals some compacts. So to target blanketly by SUV class alone would be unfair.

Warning the public of the impact these huge gas-guzzlers have on our environment seems logical. But then again, these people usually have enough money to burn that they don't even care in the first place. ie. All those "soccer moms" out in Coto de Caza. :rolleyes:
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Oct 20, 2002
16,570
0
I think that the sticker campaign for SUV's will work about a well as cigarettes. There are still too many smokers, they realize the danger, but still choose to smoke.

It's the large SUV's that are the problem, not just gas guzzlers but they do more damage to other vehicles and passengers in an accident. Those that can afford those vehicles don't really worry about gas or others. The ones that the majority purchase aren't really a problem
 

Inkmonkey

macrumors 6502
Oct 2, 2003
435
1
Calgary
Hemingray said:
They don't differentiate between large and small SUV's. Cars like the Toyota RAV4, which is considered an SUV, gets the best mileage out of the SUV class that even rivals some compacts. So to target blanketly by SUV class alone would be unfair.
Great 4-Cylinder Chimpanzees! Add my new Nissan X-Trail to that list. Pretty comparable mileage to the Rav4.
 

Mr_Ed

macrumors 6502
Mar 10, 2004
443
8
North and east of Mickeyland
Inkmonkey said:
Great Global Warming Geladas! Unfortunately we can't all fit a family of 3 and a dog in a Smart car.
You are right. There are many things you simply cannot do with a small, so called "efficient" vehicle. If you were a masochist :) you could accomplish some of them by making several trips which would bring the "efficiency" of the vehicle into question.

I'm not a fan of SUVs for other reasons (mostly technical, as I consider an SUV the equivalent of a "Jack of all trades, master of none" sort of machine) but I recognize many really do have a need for such vehicles. It bothers me that some groups have latched on to this class of vehicles and are passing them all off as "the great Satan" of the global warming debate. They make it sound like eliminating an entire class of vehicles is some kind of a "magic bullet" to solve worldwide climate issues.
 

jywv8

macrumors 6502
Jan 11, 2003
322
0
Chicago
Inkmonkey said:
Great Global Warming Geladas! Unfortunately we can't all fit a family of 3 and a dog in a Smart car.
How about a station wagon?

That's the thing that bothers me. People act like they need an SUV because there is no other more fuel effiecient option. If you want an SUV, go for it. It's a free country. But at least be honest about it. Unless you are fording rivers, you don't _need_ an SUV.
 

Apple Hobo

macrumors 6502a
Mar 19, 2004
795
0
A series of tubes
"Global warming kills," "Climate change can seriously damage your health" or even "Driving seriously harms you and others around you"
I hope the people who came up with these quotes walk everywhere they go. And they'd better not be using electricity or eating food that was shipped on a truck, train, or ship.

Anyone who drives any kind of petroleum-fueled car and complains about environmental damage is a hypocrite.

Just to be fair, I think the cell-phone-toting soccer moms and their rich wannabe-macho-men husbands need to give up their stupid Lincoln Navigators and Caddy Escalades.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,030
PDX
While I immensely dislike many of the larger SUV's (think: Ford Expedition), shouldn't the focus (and complaints) be directed towards Congress or the Automakers themselves, to improve fuel efficiency standards? Or move towards alternate fuel technologies/hybrids? Even use modern diesel engines, as are used in Europe and elsewhere?

Just my cents...
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,378
110
Location Location Location
jywv8 said:
How about a station wagon?

That's the thing that bothers me. People act like they need an SUV because there is no other more fuel effiecient option. If you want an SUV, go for it. It's a free country. But at least be honest about it. Unless you are fording rivers, you don't _need_ an SUV.
Exactly. Rather than a large SUV, how about a mini-van or station-wagon? The modern day family still operated quite well when SUVs didn't become so popular. I'm 24, and even when I was younger, a Mini-van was all you needed to carry a family of 5 around. Plus they're roomier, so none of these "We need the space!" arguments, please.

I hope the people who came up with these quotes walk everywhere they go. And they'd better not be using electricity or eating food that was shipped on a truck, train, or ship.

Anyone who drives any kind of petroleum-fueled car and complains about environmental damage is a hypocrite.
Actually, it's all about minimizing the negative effects of our existence. Nobody can expect us to live on this Earth and not make any impact on the environment, but if we can make less of a negative effect, then that would obviously be desirable.
 

Mr_Ed

macrumors 6502
Mar 10, 2004
443
8
North and east of Mickeyland
Abstract said:
Exactly. Rather than a large SUV, how about a mini-van or station-wagon? The modern day family still operated quite well when SUVs didn't become so popular. I'm 24, and even when I was younger, a Mini-van was all you needed to carry a family of 5 around. Plus they're roomier, so none of these "We need the space!" arguments, please.

Actually, it's all about minimizing the negative effects of our existence. Nobody can expect us to live on this Earth and not make any impact on the environment, but if we can make less of a negative effect, then that would obviously be desirable.
I actually agree with much of what you are saying, especially what you said in the last paragraph. I just don't see a "minivan" or station wagon being much different from many SUVs of similar size/weight in terms of fuel consumption or in the emission of gases.

I looked here and here.

The part that seldom gets discussed by environmentalists comes down to basic physics: It takes more energy to accelerate and move more weight. In my opinion, this plays the most significant role in fuel consumption. While there is certainly a range in the efficiency achieved by different power train designs out there and different aerodynamics traits in vehicles, the differences become relatively minor when the physics of 'energy' and 'work' are involved. The only current ways to drastically alter this seem to be: a) Make vehicles lighter by using composite materials, which incurs additional cost, or b) use "hybrid" power trains, which incur additional complexity and cost.

Taking all this into account, I think the only real difference between the time when you were younger and a station wagon or minivan was all that was required, and modern times is that back then, there wasn't a powerful, organized lobby behind a cause (ie. global warming). If there had been, they would have been maligning the minivan and station wagon the same way they are doing with SUVs today.
 

KC9AIC

macrumors 6502
Jan 31, 2004
316
0
Tokyo, Japan or Longview, Texas
While a station wagon or minivan is more practical than an SUV in many cases, few non-SUVs or pickup trucks can tow the weight that some of us would like to pull. I've got the dream of RVing across America, and there's no way I could tow the trailer I want with anything less than a Ford Explorer.
 

combatcolin

macrumors 68020
Oct 24, 2004
2,284
0
Northants, UK
What piss's most people in Britian off is that the people who drives these off road cars, or Chealsea Tractors, as there called in London NEVER take them off Road and use them to drive there kids around.

Just hope one never hits you, virtually guaranteed fatality.
 

evil_santa

macrumors 6502a
Sep 23, 2003
893
0
London, England
I had a very funny thing happen last weekend, I was going down a single track road, I could see a big shinny BMW or Merc SUV coming towards me so I stopped at a passing point to allow them through, but the driver just stopped & waited just before the passing point, I was a little confused, plenty of space even for a oversized SUV with one person in, to get past. As far as I can tell they didn't want to get the precious luxury £40k vehicle a bit wet as they had to go through a puddle to get past me! I had to shout a little abuse at them to get them through the puddle. :D
 

kettle

macrumors 65816
Lord Blackadder said:
That's all I see every day during my commute. a solitary <censored> hurtling down the highway at 80mph in a 7 passenger, 3 ton SUV with a cell phone stuck to their head. :mad:
Yeah cell phones and driving don't mix.

If you think you're gonna try and get a law that stops single persons driving anything other than single seat vehicles, then you're just part of problem that makes this crazy world more F'ed up than it needs to be.

Would there be a law against someone dropping off their family to shop and then driving solo to the car wash? or would that vehicle have to remain stationary until all seven seats were occupied again?

This world is looking bad because just as we get some freedom from enforced religion, some b'stard thinks up a new way of inflicting unnecessary guilt on the worlds population.

The new guise of this control mechanism is called environmentalism

This new religion is completely correct politically and excludes no one from the inquisition.
 

kettle

macrumors 65816
combatcolin said:
What piss's most people in Britian off is that the people who drives these off road cars, or Chealsea Tractors, as there called in London NEVER take them off Road and use them to drive there kids around.

Just hope one never hits you, virtually guaranteed fatality.
I think you'll find that what pisses road tax payers off in Great Britain is how little of the extortionate Road Fund Licence is spent on keeping roads in good working order.

A larger than average suspension system is currently required to prevent premature failure of MOT/VOSA testing requirements.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Mr_Ed said:
I actually agree with much of what you are saying, especially what you said in the last paragraph. I just don't see a "minivan" or station wagon being much different from many SUVs of similar size/weight in terms of fuel consumption or in the emission of gases.

I looked here and here.

The part that seldom gets discussed by environmentalists comes down to basic physics: It takes more energy to accelerate and move more weight. In my opinion, this plays the most significant role in fuel consumption. While there is certainly a range in the efficiency achieved by different power train designs out there and different aerodynamics traits in vehicles, the differences become relatively minor when the physics of 'energy' and 'work' are involved. The only current ways to drastically alter this seem to be: a) Make vehicles lighter by using composite materials, which incurs additional cost, or b) use "hybrid" power trains, which incur additional complexity and cost.

Taking all this into account, I think the only real difference between the time when you were younger and a station wagon or minivan was all that was required, and modern times is that back then, there wasn't a powerful, organized lobby behind a cause (ie. global warming). If there had been, they would have been maligning the minivan and station wagon the same way they are doing with SUVs today.
Your comparison in unfair, people are talking about large SUVs being needed for a family of 5. A Minivan carries up to 7 easily and so are comparable to BIG SUVs in that regard.

Your comparison shows that Minivans which can carry many more people than smaller SUVs get about the same mileage.

In effect proving that Minivans are much better than Big SUVs, and smaller ones when it comes to how many people you can move around while getting comparatively good mileage.

Not a minivan fan myself, but then again, I don't why anyone would want more than two kids. Though in SoCal lately, haveing three or more kids is a symbol of social status.I guess overconsumption and excess doesn't stop at what you drive.