SUVs should Get Tobacco-Style Warnings

[sgarringer]

Right then.

How about this for an intresting POV WITHOUT any attempt, i may add - to troll

If Americans need such huge off roaders because of the enviroment they live in, be it Snow, Mountain or simply crap roads, why can the nations of this planet that do have such terrain manage without them?

Now it can't be don't to wealth for a good proportion of them - as America is not the worlds only rich country.

In the Nordic country's they simply change there wheels in the winter to small metal studs and they manage with "average" size cars.

Or for an even more intresting POV, what would enviromentally minded persons such as myself say if these huge off roaders (or SUV's - depending on where you live ) could run on something less damaging than petrol - say LPG?

Because in most countries, it is accepted to take a “snow day” once in awhile. Things are different in America. In all but the most hazardous conditions, your expected to be at work. Believe me, I know. I used to work in rural Iowa installing Satellite TV dishes. This job sucks year round. In the summer, our dirt and gravel roads often become so water logged that you need 4WD to even think about getting across. And in the winter, these roads freeze over, then cover over in snow. And usually its snow blowing across fields. I’ve had to drive through 4 or 6 foot walls of snow just to get into someone’s driveway.

Believe me, rural Iowa farmers aren’t going to sit idly by and listen to how the satellite (or cable when I did that) guy couldn’t make it “because of a little snow” (or rain, depending on the season). Even when I worked in the city, there was one night we had a tremendous storm. There were trees down all over, 25,000 people in my city were without power. In addition to having to drive over fallen trees to get to our installs / jobs we also had to drive through peoples yards to get to their poles to repair damage.

 

[kylos]

brap, if you think about it, the very reason you give for disliking suv's also provides the financial motivation to not buy suv's, gas consumption. Those with suv's must pay much more at the pump because they fill up so much more often. Raising gas prices only makes it worse for everybody, including those who drive more efficient cars. No matter how high the price for gas, those owning suv's pay more. It's part of the deal when you buy an suv.

 

[SharksFan22]

That's my point exactly. We should let the market decide it, not the government. Some people need a big SUV, some choose to have one. I used to have a Jeep Grand Cherokee with a V-8 -- nice ride, but I got tired of paying a fortune in gas, so I sold it and bought something more economical. No problem. However, in America, the culture has evolved to a point where many people think they DESERVE cheap gas which is something I've never figured out. I guess it's part of the "equal outcome" mentality so prevalent in American society.

But, the whole topic of the the thread re: warning labels -- we do NOT need the government dictating this for us. It's just plain common sense. If you want to drive a guzzler, enjoy your comfortable ride and don't complain about gas prices. You made that choice -- live with it. No one guaranteed cheap gas forever. If you choose to drive a economy-oriented car, instead of getting upset at the SUV-driver, chuckle about how much more money he's spending.

For the record, I have a mid-size truck that gets about 20mpg and a sports car that while an incredible performance car, it only gets about 14mpg.

And as far as liberal vs. conservative agenda -- I didn't mean to open that can of worms. The media likes to spin liberals as enviromental/SUV-haters and conservatives as the opposite which I think is a dangerous generalization. I didn't intend to make this a liberal-bashing session and apologize if I did.

 

[brap]

brap, if you think about it, the very reason you give for disliking suv's also provides the financial motivation to not buy suv's.

Nope.

I don't like SUVs because they're on the whole wasteful extravagances which are not-so-slowly depleting finite resources.

Raising gas prices only makes it worse for everybody

Yes. So?

Maybe then it'd help change the mindset, and make you believe petroleum spirit is of considerable value, and probably shouldn't be squandered.

That's my point exactly. We should let the market decide it, not the government.

At a point where Laissez-faire, Adam Smith and all that are so far from your ultra-right wing government's mind, you're asking for market forces? It's sorta like having a cake, and eating it, don't you think?

The market is obviously not doing a good enough job. People can buy these abominations without a second thought. Ownership and running cost is not enough of a concern to deter them. It bloody well should be, whether at the pump or through other means (road tax, tax on insurance of vehicles with large engines, et cetera).

 

[apple2991]

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.

Sometimes our dreams are unfair and unreasonable. Just because it's a dream doesn't mean the adverse effects of pursuing it are forgiven.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

brap, if you think about it, the very reason you give for disliking suv's also provides the financial motivation to not buy suv's, gas consumption. Those with suv's must pay much more at the pump because they fill up so much more often. Raising gas prices only makes it worse for everybody, including those who drive more efficient cars. No matter how high the price for gas, those owning suv's pay more. It's part of the deal when you buy an suv.

That's why I'd buy the exact opposite of an SUV (for my own use) - a 2-seat hybrid car. It's simple physics: less weight+hybrid engine=significantly higher MPG. How high would it go in the city? 60? 70? 80???

 

[Earendil]

Sometimes our dreams are unfair and unreasonable. Just because it's a dream doesn't mean the adverse effects of pursuing it are forgiven.

Perhaps, but you just made a reply to his "dream", an example of his Point. You did not, on the other hand, respond to his point.

Towing capacity of an SUV/Truck vs a Minivan/Hybrid, and options for getting around that? See my post for an example...

Don't think I haven't noted no one is replying to my post, and instead respond only to posts they can actually argue with, and even then, only with half the post...

Tyler Z.

 

[Village]

SUVs aren't the problem, suburbia is.

In America, we've created cities where you have to commute 10+ miles a day for work. Schools, grocery stores, and malls are consolodated, which means more driving for you and me. It seems to me that our post-WWII landscape is the root of the problem, not the gas guzzlers.

On another note, what does large SUV proliferation say about the state of our economy? Before the election, everyone was preaching doom and gloom. If Americans are so bad off why are we snatching up Escalades, H2s, and plasma TVs?

 

[SharksFan22]

Nope.

I don't like SUVs because they're on the whole wasteful extravagances which are not-so-slowly depleting finite resources.

Yes. So?

Maybe then it'd help change the mindset, and make you believe petroleum spirit is of considerable value, and probably shouldn't be squandered.

At a point where Laissez-faire, Adam Smith and all that are so far from your ultra-right wing government's mind, you're asking for market forces? It's sorta like having a cake, and eating it, don't you think?

The market is obviously not doing a good enough job. People can buy these abominations without a second thought. Ownership and running cost is not enough of a concern to deter them. It bloody well should be, whether at the pump or through other means (road tax, tax on insurance of vehicles with large engines, et cetera).

Ultra-right wing conservative? Please don't throw me into a particular party. Actually, maybe the right balance of government and free choice is one of your suggestions and/or a progressive gas tax phased in over a period of time. Of course, that extra revenue should be put right back into roads, not into the governments' general funds. I suspect that a good number of people would pay more for gas if they were guaranteed that the tax revenue would go into fixing roads. This tax would also make some people think twice about choosing a low MPG vehicle but at the same time also keep that money in the transportation system instead of some crazy government program.

 

[rainman::|:|]

1. Maybe we wouldn't need so much room if we all weren't so fat. I have a 30" waist - I eat well, exercize, and you could fit four of me in a minivan backseat. I don't buy this nonsense about all the room we need. Period. I see people every day on my way to work, loading up a family of 5 or 6 into vehicles that get more than 10mpg.

2. If non-smokers have the right to ban smoking in public places, then non-polluters have the right to ban excessive air pollution. At least with cigarettes, you can move to avoid the secondhand smoke. There is no way to avoid secondhand smog in the city...

3. It doesn't surprise me that people would target cigarettes but leave high-emissions vehicles alone, even though those vehicles have a much bigger impact on health and the environment. Because smoking = dirty/gross, and SUV = status symbol.

4. I have yet to see a Hummer with more than 3 occupants. And I do see a lot of hummers. Sadly.

So yeah, I would be more than happy to see these warning symbols on high-emission vehicles. Don't just target SUVs, but any vehicles that lack fuel-efficiency in favor of style and appearance.

Meantime, I'm going to order a bunch of "I'm changing the environment: Ask me how!" stickers, and go on a little H2 labeling mission.

paul

 

[apple2991]

Perhaps, but you just made a reply to his "dream", an example of his Point. You did not, on the other hand, respond to his point.

Towing capacity of an SUV/Truck vs a Minivan/Hybrid, and options for getting around that? See my post for an example...

Don't think I haven't noted no one is replying to my post, and instead respond only to posts they can actually argue with, and even then, only with half the post...

Tyler Z.

Erm, you mean those two posts where you pointed out the exception rather than the rule? Yeah.... You can't reasonably argue that the average American family/individual needs towing power. 1 in 4 new cars being sold is an SUV, that average is way too high. Do some people "need" (AKA really want) it? Sure. Do the 1 in 4 who are purchasing NEW SUVs (not including those already in existence) need it? Certainly not.

Or are we talking about where you implied that everyone who lives in the north needs a truck or SUV for snowy weather? As already mentioned, those in European with often much less temperate climates than many parts of the northern United States do JUST FINE by using more efficient resources, tires, etc. And, no, despite what you'd like to believe, that doesn't mean missing work everytime it's a little nippy out. It means missing work in blizzard conditions, maybe, but I'm pretty sure that happens in the US, too. Oh. I forgot. Your daddy is a rural doctor. Great for him. Now tell me how that applies to 99% of Americans. Even if the average American, through thick and thin, blizzard and hailstorm, no matter what had to be at work everyday, how does that give us "the economy we have today"? Who needs the PCGDP of Luxembourg or Norway , those lazy jerks who stay inside whenever it snows?

 

[brap]

Ultra-right wing conservative? Please don't throw me into a particular party.

Wasn't directed at you personally; probably ill-thought out. Trying to show my belief that such a free trade concept is completely and utterly against all the leanings of your current administration. This topic brings out the worst in me...

Actually, maybe the right balance of government and free choice is one of your suggestions and/or a progressive gas tax phased in over a period of time. Of course, that extra revenue should be put right back into roads, not into the governments' general funds...

We have programs over here whereby all the cash from speeding tickets goes directly back into road safety... cameras and speed traps and the like. It's all about a balance. The fact is, finite oil-based fuels are being squandered and the penalty for such high use is paltry to say the least. There needs to be some kind of substantial check, and the sooner the better.

Of course, the chances of any kind of governmental positive check on petrol usage are between slim and none (how is Kyoto this time of year?)

 

[kylos]

Originally Posted by Kyle?

brap, if you think about it, the very reason you give for disliking suv's also provides the financial motivation to not buy suv's, gas consumption.

Nope.

I don't like SUVs because they're on the whole wasteful extravagances which are not-so-slowly depleting finite resources.

Sounds like you have a problem with their heavy gas consumption then. Do you really have to argue just for the sake of argument. (and try quoting a sentence entirely next time)

Originally Posted by Kyle?

Raising gas prices only makes it worse for everybody, including those who drive more efficient cars.

Yes. So?

Maybe then it'd help change the mindset, and make you believe petroleum spirit is of considerable value, and probably shouldn't be squandered.

Maybe you live on a tiny island where mass transit is a feasible alternative for a good portion of the population? In America, the best way for people to travel is by auto, since it would be a logistical and financial nightmare to try to create mass transit systems that would service the entire nation well enough to be useful. Mass transit is used in large cities and over long distances, but in general American travel and commuting is composed of distances too short to travel by air or too long to be handled by local transit lines. Artificially increasing prices would put an undue burden on everybody and depress our economy. And those who choose to drive suv's have to consider the extra expense they will be incurring whether or not you raise prices. (again, try to quote a sentence completely)

 

[apple2991]

Interesting from the Car Talk guys...

Blurb

 

[Earendil]

1. Maybe we wouldn't need so much room if we all weren't so fat. I have a 30" waist - I eat well, exercize, and you could fit four of me in a minivan backseat. I don't buy this nonsense about all the room we need. Period. I see people every day on my way to work, loading up a family of 5 or 6 into vehicles that get more than 10mpg.

And I have a 26in waist. But I also have legs the size of a giraffe. Not only that, you do realize that some people are medically unable to be thin, don't you? Or people that are born larger, and to have a 30in waist would be medically unhealthy? Are you suggesting we ban these people from driving cars that would allow them the same comfort you can attain?

2. If non-smokers have the right to ban smoking in public places, then non-polluters have the right to ban excessive air pollution. At least with cigarettes, you can move to avoid the secondhand smoke. There is no way to avoid secondhand smog in the city...

But there isn't such a thing as a none polluter. Only people that pollute possibly less. Little of the smog you breath actually came out of an SUV engine. For farther argument see my previous paragraph.

3. It doesn't surprise me that people would target cigarettes but leave high-emissions vehicles alone, even though those vehicles have a much bigger impact on health and the environment. Because smoking = dirty/gross, and SUV = status symbol.

Now you're throwing facts around without proof. Please show me where SUVs shorten peoples lives to a greater degree than smoking does. Please. I beg you. Those who use SUVs as status symbols *should* be shot. But to say that the only purpose of an SUV is to show status is naive and shows ignorance. Even when I was in Costa Rica, out in the rural town of Monteverde, the dirt poor natives drove just 2 things, SUVs (though they be old) and dirt bikes.

To say that not single part of America doesn't exhibit similarly harsh terrain and environments as a county half the size of WA state, is ridicules. And there for to impose any sort of law or tax that spans ALL Americans would be a crime.

4. I have yet to see a Hummer with more than 3 occupants. And I do see a lot of hummers. Sadly.

I agree, that is sad.

So yeah, I would be more than happy to see these warning symbols on high-emission vehicles. Don't just target SUVs, but any vehicles that lack fuel-efficiency in favor of style and appearance.

I've got an idea, don't target SUVs at all, instead, target SUV *Owners* that don't use their SUV to the full extent that they can be used. But you really can't enforce something like that, can you? It's a hard scenario, but I do not appreciate the "all or something, SUVs need to Die" mentality. Please see my previous post in this thread, and you might have missed it-
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/98928/

Meantime, I'm going to order a bunch of "I'm changing the environment: Ask me how!" stickers, and go on a little H2 labeling mission.

Have fun.

Tyler

 

[kylos]

1. Maybe we wouldn't need so much room if we all weren't so fat. I have a 30" waist - I eat well, exercize, and you could fit four of me in a minivan backseat. I don't buy this nonsense about all the room we need. Period. I see people every day on my way to work, loading up a family of 5 or 6 into vehicles that get more than 10mpg.

Four of you in a minivan? I'd have to say that's a stretch, if you're at all concerned about comfort. And a 30" waist is quite small for a regular sized guy. 32-36 is a typical size for a guy in good health with a decent height. Whatever, it's not really that important.

2. If non-smokers have the right to ban smoking in public places, then non-polluters have the right to ban excessive air pollution. At least with cigarettes, you can move to avoid the secondhand smoke. There is no way to avoid secondhand smog in the city...

You see, I happen to hate all sin taxes. It's a cheap way to create revenue off of people's habits. I'd rather we get rid of this form of taxation altogether.

3. It doesn't surprise me that people would target cigarettes but leave high-emissions vehicles alone, even though those vehicles have a much bigger impact on health and the environment. Because smoking = dirty/gross, and SUV = status symbol.

Yeah, and smoking used to be cool, too. It's a fad, and hopefully people will realize they don't need suv's and that their excessiveness is not only bad for their wallet, but also the environment.

4. I have yet to see a Hummer with more than 3 occupants. And I do see a lot of hummers. Sadly.

I don't see many hummers, but the H2 is pretty worthless when it comes to actual functionality compared to other suv's. A yuppie status symbol, they're pretty worthless.

So yeah, I would be more than happy to see these warning symbols on high-emission vehicles. Don't just target SUVs, but any vehicles that lack fuel-efficiency in favor of style and appearance.

Meantime, I'm going to order a bunch of "I'm changing the environment: Ask me how!" stickers, and go on a little H2 labeling mission.

paul

That's great, but it will really only serve to piss people off. I would recommend a more tactful approach, starting with educating those you know personally on why they should get a better vehicle.

 

[kylos]

Blurb

Nice. I like those guys and couldn't agree more with them in that article.

 

[Earendil]

Erm, you mean those two posts where you pointed out the exception rather than the rule?

And what am I arguing for dear sir, the exception, or the rule?
[Condescending to me, I'll be happy to treat you the same]

Yeah.... You can't reasonably argue that the average American family/individual needs towing power.

Have I ever argued that here? No. Would I try? Certainly not, because not even I believe it, again, please read entire posts. I'll quote myself to help ya out.
"If you live in San Diego, for pete's sake get a mini van. But for your Northern brothers, an SUV saves some people from getting 3 different car

1 in 4 new cars being sold is an SUV, that average is way too high. Do some people "need" (AKA really want) it? Sure. Do the 1 in 4 who are purchasing NEW SUVs (not including those already in existence) need it? Certainly not.

You're right, we don't Need an SUV. We are perfectly capable of dog sledding our way around during the winter months. And not ever transporting lumber or anything of the kind until summer. By hand. One brick/2x4 at a time.

Or are we talking about where you implied that everyone who lives in the north needs a truck or SUV for snowy weather?

I'll quote myself again...
"If you live in San Diego, for pete's sake get a mini van. But for your Northern brothers, an SUV saves some people from getting 3 different car"[/i"
Where did I imply that all people in the north need SUVs? I believe what I said was the an SUV saves *SOME* people from having to buy three different cars. I said nothing about "All people in the north need an SUV".

As already mentioned, those in European with often much less temperate climates than many parts of the northern United States do JUST FINE by using more efficient resources, tires, etc. And, no, despite what you'd like to believe, that doesn't mean missing work everytime it's a little nippy out. It means missing work in blizzard conditions, maybe, but I'm pretty sure that happens in the US, too.

And blessed are the European countries that are small enough, and are economically healthy enough, to provide adequate road plows, and other essential road services to it's public. It can take as much as 36 hours for a plow to get to road I live on. Do you know Sir, how much snow can fall in 36 hours on the West side of the North Cascades? How about the amount of snow that falls in just *3* hours?

Oh. I forgot. Your daddy is a rural doctor. Great for him. Now tell me how that applies to 99% of Americans.

*cough*
It doesn't apply. Now tell me how an all encompassing SUV ban applies to me my family? This is, after all, all I'm arguing against. The fact that people (you included it would seem) don't understand where and with what some people deal with. And that an SUV, in the current state of things, is not only a good idea, but safe and a *good* thing for some people.

Even if the average American, through thick and thin, blizzard and hailstorm, no matter what had to be at work everyday, how does that give us "the economy we have today"? Who needs the PCGDP of Luxembourg or Norway , those lazy jerks who stay inside whenever it snows?

It doesn't directly. I'm just saying it helps. Besides, they have a country half the size of my state to deal with. Some people don't understand that...

Incase you missed my points-
I am arguing against an outright ban on SUVs.
I am arguing with people that think there is No need for SUVs in america.
I use my family and my "daddy" as an example for my case.
I do not ever imply, nor will I every say, that my family is the norm.
In fact in my first post I state that my family is not the norm.

Peace,
Tyler Z.

 

[brap]

Sounds like you have a problem with their heavy gas consumption then. Do you really have to argue just for the sake of argument. (and try quoting a sentence entirely next time)

Hm. Not quite sure where that one came from, actually. Let's just say I Ballmer'd

Maybe you live on a tiny island where mass transit is a feasible alternative for a good portion of the population?

Bingo.

In America, the best way for people to travel is by auto, since it would be a logistical and financial nightmare to try to create mass transit systems that would service the entire nation well enough to be useful.

This is a different question entirely. Perhaps a few $bn from out of your attack budget (sorry, the defence budget) in subsidies would help.

Artificially increasing prices would put an undue burden on everybody and depress our economy. And those who choose to drive suv's have to consider the extra expense they will be incurring whether or not you raise prices. (again, try to quote a sentence completely)

Long enough quote for you?

Yes, it'd hit your economy, but hardly as much as your defecit right now. It'd stimulate people to buy smaller engined cars across the board, and demand-pull would bring more manufacturers back to economy rather than "grunt". The across-the board increase is much less appealing than a tax tied to the SUV, or large engine-capacity engines. This, alongside a tax break for those with smaller capacities would do wonders.

 

[kylos]

This is a different question entirely. Perhaps a few $bn from out of your attack budget (sorry, the defence budget) in subsidies would help.

It wouldn't hurt to study this issue, but I'm quite sure it would cost way more than it's worth, even with subsidies.

Long enough quote for you?

Yes, it'd hit your economy, but hardly as much as your defecit right now. It'd stimulate people to buy smaller engined cars across the board, and demand-pull would bring more manufacturers back to economy rather than "grunt". The across-the board increase is much less appealing than a tax tied to the SUV, or large engine-capacity engines. This, alongside a tax break for those with smaller capacities would do wonders.

Hehe. quoting can be tricky. All I'm asking for is that what you quote accurately represents what someone was saying.

Taxing suv's and other large vehicles would put enormous pressure on small businesses that rely on heavy haulers as well. There isn't a good way to implement such a tax scheme without creating messy tax codes. And I'd rather see a simplified tax code than one filled with sin taxes that have to be qualified beyond belief in order to only hit those who don't reach societies expectations and not harm other "righteous" individuals.

 

[takao]

Taxing suv's and other large vehicles would put enormous pressure on small businesses that rely on heavy haulers as well. There isn't a good way to implement such a tax scheme without creating messy tax codes. And I'd rather see a simplified tax code than one filled with sin taxes that have to be qualified beyond belief in order to only hit those who don't reach societies expectations and not harm other "righteous" individuals.

um no vehicles for commerce use and private use can be seperated...sure minivans can get tax cuts now too but normally no company here would buy a american sized pick up ...

those 87 H1 and H2 here aren't even allowed to tow/transport something weighting more than 500kg without having a truck driving license (3000+ €) so much for hauling stuff around

don't you have ordinary "pritschenwagen"

in the US for hauling in urban regions ?

 

[Earendil]

um no vehicles for commerce use and private use can be seperated...sure minivans can get tax cuts now too but normally no company here would buy a american sized pick up ...

those 87 H1 and H2 here aren't even allowed to tow/transport something weighting more than 500kg without having a truck driving license (3000+ €) so much for hauling stuff around

don't you have ordinary "pritschenwagen"

in the US for hauling in urban regions ?

Interesting. Do you know what there max load is? What kind of gas milage might one expect when they have a full load?
That is after all the *point* of a big engine, that it isn't effected as much by a load. Sure a honda gets better gas milage that a Ford pickup, but tie a 3000lb trailer to the back of them both and see which gets better MPG over 60 miles. Not saying Ford is the answer to all, heck no But these other companies need to open manufacturing plants in the US and offer these trucks to the masses. Certainly never seen one in my part of the US.

Tyler

 

[Mr_Ed]

Interesting. Do you know what there max load is? What kind of gas milage might one expect when they have a full load?
That is after all the *point* of a big engine, that it isn't effected as much by a load. Sure a honda gets better gas milage that a Ford pickup, but tie a 3000lb trailer to the back of them both and see which gets better MPG over 60 miles. Not saying Ford is the answer to all, heck no But these other companies need to open manufacturing plants in the US and offer these trucks to the masses. Certainly never seen one in my part of the US.

Tyler

We do have those, or something similar except ours are covered . When a private citizen has to haul a load that can't be handled by the vehicle he owns, he goes down to Ryder or U-Haul and rents a suitable vehicle. Most people in the U.S. who are inclined to "haul" things on a regular basis for personal use have a "pickup" truck or SUV. I can't say I would ever imagine anyone here actually owning a truck like takao showed in his post for personal use.

 

[Mechcozmo]

May I point out the mini-SUVs nowadays?

The Honda CRV and the Toyota RAV-4 are both nice vehicles, and coming from two different families that are friends of our families, they seem to be pretty good overall. Around 20 MPG, maybe a little lower, but far more than an H2 would see (unless you pushed it downhill....)

Those hold 4 people comfortably, 5 if you have a kid or two.

Also, the Lexus hybrid SUV that is coming out, based on the RX 330, is supposed to have 25 MPG. Rumors of All Wheel Drive. And stylish, too.

I think I might have seen one H2 with maybe two people in it, never more than that.

 

[kylos]

um no vehicles for commerce use and private use can be seperated...sure minivans can get tax cuts now too but normally no company here would buy a american sized pick up ...

those 87 H1 and H2 here aren't even allowed to tow/transport something weighting more than 500kg without having a truck driving license (3000+ €) so much for hauling stuff around

Yes, of course they can be separated, but I'm not even remotely interested in a byzantine tax code and other laws that accompany such nanny state methods. Just let people live without having to deal with tons of paperwork.

As far as the H1 and H2 towing stuff, getting a truck license would be expected for a company. I can't imagine that those little wagons you showed would be allowed to carry over 500kg without a license, either, much less carry anything weighing over 500kg in the first place. If you need a heavy hauler, you need a heavy hauler(which the worthless H2 was never intended for anyway). I'm not supporting people's decisions to buy these things, I just don't want a bunch more legislative crap restricting every aspect of my life.

The closest thing I've seen to those trucks you showed around here is a Mitsubishi Fuso. The thing is, those trucks are good for urban hauling, whereas America is a very decentralized nation, with a massive geographical spread and a lightweight hauler just isn't sufficient for the long distance hauling necessary.