Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Time to give SUV drivers a break?
(OP)
In an article in Novembers "What Car?"; "how green is your car?" (http:// www.whatca r.com/news -special-r eport.aspx ?NA=222582)
Of course, the report mentions the different manufactruing technologies involved so we should anticipate improvements as the hybrid car technologies improve (super capacitors? see thread769-165886) but will it improve enough?
This is based on a "dust to dust" analysis which measure the "carbon footprint" for the car and takes into account not only the fuel use and CO2 emissions but the energy costs of production and end of life costs.Quote:
According to CNW's table of 96 cars sold in the UK, the Honda Civic Hybrid finished 73rd and the Toyota Prius 74th, .......the Range Rover Sport finished higher in the list. Top of the table was the Jeep Wrangler ........
Of course, the report mentions the different manufactruing technologies involved so we should anticipate improvements as the hybrid car technologies improve (super capacitors? see thread769-165886) but will it improve enough?





RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Toyota is also mystified why two models built in Japan and sold in the US, the Scion xA and xB, get different energy ratings - 46p per mile and 30p per mile respectively. That's despite being engineered with the same processes, built on the same production line, transported and shipped together and distributed through the same dealer network. They also have the same engines and gearboxes, differ in weight by just 20kg and both average around 35mpg.
In response, CNW says: 'Factory costs are higher for more complex cars. That can be the difference between an xA and an xB. More components, more cost.'
Sounds to me like "arrr, we don't know what we're doing."
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
But I take your point that its is nearly impossible to define it. And I think if it was legislated against it would end up in the court of human rights.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Given the size, depth, and frequency of potholes, that argument may not hold much water, although the same count not be said for all the potholes.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
That is an interesting article. It shows that there's always another way to look at something.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
One would be: "in my humble opinion its not valid and I may try to convince you that its not valid through reason and argument." I'd defend that response any day. You have every right to verbally question someones behavior in a civil way.
Another form would be: "I don't think your use of that Humvee is valid, so I'm going to take steps to convince the government to ban the use of that vehicle for your particular purpose." I would say that a citizen of a country should have the right to petition the gov't to consider certain laws, but at some point governments get way to involved in the free choices of citizens who choose certain types of cars, certain styles of clothing, what foods to eat, etc.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I think the whole concept of government regulation of what vehicle you chose to drive is not only wrong-headed, but a dangerous intrusion of the society police into the private lives of people. Who decides valid use? Someone who gets their panties in a bunch whenever he sees a mom driving her soccer kids around? What other ‘behaviors’ would you like to regulate? I think watching television is a wasteful use of time. Should I therefore call for the regulation of who gets to own a big-a$$ plasma screen TV? I think UcfSE should probably weigh less than 260lbs. Am I going to stop him from the eating anything other than fresh leafy vegetables? No, I’m not and I’m not going to confiscate his TV either.
And what about all those people living in really huge houses they don’t need? Is driving a hybrid 130 miles a day because you choose to live in a 3,200 sf house better than driving an SUV 2 blocks to work from your 700 sf apartment? Who uses more fuel?
The answer isn’t that simple. I think a lot of the SUV-hating is driven by th media and because it’s chic at the moment.
2002 Nissan Xterra, in bright yellow with simulated bullet holes, rapid fire and large caliber, in case you were wondering. I put the bullet holes on because I felt like a target for the vehicle I drive.
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
We can't all fit comforatbly in a civic or an explorer. Some Americans are bigger (as well as taller) than the average Japanese (no offense intended) and consequently need a larger machine. I do drive my motorcycle as often as I can and save a lot of fuel versus my other option.
There are some new options available on certain vehicles in which some engine cylinders are not used when cruising to save fuel. Has anyone tried those, are they worth looking into?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
UcfSE, I'm glad your aren't mad. I don't really mean to pick on you. I count myself as someone who needs to drop a few.
I've been thinking about getting a bike ever since I drove a Honda Goldwing. I loved it. Those crotch rockets I've been on in the past scare me, but the Goldwing may have changed my mind. I just need to move to a place where I can have secure parking.
I'm keeping the SUV, though.
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Most modern SUVs are designed to be used the way that people use them, so that argument doesn't hold water. While it is possible to take a BMW X5 off-road, and yes, I have done that, I don't think that it was designed primarily for off roading.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I must say I dont understand the statement "designed to be used the way people use them". I have often seen people using tools in the way they want to use them, when its not been designed. For example, someone using a spanner as a hammer. But I notice you handle is Automotive so bow your greater knowledge on the subject.
I will add that I think i'm biased against them because I live next to a posh private school and when I try to get my car out in the morning Its nearly impossible. Lots of Range Rovers, BMW X5, Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7's etc dropping the kids at school, parking inappropriately, stopping in the middle of the road etc etc.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I feel it to sometimes when I see "rich" people living in ways that don't coincide with my own life choices. "Poor" people as well. But that shouldn't mean I have some right to impose my views on them. In fact, I have to remind myself that the freedom they enjoy, to do stupid things, is the same freedom I enjoy.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
So, you are saying that his truck needs to meet the same rules as other road user's verhicles? Like a Smart car that can fit in his truck's bed? Yes, a Smart car can probably hit a pedestrian below the knees and throw them up. A Ford 3500, even if it does hit a pedestrian below the knees, that pedestrian is going to have to be thrown up pretty high to avoid the rest of the truck.
Then again, maybe we should just ban all pedestrians. Or, we can ban all trucks and SUVs in urban environments. Wonder how they're going to deliver my 60" plasma screen to my home?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
If an SUV hits a pedestrian, it's not usually the SUV's fault. It's the driver, the pedetrian, or a compbination of the two that are usually at fault.
We also have a fair number of pedestrians that are hit by commuter trains in urban environments. Should commuter trains be designed by the same standards as a 'normal' car?
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
----------------------------------
Sometimes I only open my mouth to swap feet...
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
("Roo" = kangaroo)
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Choosing a Prius because it is "green" based only on fuel use and emissions is, in this case, wrong. Adding in the energy used to manufacture and maintain the car, parts replacement etc. the total lifetime energy and emissions are higher than for a conventional vehicle.
We can hope that as it becomes more mainstream that these costs will be reduced and deliver a real advantage.
But is hope the right word? surely there should be some realistic expectation?
Is there a realistic expectation that in the next few years the technology or electri motors, batterries etc will deliver a real environmental advantage?
If not, then the hybrid car is exploiting the good intentions of those who biuy it believing they are being responsible.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Most SUVs, now, are designed by asking people who buy SUVs, or who would like to buy an SUV, what they want to see in that design.
If these potential customers rated 'pedestrian friendly crash behaviour' highly, then we'd put it in. But, they don't. So, we either put it in because we are nice people, and so make the car more expensive than its competition, so we sell fewer of them, and end up out of a job, or we don't put pedestrian safety features in, so the car is cheaper, so we'll sell more of them, and we make a profit.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
GregLocock,
Don't you feel an obligation to the general public, either as an engineer or as a citizen, to design vehicles that use every reasonable safety measure? Admitted this is way outside my field, but wouldn't leaving the the "roo-guard" off actually cost less money anyways?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Greg is absolutely right. If this is a problem that has to be solved (??) then the solution should be driven by the government, not by the car manufacturers.
And the solution should preferably address the root cause of the problem (unsafe pedestrian Xings? unadapted speed limits?) rather just reduce the pedestrian's number of broken bones by a couple percent.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Personally I like the satnav's that reassuringly remind those who drive 4x4s (SUVs) in the UK to 'remain in the right hand lane..' Bless 'em.
corus
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t those guards on the front of the vehicle meant to protect the DRIVER? They aren’t there to keep the hapless pedestrian or 4-legged creature from being run over. Contact between moving vehicle and animal usually results in a win for the vehicle. So the concept of the guard is to minimize damage to the vehicle and deflect the mortally wounded away from the windscreen, thereby reducing the possibility that the driver is injured and looses control.
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
On most SUV's, I think they are just for show.
I don't know whether they add more injury when a person is hit be a SUV with them on and quite frankly, I don't think it matters much - getting hit by the SUV is probably enough problem by itself.
Do SUV kill more people? Like the NRA says, "People Kill People". Unfortunately, we can't legistlate accidents away.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Road trains are a different matter. Their roobars (or camel-filters) are quite efficient in avoiding damage to the vehicle, only requiring hosing out afterwards. Between dusk and dawn, I prefer to sit behind a "big 'un" when driving in rural areas.
There is plenty of data showing that roobars and larger vehicles adversely affect pedestrian mortality during crashes.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV)
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Guns allow people to kill other people at a distance. They allow little people to kill big people. They allow one person to kill many in a short period of time. True, you can kill someone with a pointed stick or a rock- with some extreme skill and favourable winds, you can even do it from a distance- but let's get real! Technology affects outcomes!
As to the notion that you should be able to have whatever you can afford, and everyone else should butt out- that's all well and good as long as you satisfy two criteria:
1) You pay the full cost of what you are consuming, and
2) Your consumption doesn't impose costs on others that are not covered in the price you pay
Given current fuel pricing, and the utter absence of any monetary "cost" to dumping the products of combustion into the same atmosphere that all of us must breathe, neither of these criteria are being satisfied. That makes YOUR choice of vehicle MY business because it imposes costs on me and my family that we cannot avoid.
Fossil fuel consumption imposes innumerable costs on third parties not directly associated with the transaction.
Nothing would make me happier than to make these choices utterly individual again by making people pay, in some measure, the true, full and fair cost of their consumption. But until that day, I'll be putting in my own two cents worth in regard to other people's ill-considered choices.
Clearly it is also essential to not merely focus on the fuel consumption of a vehicle: production, maintenance and "retirement" costs in terms of energy need also be considered carefully. Forget about hydrogen-powered fuelcells for these reasons, for instance. But we need not only compare vehicle to vehicle- we must compare mode of transportation to mode of transportation. Regardless how you power it, lugging a few tonnes of steel around with you everywhere you go is an energetically stupid way to get around.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Our family has two "cars" that together total less than 100km per week. Fuel prices don't bother me much.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Also on the energy front one thing to think about. Most of the energy used to manufacture the vehicle can probably come from a range of sources including renewable etc which don't add some of the 'pollutants' to the atmosphere and could probably be a ‘national source’. The fuel burned by the vehicle will almost certainly be primarily oil based using internal combustion and hence will generate those pollutants as well as quite likely coming from another country.
So if you could guarantee that most of the energy made to make the car was renewable then surely it would go back to being ‘eco friendly’ and if from ‘national sources’ would limit foreign dependence.
Seems like none of these discussions are as simple as might first seem.
Personally I think that there are probably enough convincing reasons to want to reduce the use of oil. Hence I don’t particularly want an SUV and wouldn’t shed a tear if they decided to tax them more heavily. However it’s a bit unfair to single SUVs out, many other larger/higher performance vehicles should probably get their fair share based on the energy reasoning.
By the way the size thing doesn’t cut it for me. I’ve know a number of rather tall, reasonably sized people that drove minis (the original one not the German ‘midi’).
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
If we really think we should _ban_ things that other people do which we think are stupid from energy point of view, then let's just give everyone the right to fly only 3 times a year, heat their house only 3 months a year and let's most of all ban older cars that do not have a catalytic convertor, because those are the real polluters...
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
There's no point in banning vehicle types etc. SUVs are appropriate where roads are poor. Pickup trucks are important for commercial uses. Etc etc etc. As long as everybody is paying the true, full cost of their fossil fuel consumption- both in terms of the lifecycle cost of the vehicle itself AND the fuel it consumes, including a disposal charge for its emissions- then it's no longer my business which vehicle you choose for yourself. But until you do, it IS my business.
FYI, we live where we can walk or take public transit to everything we need. That means three of the four people in my family have no need of a vehicle. Because of the design of our urban environment, I have to drive to work. I have the cheapest vehicle that Honda makes, assembled locally. Low capital cost means, comparatively, lower input costs of fabrication than something more expensive- which of course suits my budget. These vehicles have a deserved reputation of going a long distance before they fail- that means low energy impact per year of ownership, which also suits my budget. I don't lug excessive metal or excessive frontal area around with me everywhere I drive, which means lower fuel consumption. When we need a bigger vehicle, we rent one. When it comes down to it, while morality does guide my decisions, I don't do this because I'm virtuous- I do it because I'm cheap. I don't see myself as much different than anybody else. It's far more effective to guide people to decisions of collective benefit by appealing to their wallets rather than to their sense of morality.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Yes, we can reduce car emissions. However, how about the energy we use to cool/heat the 5000 sq ft homes (think Arizona and Utah)? Or the electricity for the dishwasher, TV, computer, outside lights at halloween and Christmas? How about all the water diversion (think California) to get water to desert urban areas?
What one person thinks is "foolish", another may not. Should we give a break to SUV drivers? Should we give a break to pick-up drivers? Should we give a break to hybrid drivers? Where do we draw the line?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
The govt. (USA) has tried to infer use by vehicle weight. It was assumed that light trucks were for commercial uses, and standards were set lower. The market discovered the loophole and exploited it. We are essentially subsidizing these vehicles vs. passenger cars through this imbalance in standards.
I agree wholeheartedly with moltenmetal. I don't have an issue with you driving a dump truck if you're prepared to absorb the full cost. The problem is that SUV drivers do not.
And before you ask: I drive an '88 civic.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I doubt that a 4x4 has any comparison with an ordinary family car in terms of how 'green' they are and seems to only confirm to those who use them (mainly the american market) that they are somehow justified in using them. I suspect that the main use in the UK is taking Lucinda to school and are rarely used off-road. This probably explains the popularity of fake mud which users can buy and spray on their vehicles to give them that look of authenticity.
corus
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
That is probably not the answer youwanted to hear.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Easily resolved: impact fees. By driving such a vehicle you are increasing the collective risk and polluting the shared environment. If you want to drive one you should pony up the cash. Impact fees would encourage consumers to re-examine their needs and maybe more of them will just choose to rent a slip for their boats.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
This week I returned to the trains and buses to attend a week of meetings in London (Public transport out of necessity, Red Ken making it the least financially damaging option).
This isn't the public transport system I used to know:
1) frighteningly expensive
2) totally unreliable
3) a health risk
Surface train to London: Day one on time and I got a seat.
Tube to Westminster: signalling problems so the train loaded up with people and just sat for 10 minutes. This allowed me to appreciate the heat and smell.
Return: Actually, not bad.
Day two: Surface train to London, no seats. Victoria Tube stations closed because of "safety reasons" (Too many people on the platforms waiting for non trains). So I took a bus.
Home not too bad but lot's of delays on the tube.
Today, surface train OK and a seat. Tube OK though crowded.
Home: Tube from Westminster to Victoria... didn't stop at Victoria because the tube station was closed.... sewage leak. Had to get a bus from Sloane Suqare (£1.50 cost.... the tube system seems to have the same business model as Ryan Air and Easy Jet...it doesn't include customer service)
Train from Victoria: The speaker system was defective so we could all hear the driver and Guard talking:
"'ere, we're on time today, what the 'ell do we tell the passengers?"
This was greeted with mirth, the last.
This was a stopping train but some strange fault (that could only be revealed once we were all on the train so we couldn't get off) meant that though the trains could run through the various stations, they were unable to stop... "Power surge at Purley" was the overheard excuse.... quite why the trains couldn't stop at the usual stations was never explained. (If anyone knows a logical reason for this, don't be shy, share)
This meant I had to travel on to Gatwick and get a taxi... again at my expense.
Health:
I guess if you don't regularly travel by public transport it's a bit like having a virus checker on your PC that's ten years out of date.... yes, for the first time in a decade or more I have flu.... Perhaps there ought to be a set of travel jabs for public transport just as there are for overseas visits.
I have two more days of this. If it is London's Public transport or a Humvee, I'm getting a Humvee amd the irony is that these meetings are all about environmental protection!
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
By trailer do you mean what Brits would call a caravan.
If so then I have a solution. Get a smaller, cheaper, more fuel efficient vehicle. With the money saved get a hotel room
Plus it's one less of the #$%#$ things (trailers) on the roads to get in my way
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
As for charging more fees and allowing government to decide what I can drive, we're not all communists or socialists, thank God. Our men and women didn't give all they had so Jon B.H. Liberal could take away our rights and freedoms.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Bus from outside my house to small local train station. Clean, quick and quite pleasant.
Train direct to Victoria. Virtually empty when I got on, full by London.
Bus from Victoria to Hammersmith. Always a nice trip and less hot/smelly than the tube.
The return was only different in that the train was full.
Total cost was about £25. A one day travelcard covered everything except the local bus.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Pay the full cost and my concern about the fuel efficiency of your vehicle etc. goes away- your choices once again become entirely your own.
Nobody has a problem with the farmer or contractor and their pick-up, or the guy living up some mountain road who needs a 4x4. But until fuel prices rise to include a cost for dumping the combustion products into the air my kids breathe, those tools driving their Escalades and Hummers from the suburbs into downtown every day deserve their own special hell.
To turn your phrase: those same men and women didn't give their all to defend the right of some people to p*ss in the pool that we've all got to swim in (and drink from for that matter!).
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
How much does fuel cost in the US?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I know of no socialist or communist government that decides what you can drive. I do know of countries that impose severe limits on the speed that you can freely drive at, however. I think the worst is the USA.
Ussuri is quite right to rhetorically compare the low price of fuel in the US compared to other countries such as the UK. A link to higher pollution in the US, perhaps?
corus
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
The higher price in the UK is for the forced funding of socialism. On the backs of the poor who are most impacted by fuel cost, the bureaucracy grows
In the USA the private help for the poor of the world is appreciated by some and expected and despised by others. However, it is system of individual choice.
The farmers who had their land stolen by the government in communist countries had their ability to decide what vehicle they would own. By state sponsored sloth and official confiscation the communist idea at the same time takes from the poor and centralizes the power and wealth.
Freedom to drive at any speed is like saying there should be freedom to scream fire in a crowded theatre. Do you really have a comparison to make or is this a jealousy response?
jsolar
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
What do you mean by worst in this sense?
Is it not also true that slower speeds produce less pollution, and in fact conserve fuel?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Until you get up and put your money where your mouth is, like running for office, it's all just bloated talk and opinions, and we all know what those are worth. My exhaust offends you, your exhaust offends me, BFD.
At any rate, I think we've hijacked the good OP's thread quite enough. What do you say we move on?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Not from what I understood, at least in terms of mpg.
If you look at the vehicle as a system there is actually a sweet spot.
If I understand correctly, there is a point at which the engine running at optimum efficiency verses the drag/resistance is optimum. Going slower leaves the engine at below optimum rpm for efficiency. Going faster increases resistance so the engine has to work harder, reducing efficiency.
I believe it's in the high 50s (mph not km) for most cars.
I’m sure one of the automotive guys could be more exact.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Socialism is generally when everything is owned and run by the state, not private companies. This used to be the case many years ago but in the 80's the Conservative Government sold most of the state owned companies(British Rail, Water Companies, British Steel, British Gas etc) into private ownership. A trend more closely associated with capitalism.
It is not only the USA who help the poor of the world other countries also do their part. But that is a discussion for another day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![[pimp] pimp](https://www.tipmaster.com/images/pimp.gif)
"The world keeps turning, it keeps me in my place; where I stand is only three miles from space"
Spiritualized
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
jsolar
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Regards,
Mike
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Capitalism only works long term if the consumer pays the true cost of what is consumed. Otherwise the result is the "tragedy of the commons". Taxing fuel/emissions/impact is one way to keep it from happening.
The purpose of government as I see it is to serve the greater good when the free market is incapable. That's the reason we have laws requiring seatbelts, airbags, 5mph bumpers, pollution controls etc. The free market saw those things as costly features that would put them at a disadvantage pricewise with the competition. It was only the government requring all players to implement the systems that made it happen.
Yes, people who are most invested in their vehicles would be hurt initially, but the market will find a new equilibrium, and we will all benefit from more sensible use of our resources.
-b
P.S. Please don't invoke names of the millions of soldiers who died for this country to defend your right to an SUV. Most of them died before they knew what one was.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Too true. The strangest part of the story is how fuel price affects what we (consumers) buy and what we (manufacturers) make.
In the US, fuel prices are low because the tax on fuel is low. Fluctuations in base fuel price feed right through to consumers. A hike in the base price causes panic for consumers who suddenly shop elsewhere for their cars. The same climate that encourages thirsty cars also makes them dangerous to make.
On the contrary, in Europe fuel is expensive and mostly made up from tax (>70% of the price). It takes a large change in base fuel price to really impact a consumer. This climate that favours economical cars may be a harsh one, but it's very stable.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
That's irrelevant to why people fight. The Revolutionary War (as it's known in the US), or any other, wasn't faught for the right to do this or that, but for all rights for all time to come.
It seems as though, even given an article on the net (and we all know that reading something on the net makes it true) that SUV owners are not going to get a break, at least not from this forum. The question is, do they really not deserve a break or do you (you in general) have vehicle envy?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
ht
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
The revolutionary war fought for a rather definite set of greivences (read the declaration of independance). The most significant in my view was the capricousness with which the colonies were controlled and taxed by the King without representation. We took the power to make laws from the King and gave it to Congress, but certain rights were believed to be basic tenets of natural law (read the bill of rights) and not to be fooled with. The "infinite individual right to own whatever the hell I want" was not listed.
I, and pretty much any engineer, can afford to drive an SUV. That's just the point. Their true cost is subsidized by low fuel costs and no fees/taxes on their environmental and safety impact. Reread my earlier posts and particularly follow the link to the tragedy of the commons to help you understand my position.
We are consuming "common" resources (atmosphere, highway space, land) by driving the way we do. I'm not saying we have to stop. Only that we need to pay the true cost for our choices.
In my idealized future, OWNING a car would not be the primary cost. OPERATING it would be. Hence I could own a big pickup for towing/hauling, but drive my commuter car to work every day. Our current system of taxes/insurance encourages ownership of only one car, because of the large fixed costs.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I understand your position. I just don't agree with it at all. Then again, nothing says we have to agree does it?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Nice link:
I'm quite sure that would not be the reply I'd get from my wife!
UcfSE and BVanheil,
Actually, I think the soldiers of world war II had a very good idea of what an SUV was and what you could do with one: the JEEP! I know it wasn't called an SUV then but General Purpose or Sport Utility Vehicle --- what's in a name? It was the original SUV and trully became one in army surplus role.
Interesting that it is the "Jeep" that scored top of this list for the lowest Carbon Footprint and that is the ppoint of this thread; that the propaganda says SUVs are loathsome things and little electric cars are "guilt free" (see the thread on the electric sports car). And that, I think, is the real concern: we are being swamped by propaganda from all sides and can trust none of it. So, if in doubt the Frankenstein complex wins the day.... anything you enjoy must be harmful to you or your fellow citizens.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
That's your right. I've laid out my argument as best I can.
I think that's how the current system works, but I don't think it has to be that way.
As for the original intent of the post, the origination cost needs to be considered, I just don't think they have their weightings right. The jeep was at the top of the list because of it's low plastic content, but it still carries around a lot of steel and the mpg sucks (I have one as a project car). I think a lighter, more fuel efficent gas car is probably still the best for the environment. Hybrids have too many nasty chemicals in the batteries, and many of the newer generation don't even improve on fuel economy, only power.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
jmw, that's a good point. For all the information someone has that says some cars are good or bad, someone else can find something that says the opposite. At the end of the day, what should you do?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Well, it's the end of my day so I'll get on my bike and cycle home. Hopefully I'll not get hit by any invincible SUV drivers.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
As I understand it, the same "feel good" crowd that hates the SUV essentially created the beast with their campaign to create the CAFE standard (Combined Average Fleet Economy) intended on reducing the emissions from autos by requiring higher and higher mpg ratings from the major automakers.
As a consequence of the CAFE laws, the family station wagon became untenable. These were reduced in size to become something less than the market wished to own. The automakers and consumers stumbled on a concept, "Hey if we build a car on a pickup truck chassis, then we have to go by these other standards." Thus was born the SUV; a family wagon built on a pickup truck chassis. And the family got better visability and superior crash worthiness, what a bargain!
Now the "Do gooders" are insulted that a family would deign to purchase one of these monsters so a mom could run a kid to baseball practice or whatever.
The underlying problems are not in the vehicles. The underlying problem is in the social engineering going on around us that create problems worse than those that were originally present.
I am saddened to hear so many folks that are dying to run my life. Maybe someone else is waiting patiently to run yours. Every time you get legslation that helps you stick your nose into my business, you give someone else leverage to stick their nose into your business. Good Luck with that.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Revolutionary war...rights for all time... sounds like the Bill-O-Rights to me.
I agree entirely that we've created the SUV boom due to loopholes in regulations. If you really want to encourage people to use less gas, then you need to tax gas directly (and perhaps reduce income tax to compensate). Then leave the market to figure out the right mix of vehicles. That way the poeple who choose to use the roads pay for them. If they have long commutes it will encourage them to use more fuel efficient vehicles, to carpool, and to build and use better public transport. They can still drive their H2, it'll just cost more per mile, and if they have a short commute it might be offset by the dive in SUV prices.
I don't want to tell you what to drive. I just want us to pay the true cost of operating our vehicles so that we make rational choices (which does not preclude SUV's). Those costs are the roads we build, the enviromental damage, maintaining the security of our oil supply, safety, and time lost to traffic congestion. Right now those costs are borne by everyone.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I'm saddened to hear that you feel that I'm dying to run your life! In fact, all I want is to stop any stupid choices you might make from unintentionally harming me and my own family.
Get over yourself: I don't care what choices you make.
All I want you to do is pay the full and fair cost of your fuel consumption without having me subsidize it in any way. I don't want to fund the wars that give you continued access to your cheap fuel supply. I don't want to fund the cost of asthma medication for my kids caused by your exhaust. I don't want my kids to bear the cost of fleets of spaceships dumping dust into the atmosphere, or of "painting deserts" etc., in some idiotic attempt to reduce the solar flux to the earth to keep us from roasting as a result of your wasteful fossil fuel consumption.
As to the problems caused by bad public policy: bad public policy permits the capitalist economy to trade goods at rates which allow one group of people to shift costs to others who are not involved directly in the transaction. Bad public policy ignores how the market works. That's exactly what we do now with fossil fuels at this moment: we ignore their third-party costs.
We agree that smacking auto makers on the head with fuel economy standards is fundamentally wrong-headed. The auto makers are merely responding to their profit imperative as they should, by designing and building what their market demands. Though recent fuel price spikes have altered auto purchasing behaviour somewhat, present pricing doesn't provide nearly enough disincentive toward purchasing fuel-inefficient vehicles. The fuel cost still does not represent the full cost of that fuel consumption to everyone involved. It's not the car manufacturers who are in need of repair: it's the market itself.
Tax fuels to provide a cost of atmospheric pollutant and greenhouse gas dumping, and use that money to subsidize the transition to more energy-efficient and sustainable alternatives, and the market will take care of itself. Only the very rich or the very stupid will drive fuel-inefficient vehicles: the rest will take subsidized public transit, carpool, or buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The SUV will once again be purchased only by those who truly need the features of that class of vehicle and are willing to pay its entire cost, rather than by those who convince themselves that they want these features and can "afford" them.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in the UK, if you add up all the taxes on petrol, the VAT on buying a car, the fact that a car cost more in the UK than that same car elsewhere in Europe, not to mention the speed cameras that rake in the millions(a recent study found the death rate increased where some cameras were located and another study found that speed was a factor in only 5% of all accidents), parking fines, road tolls, bridge tolls, congestion charges, etc etc... you will find that taxes on motorists (and on smokers and drinkers) already pay for just about everything including the biggest expansion of the civil service and the glut of consultants to quangos....
avourite word for the deputy prime minister: "Hypothication" actually, the lack of it: the government will not link road derived taxes to road investment.
This means that any "carbon taxes" will be yet another meaningless money grab with no true link to any achievments.
Is it any different where you are? Are your politicians any more rational, ethical and honest? or do they just go for anything that gets votes and taxes?
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I'm not suprised that you are confused. Europe has plenty of incentive to keep cars small already. England may be different, since it's been more than a decade since I've been there, but I was recently in Switzerland and could probably count on one hand the number of full sized SUV's that I saw (a couple of Range Rovers and a Lexus). Do they even sell Suburban/Expedition/Navigator sized vehicles there? It seemed that 5-10% of cars were Smart cars or some other sub-sub-compacts. I don't think Smart cars are even legal to drive in the US. Several of the people that I met did not own cars. That just doesn't happen in the US.
I live in the Atlanta area, which is famous for it's lack of decent public transport and suburban sprawl. I can't seem to find statistics, but it seems like 1/3 or more of the vehicles on the road in Atlanta are SUV's.
In the US we have tried to force automakers to make more fuel efficient cars through CAFE regulations. There are also many safety standards that apply to passenger cars. SUV's are the loophole that the market has exploited because they can be classified as light trucks and hence the standards that apply to smaller vehicles to not apply to them. In essence regular passenger cars are penalized in the market.
I believe that it would be more effective to remove the CAFE constraints and simply tax gasoline to encourage the market to buy fuel efficient vehicles of their own accord.
As for what happens to the taxes after the government has them... Well I don't think that's any different here than there. They'll do whatever it is that we let them get away with. Probably a huge subsidy to Exxon-Mobile, but I'd like to think that it might be offset by income tax cuts.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Atlanta just doesn't have the urban density to support a light rail system. A related, but different problem from SUV's.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Point taken about the limited lines.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
But a tax, even a misdirected one, can be counted on doing one thing effectively: detering wasteful consumption of the taxed commodity. It will do this even if 100% of the proceeds of the tax are "wasted" on frivolous things like schools and hospitals!
Road tolls etc. will work, but only if you tax ALL roads- and that's a logisical nightmare. Taxing some roads while leaving others "free" just creates two sets of roads: one for the rich, and one for everyone else. Tax fuel and you get a real consumption tax: consume more fuel and you pay more, regardless what road you drive on.
As to the poor's dependance on fossil fuel consumption: poverty is best dealt with by means of income subsidy rather than consumption subsidy. Let the poor decide what to spend their money on. Use the fuel tax to fund free, well-served and fast public transit, and the poor will overwhelmingly make use of this option.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
It's the buses that are the problem. I love the trains. They just don't take me (and most Atlantans) where I need to go. It's like a network, the more lines we have the more valuable each of them will be. Atlanta just doesn't have the density to motivate their construction.
UcfSE,
I might run for office when I retire. I'd like to see logic applied to solve problems rather than special interests dictating their terms to their pet politicians. Thank you for your support.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Put YOUR solutions on the table. Or keep your fingers in your ears and continue to live in denial- your choice.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Imposing yet more taxes on motorists is not a good idea.
In the modern society where cars are essential because they have erroded public transport and because people now work and live further away than before, we have a problem that will take more than single issue focus to solve.
For example, many of the less well off depend on their cars. Old cars. So taxes directed indiscriminately at all car users will impact most severely on the poorer owners of older cars.
EWH's point about toll roads is pertinent.
The one essential for operating a car is fuel.
The higher the fuel cost the less money there is for other things. Maintenance and insurance are early casualties. Paying fines is another. The statistics on all these aspects are alarming. More improtantly it is bring law into disrepute; it engenders an increasing attitude of deciding which laws to obey and which not. This is a very bad condition to introduce into a society.
A carbon tax? it will be paid by those who can afford to pay and not impact on use (e.g. the UK Chancellors changes to vehicle licencing are a joke. They just add to his revenue but are not designed to actually impact on choice.
For those who can't afford it, something else is scrificed.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
In the US, the law of unintended consequences is what created the SUV (I'm referring to CAFE regulations). There will always be unintended consequences to any action, but I don't think inaction is the answer. I think the answer is to admit that the situation is different now and try something new.
I concur that taxing fuel would be a highly regressive tax, and that income tax would need to be ajusted to compensate.
A fuel tax would indeed put economic pressure on people to use less fuel. Housing values in the exurbs would go down and in the city go up. People who live near their jobs would see a net tax benefit, and those further away a tax burden. There would be renewed demand for telecommuting, public transportation, and live-work development. The upside is that we would use less fuel, live in a cleaner and safer environment, and not get jerked around by OPEC.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I think a different approach to consider is something along the lines of a scaled vehicle registration cost. Just as insurance companies vary rates based on vehicle type, a registration scale could be established based on the vehicle type. The more expensive (not in terms of sticker price, but in terms of operational footprint) that a vehicle is, the higher the registration fee for that type of vehicle.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Let's try to keep the maturity level up as well. You sound like an 8-year-old in the school yard.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
A registration fee would indeed discourage the purchase of inefficient vehicles. What it would not do is encourage the efficient use of those vehicles such as car pooling, shorter commutes, and the use of public transportation. When you pay a fee it is a sunk cost and there is no reason not to drive the tires off of it. If in the end what we hope to do is reduce fuel consumption, I think it would be better to attack the problem directly.
I agree that the cost of goods will increase because of increased transportation costs. Agricultural users are currently exempt from many fuel taxes now. One way to counteract the increase in prices would be to extend that privlidge to the transportation industry.
I still think a cleaner solution would be to make income tax more progressive to counteract the regressive nature of the fuel tax. The average taxpayer would get back more than they paid in fuel taxes, because of the contributions of the transportation industry. This would offset the increase in the cost of goods due to those contributions.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
If I had a big ranch in Texas I would like to have a SUV car to drive freely in wild roads, in the city I suppose it is not practical because the problem of parking.
I suppose one can’t speak of SUV drivers Hybrid car drivers or “normal car drivers” all of them are just drivers and equally dangerous.
About SUV cars and global warming conferences, some times on the car park conferences we can see lots of ambient defenders SUV cars...
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
How about if this year's registration fee is based on a formula which includes vehicle type, age of vehicle, and miles driven in the past year?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
How much do you tax a car or fuel before it becomes a REAL deterrent? As has been said this will affect the price of many other commodities.
Lets use the Maybach as an example as it had the highest rating in the survey. If some has $300,000+ to spend on a car how much tax would make them think I will go for something a bit smaller?
I do think something needs to be done but I have no idea what or how.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
That would work if you had a way to get people to honestly report their mileage. I think it would be easier to tax gas.
[quote ajack1]How much do you tax a car or fuel before it becomes a REAL deterrent?[quote]
I can't seem to find any references to statistics on the web, but I think the US has many more SUV's per capita than Europe. During my last trip over there I was suprised to see so many small cars. I view that as evidence (however anecdotal) that taxing fuel does work.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Yes, it probably would be easier, but it doesn't solve the problem, and in fact, it creates other problems. A gas tax goes too far in the opposite direction by placing burden on those who are not wasteful and of course, it's painfully regressive.
I think you have to be real careful with a consumption tax on a commodity such as fuel, where you have necessary usage and optional usage.
We need to figure out how to tax the optional usage, without penalizing the necessary usage?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
The first X gallons per unit time is at rate Y. Any gallons over that are at a rate of Z where Z > Y.
Would you allow 'roll over' from one time period to the next? Do you allow trading, someone who doesn't use all theirs can sell it to someone else?
How would this be kept track of?
I heard something about someone in the UK proposing this kind of thing but for all carbon emissions and linke to national ID cards or something.
Big Brother/666 anyone?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Since the government was behind the effort to produce fuel-efficient designs in the first place, I think this is a fine example of "unintended consequences" in action.
old field guy
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I think you want to tax all uses equally if you are really trying to conserve the resource. That will encourage many "necessary" users to find an alternative. If transportation charges go up I might think twice about ordering 10 things from Amazon on 10 different days. it also solves the problem of trying to ejudicate whose use is "necessary" and whose is not.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Here in GA the taxes are about 30% of the cost.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I don't think conservation should be the prime objective. It should be an effect, not an objective. The prime objective should be to eliminate waste and unnecessary usage.
Those who already make every effect to use their resources efficiently and effectively are not the ones who need to carrying any additional tax and cost burdens. I don't think it's a good idea to tax those who use the resource in need, after all, that's what the resource is for. There is no value, in fact, it's harmful to conserving the resource from them.
Rather, let's find a way to tax those who use the resource out of desire. That's the type of usage that should be targeted for consumption fees and taxes.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
Taxing fuel and letting capitalism do the work is in my opinion the least intrusive way to reduce the use and dependance upon oil. People and organizations will be able to make their own decisions about how necessary any given use is to them.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
The UK's Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott (known as Two Jags" since for some reason his ministerial post allows him two Jaguar limos), decided that the way to reduce car ownership was to prevent local government requiring property developers allocating space for more than one car per property. Since most properties have two income earners each with a a job and a car, this hasn't exactly worked the way he thought it would.
It was wonderful news for property developers since they could use the space saved to put more occupancy into the same land footprint. It is a disaster for towns and villages since everyone then parks their extra cars on the streets.
So now we will have a tax based on mileage... great, the happy couple now swap cars between each other to optimise their tax bill. A bit of judicious swapping around between high and low mileage owners will soon sort that out.
Of course there will be losers, usually the ones who can least afford the bills.
Keep thinking...
OH, and maybe a few more carrots and a few less sticks?
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I think it scarcely surprising that the cost of gas has a somewhat dilute effect on sales of cars.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
So if I buy an Expedition down-under (that sounds like the name of a drink), and drive it 200,000km (a decent lifespan) it'll cost me $500,000AUS? I think I'd buy a house right next to work. It'd pay for itself in transportation costs alone in 10 years.
I just looked up a similar stat for the US. The average car (not SUV) cost per mile for 2004 was $.70USD/mi. $2.50AUS/km=$3.04USD/mi.
-b
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
http://
Total cost per km, $1.18, of which fuel is 14 c (300 km a week)
so fuel is less than 13% of the cost of running a Landcruiser.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I disagree that a fuel tax is "regressive". It isn't "progressive" either- it's a "flat" tax, in that it charges people on the basis of their use rather than their ability to pay. But if you build your income tax system correctly and progressively, flat taxes on consumption aren't regressive. They merely promote conservation and punish waste.
In regard to the cost of fuel and its feedback into purchasing decisions: that's an easy one. Increase taxes gradually until you see the desired effect. Will tax eliminate Escalade- and Hummer-driving morons from our streets? No. Choices will remain free to those who can afford the full and fair cost of those choices, and there's no law against being an idiot. For all we know, they live in superinsulated or earth-sheltered passive annual heat storage houses and can afford the extra fuel because they spend nothing on heating and cooling. Or maybe they're just fabulously wealthy and don't give a rat's @ss about the 'plebes. Won't matter- they'll be in the minority.
As to the carrots (incentives, subsidies etc.), they are paid for by the stick (tax), and they can be enormously progressive- or flat, your choice. A transit subsidy, by its nature, is progressive in that more poor people than rich people use public transit because they have no choice. Road subsidy could be argued to be regressive, since only those who can afford to buy, license, insure, maintain and fuel vehicles get to benefit directly from road investment. And they suffer indirectly as a result of the emissions etc.
UcfSE: this board is a forum for debate. I post frequently and argue passionately because I feel passionately about these issues and feel it's an important debate amongst my peers. I respect the points of view of many here whose opinions are diametrically opposed to my own, provided they can defend them when challenged. And it's an on-line forum, man- nobody is waiting in the background with their hand raised, waiting for the moderator to give them a turn to speak. If you have something to contribute to the debate besides taking issue with the opinions of others, then by all means contribute!
RE: Time to give SUV drivers a break?
I agree that taxing energy based on carbon emissions (which relates to the use of fossil fuels) is not a bad idea if you are trying to reduce emissions and consumption.
I disagree with increasing licensing and registration taxes. Operating the vehicle should be the chief expense, not owning it. If you want to buy an Escalade to drive on Sundays your still using less fuel than the guy in the Insight driving a 60 mile daily commute. The energy cost of producing the vehicle is already paid by the manufacturer and passed on to the consumer. No need to penalize twice.
I think you need to look up the definition of a regressive tax. A fuel tax (or any sales tax) is a textbook example.
-b