backtop


Print 412 comment(s) - last by carl0ski.. on Sep 25 at 10:39 PM


The Obama administration's new fuel economy standards will push fuel efficient vehciles, like the 2011 Chevy Volt pictured here, by mandating cars average 38 mpg, and for light trucks to average 28.3 mpg by the 2016 model year.  (Source: Car Corner)

The new standards will shift the industry towards lighter vehicles. The EPA and NHTSA estimate that this will cause 1,100 additional "weight related" vehicle deaths between 2012 and 2016, with 493 additional deaths in 2016 alone. They state that they hope this will drop to 250/year by 2020.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Under the new emissions standards, ethanol-capable FlexFuel vehicles like the 2009 Chevy Malibu E85 FlexFuel edition (GM), will earn automakers credits towards fulfilling stricter fuel economy and emissions standards.  (Source: The Torque Report)
There are major positives and negatives about the proposed emissions cuts

The national government's boldest attempt to regulate car fuel economy is not without controversy.  The Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are expected to finalize emissions standards plans by March 2010, but the new changes, set to take effect in 2012, are already mostly planned.  Though milder than the changes originally proposed in 2007 by the outgoing Bush administration, the plan's critics take issue at its costs, nonetheless.

The new standards will call for 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016.  It also will put in place the nation's first tailpipe regulations for carbon emissions.  The EPA lauds the plan, with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson saying that the plan will create the equivalent of taking 42 million cars off the road -- without removing many vehicles.

The EPA estimates that between 2012 and 2016 950 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced, the average vehicle owner will save $3,000, and oil consumption will be cut by 1.8 billion barrels. 

The government agencies admit that there will be costs.  They estimate that the legislation will raise car sticker prices $1,000 (still less than the fuel economy savings), will cost the auto industry $60B USD over five years ($12B USD/year), will cost 5,000 jobs in 2012 alone, and will depress industry sales by approximately 58,000 vehicles.

The new rules will force cars to average 38 mpg by 2016 and light trucks to average 28.3 mpg.  GM and Ford will have to average 37.3 mpg for their cars.  They will also have to average 26.6 mpg (GM) and 27.3 mpg (Ford) for their light trucks.  Chrysler gets the strictest light truck regulations at 28.5 mpg, but laxer car standards at 36.8 mpg.

The NHTSA and the EPA are confident in their bold experiment in market regulation, though.  They say that by 2016, the losses will be reversed and approximately 65,480 vehicles more vehicles will have been sold and 5,795 auto jobs will be created.  Basically, they believe the net effect will be slightly beneficial economically, while being respectively more beneficial, in turn, for consumers and the environment.  They acknowledge, though, that "the possibility exists that there may be permanent sales losses."

The administration also acknowledges that there will likely be a cost in human life.  Small cars generally don't fare as well in crashes, and the agency estimates 493 additional "weight-related" auto deaths in 2016 from the shift to lighter vehicles.  They estimate 1,100 extra fatalities from 2012 to 2016, but they expect the number to drop to 250 extra a year by 2020.  The net financial impact from 2012 to 2016 of these deaths is estimated to be approximately $15B USD in losses.

Automakers do have a number of ways to escape the restrictions, somewhat.  Building more efficient air conditioners (which decreases carbon emissions) will earn credits, as will the sale of E85 ethanol vehicles.  Advanced technology vehicles, flex fuel vehicles and other measures will also earn credits.  Further, small automakers, selling less than 400,000 vehicles a year will only have to meet a more relaxed standard.

The automakers will likely take issue with these exceptions, though, and have plenty to say in the upcoming 60 day review period for the plan. 

Dave McCurdy, CEO of the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, a coalition of Detroit's three automakers and eight others stopped short of criticizing the measure for the time being, stating, "[The current plan] provides manufacturers with a road map for meeting significant increases for model years 2012-2016. Final rules are essential to providing manufacturers with the certainty and lead time necessary to plan for the future and cost effectively add new technology."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Completely useless article
By teriba on 9/16/2009 12:47:45 PM , Rating: 3
1. Light cars aren't less safe, big and light cars are less safe. If people simply switched to smaller cars they would be more safe and improve their fuel economy.

2. There are plenty of other ways to get fuel economy up. Simply by switching to diesel would allow us to hit this target without changing sizes/weights/safety/whatever at all.

3. Lighter does not always mean less safe. Only when the design is bad. Consider that there are less deaths in F1 than Nascar even though the cars weigh FAR less in F1.




RE: Completely useless article
By TomZ on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Completely useless article
By lelias2k on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Completely useless article
By sebmel on 9/16/2009 5:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
Minimum F1 car weight including driver: 605kg

Average small car weight 1300kg


RE: Completely useless article
By Spivonious on 9/16/2009 1:07:18 PM , Rating: 5
It couldn't possibly be because F1 drivers are more skilled...


RE: Completely useless article
By lelias2k on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Completely useless article
By sebmel on 9/16/2009 5:21:14 PM , Rating: 4
Montoya didn't do much in F1 either.

Nigel Mansel won F1... went to Nascar and won that too.


RE: Completely useless article
By ZachDontScare on 9/16/2009 5:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
no, Mansel never won in NASCAR. I think you're thinking of IndyCar perhaps.


RE: Completely useless article
By sebmel on 9/16/2009 5:56:48 PM , Rating: 5
Apologies... you're right there... looks like the only F1 drivers that have ever entered Nascar are Montoya and Mario Andretti.

Looks like very few drivers from outside the US ever enter. I guess it requires very specialised skills with the banking and only ever turning in one direction.

My view of the best test of a driver is rallying... 80mph on uneven gravel tracks a couple of metres from trees listening to instructions on what's ahead... those guys need incredible car control, agility and courage.


RE: Completely useless article
By afkrotch on 9/17/2009 6:00:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
My view of the best test of a driver is rallying... 80mph on uneven gravel tracks a couple of metres from trees listening to instructions on what's ahead... those guys need incredible car control, agility and courage.


Let's not forget the tarmac rallies on wet or dry, snow rallies on ice and snow, in hot tempatures, and cold tempatures. It sucks that they kind of got rid of night rallies.

Not only must they race, but they have to deal with normal everyday traffic on road stages that they traverse to get to their next special stage.

Then they must also be able to partially maintanence the car, if a problem should arise during a special stage or road stage.


By ZachDontScare on 9/16/2009 5:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
For what its worth, Montoya's doing very well this year. When drivers make the switch from the open wheel world it takes a couple of years for them to get adjusted to a very different type of racing.


RE: Completely useless article
By sebmel on 9/16/2009 5:39:33 PM , Rating: 3
As for "depends on who you know"... no that doesn't happen much.

It mainly depends on your winning in the junior leagues... as Senna, Barichello, Schumacher, Button and Hamilton did.

There are a few sons of drivers who get in... Gilles and Jaques Villneuves... they were both good. Neslon and Neslon Piquet Jnr... Jnr was lousy... but they're out in a season or too if they're lousy.

Very occasionally a millionaire father has bought a useless son a place as a second string driver to a team struggling for money (Pedro Diniz's father is one of the richest people in Brazil... supermarket chain)... they only time that has affected a result is when they've got in the way. Diniz never finished higher than 5th.

To say that politics get in the way of results is simply not true. It isn't politics that made Fangio, Chapman, Schumacher, Senna, Alonso, Hakkinen, Raikkonen or Hamilton win races... they're incredible drivers.

Simple proof is to look at the most successful driver nation in F1... Finland! Yet the industry is in Surrey, UK... why that nation with a small population then? Because Finns have an excellent rally driving tradition and start early... that makes them per capita the world's most successful racing nation... not connections.


RE: Completely useless article
By mindless1 on 9/16/2009 3:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
... or that the F1 design lacks what is essential to our transportation needs, the ability to carry cargo and/or multiple people by virtue of a design needing a higher center of gravity.


RE: Completely useless article
By Ranari on 9/16/2009 4:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
I agree totally.

And to add to what you're saying, F1 cars are also driven by highly skilled drivers (as mentioned above). Not to mention, the drivers are also wearing highly protective gear and helmets, and there are also paramedics and fire trucks waiting within seconds to respond to a crash.

For the real road, people don't wear helmets. They don't wear fire retardant gear. They aren't strapped into their seat with a 6-point harness. And there isn't a paramedic/firetruck waiting every half mile in case we crash.

Oh, and F1 doesn't have to deal with tens of thousands of other drivers on the road either. =)


RE: Completely useless article
By mindless1 on 9/17/2009 1:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
Even with carnival bumper cars, if you keep a low center of gravity, even inexperienced children will be reasonably safe. Not 100% safe, but what ever really is?


RE: Completely useless article
By shockf1 on 9/17/2009 7:56:45 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
For the real road, people don't wear helmets. They don't wear fire retardant gear. They aren't strapped into their seat with a 6-point harness. And there isn't a paramedic/firetruck waiting every half mile in case we crash.


what a stupid statement... the "real road" people dont travel at 340km/h either so you dont need all the extra things that your talking about. You see F1 drivers walk away from hitting walls at over 200 km/h all the time. try doing that in ANY road car, id bet you would only get one chance at trying it.


RE: Completely useless article
By rcc on 9/17/2009 2:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and a jet engine won't operate as high as a rocket. They are designed differently for different applications.

An F1 car is designed to go very fast, and also to protect the driver. That's pretty much it. A production car has many other design goals, and generally can't afford the same exotic materials.


RE: Completely useless article
By paperfist on 9/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Completely useless article
By Alexstarfire on 9/17/2009 2:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
Weight isn't the only thing though.


RE: Completely useless article
By MrPoletski on 9/17/2009 9:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
Get a bigger spolier for your focus, the downforce will help with that hydroplaning. Better tyres will too.


RE: Completely useless article
By callmeroy on 9/17/2009 9:27:03 AM , Rating: 2
I read (either Motor Trend or Road & Track) that spoilers mean nothing if they aren't the right size and you aren't going at least a minimum speed (which in most cases you'd have to break the speed limit to attain)....

Tonight if I remember I'll find the issue and post back...

I do know the article largely made fun of the spoilers on most cars as being non-functional and gaudy.


RE: Completely useless article
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 12:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
YOu can receive downforce from a spoiler/wing at speeds below 80 mph. It's all dependent on design. Look at a rally car's wing. It's built to provide downforce, while sliding sideways at under 40 mph.


RE: Completely useless article
By MrPoletski on 9/18/2009 5:37:41 AM , Rating: 3
you'll receive downforce at any speed, the question is whether it is negligable or not.


RE: Completely useless article
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2009 9:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
Weight has nothing to do with hydroplaning. The Cobalt I had was the same weight as your Focus and I never hydroplaned. You have crappy tires. Get a good tire and you'll be fine.


By Hoser McMoose on 9/20/2009 8:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't agree more. In a standard, road-going production vehicle, REGARDLESS of size, your tyres are providing virtually all your grip (or lack there of). Sure you can toss wins and aerodynamic devices on them but without good tyres you're DONE.

For safety I'd take a subcompact with GOOD tyres over any other vehicle of any size with crappy tyres every time. This is ESPECIALLY true in the winter with snow and ice, nothing beats a good winter tyre for driving safety in these conditions.


RE: Completely useless article
By tjr508 on 9/21/2009 10:54:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Weight has nothing to do with hydroplaning.


What?

Weight makes a huge difference. Why do you think 18-wheeler truckers keep the hammer down in the rain?

I would also like to add that tires that maximize water repelling tend to be less desirable in other conditions (cornering, braking snow, off-road etc). Each of these are maximized with different depths/softness/tread angles.


RE: Completely useless article
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 1:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
An F1 car's body and chassis is made entirely or nearly entirely of carbon fiber and titanium. The driver has a 5 point racing harness keeping them in the seat. The driver wears a helmet that is attached to a cord at the back of the seat which prevents the drivers head from moving more than a few inches forward in the event of a crash. They were a protective, fire proof suit.

Now assuming you can afford the few hundred thousand dollars for a passenger car made to the same standards, are you going to have a five point harness, wear a helmet, and wear an extremely hot suit when driving said car around?

Deaths in NASCAR, while EXTREMELY few, are due to the higher safety standards because of the higher speeds. F1 cars also have a tight, isolated, and protected driver cabin like drag cars whereas NASCAR cars do not. I do not believe the head restraint system used in F1 is mandatory in NASCAR even today.


RE: Completely useless article
By UNHchabo on 9/16/2009 4:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
After the death of Dale Earnhardt Sr., I thought I heard something about Nascar making that restraint system mandatory, and some drivers had already been using it voluntarily.

I don't watch Nascar, but I heard about it on the radio.


By ZachDontScare on 9/16/2009 4:22:50 PM , Rating: 3
They are called HANS (Head and Neck) devices, and they are in fact required at least at the upper levels. They've also implemented a new type of wall around tracks that greatly reduces impacts, and a new, safer (and heavier) vehicle template.


RE: Completely useless article
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Completely useless article
By teriba on 9/16/2009 2:52:14 PM , Rating: 3
Becuase it's completely useless propaganda. Driving SUVs that are growing every year while still retaining a drivetrain and body construction from the 1960s is the problem. Smaller cars are safer and they will easily meet the gas mileage requirements. The only time you have issues is manufacturers that will continue to try to make SUVs more fuel efficient by making them lighter, rather than using a more modern engine, more modern materials, etc.


RE: Completely useless article
By lco45 on 9/16/2009 7:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

I have a Jeep Grand Cherokee and my wife just got a little Renault Clio.

We've hardly driven the jeep at all since we got the Clio. It's so nimble and easy to drive, and fuel is practically free compared to the jeep.

Once you're seated in a car you don't really need that massive bulbous steel frame extending 3 metres behind you ;-)

Luke


RE: Completely useless article
By teldar on 9/17/2009 8:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
I would guess you don't have kids. No Dog. Don't take long trips to see the family. Wait.
You have a Renault.
You live in Europe.
Your population density is 3x what it is here.
That probably means you have easily accessible and reliable mass transit.
That may mean you don't have to drive or fly everywhere...

Obviously these things don't make ANY difference.

My god people. I'm earth friendly and would like to see something left for my descendants, but I'm not going to shut off my brain in order to make comparisons and arguments. That includes calling people with alternating points of view idiots, unless they're fanatical and give no argument, other than arguing.


RE: Completely useless article
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 12:41:33 AM , Rating: 2
Never heard of a van? There is zero trucks/SUVs (minus a stretch limo) in existance that can match the seating capacity of a large van.

There are 18 seat vans out there, any non-limo truck/suv with that kind of seating capacity?


RE: Completely useless article
By teldar on 9/17/2009 8:50:49 AM , Rating: 1
I would guess you don't have kids. No Dog. Don't take long trips to see the family. Wait.
You have a Renault.
You live in Europe.
Your population density is 3x what it is here.
That probably means you have easily accessible and reliable mass transit.
That may mean you don't have to drive or fly everywhere...

Obviously these things don't make ANY difference.

My god people. I'm earth friendly and would like to see something left for my descendants, but I'm not going to shut off my brain in order to make comparisons and arguments. That includes calling people with alternating points of view idiots, unless they're fanatical and give no argument, other than arguing.


RE: Completely useless article
By teldar on 9/17/2009 8:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
I'm still not seeing where lighter=safer.

Lighter = death if the smaller/lighter is involved in an accident with something heavy or unmovable.
Say you run into a dump truck. Or a semi. You're a pancake.
If you run into another ultralight, you're fine.
A tree? if the car is so small there is no space for decent crumple zones, toast.

I mean, look at the testing they do on these things, 5 and 25 MPH? That's real world if I ever saw it. Nobody EVER goes more than 25 MPH when they hit something.

And you keep harping on 'suv' and 'drivetrain and body construction from the 1960's'. I say you're an idiot. The only frame on body car on the road these days is the crown vic. And ford would like to stop making it, but POLICE DEPARTMENTS don't want them to. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE SAFER. And bigger. And there's all kinds of stuff made for them in the last 40 years.
If you really think that drivetrains are similar to what they were 40-50 years ago, you're an idiot or living in a cave. Since you have the intrawebs, I assume you're not living in a cave.

And it's NOT USELESS PROPAGANDA. IT"S STUDY INFO PUBLISHED BY THE ORGANIZATIONS WHO CONTROL SAFETY AND MILEAGE for vehicles in this country.

Just say that you're a tree hugger and liberal communist and want the government to control what you drive and get over it. But to slander the article because you don't like what it says, when the epa and safety admin put it out? That's just hypocricy.


RE: Completely useless article
By MrPoletski on 9/17/2009 9:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm still not seeing where lighter=safer.


m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-M-M MOMENTUM KILL....Killl....killll....

You seem to be forgetting something in this post... why do you think a cricket ball hurts more than a tennis ball? Why does a leather football (soccer ball for you yanks) hurts more when you head it than a cheap plastic one?

Perhaps you should google for the crash test videos of the smart car (tiny, light vehicle).


RE: Completely useless article
By rcc on 9/17/2009 2:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the one where it bounces off the Mercedes and tumbles about 25 yards?


RE: Completely useless article
By rcc on 9/17/2009 2:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, ok, so it wasn't 25 yards. Still wan't pretty


RE: Completely useless article
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 1:05:16 AM , Rating: 2
Displacement of energy through the movement of the vehicle, instead of the displacement of energy through the crumpling of the car. There's more than just one way to make a car safer.


RE: Completely useless article
By hathost on 9/21/2009 4:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
When the car rebounds off another object there are much high G forces transfered to the occupants than in a larger car with larger crumple zones. In the exact same type of crash scenario where a 3000lbs car with a crumple zone system versus a smart car that weighs 1600lbs collide with an immovable object at just 25mph the occupants in the smart car will suffer more serious injury than the larger car. As the speeds increase and you take into account differing vehicle sizes the larger car will on average fair much better against a smaller car.

So for a real world example(this is a true story): You are driving a midsize 4 door sedan behind a semi at safe distance and come to a stop light. Another semi fails to stop and plows into your car crushing it between the 2 large trucks and kills you and your 3 occupants. If you had the chance at that instance to choose a different vehicle to be in would you choose a:

1. Smart Car
2. Mid-Sized SUV
3. Full-Sized SUV
4. Full-Sized Car

Which do you HONESTLY think would improve your chances of surviving?


RE: Completely useless article
By MrPoletski on 9/18/2009 5:38:38 AM , Rating: 2
Is the driver compartment crushed or not?


RE: Completely useless article
By hathost on 9/21/2009 4:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
The accelerative G forces on the occupants will be greater due to the rebound of the car lacking crumple zones. That Is why we don't drive cars like the ones built like tanks from the 50's anymore. Car from 1950 hits a tree the car can be driven home, though it probably would have been done by the widow since the force of the impact killed the driver. Same reason that racing organizations eventually realized that have destructible parts are their cars to lessen the impact forces would save more lives than a indestructible car.

Doesn't matter whether the compartment was crushed or not you would still be dead.

For example: You are watching a person in an indestructible sphere and are hurtling to the ground at a slowish 30mph at the same time a person is also falling at the same speed and is not in a bubble. When you see them hit the ground and go to see what's happened which do you think is more likely to be hurt?


RE: Completely useless article
By SSDMaster on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Completely useless article
By ChristopherO on 9/16/2009 3:08:44 PM , Rating: 3
Smaller cars aren't at all safer... Cars are typically crash-tested against immovable objects, and/or objects of fixed size careening into them. The total energy in Joules released in the accident is quite small. Thus, a something like a Smart car running into a wall (or tree) releases only as many Joules of energy in the collision as the car created *by itself*.

If a small car runs into an SUV (in motion) the total Joules released is fantastically more. We're talking potentially like 4-8x more energy.

And given the laws of physics, the square of the difference in energy is transferred to the lesser object. Basically meaning, SUV vs small, the small will always absorb vastly more energy than the SUV, even though the SUV brought most of the energy to the collision. That's why small cars always seem "ok" in crash tests, because those tests don't involve colliding them with a bunch of other, much heavier vehicles already in motion. It leads to a very deceptive perception that small is safe, when it's not. Granted SUVs have a roll-over potential due to center of gravity, but that can be mitigated by a good driver. The laws of physics are, however, constant.

Those idiots mandating super fuel efficiency seem to be forgetting that there are going to be plenty of 2012 heavy-as-heck family trucksters on the road running into those shiny new, small fuel efficient cars. And I'll be driving one of those larger ones since I *value* my life.


RE: Completely useless article
By MadMan007 on 9/16/2009 4:39:07 PM , Rating: 4
Sounds like the solution is to outlaw SUVs :D


RE: Completely useless article
By ChristopherO on 9/16/2009 5:55:52 PM , Rating: 5
Well, you're never going to get rid of SUVs, or tractor-trailers for that matter, delivery vehicles, minivans, etc. There will always be high-mass vehicles since a lot of people legitimately need them (and most people would rather drive their boat-hauling truck to work, than also buy a commuter car). As long as *any* of them are on the road, a potential collision with one is catastrophic unless one is adequately protected.

Suburban vs. semi releases a lot more kinetic energy than semi vs. Mini Cooper, but because the ratios of the mass is closer with the Suburban, more of the kinetic energy will be absorbed by the semi. So all in all, it's a more catastrophic collision, but the occupants of the Suburban would be subject to less Joules of force than a guy in a Mini Cooper, who would take darn near all the energy.

I don't understand why I was down rated. I point out a simple fact about the laws of physics don't favor small vehicles when any large ones exist, that must irk environmentalists. Maybe it was my quip about wanting to be safe. I'm a cancer survivor -- I'm not interested in dying in a car wreck because I was in something economical when a soccer mom plowed into me.


RE: Completely useless article
By Alexstarfire on 9/17/2009 2:49:02 AM , Rating: 4
Not that your logic is flawed or anything, but you're only looking at one piece of the puzzle. First off I just want to say.... good driver? In the US? You must be kidding me. It's honestly a wonder half the US population doesn't die each year with the way I see people drive.

You are right that a bigger object means a bigger force, but think about this. Which is safer? The 4,000+ lbs Cadillac from the 60s or pretty much any sedan in the past decade? I'll take my modern car thank you very much. It's not just about the amount of force, but where the force travels and how it gets dissipated.

Not that what you said was wrong, it's just not the whole picture.


RE: Completely useless article
By daInvincibleGama on 9/17/2009 8:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
There has never been much convincing evidence that energy release actually does most of the damage in accidents. It seems much more plausible that sudden, high acceleration causes the damage. Think punching a brick wall vs punching a foam mat, the brick wall does more damage because it stops your hand that much quicker. That's also why cars these days have crumple zones that even out the acceleration caused by a crash.

Smaller cars do accelerate more in a collision, but not by that much. If we take a Honda Civic(~2600 lbs.) and a Chevy Suburban(~5300 lbs.), which are pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum, the civic would accelerate twice as fast, meaning twice as much damage, assuming the cars have no safety systems(which would reduce the ratio). And of course, most cars on the road are smaller than a suburban and bigger than a civic, so the damage ratio is even more reduced.

Add the risk of rollovers in SUVs(which have a high fatality rate) and SUV's are not worth it in terms of safety.


RE: Completely useless article
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 1:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
Correction for you...

deceleration not accelerate.

I also don't understand the 2nd paragraph.


RE: Completely useless article
By 7Enigma on 9/18/2009 10:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
Correction for you:

Accelerate is correct.


RE: Completely useless article
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 1:15:56 AM , Rating: 2
No one needs an SUV, they just want them. A van can replace an SUV. A truck with a camper shell can replace an SUV. A car can replace an SUV. A sport wagon can replace an SUV.


By Hoser McMoose on 9/20/2009 8:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
To be totally fair, nobody NEEDS a car, the Amish near me seem to survive just fine with horse and buggies.

... obviously most of us (myself included) have NO interest at all in going that route! Vehicles of all types are purchased with a variety of needs in mind. It's really not worthwhile for any of us to pass judgment on anyone else's vehicle choice, they had their own reasons for selecting an SUV just like I had my reasons for selecting a small 'sport compact' type vehicle and you had your reasons for selecting something else. We ALL could have bought small/cheaper/less powerful/less fancy/whatever vehicles.


RE: Completely useless article
By hathost on 9/21/2009 4:05:52 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Completely useless article
By daInvincibleGama on 9/17/2009 8:42:34 AM , Rating: 3
Why not? SUV's should be taxed if their use imposes a cost (such as the risk of death) on other drivers on the road. The number of people that would drive SUVs after that would be closer to the number that actually need them. Its called a piqouvian tax and economists generally agree that they are good for society.


RE: Completely useless article
By Sulphademus on 9/17/2009 11:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
I think SUV's and such cars should be taxed but not based on fuel economy or however they test safety.

Why not tax on mpg? You buy a car that gets 20mpg vs one that gets 40 and drive the same in either scenario, you're paying double at the pump. (At least) Half of cost of gasoline is taxes so you're already paying more taxes for a less efficient vehicle.

What they should throw extra taxes on is GVWR. Motorcycles pay $0, Civic's pay $10, H2's pay >$9000. Then take that money and fix the $%^&ing roads! since its the weight of the vehicles which causes road wear. [well, that and ice expanding]


RE: Completely useless article
By Spuke on 9/17/2009 5:25:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why not tax on mpg?
We're already taxed on mpg. You use more gas, you pay more taxes on it. My car has a 13 gallon gas tank and I get 28 mpg. My wife has a 30 gallon gas tank and gets 16 mpg. Guess who pays more.

quote:
What they should throw extra taxes on is GVWR.
Registration, taxes and etc are greater on vehicles with over 10k lb GVWR's. There are different weight classes above that amount with increasing costs.


By Hoser McMoose on 9/20/2009 9:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Registration, taxes and etc are greater on vehicles with over 10k lb GVWR's.

This only touches a pretty small portion of even VERY large vehicles. For those that are wondering, something like a Ford F-150, a Hummer H2 or a Toyota Tundra would come in well under this mark. I don't think know of a single SUV out there with a GVWR higher than 10K lbs.

Some models of Ford F-250 and F-350 trucks will be above there, but at that stage you're pretty much limited to commercial vehicles. Unless you own your own construction firm chances are pretty slim that you have a truck that big.


RE: Completely useless article
By Screwballl on 9/17/2009 10:41:45 AM , Rating: 1
They need to build vehicles that fit the location and the buyer. In the case of Europe, it is those tiny Eurotrash cars to get around those tiny streets. In the wide open expansive roads of the US, you have larger vehicles that can be driven for several days in comfort and can actually fit a family of 4 plus all their gear.

Try doing that in a little Renault Clio with a family of 4 (with the parents being close to 6 ft each, or in my case 6'5"), a weeks worth of gear and clothes, baby stroller, playpen (or portable crib), and drive from Paris to Moscow in comfort.

This type of legislation is going in the right direction but only if they mandated that cars would also have to be a minimum size to be driven on the roads on the US, around the size of the Prius should be a MINIMUM. Not for any reason other than safety. We have the technology to make engines that can power a semi truck that gets 200MPG, just the oil cartels and everyone involved with it have stepped in and prevented it.

The Magnet motors need no oil, little grease for fittings and use zero fuel and zero emissions. Tiny Nuclear power plants in the engine compartment can power electric motors in the car and never need fuel for 50+ years, even in the case of an accident there would be enough extras around the power source to prevent radioactive materials from getting loose.

FACTS: SMALL VEHICLES MIXED WITH LARGE VEHICLES IS A DANGER TO THE DRIVERS OF THE SMALL VEHICLE OCCUPANTS.


RE: Completely useless article
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 2:01:08 AM , Rating: 3
Obviously you've never lived in Europe. Tons of ppl buy large vehicles. Those wanting to save on cost and fuel buy smaller. Those wanting to have an easier car to drive in traffic and easier to part will buy smaller.

Lived in England for 3 years and Germany for 2 years. Majority of vehicles in Germany were not small cars. They were medium to large family sedans. SUVs were somewhat rare.

Those with smaller cars did use trailers for hauling more items than what could fit within their vehicle. Cause your little scenario doesn't happen often. Even those with large family sedans did that, so they wouldn't have to jam so much into the trunk of their car.


RE: Completely useless article
By lco45 on 9/16/2009 7:54:36 PM , Rating: 2
In a collision it's obvious that the lighter vehicle will experience greater acceleration, and the passengers will receive greater damage, simply because F = MA.

However lighter cars are probably more likely to avoid the collision in the first place. Smaller cars are more maneuverable, which is why you so rarely see SUVs on a racetrack...

Besides, driving in general is pretty damn safe. I myself have never been killed on the road, and I've been driving for years...

Luke


RE: Completely useless article
By ChristopherO on 9/16/2009 9:43:14 PM , Rating: 3
Lighter cars are more maneuverable, but they don't occupy a single point in space. They're still big targets. Case in point, the number of multi-vehicle accidents you see on the road occur with a proportionally-accurate distribution of the overall vehicle types in service. Isolated things like roll-overs are almost exclusively the realm of SUVs, but conversely you see guys in small-cars causing multi-car wrecks because they over-estimate performance and over-estimate a gap.

In theory a highly skilled driver would have better odds at avoidance, but very few people fall into that group. Basically it's like saying a skilled driver probably won't roll an SUV, but it happens all the time because almost no one knows what they're doing behind the wheel -- when it comes to really catastrophic situations.

Also, most accidents occur in a location where avoidance isn't possible -- which means the world's most skilled driver probably couldn't avoid anything anyway. If you're in a light car and get rear-ended by an SUV, not good, but if you're in an SUV and the opposite is true, bad things happen to the other car. Case in point, I was rear-ended at 50mph on a freeway. Guy merged into my lane, and didn't realize we were basically parked due to some random California backup. He was in a Camero, I wasn't. Camero parts littered the road, his engine was pushed almost completely under the vehicle (the crumple zone vanished). My Volvo had a whopping $2600 worth of damage to replace the impact absorbers and bumper assembly (and the requisite bodywork). If it hadn't been for his airbag, someone would have been shoveling his brains back into his skull.

The guy was clearly at fault, but 99% of most people don't know how to drive and maneuverability isn't going to matter a hill of beans. What happened to me? I had, I kid you not, a stress fracture in my pinky when my hand smacked my dash.


RE: Completely useless article
By lco45 on 9/16/2009 9:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that it is all very variable, but I guess the point I'm making is that for the same skill level the more maneuverable vehicle will have a better chance of avoiding an accident, and that this should factor into safety considerations.

Statistics that count collisions and survivability of various vehicle types don't count the near misses.

Luke


RE: Completely useless article
By Screwballl on 9/17/2009 4:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
Lets use some of the same point of views...

the family and I were in a major accident back in 2004 where a 17 year old kid in a Ford Ranger small pickup pulled out in front of us (in a 2001 Ford Exploder) while we were doing the speed limit, 60 mph. There was zero chance for reaction time except for the 1/2 second braking which slowed us down to maybe 59mph at the point of impact. Direct T-bone impact on his passenger side..
Our Explorer was about 3 feet shorter (the crumple zones did their job) and his truck was smashed in about 3 feet (where the passenger door was pushed into the center rearview mirror).
Everyone lived but that shows exactly the problem, in the US where SUVs and larger vehicles are common, imagine if that had been a small Prius or Smart car simply because people wanted to save money on gas? They would be road soup from the same impact.

This is why we need better legislation that increases mileage without sacrificing size or safety of a vehicle. It is all fun and games for the government to force mandated mileage rules but when most companies equate "better mileage" with "smaller vehicle", this means the new vehicles will get smaller while the existing ones on the road become more dangerous when there is an impact with one of the enviro-nut gas sippers.

I don't remember exact numbers but something like 80% of all vehicles on the road are more than 5 years old, and 75% are 10 years or older.

This is nothing more than government mandating an unofficial death penalty for the eco nuts that have to drive a gas sipping car.... and looking at voting records, thus killing off their voters.


RE: Completely useless article
By BishopRook on 9/17/2009 1:13:35 AM , Rating: 5
I had to create an account specifically to reply to this.

You're describing an elastic collision, where kinetic energy is conserved. Collisions between cars are almost perfectly inelastic. The excess kinetic energy is spent creating heat and noise and deforming the body of both vehicles. So what we should be concerned with is not kinetic energy but momentum, which is conserved in both elastic and inelastic collisions.

If two equal-mass cars hit each other head on, they will both come to a standstill and it will be effectively the same as if they'd both hit a brick wall... If a 2-ton car hits a 4-ton SUV head on, both traveling at 60mph, then after the collision the SUV will be traveling at 20mph and the small car will be traveling backwards at 20mph, and it will be as if the SUV hit a wall going 40mph, and the small car hit a wall going 80mph. Not good, but certainly better than if it were an elastic collision... in which case the SUV would end up going 30mph backward, for a total delta-V on the passengers of 90mph; the small car would go 120mph backward, for a total delta-V of 180mph and let's just say "severe damage" to passengers' bodies.

When calculating damage to the passengers, you do need to take kinetic energy into account. But only their own body's--the entire car's kinetic energy is not magically transferred into them. Still, that's why a collision (to dead stop) at 60mph is 4 times as damaging to passengers as a collision at 30mph, kinetic energy is .5mv^2.

Long story short: yes, a smaller car fares worse in a collision with a larger car, but the difference is only major in head-on collisions and not to the degree you're suggesting. The solution is still to get smaller cars on the road, not to just build them bigger and heavier.

And steel structural cages plus standard side airbags like in the SMART Car aren't a bad idea either.


RE: Completely useless article
By HotFoot on 9/17/2009 3:37:43 AM , Rating: 2
Excellent reply.

When I look at the safety of a vehicle for head-on collisions / single vehicle driving into something, I care less about the weight of the vehicle than the length of the nose extending in front of the passenger compartment. This is what bothers me so much about smart cars and the like - there's practically no length of material to crumple and absorb the energy from the collision.

This is also why very old vehicles with rigid bodies are so much less safe than newer ones with crumple zones.


RE: Completely useless article
By ChristopherO on 9/17/2009 1:16:07 PM , Rating: 4
But the truth is in between, biased towards either elasticity or inelastically depending on the angle of the collision, and the vehicles involved.

The reality is that engineering can help mitigate accidents, but the collisions themselves are neither perfectly elastic, nor inelastic. In SUV vs small car, the small car usually does ricochet off the larger one, not in a perfectly elastic manner, but it does receive the majority of the impact force and momentum. It also matters angles, etc, since every vector on the cars aren't engineered identically.

For example, lets not even talk about side impact. Suburban hood vs small car door... Do you *really* want to be in the small car? No, because we all know, you're gonna die if the large vehicle is exceeding 30mph. A significant percentage of the accidents in the US are T-bones that occur when someone runs an intersection. Strangely most crash-testing isn't mandated around this (some is, but not in the same percentage that it's likely to occur).

This isn't a lecture about physics. Rather that a small car is *always* less safe than a bigger one, provided you don't do something to roll your car. But even that isn't as bad if you're wearing your seat-belts, etc. The number of people who still drive belt-less in this country is staggering. Do people think they're "sticking it to the man" by breaking the seatbelt law?

The roll over issue, while real, has also been exaggerated by environmental groups in an effort to get people to buy small cars. Don't believe me? The number of press releases by those groups are huge speaking about this very issue -- a simple bing/google reveals the source for a lot of these reports when traced back. They're largely trying to use scare tactics to do whatever they can to get everyone into small vehicles. Mind you I'm not saying an SUV roll-over isn't a bad thing, but the severity and number of these events is not as critical as the "buzz" would have you believe (it's like N1H1, hours of press coverage, and it's not half as dangerous as the common flu for most people). Roll-overs are usually just on the side, or a once-over, and not something crazy like Casino Royale where the stunt team rolled an Aston Martin DBS 8 times (for the world record).


RE: Completely useless article
By MrPoletski on 9/18/2009 7:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a small car runs into an SUV (in motion) the total Joules released is fantastically more. We're talking potentially like 4-8x more energy.


ok, what you meant to say that is in a head on collision the energy is much higher.

So lets say, the smart car (730KG) and an SUV (say 1460KG) collide head on at 30 M/s (nearly 70mph).

Energy in the smart car: 1/2*730*30*30 = 328,500 Joules
Energy in the SUV: 1/2*1460*30*30 = 657,000 Joules

Twice that of the smart car, just like the momentum will also me 2x that of the smart car.

So that's 3x the energy of a flat wall collision. Not 4 to 8x the amount. Now if you doubled the speed to 60m/s (~140mph) that flat wall collision has 4x the energy it previously had... go figure.

quote:
And given the laws of physics, the square of the difference in energy is transferred to the lesser object.


Which laws of physics? so the difference in energy between the two vehicles is 328,500. Are you suggesting that 328,500^2 energy is transferred into the smart car? I thought not, please exaplain what you meant.

quote:
Basically meaning, SUV vs small, the small will always absorb vastly more energy than the SUV, even though the SUV brought most of the energy to the collision.


If that were true, then gently rolling a cannon ball into a stationary billiard ball would jet the billard ball off at stupid speeds. So you obviously didn't mean that either.

quote:
That's why small cars always seem "ok" in crash tests, because those tests don't involve colliding them with a bunch of other, much heavier vehicles already in motion.


What is the difference between a car hitting another stationary car at 100mph, or the same two cars hitting each other when moving at 50mph towards each other (i.e. 100mph relative to each other)?

Absolutely nothing.

quote:
It leads to a very deceptive perception that small is safe, when it's not. Granted SUVs have a roll-over potential due to center of gravity, but that can be mitigated by a good driver. The laws of physics are, however, constant.


And somewhat different from what you appear to think they are.

quote:
Those idiots mandating super fuel efficiency seem to be forgetting that there are going to be plenty of 2012 heavy-as-heck family trucksters on the road running into those shiny new, small fuel efficient cars. And I'll be driving one of those larger ones since I *value* my life.


With our two cars, the worst case scenario is this. The cars collide and gel into one blob of wreckage moving at the same speed. To make maths simple SUV has a momentum of 2 and smart of 1 (for v=1 and masses of 1 and 2 respectively). The net momentum after is going to be 1 in the SUV's favour. The momentum of this wreckage is going to be its mass x its velocity. It's mass is now 3 so 3*V = 2-1 = 1. so the net velocity of the wreckages is going to be 1/3. What this means is the KE of the SUV has changed from 1 to 1/9 (0.11111) and the smart cars from 0.5 (1/2*1*1*1) to -0.06 (1/2*1*1/3*1.3) (minus sign indicates direction change)

So the SUV's energy has changed by 0.89 and the smart cars by 0.56. That 'lost' energy will be taken out on the car bodywork.

The velocity of the driver has gone from 1 to 1/3 in the SUV and from 1 to -1/3 in the smart car. So the driver will sustain twice the Gforce in the smart car. Good job he's wearing a seat belt.


RE: Completely useless article
By Hoser McMoose on 9/20/2009 8:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
Here are some REAL numbers if anyone is interested. Larger cars (particularly minivans and large, imported luxury sedans) do best, but it's FAR from universal.

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4204.pdf

The numbers are a few years out of date but the concepts remain.

Ohh, and a few more bits of physics for you: Large vehicle also means more inertia which means they are harder to stop. High centre of gravity (SUV) means that the vehicle won't handle nearly as well under emergency avoidance situations, potentially leading to very dangerous roll-overs or, at best, spinning out. Large vehicles have more mass which means more force in a turn but their contact area with the road (tyres) is roughly the same as in a small vehicle so they often will have less traction.

Remember, by the time you're IN a collision you've already ruined ALL your best chances of avoiding injury. Regardless of the vehicle you're WAY better off avoiding the collision in the first place.


RE: Completely useless article
By hathost on 9/21/2009 5:08:01 AM , Rating: 2
You can avoide all you want but when that avoidance fails and it will happen the choice is then between which vehicle has the better passive safety.

Imagine if the military went with the idea of passive safety in their tanks? It's better to avoid a hit sure but is there anyone to be 100% unhitable? If that was the case then soldiers wouldn't need any body armor we wouldn't have up armored humvees or tanks we wouldn't need seatbelts or airbags nor would we need crumple zones or high strenght alloy steel body pasanger frames in our cars.

I used to drive a small car, Miata in fact, a small compact sports car with great avoidance but I didn't delude myself into thinking that this would make me safe if that one time I came around a blind corner and there was some drunk on te other side and I had no time to USE any of the avoidance of my car that I was just as safe as if I were in a big full sized car or SUV.


By Hoser McMoose on 9/22/2009 3:45:27 AM , Rating: 2
You're missing the point here. Yes at some point in time avoidance fails, but it does not fail equally for all vehicles. If you're in a car that is twice as 'safe' when you're in a collision vs another car, but 3 times more likely to get into that collision in the first place then you are LESS safe!

It's a very common fallacy among drivers that we have an equal chance of being in a collision in all vehicles, mainly because we mostly work under the mistaken belief that collisions are caused by something outside of our control (you illustrated this myth nicely in your post). Both of these points are absolutely false.

For your military example, look at airplanes. The military doesn't build many planes with the intention of them being able to survive being hit by a missile, it builds planes that will avoid being hit in the first place.

Safety in vehicles involves a combination of many things, but your best bet for safety is ALWAYS to avoid being in a collision. Yes, sometimes that will fail, typically due to stupidity on the part of a driver, so we DO need other 'passive' safety systems. Even here though, while larger might be, on average, better, it's certainly not universally true.

If it were simply a case of 'bigger is better' than all 3,500lb cars would always perform identically. Obviously this isn't true in the real world. Real safety is about smart design and engineering, not simply having thousands of tons of steel around you.


RE: Completely useless article
By mindless1 on 9/16/2009 3:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
1. Smaller cars having less mass, smaller crumple zones, and often poorer visibility for both the driver and for other vehicles, are certainly factors decreasing their safety.

Which "big and light" car are you referring to as evidence that occupants have a lower survival rate due to weight per volume contrasted with small denser cars?

Using same modern construction tech, we will have big and light cars, and small and lighter cars. Not small and heavy ones, and wearing the engine in your abdomen wouldn't exactly be a benefit of weight in a small vehicle, nor crashing your head against the closer windshield.

2. Getting fuel economy up, if there were no detractions in doing so, would be fine. The current infrastructure doesn't support everyone switching to diesel yet even though we are closer to that possibility than many alternatives.

Either way, the government's intention on specific numbers is an arbitrary one that is not goal based but rather what they believe present tech allows for.

If we were already using diesel cars with higher efficiency than the existing gasoline vehicles, the government would simply demand even MORE fuel economy because their goal is a generic "improvement" not really hitting some magical number but what they feel is possible in that time frame.


RE: Completely useless article
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Completely useless article
By mindless1 on 9/17/2009 12:56:40 AM , Rating: 2
Raise the price of gas why exactly? To play punisher instead of letting supply and demand set market prices?

Sorry, but that argument makes no sense at all. Let the gas market behave as all others do, not artificially altered by people who pretend to know what is best for citizens that can make their own choices.


RE: Completely useless article
By BishopRook on 9/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Completely useless article
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/17/2009 5:48:32 AM , Rating: 1
Exactly, and nor does the price of gasoline reflect the cost of using the military to keep the supply lines open to the middle east, hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to keep arab nations "friendly" to the US, subsidies to the oil companies themselves, and the cost of wars in oil rich nations to keep the oil flowing (Certainly no one thinks the Iraq war was about either Al Queda or WMDs at this point).

Also, whereas the price of oil can double literally overnight, the cost and time of transistioning off of oil is substantial: hundreds of billions of dollars in new infrastructure and 15 or 20 years of time. It makes sense to keep the price high to encourage development of alternative technologies and promote conservation. And it gives leeway to reduce the tax and keep prices stable in case of an oil shock. Europe and Japan didn't feel nearly the effect of $140 BBL oil in 2008 due to this very mechanism.


RE: Completely useless article
By Spuke on 9/17/2009 5:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Europe and Japan didn't feel nearly the effect of $140 BBL oil in 2008 due to this very mechanism.
Is that so?

Gas
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/prices.h...

Diesel
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/prices.h...

I don't know about you but a $4 a gallon increase is pretty damn significant.


RE: Completely useless article
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 5:22:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Europe and Japan didn't feel nearly the effect of $140 BBL oil in 2008 due to this very mechanism.


Ya, hence why 400,000 Japanese sailors decided to go on strike, since they didn't make any money when they went out to catch squid and fish.

That's why Japanese truckers had nationwide protests over rising fuel costs.

That's why JAL cut back flights and routes.

If all you're looking at is consumer drivers. Sure, they aren't going to be hit all that hard. They barely drive to begin with. I bought a 14 year old car in Japan that only had around 30,000 km on the dial. That averages out to 110 miles driven each month. Americans can easily do that in a single day.


RE: Completely useless article
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/18/2009 6:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say there was no effect. I said it was relatively less. For example, high gas prices in the US were a major factor in causing the collapse of the housing market, which in turn was the major factor causing the current recession:

http://movingforwardtogether.net/2008/04/28/housin...

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index...


RE: Completely useless article
By Spuke on 9/21/2009 5:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't say there was no effect. I said it was relatively less.
Way to conveniently skip over my proof that you were incorrect. LOL! So a $4 gallon increase isn't that big of a deal to you?

quote:
For example, high gas prices in the US were a major factor in causing the collapse of the housing market, which in turn was the major factor causing the current recession
Huh? Gas prices caused the collapse of the housing market? LOL! Dude, the housing market was already collapsed by that time. Most markets were well into the porcelain by early 2006.

http://www.forestweb.com/Corporate/view/news_more....
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/ind...
http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=D6DF853...


RE: Completely useless article
By hathost on 9/21/2009 5:15:23 AM , Rating: 2
Where is this Iraqi oil exactly? Wow i had no idea that all that Iraqi oil coming onto the market was the reason for $4 a gallon gas this last year. /faceplam where have I been?


RE: Completely useless article
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/21/2009 6:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
Don't be a bonehead. Iraq's proven oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia. Obviously the oil wasn't in the market last year. The infrastructure was destroyed during the war, and rebuilding it has been hampered by the resistance. The vast majority of the contracts to rebuild have gone to American oil companies, which will be by and large shipping the oil to the US, once it comes online. Afghanistan was about Al Qaeda. Iraq was about oil. It's pretty obvious since every other reason for the war has turned out to be false. And hey, why not? I'd rather Iraq's oil come to the US than go to China.


RE: Completely useless article
By hathost on 9/21/2009 8:10:50 AM , Rating: 2
And yet if we wanted oil from Iraq it probably woulda be a lot cheaper to gosomething like this:

"Hey Sadam you know man I think we should have better relations mind selling us some oil if we lift the trade embargos?"

But hey I'm sure that wouldn't have been cheaper than going to war at all.


By ArcliteHawaii on 9/21/2009 1:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I'm not disagreeing. The war was a huge mistake and a huge waste of resources. And the reasoning at the time didn't make sense to me. The Al Qaeda link didn't ring true: Saddam was all about being big fish in his little pond and had no interest in larger ideological struggles. And even though he'd poke and prod the lion (the US) he'd never be so stupid as to smash it over the head with a rock. The WMD link didn't ring true either given how long weapons inspectors had been poking around.

All that being said, I'd prefer that oil to come to the US than China. We'll see if the US didn't create too much ill will through torture and civilian deaths.


RE: Completely useless article
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 5:07:39 AM , Rating: 3
Their taxes on gas isn't there to help create more efficient cars. Their goal is to gather more money to place into government budgets. That's the whole point of taxes.

Also, go to Japan (fyi, is not a western country), Britain, Germany, etc. Most of them don't drive everywhere. Their countries are small and it's not as difficult or costly to create a public transit system for the masses.

What's with the 40+ mph figure too? Britain does miles, while the rest do kilometers. UK uses the imperial gallons, which is more gas than the US gallon. 0.76 liters more, actually. Course, hit the pump for petrol and it's in liters. The other countries use liters, not gallons.

Now in some countries, like Japan. I can see an average of 45-60 mpg in a car. The reason being, due to kei cars. They sport 660cc engines or lower and can't even go over 110 kph. They have great gas mileage, get tax breaks, and don't require proof of parking location for the car. Also, because of their size, they are very easy to drive in traffic and parts are ridiculously cheap. Not that it matters much, since the Japanese hardly drive anyways.


RE: Completely useless article
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/21/2009 5:50:11 AM , Rating: 2
The point isn't just to suck cash from people pockets. Look, Japan, Germany, England, none of them have domestic supplies of oil like the US (Well, England does NOW since discovering North Sea oil, but didn't for decades). So laws were passed to encourage conservation of oil. Take Japan:

1. Gasoline is always $3-4 per gallon more than the US.
2. Biannual shaken car inspection is $1,500.
3. Kei cars get breaks.
4. Tolls are outrageous. It's less to take the bullet train from Fukuoka to Tokyo than it is to drive and pay tolls.
5. Public transport is both reliable and cheap.
6. Great support for bicycling.

With gasoline, tolls, and shaken being so expensive one way to reduce operating costs is to go with a lighter, more efficient vehicle with better MPG.

As far as Japanese not driving, they don't drive as much as Americans, but they still drive plenty. IF you live in Tokyo or another large city it's no problem getting around (just like NYC), but millions of Japanese live in the countryside. The sparse population density can't justify the cost of trains. Everyone drives out here. There are 57 million cars in Japan, and they don't just sit around gather dust. They get used.


RE: Completely useless article
By hathost on 9/21/2009 8:13:43 AM , Rating: 2
Do you own a globe?

Hmm guess not otherwise you'd know that GB is about the size of a county in California or that California is larger than the whole of Japan. Or that the Poplation density of the US is much lower than in either country.

Google earth anyone?


By ArcliteHawaii on 9/21/2009 8:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
Country size and population density don't correlate to miles driven. In population dense New England, drivers drive more on average than in the much more sparsely populated, spread out western states.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.htg/img...


RE: Completely useless article
By ZachDontScare on 9/16/2009 4:19:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Consider that there are less deaths in F1 than Nascar even though the cars weigh FAR less in F1.

While I'm no F1 expert, I do know that NASCAR has hundreds of races each year across all its national and local series, each with more competitors. While F1 has far fewer races with fewer competitors. So I'd like to see a source for such a claim - and it should show that its the cars, not the type of racing (car to car contact is perfectly legal in NASCAR) - that leads to fatalities.


RE: Completely useless article
By Scrogneugneu on 9/16/2009 6:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
Don't waste your time, you can't compare these two.

NASCAR drive at high speed constantly, but only turn on one side, and every section of the exterior wall is protected. It is possible to get a very hard crash, but to do so you need to lose control and most probably make contact with at least another car.

F1, on the other hand, sees pilots going from high speeds to low speeds, turning left and right. Not all sections where you might have a crash are correctly protected, and with the way these cars are built, it's easier to go flying away and hit something pretty hard.

Check out videos on NASCAR crashes and F1 crashes. The typical NASCAR crash will have the pilot bumping the wall then scraping along until it stops. A typical F1 crash, however, will involve far more movement (I recommend you go and look the Robert Kubica crash at Montreal for an example).

The two are built for a different purpose and are prepared to protect for very different crash scenarios. This is comparing apples to oranges.


RE: Completely useless article
By Regs on 9/16/2009 11:07:16 PM , Rating: 3
How about being more competitive? Honda was coming out with 240+ hp V6 engines at 24-28mpg while Chevy/Ford was still making 190-200HP V6 engines at 18-19mpg. American cars have improved a lot all ready, and they did not need government to step in!


RE: Completely useless article
By afkrotch on 9/17/2009 5:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
3. Lighter does not always mean less safe. Only when the design is bad. Consider that there are less deaths in F1 than Nascar even though the cars weigh FAR less in F1.


What kind of comment is this? When the car can grip the road like a lion to a baby gazelle, it's no wonder there are less fatalities. Bet you there's less collisions in general too. The car is also more balanced, as it's making more than just a left turn.

That would make weight a moot point in the arguement. Might as well say that a space shuttle with it's more weight, is safer than a Formula 1 car, cause it's caused less fatalities. In that instance, the weight doesn't matter. There's been less space shuttles launched than Formula 1 cars driven.


RE: Completely useless article
By callmeroy on 9/17/2009 9:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
I am bored to tears with motorsports (though I would prefer watching them over golf or tennis)....

Anyway, that's not to say I've never read articles about either and being that I have family who enjoy NASCAR and F1 (but to a lesser degree) I've learned a little about them.

It seems to me that F1 cars are definitely more well built than NASCARs, and IMO I think they are more "precision" racing cars than NASCAR are too. Finally, I don't think its a stretch to state F1 drivers must exhibit more over all skill behind the wheel given they drive in courses that are more varied than a mere oval track.

Put it all together the issue that there are less deaths in F1 than NASCAR is not surprising to me in the least.

One thing I am curious of however, are there more cars in NASCAR than F1 -- and which sport has more races per season?

I wonder if it could be a law of averages kind of thing as well...if NASCAR has more cars per race and they race more often, that just means they have more "chances" for accidents...


RE: Completely useless article
By p05esto on 9/17/2009 9:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
What? Are you serious? Large vehicles like trucks and SUVs are FAR safer than smaller cars. What a bone head, everyone knows this.

A bolling ball rolling towards a grape, who's going to win in this exagerated example? Same goes with a SUV built on a truck frame heading towards a prius built of tinfoil....Good luck hippie, I'll drive a safe vehicle and pay a little extra. The comfort, versitility and safety is WORTH it.


RE: Completely useless article
By Lerianis on 9/18/2009 2:18:12 AM , Rating: 3
Little problem.... a lot of families have more than 4 people, which is the most you can fit in a 'small car' comfortably.

Until they make bigger cars with extra length for a third seat, we aren't going to see people switching from big SUV's to small cars.


RE: Completely useless article
By tapa on 9/18/2009 9:58:16 AM , Rating: 2
And where are you going to get all that diesel fuel, genius? It's already in short supply since only a fraction of refinery output is diesel. It's same as autogas. You just can't make as much of it as you please. We aught to minimize diesel usage in cars so that it gets cheaper for lorries. That's of huge economic importance.

And, no, you can't just make a refinery turn out more diesel.


RE: Completely useless article
By arachnid on 9/20/2009 2:10:41 AM , Rating: 2
A good friend of mine is a mechanical engineer and works for a forensic engineering firm. He tells me weight wins in car crashes, all 5 of the engineers in his office drive SUVs or fullsize trucks.


RE: Completely useless article
By hathost on 9/21/2009 4:28:28 AM , Rating: 2
How many miles are F1 drivers driving vs NASCAR drivers? How many drivers are there in each sport? How many cars per the area of the track are there in each for each race? These are two different sports and cars meant for different types of racing with different car design choices made to reflect that.

This is the same as the story we typically hear about people are killed more often in warm water than in cold water. It is simply a statistic until you learn the facts behind it they are meaningless. Such as when the study was done there was an enormous difference in the amount of people in warm water and cold water. So if someone came up to you and said for example 2000 people die every year in water that is 70 degrees and higher and that 5 people die in water that is 50 degrees or colder but didn't tell you that 10 people were swimming in the 50 degree water for example and that 1,000,000 were swimming in the 70 degree water that would significantly change the way you view the data.

In any event this whole environmental global warming thing is still debatable since there's info for both sides and a lot of shifty data and a lot of money to be made in government grants if you support global warming. In any event it definately pays to not dump toxic waste into the rivers or sewage into the ocean and we should conserve fish harvests and forests but they should be a manageable and useful resource not some sacred evironmentalist wacko alter that we have to bow to. Which is about what global warming is right now. You can declare a consensus all you want but if thats all it takes to be right then there aren't cells, bacteria, the universe revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, etc.


Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By SiliconJon on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 12:45:10 PM , Rating: 5
It's not a question of ingenuity, it's a question of cost. Stronger, lighter materials are readily available; they just cost a lot more. If you have to add $10K to the cost of the car for this reason, you've just priced yourself out of the market.

I think a lot of people outside of the industry think the engineers working at automotive OEMs are stupid, or that their employers are greedy. It's time to move past that type of naive thinking.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By SiliconJon on 9/16/2009 12:45:13 PM , Rating: 1
"If there are too many people too short sighted to push the market towards better environmental safety..."


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 12:49:16 PM , Rating: 4
Or we could push fuels with no impact on the environment like algae based biofuels so that it doesn't matter what your MPG is.

But hey don't let common sense get in the way of ideology.

Does it make sense to want less pollution? Yes. Does it make sense to fix a problem that doesn't exist? No.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By twhittet on 9/16/2009 1:22:14 PM , Rating: 3
But hey don't let common sense get in the way of ideology

Making vehicles that get better MPG and are more efficient IS common sense.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By Lord 666 on 9/16/2009 1:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
While you are correct, what FIT really saying is that instead of giving credits for E85 cars, the government should be giving credits for clean diesels that can use algae based biodiesel.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By mindless1 on 9/16/2009 3:10:39 PM , Rating: 3
Gov should just butt out. Supply and demand, let the buyers buy what they will.

Let the will of the people decide what direction the auto industry goes and isn't that what the government pretends it represents? If so then it needs not act at all.

What we have instead is a minority being vocal about what they want (greater efficiency despite the detractions to achieve it), and the majority who are content not saying anything because they are content so long as gas prices remain stable and low.

Granted gas can't always stay low, but once again we face a situation where if it stays high enough, long enough, the people not the government can decide as individuals if and when to buy that more fuel economical vehicle.

What I suspect will happen is ever more *cars* being designed to barely pass as trucks so they have relaxed fuel economy requirements.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By Spuke on 9/16/2009 2:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Making vehicles that get better MPG and are more efficient IS common sense.
And automakers have been doing that because it DOES make sense and, more importantly, it makes them more money (more efficient car equals more expensive car). BUT you don't want people looking at the sticker and refusing to buy the car. Then again, some of you would be perfectly fine with that.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By mindless1 on 9/16/2009 3:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, common sense is looking at both the pros AND the cons, realizing everything is a trade-off.

Assuming that the positive aspects someone pimps will ultimately be of greater benefit than detractions is fine if you have a crystal ball, aren't in an auto accident, can afford to pay for this tech.

It's fine, but except in retrospect (having accumulated data of the result), it's not common sense. It's a naive folly to think there aren't good reasons the automobiles we drive today evolved to what they are after 100 years (!!) of development.

That doesn't mean there aren't possibly even better reasons to improve fuel efficiency, but the way we're going about it is all wrong. Big Brother should not be making our decisions for us! Let the automobile manufacturers make what the public demands without governmental intervention.

It's at the heart of what America is supposed to be. Choice. Free Market.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 4:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct.

But the government's own regulations get in the way of other regulations.

Safety standards reduce mpg due to added weight. Emissions standards have reduced mpg. Ethanol mandates have reduced mpg.

And as another said, yes, the government needs to get out of the way. The market will dictate which cars are built. Auto manufacturers didn't start building more small cars after gas prices skyrocketed because of government mandate. They did it because that's what people wanted. However nor should the government artificially inflate the cost of gas to push more fuel efficient cars. A government which artificially inflates prices to push an agenda is a corrupt government which is not looking out for the interests of the people.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By adiposity on 9/16/2009 5:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
Ethanol mandates are the most disgusting thing. They help nothing and mess with the food industry. They also kill gas prices in California (where I live).

Free the market and algae will win.

-Dan


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By mindless1 on 9/16/2009 2:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any evidence that we could produce ENOUGH algae based biofuel without it being an impact on the environment?

Taken in small scale, drilling for existing oil doesn't have much of an impact on the environment either. Oops, then we spill some but is spilling biofuel ok?

It's time to go nuclear. Build as many as the public can tolerate promising them cheaper energy, make THAT what we spend these billions of tax dollars on, till we have enough surplus energy to sell it, split water, and all kinds of incentives to slowly change over to more electrically powered equipments and vehicles.

Battery tech is of course one major limitation, but put enough of a demand on it and you get more investment into research, the inevitable gains come sooner.

Then we start discussing the environmental impact of batteries once again, but who really believes we humans can have modern, let alone further comforts without an environmental impact? ALL of mankinds' development impacts that environment around us, is why we survive and flourish.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 4:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's worth looking into. And so far I haven't seen any major push to even investigate it by the government. I think one advantage of it though is that it doesn't need any particular environment to grow. Just warm and sunny. Unlike other biofuels, it doesn't rely on some outside medium to make the fuel. The algae just grows in water and produces the fuel. We'd definitely need some desalinization plants to help with the water requirements.

And it'll sure as hell cost a lot less than switching to batteries which requires massive overhauls in our infrastructure.

I'm all for nuclear. You should know that. But for my house. Not my car.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By KillaKilla on 9/16/2009 12:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Do remember that as fuel efficiency mandates roll by, and the average weight vehicles on the roads drops, the safety of all vehicles increases. This is because the average weight of the vehicle that hits you decreases, lowering the stresses on the car being hit. There is a delay, of course, as older vehicles slowly die out, but it does eventually happen.

Also, maybe ths will bring diesel options here, and maybe just maybe GM or Ford will pick up the Cummins contract after Dodge stop making a real truck. Oh baby, an F250 with that 6.7 would be sweet!


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 12:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is because the average weight of the vehicle that hits you decreases, lowering the stresses on the car being hit.
That's only part of the overall safety picture. You also need to consider other types of accidents, such as rollovers, crashes into stationary objects (e.g., wall or bridge), crashes into large trucks, etc.

In all these cases, larger cars with more material, stronger material, and larger crumple zones will protect lives better than small cars. You can't ignore simple physics...


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 12:57:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You can't ignore simple physics...


YES WE CAN!


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By twhittet on 9/16/2009 1:31:02 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, you can't ignore simple physics. F=ma. Make the cars have less mass, and there will be less force in rollovers, stationary object collision, even head on collisions if both cars are lighter in weight.

Older vehicles would be a problem that would slowly fade. As for larger vehicles (semis,etc.) - I don't think a 1980's buick would be any safer than a prius during a head-on collision with a loaded semi.

I agree that stronger materials and better crumple zones will help, but more material is backwards thinking.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By quiksilvr on 9/16/2009 1:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
Its funny how each region of the world has a different way to making more fuel efficient vehicles. Japan is utilizing hybrid technology. Germany is turning to diesel and now with the new very clean diesel fuel and engines, they are hitting some INSANELY high mpg ratings.

The US, however, is kind of all over the place. We have some companies that are using hybrid technology but not nearly to the extent of the Japanese. Some use diesel but only on the bigger vehicles and not the smaller ones. Some use ethanol but slowly but surely we are steering away from that failure. And some are just blatantly copying the vehicles.

IMO, the best solution at this time is to use diesel technology and slowly transition to EVs. Diesel is cheaper, the engines are better and more fuel efficient, and its the easiest transition we can do in the current state of things. If this isn't done soon, VW, BMW and the Merc will bring their insanely fuel efficient diesel cars to the states and the American car companies will have no choice but to do the same but will be late to the game.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By Spuke on 9/16/2009 2:13:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If this isn't done soon, VW, BMW and the Merc will bring their insanely fuel efficient diesel cars to the states and the American car companies will have no choice but to do the same but will be late to the game.
Two of those are luxury manufacturers and VW is damn near a niche automaker in the US. Not to mention, VW is at the bottom of the quality ratings here in the US.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 2:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree that stronger materials and better crumple zones will help, but more material is backwards thinking.
No, your belief that less material can be safer is backwards thinking, clearly.

Remember, today's vehicles are highly cost- and safety-optimized already. Your implication that they are dumb or have overlooked something is naive.

And less weight/energy in a collision is only relevant if you care about the object being struck. In the cases where I stated, I assume the value of human life far exceeds the value of the wall or the truck being struck.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By mindless1 on 9/16/2009 3:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
Highly irrelevant, most collisions aren't head-on with a semi.

While you can't ignore physics, you can choose not to overly fixate on only one aspect of simple physics. While there is less mass, the mass itself serves as a protective cage which will, all else being equal, protect the occupants less with any given level of technology and cost at which it is constructed.

Older vehicles don't slowly fade away to an extent that validates your argument, they actually last longer now than they used to and you write about a 1980 buick as a possibility when it is a 30 year old car. We should have 30 years of risk on the roads driving lower mass cars?

What about the trucks both commercial and private, SUVs, etc? They're not going anywhere and ride up and over a small light vehicle because regardless of bumper height a low mass crumple zone crumples away from the mass hitting it, ie - downward creating a crude ramp.

Recognize the differences between current levels of material versus less, not being the same as arguing for ever more material. What if we instead argued for the same amount of material with more strength, instead of less material with the same strength?

THAT would make us safer, NOT keeping the same crash test requirements while raising fuel economy mandates. This is really, really obvious when you stop to think about it.

Without question lighter mass cars will risk more lives. The experts who study these things have already projected it so it is a bit strange you second-guess them without any clear reason, without presenting any details they wouldn't have considered.

How about we get back to the reality of comparing a head on collision between a brand new full sized Buick and a brand new Prius? Oops, I attempted to make a reasonable comparison...


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By sebmel on 9/16/2009 6:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
"What about the trucks both commercial and private, SUVs, etc? They're not going anywhere and ride up and over a small light vehicle because regardless of bumper height a low mass crumple zone crumples away from the mass hitting it, ie - downward creating a crude ramp."

Mindless1 has a point: the big issue with SUVs is that they miss the crumple zone of ANY car and ride over it.

Forget buying a Merc S-class and thinking your safe. At 40mph a 3 ton SUV is going to drive over the bonnet/hood. In a side on collision it's going to miss the door reinforcing. There are two reasons for this:

a) there is no opposing car's crumple zone to slow them down
b) they aren't fast at coming to a stop, because they have the same rubber on the road as a car but two to three times the weight to counter, and as soon as they hit they are off the ground at the front

Small cars are getting firmer and that's causing more whiplash injury... they bounce like a billiard ball.

If this legislation gets some people out of SUVs it will reduce the fatalities that SUV drivers cause.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By Spuke on 9/17/2009 6:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If this legislation gets some people out of SUVs it will reduce the fatalities that SUV drivers cause.
How many fatalities are caused by SUV's compared to other cars?


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By mindless1 on 9/16/2009 3:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Untrue, engineering better crumple zones and cages, better suspensions, steering, etc, increases safety.

Vehicle weight reductions happened simultaneously but countered the safety improvements rather than increasing them.

It's clear fact that it more easily survives, if you disbelieve then perform a simple experiment. Make two equal sized 8" box frames. Make one out of popsicle stick gauged wood and the other with reinforcements that increase it's weight, because that's what the increased weight does, reinforce a vehicle's frame, skin, bumper, seat, etc., etc.

Now throw both the regular and reinforced, heavier popscicle stick boxes at a brick wall at equal, ever increasing velocities. I think you can guess which one will be destroyed first.

Now repeat the experiment crashing equal boxes into each other a la automobiles. Same thing, the less reinforced boxes crumple and break first because any design has inherent weaknesses.

Automakers aren't making heavy cars for "fun", the last time they could significantly decrease passenger automobile weight without major detractions (besides towing capability) was when they shifted from using full frames to unibody construction and FWD.

Granted, cost is one of those detractions. If a car were made with space shuttle tech it could be lighter and safe but already we balk at much smaller cost increases for battery powered vehicles.

People do not want to pay more for a smaller car, nor for a lighter one unless it lasts as long and the gas mileage improves enough they can recover that within a time period that interest on the addt'l money spent doesn't wipe away the long term hypothetical fuel savings.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By sebmel on 9/16/2009 6:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong here... weigh reduction doesn't necessarily mean reduced reinforcing. Renault has done great work in building crumple zones and frames to take the impact in ways that haven't increased weight substantially.

For example, in the past resistant bars were built into doors but unconnected to other parts of the frame because the door has to open. A classic cause of injury is the driver compartment collapsing at the A pillar (windshield).

Another cause of injury is the front of the car staving in and the engine entering the driver's compartment, crushing legs and pushing the steering wheel into the chest.

Renault has built a frame that doesn't collapse at the front... protecting the engine and transferring energy down the sides of the car... thus not deforming the driver's compartment.

So safety doesn't necessarily compromise weight... it's down to good design.

Unfortunately, nothing solves the problem of the three ton SUV unable to stop itself and riding over you. Those things are just plain dangerous.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By mindless1 on 9/17/2009 1:01:16 AM , Rating: 1
yes it does necessarily mean reduced reinforcement.

You keep missing the bigger picture. Take any vehicle, your absolute favorite highest performing in crumple zone tests, and if only they aren't trying to keep weight down on that specific vehicle, they could reinforce it to make it MORE SAFE.

You are not applying engineering logic to the problem. It is indisputable fact, common sense even to mechanical engineers, that the only reason to make structural integrity concessions is lower weight, size or cost.

The size difference isn't much at all, the cost depends on changing materials or crash safety requirements, but weight a la fuel economy is what we are focusing on in this topic.

Again, take any vehicle you feel does well, and with a few more pounds it does even better.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By sebmel on 9/17/2009 1:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
In as simple terms as I can express it:

Remove steel engine - add aluminium engine - redesign chassis for transmission of weight around driver without adding mass - change steel body panels for plastic - replace steel wheels with alloys - replace steel steering wheel with magnesium

Just a few examples.
Clear enough, I hope.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By Spuke on 9/17/2009 6:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
change steel body panels for plastic
Plastic? You're kidding right? I hope you know that most cars have all aluminum engines, right? And usually the high trim level cars have aluminum wheels too. Steel steering wheels replaced with magnesium? You should stick to weight savings that will actually make a difference. Like aluminum transmission cases.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 12:53:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
and there has always been people willing to steal for their own gain.


Yes. They're called politicians. And those who advocate for social programs that redistribute wealth like Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. because they will be using them. Social Security isn't supposed to count because you're supposed to put in what you're going to take out but that's not what happens. And young people like myself will never see the money we put into it again.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By SSDMaster on 9/16/2009 1:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
Making them lighter doesn't make them less safe? You've obviously never taken a physics class. Its not just about strength of materials.

Let's say a tractor trailer hits a car in a head on collision. Both vehicles were going 60 MPH. The car will be pushed backwards going 30MPH. That means that the Tractor trailer driver experienced a 30MPH hit, and the Car driver experienced a 90MPH hit.

Obviously the maths not perfect, but you get the point.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By SiliconJon on 9/16/2009 1:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, sure man - let's ignore the vast arrays of variables, proclaim youself an expert, and denounce me as idiot.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By mindless1 on 9/16/2009 3:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of people who aren't idiots don't know physics... though if you start to talk about a subject not knowing so much what the relevant details are it can tend to make people jump to conclusions...


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By PrinceGaz on 9/16/2009 1:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
In crash tests I've seen (on the likes of Fifth Gear), the weights of cars involved in a crash is almost irrelevant because both cars end up stationery near the point of impact. The heavier vehicle does not end up pushing the lighter one backwards to any significant extent, therefore both vehicles have to cope with a similar amount of deceleration. The only factors which determine survival are structural strength of the cabin, a crumple-zone capable of absorbing the energy of the impact, plus normal passenger safety devices like airbags and seatbelts.

The sort of vehicles tested were things like an old heavy Volvo hitting a small hatchback head-on or near head-on of less than half the weight, both vehicles travelling at the same speed (typically 30-40mph). The more modern light hatchback faired much better due to having a crumple-zone and strong passenger compartment, whereas the driver of the Volvo would have had a steering column in his chest.

The thing is that despite the difference in weight and both cars going the same speed, the heavier car did not cause the lighter one to be pushed back to any significant extent. Rather the heavier car ploughed its engine-compartment into the lighter car's crumple zone absorbing much of the energy, and both were left stationery pretty near the impact.

Now if you are talking about a car being hit by a 40-ton lorry, then it doesn't really matter whether the car weighs half a ton, or three and a half tons because the end result will be the same. Same with concrete posts, trees etc. The only thing which matters is not the weight, but the combination of a well designed crumple-zone and strong passenger cabin.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By sebmel on 9/16/2009 6:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong and the poster above is partially correct... weight does affect safety but, no it isn't clear cut.

There is NOTHING you can do about a weight disparity... a 3 ton car travelling at 30mpg is packing far more force than a 1 ton car... just think of a big fist... it isn't just down to speed... that explains boxing's divisions.

At the point of impact a small car has to counter the momentum of the big car... it can't crumple much, because it has little length, so it has to bounce... perhaps into another car.

As for safety vs weight... that isn't clear cut because, clearly, a well designed small car can potentially be safer than a badly designed heavy car... within the limits of what is physically possible. It's just that the small car really has it's work cut out.

All this, as I said before, becomes irrelevant in the case of SUVs... all the design work and NCAP crash testing goes to pot because enormous American SUVs just ride OVER all your carefully designed bumpers, frame and crumple zones.

SUVs kill their occupants when they try to swerve at greater than 40mph. They kill oncoming traffic when in accidents. They are unstable and unsafe. They should be licensed in the hands of those that need them and trained how to drive them... like a HGV license... so that doesn't include women on the school run going through Chelsea.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/2009 6:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
SUVs kill their occupants when they try to swerve at greater than 40mph. They kill oncoming traffic when in accidents. They are unstable and unsafe. They should be licensed in the hands of those that need them and trained how to drive them... like a HGV license... so that doesn't include women on the school run going through Chelsea.


/rolls eyes.

Watch out Swine Flu. The SUV's are coming to take your place as the most deadly things on the planet...


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By Ristogod on 9/16/2009 1:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
There isn't a lot of credible evidence that supports the need for improved emissions. Humans creating green house gases aren't the cause of global warming.

I'm all for using less fuel to improve efficiency however, but only if it makes sense economically. And sadly, because this is a political driven agenda, it makes little sense to force these ridiculous policies on the automotive industry.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By lelias2k on 9/16/2009 2:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of whether or not there is evidence, the fact is that those gases are not good for us - just ask the people who committed suicide with them...

Do you really want to wait until there's nothing else that can be done?

Everyone wants it to make sense economically, but reality is that anything new costs money.

The problem is that most things move into the mainstream due to popular demand. Since this probably won't happen here, the government has to interfere.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By hathost on 9/21/2009 5:33:36 AM , Rating: 2
If we take all the CO2 out of the air we won't be able to eat because all the plants on the planet will sufficate and die. Is that what you want? Global genocide of all life on the planet hmm hmm hmm????

Increased CO2 is good for plants.
We eat plants and feed it to our animals to produce food.
Plants don't typically survive well in the winter.
For some odd reason the do very well in the spring and summer.
Global warming = good.
Global cooling = ice age = many dead people = bad.

At least I would hope you don't want the human race on the brink of extinction.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By walk2k on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By Spuke on 9/16/2009 2:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Besides the majority of vehicle weight is in the engine
No it isn't. Even a 1960's era big block V8 weighs under 700 lbs.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By walk2k on 9/16/2009 3:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
exactly! what other single part weighs as much


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 4:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
You said the majority of a cars weight is in the engine. That's not the same as saying its the heaviest component.

And the car's chassis weighs more most likely for most cars. Especially back then.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 3:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Take the engine out of a car and see if you can then lift the car. Take out the entire drivetrain for that matter (engine, transmission, and driveshaft.).

Probably unlike you, I actually have pulled an engine out of a car. A V8 no less. The whole motor weighed around 500 pounds. The car was an 85 Camaro which weighed 3300 pounds. Today's engines are even lighter due to most of them being all aluminum.

You are a dumb@ss.

And are you seriously trying to justify people dying to fix a problem that doesn't exist? And there have been an average of 532 people killed in Iraq a year (4262 total). You merely bringing it up as if to somehow compare the two is offensive.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By walk2k on 9/16/2009 3:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
"dying to fix a problem that doesn't exist"

can't figure out what you're talking about here.

WMDs in Iraq?

what problems don't exist in your head? pollution, global warming, reliance on foreign oil, etc etc etc??

pull your head out for once.

crying it will cost more to make cars doesn't wash with me. GM/etc should have been planning for that 20-30 years ago, it's their own damn fault they are so far behind now.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 4:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that those problems are (a) attributable or unique to larger cars, and/or (b) serious enough to warrant in effect legislating that we all drive smaller cars.

And somehow suggesting that GM is responsible for all this is laughable at best...but really idiodic actually. GM, like other automakers, builds cars based on consumer preferences. That's their job, their good at it, and it was why they are/were #1 in the world for decades.

Yes, maybe automakers are out of touch with libtards like you and the current administration, but I consider that a good thing. Probably consumer sentiment is slowly changing, but to suggest what these companies have been doing all these years is wrong is pretty ignorant.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By walk2k on 9/16/2009 8:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
oh yeah US autos are awesome, that's why half the top 10 selling cars in the US are Japanese. that's why they took bailouts/went bankrupt. pull your head out.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 9:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
Did I say the Japanese are not good at supplying what Americans want, or did I even draw a comparison between the two? No.

My same argument applies to Toyota. They are good at finding out and supplying what customers want. And when you go to their showroom, do you see all econoboxes? Nope.

You need to pull your head out.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By Spuke on 9/17/2009 1:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
oh yeah US autos are awesome, that's why half the top 10 selling cars in the US are Japanese.
Actually, out of the top 20 best selling cars in the US, 9 of them are American cars, three of them are American trucks, and NONE of them are large SUV's. How about backing up your statements with actual facts next time?


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 4:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Could you possibly make a clear, concise point of what you're trying to say?


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By Souka on 9/16/2009 2:59:09 PM , Rating: 1
"Making them lighter doesn't make them less safe "

But being in a vehicle of greater mass, compared to being in a car of less mass, results in less of a delta in velocity during a crash with another vehicle...period.

So reducing the weight WILL result in an increase of vehicle injuries and deaths.

Of course being in a "safer" car to begin with is very important... eg: a 1966 VW bug compared to 2010 Cooper Mini. You're safer in a Cooper mini. But being in a 1980 Chevy Blazer is safer than being in a 2010 Cooper Mini in most vehicle-vehicle crashes...

regardless.... I'm all for the smallest, overall less pollution (noticed i didn't say highest MPG) cars/trucks.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By walk2k on 9/16/2009 3:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
common myth/old wives tale.

you're assuming every collision is a 3000lb vehicle colliding with a 5000lb vehicle.

in collisions with a stationary object (building, wall, overpass, etc) it makes no difference.

in collision with a fully loaded semi truck (20-30k lbs) there's very little difference.

weight tells very little of the story. take a 1950s Buick or so and compare to a current Civic or Mini... MUCH safer.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By joex444 on 9/16/2009 4:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
Your limited knowledge of physics is failing you.

True, in an isolated system consisting of two objects which collide (and do not simply break apart into multiple tiny parts), the object with higher mass undergoes a small change in velocity.

Unfortunately, when you stop on the highway you go from 75mph to 0mph. When you stop in the city, you go from 30 to 0mph. Clearly, the highway is dangerous if the change in velocity is all that protects you from near certain death.

Alas there is more. The delta V is very meaningless. What destroys human lives (ie, ripping the aorta from the heart or forcing the brain into volumes it was never meant to squeeze into) is the IMPULSE! This quantity is delta V / delta t -- the time it takes you to stop.

Then clearly, going from 90mph to 30mph in 10 seconds is the same as going from 30mph to a dead stop in 5 seconds.

The design of cars is that when "zones" "crumple" they take LONGER to slow down, thus DECREASING the impulse. This is why an old steel car without airbags will perform terribly compared to a vehicle half its weight (technically, mass, but we'll assume both vehicles collide in the same gravitation potential such that the ratios of weight to mass for each vehicle is equal), such as a Civic. Further, airbags lessen the impulse the person feels when they collide with the dashboard, an event nearly guaranteed to occur in life-threatening crashes.

The really hard part about the smaller cars will be having the large SUV and truck drivers hop into the small car. No longer will they be able to push around other cars on the road and have their way. They will actually need to think about whether or not it is appropriate and safe to make a left turn in this scenario or if they can change lanes given the clearance and apparent relative velocity of other vehicles. Further, they will not be able to peer out over all of traffic. For those already in small cars, nothing will change. Those used to driving this way have survived this long, I doubt the increase in deaths will be from these drivers. Instead it will be from the least confident drivers who rely on the size of an SUV simply to scare other drivers away. (For those unaware, GM published an industry report a couple years ago that found their SUV buyer base was largely composed of the least confident drivers. More confident drivers were not as attracted to the sheer size of such behemoths.) In essence, I predict that the potential for an increase in crashes will be from largely ignorant drivers used to making bone-headed decisions and relying on the size of their vehicle to let other drivers know you will lose in a collision with this, so let me have my way (after all, they probably have children, the smallest possible kind of human so they clearly need such massive vehicles).


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By andrinoaa on 9/16/2009 6:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
I can't beleive all the tripe written about physics and this and that. The basic premis of the article needs to standup to scrutiny BEFORE we worry about physics. Where did they get those figures from? What assumtions were made? What are the fatal accident statistics of small cars, large cars, small to large car impacts, SUV to Kenworth impacts, modern small car vrs old small car, new small car vrs new big car etc etc etc etc. HOW CAN YOU RAMBLE ON without knowing any of these? STOP TALKING BS


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By SiliconJon on 9/18/2009 10:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
I don't get it. OK, I see through critical self-analysis that maybe there isn't a need for this type of regulation, but I don't see any reason to post or debate further on it here. I really don't get what's going on this comments section here at DT - why posts of such similar content are rated so differently. But meh - whatever, spit on me all you like it's only digital. It's not like anything productive will come of these moronic monkey comment collections anyway.


RE: Safety : Cost : Efficiency
By hathost on 9/21/2009 5:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
There is always for some reason an assumption that global warming is bad yet when we go into ice ages that seems to be when we suffer the most. I say bring global warming on and increase CO2 production it's good for the planets and its better for us.


Milder?
By randomname on 9/16/2009 4:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
How can you call 34.1 MPG by 2016 milder than 35 by 2020?

And yeah, bigger cars are safer for those who drive them. But smaller cars have got a lot safer over the years. And there are a lot of ways to make the highways safer, and they don't involve bigger cars. The US does pretty badly in highway safety, despite having some of the biggest cars. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_Traf...

1979 Fatalities 2002 Fatalities Percent Change
United States 51,093 42,815 -16.2%
Great Britain 6,352 3,431 -46.0%

As GB has about one fifth of the US population, but only 8 per cent of the fatalities, that should say something. One solution would be to encourage less driving, for example by zoning and by emphasis on public transport. (Because the number of deaths per distance driven isn't that bad, cf.:)

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/st...




RE: Milder?
By Nfarce on 9/16/2009 4:47:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As GB has about one fifth of the US population, but only 8 per cent of the fatalities, that should say something.


Actually I don't think that says a flipping thing unless you include average miles driven per car owner in a year with the US vs. Great Britain. The US is more than 10x the size of GB, and has 5,700,000 miles of roads compared to GB's 260,000 miles.

Since the 1950s Americans have moved away from large city populaces and branched into more rural areas creating smaller communities, downs, and cities all in between. Americans have increased their average annual miles driven just about every year, let alone the number of cars owned per household, another metric apparently not used.

quote:
As GB has about one fifth of the US population, but only 8 per cent of the fatalities


And GB has a whopping 4.5% of the paved roads (interstates to local streets and everything in between) that the US has. I think some data is missing here for a true comparison.


RE: Milder?
By sebmel on 9/16/2009 6:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
Simple... just quote US average mileage... in the UK it's considered to be 10 to 12 thousand miles per year.

The UK is much smaller than 10 times:

UK 94,526 sq. mi.
US 3,794,066 sq.mi.

That's 40 times smaller... still it just comes down to average mileage since you can always fly to cover distance.


RE: Milder?
By Nfarce on 9/16/2009 7:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
Okay now we're talking. The US driver averages 12-15,000 miles a year. In fact a car here that has 45,000 miles and is three years old is considered "on par" with mileage use. So, the next question is, what percentage of paved roads in the US have higher speeds than in the UK and what is the average speed of a US driver vs. a British driver over the course of a year? See what I mean? There are many variables involved that can be calculated that aren't. If I had time, I'd really like to research this.


RE: Milder?
By Aloonatic on 9/17/2009 4:18:34 AM , Rating: 2
The questions that you ask would matter little to the statistics that he mentioned though. He was comparing the UK to the USA with regards to how the number of road deaths has decreased over time within each country.

Also, just for all those people who love a stereotype (we all do of course, in Europe we all love to think that you all drive SUVs & pick-ups in the States because they are needed to carry your bloated fast food filled XXXXXL fat bodies around and to hold your weekly food shopping which would be enough to feed a third world country) but in Europe (the UK at least) not everyone drives a compact car. Most people drive mid sized cars (most common = Ford focus - Mondeo) and a lot of people drive SUVs (most common = Land/Range Rover - BMW X5) too. To follow the logic of many of the posts in this article the UK's highways should be littered with SMART cars and FIAT 500s that have been squashed by SUVs and the like, with the families of the occupants trying to pick up the almost non existent remains of their loved ones in a small carrier bag, but it's just not true.

If you are really scared of being in smaller cars because you don't trust the guy next to you on the road then perhaps you should start looking at increasing the difficulty of driving tests and avoid accidents in the first place?

*warning, uncomfortable truth*

Why are you so against smaller cars? It's very simple psychology I'm afraid. You still see the size of your car as a measure of your personal wealth, your personal status and the status of your country in a global context. So being asked/made to drive smaller cars is just another very visible sign of the decline of the USA as a financial power, which (understandably) earks you all somewhat.


RE: Milder?
By Nfarce on 9/17/2009 7:59:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you are really scared of being in smaller cars because you don't trust the guy next to you on the road then perhaps you should start looking at increasing the difficulty of driving tests and avoid accidents in the first place? *warning, uncomfortable truth* Why are you so against smaller cars? It's very simple psychology I'm afraid. You still see the size of your car as a measure of your personal wealth, your personal status and the status of your country in a global context. So being asked/made to drive smaller cars is just another very visible sign of the decline of the USA as a financial power, which (understandably) earks you all somewhat.


1) Most of us aren't "scared" to drive smaller cars. We have families, dogs, and like to take vacations. We like to go on recreational trips towing boats.

2) Now it is true that some "soccer moms" to us or "football moms" to your land - women who just take their kids around and then go to tennis lessons or retail shopping - drive big SUVs mostly empty. But they are the exception, not the rule. Just look at any parking lot at Disney World in Florida.

3) It is also true that some people see cars here as a sign of wealth. Cars built in the very lands you mentioned in your screed (UK - Jaguar, Europe - BMW, Mercedes, & Audi). Are you telling me (us) that we should stop buying luxury cars from over there (even though some are made here in the States)?

4) I sense a smugness about your post that you are happy the American - and global - economy has declined and people are being forced to rethink their spending. Well bud, I've got news for you straight from the horses mouth. We AREN'T going to be forced to drive smaller cars. We'll keep our current LARGE vehicles, including pickup trucks, until they completely conk out. Yeah, THOSE pickup trucks used by plumbers, farmers, landscapers, and other business owners who use them.

5) I also sense an inherent envy of wealth in your post and you are happy to see financial power being knocked down. Well again bud, I've got news for you straight from the horses mouth again: we are still wealthy compared to the rest of the globe and there are more millionaires today than there were 10 years ago. So, I'll ask you, why do you hate the freedom to earn money and buy what you want and what the MARKET will provide, not what some horseass GOVERNMENT will DEMAND companies make?


RE: Milder?
By Aloonatic on 9/17/2009 11:57:34 AM , Rating: 2
1) I was referring to the posts above, where there are quite a few who jump to the conclusion that small "tin box" or whatever cars are actually death traps. That is what I was referring to. What a lot of people do in the UK is have a small car and a big car, one for general driving and another for the trips that you mention. It may come as as surprise to you, but people in other countries have "families, dogs, and like to take vacations, like to go on recreational trips towing boats" etc.

2) Of course a car will be full when going to a tourist/leisure site. Not sure what that has to do with my post tho, or to do with average day to day use when mom does the shopping when kids are at school or whatever. I wish I had the studies at hand, but it is far more common for the average number of people in a car to be little over 1 than it is for the car to be full, over its life time. It's just the way it is. Families make up only one part of the driving demographic too. There are lots of single people, old couples, couples without families.

3) Not sure what you're rambling on about there. I'm not telling you that you should do anything. I was just trying to explain why people get so emotional (as you have done in your rant) and come out with crazy comments like those above (and every other article about small high mileage cars) about how small cars are death traps. And explain that in the UK we have a mix of big cars and small cars, yet the number of deaths on our roads are not through the roof. I didn't think I was being all that cryptic, but there you go, obviously I was.

4) No smugness, honest. It's just your ultra defensiveness that comes from said decline and the feelings of vulnerability that that has lead to you seeing that I guess. I am happy for you and that you will keep your car, pick-up, whatever. Out of interest. What do you think that "plumbers, farmers, landscapers, and other business owners" use over here? Perhaps you should take a minute to think about what you're writing?

5) The obvious "jealous? You're just jealous....." TBH, I really couldn't care less. I live in an ok country, most places that people who are reading this live in are ok, non are particularly great no matter what your politician tries to tell you however. That America is still a wealthy country is fine by me, why should I care? I never said that it wasn't either, by the way. If I was to point out to you that your tyre was deflating, would you think that I was doing so to gain pleasure? Or just because it was true? Also, please point out where I said anything about hating people's right to earn money and buy what they want in a free market? Seriously? You really have lost the plot. I think you could really do with a sit down in a dark quiet room. Also, That your country has a lot of millionaires means what to you? Does it (directly) make your life better? No. Does it make my life better or worse? No, not really. Does it mean that you are more likely to be a millionaire? Probably not. So what does it matter? Lots of countries have a lot more millionaires now too by the way, not just the USA. It's strange how people like to bask in the reflected glory of the achievements of people who just happen to have been born on the same piece of rock as them, or within the same line drawn on a map, but really, what does it matter? There are plenty of millionaires here too. The numbers in India and China are going up fast too, probably much faster than in the USA or UK too. I don't really see what your (again ultra defensive and prickly) comment has to do with anything however, other than proving my point about how defensive many Americans seem to be and how quick you are to over react to pretty much anything.

Finally, I am not and never will be your "bud" so please don't be rude, and stop referring to me as such. Thank you?! :)


RE: Milder?
By Nfarce on 9/17/2009 1:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) I was referring to the posts above, where there are quite a few who jump to the conclusion that small "tin box" or whatever cars are actually death traps.


Well you replied to my comment. What else was I supposed to think?

quote:
It may come as as surprise to you, but people in other countries have "families, dogs, and like to take vacations, like to go on recreational trips towing boats" etc.


Of course. But let's see you do that in an econobox.

quote:
2) Of course a car will be full when going to a tourist/leisure site. Not sure what that has to do with my post tho


Simple. You said why do we need big cars or why are we afraid of smaller cars. There's your answer. We're a big nation with big roads and have a lot of stuff.

quote:
3) Not sure what you're rambling on about there. I'm not telling you that you should do anything. I was just trying to explain why people get so emotional (as you have done in your rant) and come out with crazy comments like those above (and every other article about small high mileage cars) about how small cars are death traps.


Go back and re-read ANY of my posts here and show me where I even mention "death traps." Go ahead. Second, my "rant" was about your obvious infatuation with wealth, and the loss of it. Your words above, not mine.

quote:
What do you think that "plumbers, farmers, landscapers, and other business owners" use over here? Perhaps you should take a minute to think about what you're writing?


I'm sure the same thing. So why should I not include those folks in comments on a thread about "large unnecessary vehicles" which is obviously meant to be pickup trucks and SUVs. While you did not specifically state that, many others have on this topic. And continue to do.

quote:
5) The obvious "jealous? You're just jealous....." TBH, I really couldn't care less. I live in an ok country, most places that people who are reading this live in are ok, non are particularly great no matter what your politician tries to tell you however. That America is still a wealthy country is fine by me, why should I care?...I don't really see what your (again ultra defensive and prickly) comment has to do with anything however, other than proving my point about how defensive many Americans seem to be and how quick you are to over react to pretty much anything.


Gee, I can't imagine your comment "You still see the size of your car as a measure of your personal wealth" meaning anything else. Okay, maybe that was a stretch. But people like you acting like you KNOW us, when you don't other than what you read, and we know the media over there is not far from favorable to the US, is what irks people like me. Attempting to say we are "scared" of getting into smaller cars when it is more about WANT and NEED than FEAR, is also what irks us.

I also forgot to respond to your statement here:

quote:
So being asked/made to drive smaller cars is just another very visible sign of the decline of the USA as a financial power, which (understandably) earks you all somewhat.


WRONG. What irks us is the GOVERNMENT telling us what we should drive and FORCING companies to build smaller cars. That has about as much to do with financial power (your SECOND comment about money here) as a VW Beetle's technology does to an F1 racer.

quote:
Finally, I am not and never will be your "bud" so please don't be rude, and stop referring to me as such. Thank you?! :)


No worries there, fellow DT blogger. (That okay?)


RE: Milder?
By Aloonatic on 9/17/2009 3:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, I responded to your comment, but I thought I was pretty clear as to what I was referring too :) Also I thought I made it pretty clear that I ware referring to comments elsewhere. I'm sorry if I confused you.

As for rest... You seem to be in a paranoid world of your own where someone is making you drive an "econobox" or whatever?

I never said "why do you need big cars?" I said that perhaps you would not be so scared (again, people posting in here in general, not just you, it's not all about you, just as all government legislation is not passed specifically to affect you) as clearly many people here are, and the article clearly implies.

You are a big nation, sure, but when do you really travel that far? And when you do, does it really matter how big your car is in the vast majority of cases? And if you are travelling a long way, does that not mean that a better MPG would be a bonus? As for carrying a lot of stuff, sure, if you want to carry a lot of stuff then buy a big car, I have never said otherwise. If you want to buy 10 cars and hire people to drive around behind you, carrying all your stuff do that, I really don't care.

Your paranoid "the worlds out to get us, they all hates us, quick to the bunker, the commies are coming, it's just you and me now precious, they want to get us precious" attitude is sadly typical of too many of the Americans that I have met, and I have met quite a few as I have friends who live in the USA and work regularly with people in America too. We also get a lot of your news channels (though why fox news isn't in the entertainment section of the TV EPG is beyond me) over here and some of the stuff that comes out of the USA is just crazy. I'm sorry if that erks you, but maybe you should look closer to home for the problem there.

For the record (if you really care) I really like many Americans that I meet, and I love many American attitudes and approaches to problems and political mentality. The UK could do with being more like America in many ways, we've had a socialist government bumbling along messing everything up for too long over here.

Now, I rally can't be bothered with anything more. Your RUDE occasional SHOUTING, stating that something is WRONG is just childish and just makes you look silly.

Good day.


RE: Milder?
By Nfarce on 9/17/2009 8:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, so we're "paranoid" that the government is going to control free enterprise and freedom of choice of what to drive. Okay. And your cute little snide comment that "the commies are going to get us" and whatnot about this is to be expected, along with a snide little "Fox News is entertainment" jab.

And yes, we take 1,000 mile round trip vacations all over the place in this nation. Why are you even questioning what we Americans need, again? Most people who can afford to take road trips and vacations with a large family are more concerned about space and comfort than MPG, as alien as that may sound to you apparently.

Finally, you replied to me, and I replied to you. That's how this blog works. You have every right to make comments about fatassed Americans, greedy Americans, and other things like why we feel the need to drive big vehicles. Knock yourself out! But don't sit there in shock when someone like me fires back and defends our lifestyle, our decisions, and our freedoms to enjoy both.


RE: Milder?
By randomname on 9/17/2009 3:57:01 AM , Rating: 2
Part of my criticism here was the sensationalistic headline that better MPG (smaller cars) equals more deaths. You can improve MPG even without making the cars smaller. But a shift to smaller cars is inevitable, because it makes sense.

Following similar logic, one could accuse those who have made zoning decisions (helped urban sprawl) of killing Americans. Or maybe you'd have to estimate the number of people killed in the future in oil related wars (fought in regions that are important because they have oil, no matter what the actual reasons for the war are) in relating MPG to death rates. And include deaths from car pollution.


RE: Milder?
By Lerianis on 9/18/2009 2:22:20 AM , Rating: 2
No, it doesn't make sense, unless families get smaller as well and children stop inviting their friends to go places with them.

Big cars are ALWAYS going to be a necessity in the world, until we have VERY GOOD public transportation..... which is going to be NEVER because the United States has too many people spread over too large an area for public transportation to work.


RE: Milder?
By hathost on 9/21/2009 5:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
What's the miles driven per person? What are some other things that can accout for the difference? Slower speeds? Roundabouts? Few miles per person? That's simply a meaningless stat.


Hmmm
By boobot on 9/16/2009 12:47:08 PM , Rating: 5
This article has racial tendencies...




RE: Hmmm
By Breathless on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hmmm
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 12:56:32 PM , Rating: 1
You Lie!

Crap I'm a racist. Of course I'm already one for not wanting national health care, not wanting cap & trade, wanting to own a gun, attending a town hall, attending the 9/12 March on DC, etc.

A sad day when disagreeing with someone implies to the media that you hate their skin color as long as its different than your own.


RE: Hmmm
By Breathless on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hmmm
By MadMan007 on 9/16/2009 4:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
Hey FIT you might find it interesting to read about cap & trade wrt acid rain causing emissions, you should be able to find some info about the 1990 Clean Air Act pretty eaily. All the same arguments were stated then but it actually ended up working out fairly well. And there's less acid rain because of it.


RE: Hmmm
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 6:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
There is a big difference about wanting to put filters on smoke stacks to filter out particulate emissions and actually taxing CO2. I think the current regulations we have are more than adequate.


RE: Hmmm
By MadMan007 on 9/17/2009 1:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
*sigh* You didn't even bother to look it up did you. I guess ignorance is the easiest route. The 1990 Clean Air Act has a cap & trade provision for acid rain-causing emissions.


RE: Hmmm
By InfantryRocks on 9/16/2009 11:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
attending the 9/12 March on DC, etc.
You were there? How was it?


RE: Hmmm
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2009 9:20:51 AM , Rating: 2
It was awesome. There were a ton of people. I don't know how many but I think the 70,000 number being thrown around is far too low. There was easily over 100,000 people there.

And jee funny, all those people protesting in DC and not a single arrest.


RE: Hmmm
By boobot on 9/16/2009 12:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Oops forgot the sig

--- Jimmy Carter


RE: Hmmm
By R3T4rd on 9/17/2009 5:15:14 AM , Rating: 2
Go figure. Shoo...Shooo...go away Carter!


RE: Hmmm
By R3T4rd on 9/17/2009 5:22:45 AM , Rating: 1
It has nothing to do with Racial Tendencies...but rather Obama's plan to de-populate the country by making people driver smaller cars and killing themselves (Kinda falls in line with his Health Care Plan that if you are over a certain elder...uncle sam would rather just let you die and save the 21yrs old). Ingenious plan if you ask me. Its the perfect crime and no one even suspects it -- cept me. You heard it hear first.


RE: Hmmm
By redbone75 on 9/17/2009 9:13:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Kinda falls in line with his Health Care Plan that if you are over a certain elder...uncle sam would rather just let you die and save the 21yrs old

Your stupidity makes my brain hurt. Like a certain Alaskan ex-governor, you spew the same misinformation about so-called Obama "death panels" that make make the future of the Republican party look bleak. End-of-life counseling was in a 2003 bill that Republicans overwhelmingly voted for: 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators. The language of the bill?
quote:
The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.

That language was revised to include funding for counseling BEFORE a person becomes terminally ill. Oh, the stupidity and the hypocrisy. Stupid because you let ignorance run rampant without knowledge. Hypocritical because, hey, do I have to continue spelling it out?


RE: Hmmm
By hathost on 9/21/2009 5:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
You don't have to have it in the bill because what happens and I will try to make this much simple to not hurt your brain.

Congrees makes a bill -> President signs bill -> Bureaucrats run the operation

Now even though there isn't some specific clause about a "death panel" in the bill that doesn't mean there won't be a panel made to "watch" costs and "decide" on what your "treatment" will be. If YOU do not pay for your healthcare and the GOVERNMENT does, is it you that has the final word on your treatment? Or is it the person or in this case some faceless bureaucrat watching the expenditures each year gets to decide whether to pay to that treatment?

Sorry that may have been to complicated towards the end there. I'm sure your brain cell is trying hard to understand though GL


Wow, this is horrible
By slash196 on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Wow, this is horrible
By Dorkyman on 9/16/2009 2:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
You see it as right-wing bias, I see it as a balanced discussion.

Please keep politics out if it.

ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL,


RE: Wow, this is horrible
By Dorkyman on 9/16/2009 2:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oops--sorry.


RE: Wow, this is horrible
By Dorkyman on 9/16/2009 2:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
You see it as right-wing bias, I see it as a balanced discussion.

Please keep politics out if it.

ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a higher fuel efficiency generally implies a lighter vehicle, which generally implies more severe g-forces for the occupants if involved in a collision with a heavier vehicle. Perhaps the increased severity can be designed out through clever engineering, but at least these basic statements are valid, I believe.


RE: Wow, this is horrible
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/2009 2:18:43 PM , Rating: 5
Accusing Jason Mick of Right wing bias ??? You are new here aren't you?


Choices ... Choices
By Breathless on 9/16/2009 12:37:56 PM , Rating: 3
Save the environment by killing the people - or save the people by killing the environment.... Choices choices




RE: Choices ... Choices
By Omega215D on 9/16/2009 5:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
We can do both by launching all nuclear warheads available on ourselves.


RE: Choices ... Choices
By magneticfield on 9/17/2009 5:20:52 AM , Rating: 2
If you die, the Earth lives. If the Earth dies, you die.


RE: Choices ... Choices
By MrPoletski on 9/17/2009 9:37:23 AM , Rating: 2
well if I can't have the earth, NOBODY CAN.

/me runs to his secret bedroom closet compartment containing the nuclear codes.


Will this be the end of the modern muscle car?
By WheelsCSM on 9/16/2009 1:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
It will be interesting to see what impact these new regulations will have on performance. Look at the terrible performance of the cars built in the 80s as the auto manufacturers figured out how to deal with all the emissions & efficiency ratings that went into place then (think 80s Mustangs & Corvettes). It was not until sometime around 2000 that they really seemed to figure out how to get around all the regulations and make good power.

Lots of manufacturers offer some great performing cars now, and I predict people will snatch up 2010/2011 models like crazy so they can hold on to them as long as possible. I'm sure with time the manufacturers will figure it out again, but how long will it take?




RE: Will this be the end of the modern muscle car?
By Spuke on 9/16/2009 5:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It will be interesting to see what impact these new regulations will have on performance.
There will be little to no impact on performance especially since larger engines are being replaced with smaller, turbocharged one's. See the new Taurus with Ecoboost as an example. V6 fuel economy with V8 performance. And since it's turbocharged, that engine is just a ECU crack away from serious power. If anything, performance cars will even faster and more powerful than before.


By WheelsCSM on 9/17/2009 9:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The new Taurus SHO has a great engine. Unfortunately it's fuel economy is "only" rated at 17/25. Those are good numbers for an engine with that kind of performance, but it's nowhere near the upcoming mandates. An ECU crack will likely get it much more power, but you will never pick up more than 1-2 mpg.


By Spuke on 9/17/2009 2:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
hose are good numbers for an engine with that kind of performance, but it's nowhere near the upcoming mandates.
Every car is not required to be at 34.1 mpg. It's not even an average of the fleet. There's a formula used to calculate the fleets number final number and the final number, like the article stated, may not be exactly 34.1 mpg.

quote:
GM and Ford will have to average 37.3 mpg for their cars. They will also have to average 26.6 mpg (GM) and 27.3 mpg (Ford) for their light trucks. Chrysler gets the strictest light truck regulations at 28.5 mpg, but laxer car standards at 36.8 mpg.


So they just have to meet their required standard.


SUVs are the offenders...
By bernardl on 9/16/2009 5:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
Basic physics tells us that the heavier an object, the more potential energy is carries. This energy will have to be dissipated during an impact, but there is no simple correlation between the weight of a car and its ability to protect its innocupant. In other words, I dont believe that we have a simple curve giving us the optimal weight of a car in terms of absolute occupant safety.

What is pretty well correlated though is the risk for the innocupants of a given car depending on the weight of the impacting object... the other car. So a light car will be more damaged by a heavy incoming car rather than a light incoming object.

In other words, the drivers of heavy cars are putting at risk the life of lighter car owners...

Bedides, available evidence shows that the SUV drivers are putting at risk the life of other vehicle's occupants...

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808569.PDF

Cheers,
Bernard




RE: SUVs are the offenders...
By Spuke on 9/16/2009 6:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
That document is old. There weren't nearly as many SUV's on the roads back then. Also, why isn't anyone badmouthing trucks? There are FAR more pickup trucks on the roads than SUV's. Remember the Ford F series was number 1 for the past 30 years until recently and the Chevy/GMC and Dodge pickups have always been in the top 10. The Honda CR-V was the best selling SUV for a LONG time displacing the former Ford Explorer. And the CR-V came in 10th place. Now the Honda CR-V is higher on the list (#7) and has been joined by the Ford Escape (#11). Both of these are the ONLY SUV's on the Top 20 best sellers list. These are also car based SUV's meaning they're built on car platforms. The big truck based SUV's have never sold in any great numbers yet they get all the bad press.

CR-V
http://automobiles.honda.com/cr-v/

Escape
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escape/


RE: SUVs are the offenders...
By hathost on 9/21/2009 5:51:53 AM , Rating: 2
Populist rage


RE: SUVs are the offenders...
By mindless1 on 9/16/2009 8:39:23 PM , Rating: 1
You totally miss the point. Take any car and add weight through thicker metal, more reinforcements, and you increase it's ability to protect an occupant.

Same applies vice versa, take any car and cut the weight keeping same design otherwise and you reduce it's structural integrity. One might say they then use a new design but even then the new design with more material designed equally well is more durable.

So it is fair to say given the best design and/or the most cost effective, all the cars as individual specimens are less safe weighing less than they presently do unless the cost goes up for different materials but again, more of those different materials designed properly increase protection.

Endless circle, no way around it. The only reason cars don't still weigh even more is prior concerns about fuel economy and acceleration, and of course all else being equal more metal of the same type processed the same way costs more.


small cars <> unsafe cars
By morning on 9/16/2009 3:12:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
will cause 1,100 additional "weight related" vehicle deaths


it might be that there are differences in that case between usa and eu but to tell if a car is safe or not we (europs) just have to look at euro-ncap (tests are mandatory); asuming that small cars are less safe is just plain wrong, but it's true that older cars are less than new

this article might also be of interest for you:
http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Article/b5fcea...




RE: small cars <> unsafe cars
By Spuke on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: small cars <> unsafe cars
By Spuke on 9/17/2009 2:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your roads are mostly filled with small cars. That's not the case in the US.
Did I lie in my post or something? What's up with the rate down? No problem, I'll just repost what I said.

quote:
Your roads are mostly filled with small cars. That's not the case in the US. Our "small" cars are still bigger than what you would refer to as a small car. Example: the US Honda Fit is actually larger than the EU Honda Fit (Jazz). Not to mention, we have larger sedans (biggest sellers), pickups and SUV's on our roads. See the following video for typical American cars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yCwlmynQgA


By SilverMirage on 9/16/2009 3:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone else have an opinion about the article just from reading the title?

People die from pollution, people die from car crashes. Humanity as we know it dies with global warming, "Americans" will none the less survive to complain.

Drive slower, don't talk on your cell and drive, don't text and drive. Are those "Unamerican" suggestions? Don't drive drunk...15,000 people die a year from alcohol related accidents.




By magneticfield on 9/17/2009 5:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. I used to drive a very small car, 800ccm, three cylinders, basically a sheet of tin on four wheels.
If I'd had the smallest crash in that, I'd be instantly dead.

The cars cannot be built 100% safe, nothing can.
It's all about what's between the chair and the steering wheel.


Title
By ClownPuncher on 9/16/2009 12:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's major positives and negatives about the proposed emissions cuts


Plural, are.




doubt it
By zephyrprime on 9/16/2009 3:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
I rather doubt that cars will be getting much lighter if at all due to the increases in fuel economy standards. I don't know if you've noticed this but cars have been getting much heavier in the last 2 decades. And cars have gotten much bigger also. I remember my dad got a Corolla loaner car when he had to take his car into to get serviced and I was amazed at how large the Corolla had gotten. My memories of the corolla are of eighties vintage vehicles in my high school's parking lot. I'd bet the Corolla of today is bigger than the Camry of the eighties. Cars may get a little bit lighter but not much. Not enough to be anywhere near as light and small as cars in the eighties were. And a lot of the weight savings will probably be due to higher usage of composites.




HMMM...
By Number47 on 9/16/2009 3:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
It is really interesting to see just how few of the comments in this thread has gotten a rating higher than 2! (My conclusion: all opinion, very few facts)




pedestrians not taken in account?
By Murloc on 9/16/2009 4:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
maybe at high speeds a big car would maybe be better, but at low speeds the SUVs kill you because they are harder, and if you run over a pedestrian with a SUV you will kill him because the front is vertical and hard, it's not designed to make ppl survive.

With small cars you will save pedestian's lifes maybe.

It's just a stupid statistic anyway.




The saftey paradox
By IcePickFreak on 9/16/2009 5:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
Odd how now the government is saying lighter cars are safer, after they've imposed so many safety standard on vehicles that the majority of them weigh 2tons. 20 air bags, crumple zones, etc all add weight to a vehicle, and I'm not talking a minor amount. Surely this news will piss off all the car safety lobbyists.

Coincidentally the safety standards in the US are a big reason why a lot of the vehicles from Europe and elsewhere don't make it to the states as they are deemed not safe enough by the US safety mafia. Why change the vehicle for one country when the existing design is good enough for everywhere else.




Doesn't really matter
By borowki2 on 9/16/2009 7:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
There's only a slight chance of getting killed in a lighter car. In any event, when you reach 65 you'll be euthanized under ObamaCare, so it's no great loss if you die sooner.




By nofumble62 on 9/16/2009 11:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
ask Buddha.




By BZDTemp on 9/17/2009 8:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
It may be that smaller, lighter cars are less safe in accidents where big cars are involved meaning loss of life in some situations. However there safety benefits as well.

1. Cars hitting people not in cars are less lethal when the car is small. Fx. a pedestrian thrown over a small car has more chance of making it than a pedestrian being run over by a big car. NCAP has data on this
2. Small car = agile meaning better active safety.
3. Small car = easier to handle when parking and/or reversing. So less risk of running over people and pets near the car.

Also THE BIG BONUS and this will likely save a lot of lives but not be visible in the car accident statistics. Less pollution mean less people dying from respiratory issues and a whole mass of health problems related to pollution being inflected on the human body.




Pro and con
By Wererat on 9/17/2009 12:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
People in a smaller or lighter car are more likely to be hurt if they hit a larger car or an obstacle. Smart engineering is good but can't overcome basic rules of mass and velocity.

On the other hand, most of the large vehicles are built with high centers of gravity, which combined with their weight makes them awkward.

Combine lumbering vehicles with drivers who are convinced that their purchase of an SUV has wrapped them in a safety bubble of invulnerabilium and therefore drive while phoning, texting, eating, or just being generally oblivious, and you have a higher likelihood of a collision.

Put it another way, if (not suggesting, just for comparison) everyone drove a motorcycle, how many people would be driving unsafely?

The only safe car is the one being driven safely.

I hate government mandates - most of the mpg problem in my opinion is all the extra weight cars carry because of all the other mandates - but my main beef with this one is all the exceptions. Last go-around the 'exception' was anything made with a truck-style body, which is how the car companies created the thing called 'SUV.'




Light weight kills
By tarpon on 9/19/2009 9:42:57 AM , Rating: 2
No way around it, just ask the nearest tree. Any engineer or physics major can set you straight. F=MA, remember that?

As to Formula cars, ever priced those carbon fiber bodies? Well over a million. It's an argument with a distinction, what cost.

I love the way liberals take death of others, meanwhile driving in their armored Suburbans.

Pond scum has more empathy than liberals.

Liberals government run healthcare -- Kill granny, save money.




SUV's only seem safer
By monkeyman1140 on 9/21/2009 4:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
Rollovers are some of the worst, most lethal type crashes, and if you want to get into one, just flick the steering wheel suddenly in an SUV and you get a rollover crash for free.

You simply can't do that in a standard sedan because of the lower centre of gravity.




Marketing spin at work
By carl0ski on 9/25/2009 10:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
As is if small cars on average are any less than large car.
There is a huge difference between Budget car and a small car.
Kia is a budget car
General 4WD and work vehicles as much larger and far less safe

Large sedans, pickups and utes often do not.
http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/
http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_scripts/search...
http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_scripts/search...

You white trash and your softroaders and women on top 4WD metality make the roads unsafe




destructive policies
By autoboy on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
Oh ho ho my friend
By postalbob on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By randomname on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By postalbob on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By randomname on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By Nfarce on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By Nfarce on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By randomname on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By postalbob on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By postalbob on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By randomname on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By postalbob on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By FITCamaro on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By thurston on 9/17/2009 11:15:47 PM , Rating: 1
You Conservatives are just bitter because the American people voted you out. We are the majority party now, so just suck it!


RE: Oh ho ho my friend
By andrinoaa on 9/18/2009 2:12:08 AM , Rating: 1
That hasn't stopped the "glowboys" in the past


What?
By FITCamaro on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 12:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the plan is to regulate maximum CO2, as is done in Europe, and test along with other tailpipe emissions (i.e., EPA testing).

In the near future when the link between CO2 and AGW is finally disproven, we're going to look awefully stupid for putting in place regulations like this.


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/2009 1:35:14 PM , Rating: 1
Clear cut violation of States Rights. But given the current administration, that's a non issue to be sure.

Look out FIT. The tailpipe Czar comes for you.


RE: What?
By ebakke on 9/16/2009 1:36:04 PM , Rating: 1
And the government will appreciate your sacrifice.


RE: What?
By BrgMx5 on 9/16/2009 1:43:45 PM , Rating: 5
Legislation applies only to future situations; you would still be able to drive your car, but the manufacturer would not be able to sell/produce more.


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2009 9:37:27 AM , Rating: 1
What manufacturer would you be referring to? The one who sold me the headers and high flow cats?

Even if you were right, you're then killing off the entire performance engine parts industry or at least severely hurting it. More lost jobs. Not to mention the loss of freedom of letting people do what they want privately with their own property.


RE: What?
By andrinoaa on 9/18/2009 2:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
me thinks you squeal too much. Oink oink Producing quad core cpu's also killed the pentium chip. Cars killed the horse and buggy etc etc etc. TELL SOME ONE WHO CARES.
My electric car runs rings around your piece.


RE: What?
By tastyratz on 9/18/2009 3:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
slow down chicken little.

Adding carbon emissions testing has nothing to do with headers, and everything to do with political meddling.

These laws are on new car production, when did they ever mention aftermarket parts?

Just 1 more sensor on new cars most likely which means exemption for existing vehicles. if not actual tailpipe testers would be a massive undertaking and cost to inspection stations - especially after many phased out equipment to test non obd2 vehicles.


RE: What?
By hathost on 9/21/2009 7:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
You can still drive a horse and buggy.


RE: What?
By Spivonious on 9/16/2009 3:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
PA started this about 10 years ago. It basically raised the inspection price by $25-$40 depending on where you go.

Good news though - cars older than '96 (?) are exempt because they don't have ODB hookups.


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 4:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
Each state has its own laws right now as it should be.

And it's an 06 GTO so if I lived in PA, that wouldn't help me.


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By MrX8503 on 9/16/2009 12:43:53 PM , Rating: 5
How is it un-American? Just what does it take to be American?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By MrX8503 on 9/16/2009 1:12:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's un-American for consumers to be deprived of choice/freedom, unless there is a compelling reason (e.g., during times of war). It's un-American to impose regulation that has so many costs that hurt us in the long-run.

There is no energy crisis, there is no proven link between CO2 and global warming...but that doesn't seem to stop the Administration from systematically destroying this country's industry and robbing us of our freedoms.


See what I'm getting at is that "American" can mean anything just as long it pushes people's agenda.

You are correct in saying that there is no energy crisis, but do you believe an an energy crisis just comes about with a flick of a switch? We as Americans are programmed to do stuff now and worry about it later, just as we are also obsessed over paying for things later with credit cards. We are Americans, but our downfall is our need for instant gratification.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By nafhan on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 1:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I mean(t).


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Chudilo on 9/16/2009 3:36:57 PM , Rating: 4
No-one said you can't have a larger/heavier/more powerful vehicle. As long as at least some of it's power comes from something other then gasoline and this doesn't result in higher emissions out of the tail pipe, it is perfectly fine to make even bigger cars and SUVs. Well that of course assumes that there is someone willing to buy those types of vehicles.

Do all the 90lb 4'5" women really need those Tahoes, Escalades and Hummers to take them 10 miles of their daily commute? I don't think so. Someone had to do something to discourage this. The gov't eventually has to pay for the war that ensures your uninterrupted supply of oil. Not that they are that different from the 300lb men , but there is a physical limitation there.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By nafhan on 9/16/2009 4:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
Of course a 90lb woman doesn't need an Escalade.

How about this: Turn off your air conditioning all summer (unless medically necessary). Move closer to work. Skip your summer vacation where you drive 400 miles. Pick up trash off the side of the road in your free time. Stop drinking bottled water. Grow your own pesticide free veggies in your back yard.

All of those would be good for the environment, but should the government require you to do them? My opinion is, no, it should be none of their business.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Spuke on 9/16/2009 7:14:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
And besides, who said personal consumption has to always be what we need? Why can't part of that be about what we want?
What cracks me up is that these same people that want others to stop buying SUV's but they rebuild their computers every 3 months. Or spend $1500 on a new 40" LCD TV to connect to said computer. A luxury is a luxury and is generally considered excess by definition. But splurging on computers and TV's is ok because you're not driving them. And before anyone pipes up with the "well it's not using oil", how do you think the TV got to Best Buy? Did Samsung build that factory out of algae? Some of you people are just hypocrites.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 6:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
Soon as you try to classify what a person needs and argue over it you ahve already lost the argument because aside from water and feed EVERYTHING is a want. The only NEEDS are those that allow you the bare minimum of survival.

Letting someone else try to determine that your want is superfluous is to disallow them their freedom as a person. Because if you can say that someone that WANTS a 40inch tv shouldn't have it I can then say you shouldn't have a car, house, computer, tv, radio, light, cloths, or anything else except some food and water. And wouldn't that be just great?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By lelias2k on 9/16/2009 2:40:44 PM , Rating: 1
Instant gratification in this case also means not thinking about consequences.

Americans love their "freedom" (the biggest joke to other countries that actually know what the word means is to talk about it...), but as soon as they are asked to give something up in order to be responsible, they start crying.

I bet you won't complain when the planet is destroyed, since you'll be dead by then, but remember that there are other lives at stake, lives that can last a lot longer than yours. Is that the legacy you want to leave?

Another thing is how Americans are easily influenced by lobby. First the health reform, and now this.

Small cars can be just as safe, if not safer, than bigger cars. Just check safety ratings at www.safecar.gov and you will find tons of examples.

On top of that, smaller cars can potentially have much better handling, braking, etc, which in reality can help PREVENT accidents.

Enough with the lobbying BS!!!


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By lelias2k on 9/16/2009 3:09:37 PM , Rating: 1
First of all, there are many lobbyists involved: Oil, steel, auto, etc. These are all industries affected by it.

You really think we're doing good to the planet? I'm sorry to say it, but you are blind. Just because you go outside and you can breathe that doesn't mean the air is clean. Just because you go to the beach that doesn't mean the water is clean.

Most of these problems reflect in our bodies on the long run, and that's why most of the uneducated population doesn't understand why they are a problem. To them unless your foot starts dissolving once it touches the water, it's all good...

Again, go to www.safecar.gov and see how smaller cars are NOT necessarily unsafe.

Europe is full of small cars and they don't have more fatalities because of that... Japan is full of them, and again, no more fatalities...

Smaller cars are the way to go to anyone who uses a car as a transportation tool, and not a status symbol. And you heard that from a car guy. A responsible one.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 3:16:19 PM , Rating: 1
You're missing the point. I'm not against small cars. I'm against being forced to drive a small car. Do you understand the difference?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By lelias2k on 9/16/2009 3:22:53 PM , Rating: 4
Yes.

I'm not against freedom of choice. I'm against using this freedom irresponsibly, shooting ourselves in the foot if you will.

But most important, I'm against being influenced by the interest of certain groups who don't look at the benefit of the group, but only their own.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 3:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't consider myself influenced by the groups you mention; I arrived at that conclusion myself. So if there is significant lobbying as you claim, I guess I would support it if the net result was greater consumer choice.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By lelias2k on 9/16/2009 3:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
What are the instruments you used to arrive to that conclusion?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Spuke on 9/16/2009 7:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What are the instruments you used to arrive to that conclusion?
"Ooh! Ooh! Mista Kotta! Mista Kotta!" Most decisions are arrived through education and experience. We weigh the pros and cons and choose the outcome that works best for us. What works for one may not work for someone else. On a side note, I believe that one can't be free under oppression of any form. Oppression can be benign or overt. In the US Declaration of Independence. We state that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. One of the things makes this right difficult is that everyone has their own definition of happiness. Not to mention happiness is curtailed by rule of law or social norms. We can't do whatever makes us happy, we (US citizens) all have to agree on what is acceptable and what is not. But we have to do it without oppressing those who disagree. I can't speak for Europe or anywhere else outside the US but this is how it is here.

PS - I'll repeat, oppression can be benign or overt.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By andrinoaa on 9/18/2009 10:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
Thats not an answer, thats a rant.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Fanon on 9/16/2009 3:22:46 PM , Rating: 1
Responsibility. That is a word thrown around far too many times with a different definition than what it really means. Responsibility isn't forced on me by a government body. In fact they take all responsibility from me.

And yes, we Americans love our freedom. I challenge you to find any other country where you can say just about anything you want to say, love who you want to love, work where you want to work, go to the doctor whenever you want to see the doctor (and for what), eat what we want to eat, and live how we want to live. Find another country that provides you those things, and then you can make fun of Americans and our freedom.

At the end of the day, you want to take away my right to purchase whatever I want to purchase. FU.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 6:06:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yay


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By kfonda on 9/16/2009 3:49:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I bet you won't complain when the planet is destroyed, since you'll be dead by then, but remember that there are other lives at stake, lives that can last a lot longer than yours. Is that the legacy you want to leave?


The environmentalists always seen to talk about how we are destroying the planet. I'm pretty sure the planet will be just fine long after humans are gone. I don't think there is anything that humans could do with current technology that would destroy the planet. (and that includes nuclear weapons, they would just make a big hole at most)


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By ZachDontScare on 9/16/2009 5:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The environmentalists always seen to talk about how we are destroying the planet.

Its a rediculous argument, of course. The 'planet' is an inanimate object and as such has no preferred state of existence. It wouldnt care if its in one piece or blasted into trillions of pieces.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By sinful on 9/16/2009 9:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The environmentalists always seen to talk about how we are destroying the planet. I'm pretty sure the planet will be just fine long after humans are gone. I don't think there is anything that humans could do with current technology that would destroy the planet. (and that includes nuclear weapons, they would just make a big hole at most)


And yet, the people that rag on the environmentalists are the same ones that BECOME environmentalists as soon as it comes to THEIR backyard.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By zephyrprime on 9/17/2009 4:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
You are an absolute idiot. There have been many papers put out by the very people the make nuclear weapons that say nuclear weapons can destroy most life on the planet. People used to think it was impossible to hunt animals to extinction also but look what happened with that.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 6:09:50 AM , Rating: 2
That's destroying life not the planet. Planet is a big ball of dirt, if we were concerned about life being wiped out we shoudl start exporting it offplanet to as many places as possible as soon as possible. Though I can only IMAGINE the BS we would get from enviro-wackos about how we are destroying the moon, mars, venus and the solar system in general if we tried that.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Nfarce on 9/16/2009 3:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are Americans, but our downfall is our need for instant gratification.


Yeah, like that trillion dollar "stimulus" bill that was rammed through congress earlier this year that nobody read. But we had to pass it immediately or die, man! We had to save jobs immediately! (8 million plus lost since that was passed BTW - something you won't hear).

Same thing with this government takeover of health care nonsense. Decades of 15-20% of an economy (American private health care sector), and yet again these same heroes who spent billions bailing out banks - which continue to fail - want to ram something through in a hurry because we gotta do it now or people will die!

Yeah, instant gratification indeed. Especially from our elected officials and the mindless who don't question them spending our money and making decisions affecting our future. Oh and those that do are racists of course.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Iaiken on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 1:35:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The human race is consuming fossil fuels so quickly that at our current rate, we will run out during the 21st century.


They said that about the 20th century too in the 70s.

Fact is that the US alone has untapped resources good for over 100 years which is just what we know about.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Hiawa23 on 9/16/2009 3:32:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The human race is consuming fossil fuels so quickly that at our current rate, we will run out during the 21st century.


They said that about the 20th century too in the 70s.

Fact is that the US alone has untapped resources good for over 100 years which is just what we know about.


I agree 100%. That was the point I was talking about in my earlier posts. I may be looking at this the wrong way but to me the issue is not fuel inefficient vehicles, but the problem is the sporadic gas prices that at the drop of a hat can go up as anyone sees fit. I just think instead of putting so many restrictions on the auto industry to make more fuel efficient vehicles we need to to start producing or put some plan in place to start furnishing a higher % of our own oil so when the dictatators decide to raise prices again, or some crisis happens across the waters, the whole world market doesn't come crashing down again. If we have the oil in the ground on our soil, in the sea it's about time to go get it. I know this will not happen overnight but to do nothing like we have for the last 20plus years....Well, look where that got us...


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 4:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree; in a way the price volatility is more harmful than the actual cost is.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 1:40:47 PM , Rating: 3
An open market has all the tools needed to solve this problem already, without heavy-handed, damaging government regulation.

These tools are called supply and demand, free-market pricing, and capital investment.

In other words, if/when oil starts to run short, its price will rise, which will have the following effects:
- Other energy sources will be used more, because their price will become relatively more attractive
- More R&D will be spent on oil drilling, extracting, improving efficiency, etc., as oil prices rise
- More R&D will be spent developing alternative energy, as rising oil prices remove the "cheap" alternative from the market

There is no need for heavy regulation - the market will solve that problem on its own, regardless of what the government does anyway. All the government can do is risk screwing it up by creating short-term economic harm to its citizens.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Dorkyman on 9/16/2009 2:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
Amen.

I wish people running for public office were somehow required to take an "Economics for Dummies" course so they understood how supply & demand worked. I am often astonished by what I hear coming from Congress. No grounding in reality.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By sinful on 9/16/2009 3:09:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Amen.

I wish people running for public office were somehow required to take an "Economics for Dummies" course so they understood how supply & demand worked.


Amen to that.

But I also wish the "Free Market!" folks would take the same class - to realize that the free market is REACTIVE to problems and not PROACTIVE to preventing problems.

Sometimes, "wasting" money being Proactive saves a LOT of money in the long run.
(i.e. I bet the airlines - and everyone in general - would have paid a *LOT* of money for better airport security to prevent 9/11 - had they had the option).

Spend millions to save billions? Seems like a no-brainer.

Likewise, any money spent now is basically a "down payment" on alleviating the next -- inevitable -- energy crisis.

You might be OK to pay $7/gallon for gas while everyone struggles ramp up R&D, implement infrastructure, etc (all during the inevitable recession caused by skyhigh fuel prices) -- but me, I'd rather pay $1 extra now to PREVENT that crisis from even happening to begin with.

It saves a lot of jobs, lots of money, and all the benefits that come from an economy that ISN'T in a recession.

How to do prevent the next energy crisis? Invest in the alternatives NOW, get the R&D done, and get the infrastructure in place before it's a CRISIS.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 3:26:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But I also wish the "Free Market!" folks would take the same class - to realize that the free market is REACTIVE to problems and not PROACTIVE to preventing problems.
I understand and agree, but:

1. When the government tries to PROACTIVELY solve problems, more often than not, it screws up, e.g., Iraq War

2. It is not clear there is a problem at all that needs to be solved. For example, why do you assume that gas might suddenly spike to $7, remain there, and that we couldn't cope with that anyway? Is that really a "problem" so severe that we should proactively solve it via heavy government regulation?

I'm not against the government providing some incentives to R&D in the form of grants or tax benefits, but anything beyond that is probably going to be bad and done badly.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By sinful on 9/16/2009 10:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. When the government tries to PROACTIVELY solve problems, more often than not, it screws up, e.g., Iraq War


I wouldn't say the Iraq War was PROACTIVE in *ANY* fashion.
We got attacked, we responded. If they had said "Let's attack Iraq to prevent Terrorism" BEFORE 9/11, you could say it's PROACTIVE, but 9/11 was a REACTIVE event.

Thanks for pointing out an example of how being purely reactionary can result in a massive boondoogle.

quote:
2. It is not clear there is a problem at all that needs to be solved. For example, why do you assume that gas might suddenly spike to $7, remain there, and that we couldn't cope with that anyway?

What makes you think it WOULDN'T or COULDN'T?
Hurricane Katrina, in the US -- one of the most advanced countries in the world -- resulted in gas prices of $5 for quite some time.

Now, consider that most oil comes from the Middle East... Did you know Iran is the #4 producer of oil in the World?

Now tell me you DON'T foresee a problem, and you're blissfully unaware of how anything could *possibly* happen in Iran that would be a bigger disruption than what happened in the US.

War? In the middle east? What are the odds?!

quote:
Is that really a "problem" so severe that we should proactively solve it via heavy government regulation?

Well, that depends, would having the cost of gas skyrocket, and possibly losing your job in the resulting recession be a "severe" problem for you?

And what the government is doing isn't "heavy" regulation - it's more like an THIS IS A KICK IN THE PANTS TO DO WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE THE 1970's!


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Spuke on 9/17/2009 6:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
resulted in gas prices of $5 for quite some time.
Just in that area. Didn't go up much at all out here in CA.

quote:
Now, consider that most oil comes from the Middle East... Did you know Iran is the #4 producer of oil in the World?
Most of the US's oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia in that order.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 6:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
If we had more refineries built in more area's of the country that could relieve the stress of oil production on a unstable area i.e. hurricanes then the impact would be minimized. Because the government regulated the oil industry into the refineries it currently has and has red taped any new facilities (which imo would probably be more efficiently designed and opperated than some 30 years old with decades of retrofits and the 30yr old ones being the NEWEST) it would seem to me that the government is being reactive or simply inactive in addressing this need. Or in the worst case is deliberately causing the problem.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Fanon on 9/16/2009 3:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
That's a strawman argument. "Doing something A might prevent something B, even if something B isn't going to happen".


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By sinful on 9/16/2009 10:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a strawman argument. "Doing something A might prevent something B, even if something B isn't going to happen".


Soo.. you're saying there will NEVER be an energy crisis that results in a recession in the US?

Something tells me you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is...


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Brovane on 9/16/2009 3:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
If we left it to the free market we would be driving around in cars with no seatbelts and no airbags.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By lelias2k on 9/16/2009 3:29:05 PM , Rating: 1
Also, if there were no regulations, a huge amount of natural resources would have been depleted of the face of the Earth already.

Think about fishing, hunting, timber, etc. Multiple areas that if were left solely to be regulated by supply and demand would have been extinct by now.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Spivonious on 9/16/2009 3:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
And people would be driving slower and safer because they wouldn't have a false sense of security.

"I have all-wheel drive and anti-lock brakes, I can drive normally when the road is covered in 6 inches of snow."


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 3:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we left it to the free market we would be driving around in cars with no seatbelts and no airbags.
Correct, but that cannot be used to justify all forms of regulation, especially regulation that is shown by the agency's own report to have a negative effect on safety.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By lelias2k on 9/16/2009 3:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
Even when the agency's own crash test data contradicts its own report?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Hiawa23 on 9/16/2009 3:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
If we left it to the free market we would be driving around in cars with no seatbelts and no airbags.

some would argue we could also be seeing a depression too, so some regulation is needed.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 6:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't buy one and government regulation didn't mandate seatbelts they were a huge selling point in advertising campaigns after Ford starting advertising their "safety" features and saw a marketshare increase.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 6:15:45 AM , Rating: 1
That's only true if oil is not being created anymore, which is actually unlikely. Also there are know reserves of methane all over the planet that are 7x greater than the known reserves or oil. Further most oil about 70% in the USA is not able to be drilled and brought up because of politics.

Further, we have many scientists that are working on methods to create more oil either with algae or e.coli or in forms of ethanol(blah!), butanol(yay), or octane/gasoline-ish fuels. Do that and then we would WANT more CO2 in the air so we could create more fuels.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Spivonious on 9/16/2009 12:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's un-American because I should be able to drive around in a 2mpg monster truck if I choose to. Who gave the federal government the power to regulate the auto industry? It's definitely not in the Constitution.

Let the market dictate fuel economy, not regulations.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By stubeck on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By autoboy on 9/16/2009 1:07:48 PM , Rating: 5
The banking industry is not a free market at all. Have you heard of the Federal Reserve?

Those of you that say free markets don't work and then point to nearly any major US industry are naive. They are all regulated by the US government that creates artificial markets and often dictates industry direction. The automotive and medical industries are some of the worst offenders.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By rninneman on 9/16/2009 1:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
Let me correct that for you.

Yeah, let the government regulations dictate the market, look how great it worked in the banking industry! Oh wait...

Fixed!


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By igloo15 on 9/16/2009 1:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Let me correct that for you.

Yeah, lets deregulate the market a little bit, look how great it worked in the banking industry! Oh wait...

Fixed for actual history!


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By ebakke on 9/16/2009 1:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
"A little bit" of deregulation in an area that's already highly regulated still leaves you with regulation. :-/


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/2009 1:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, let the markets dictate themselves, look how great it worked in the banking industry! Oh wait...


Last time I heard the number, there are some 90 THOUSAND pages of Government regulations on the banking industry. But yeah, clearly they were too "de-regulated" and dictate to themselves too much.

Is there are a stupid factory where all you people and all the Obama voters came from? Please tell me so it can be shut down for the sake of our future and the future of the children I would someday like to have.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By HrilL on 9/16/2009 2:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
The markets can dictate themselves if people were not so damn greedy nothing bad would have happened. It goes all the way down to sales reps for houses. "Yeah we can sell you this." My Aunt works as a regional manager at a very large home loans company. Looking at the numbers these people can't afford the houses the reps are selling them. Add everything up and they don't make enough for the payments after the initial low payments for 5 years. These people scammed the system to make a quick buck. Nothing more than greed. Really they should probably be taken out behind the shed and shot for what they did and are doing.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By JediJeb on 9/16/2009 4:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
I met some of those loan brokers when I was buying my house, but guess what, I had enough common sense to know what I could afford and how to figure what I would be paying over the life of my loan. Maybe there should be a required course in high school on finance, if you don't pass it you don't get to have any type of credit. That would have prevented a majority of the bad loans from happening. I'm not talking about a statistical economics class here just something that clearly explains how to budget your money, how to do a quick calculation of what a loan will really cost you down the road, and how credit really works.

I remember when buying something on credit actually meant you had to make all the payments before you could take the item home, more like lay-a-way is now. A store owner would hold the merchandise and take payments on it with little or usually no interest then give it to you when paid off. This would almost completely put an end to credit card companies but I think that needs to happen anyway. Debit cards would allow you to buy what you have money to buy, and if you don't have the money now, wait till you do.

It may make the economy slower and smaller, but it would be more stable and consistant in the long run. Same thing should hold true for the government, you collect taxes this year and next years expenditures are limited to what you take in this year. If the country doesn't have the money, then it doesn't get done. Set aside 15% to pay down the debt, the rest is spent on government programs, maybe also set aside another 10% for emergencies like natural disasters. It would lead to a leaner, more efficient government. Also if there is an overrun in expenses then the first thing to be cut is the congressional salaries and benefits, then presidential, then judicial, then from highest paid government workers down to lowest paid. This puts an incentive on the leaders to get things correct in the first place.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By GreenEnvt on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By autoboy on 9/16/2009 1:09:51 PM , Rating: 5
The constitution refers to principals that can be applied to principles of today. For example. The right to bear arms means the right to protect oneself from crime and tyranny. It does not mean you have the right to have your own personal nuke.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 6:26:49 AM , Rating: 2
But it ought too


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 1:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
There is no point in talking to people like you. You lack the basic intelligence required to comprehend an idea as great as freedom.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FATCamaro on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 1:37:57 PM , Rating: 3
Someone who believes the Constitution is meaningless today is beyond help. They will believe their ideology that the government should be able to do whatever it wants and control whatever it wants until they die. So yes there's no point arguing with them.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By xmichaelx on 9/16/2009 3:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that is applicable to what car you can drive. The Framers -- believe it or not -- thought they had more important things to worry about.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By thurston on 9/16/2009 11:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You lack the basic intelligence required to comprehend an idea as great as freedom.


Wow! You sir, are a true patriot.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By ClownPuncher on 9/16/2009 1:23:37 PM , Rating: 3
That was the point of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they do pretty much apply to all situations in the USA. Perhaps you should try reading those documents, add in the Declaration of Independance and you might see how those documents still apply, and need to apply to everything our government and citizens do.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/2009 1:30:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ah the constitution people. The Constitution also didn't mention anything about nuclear bombs, cars in general, lasers, or space ships.


*scratches head*

Seriously ? Is that seriously your argument ?

quote:
The people who wrote the constitution are normal people like you and I.


Please don't insult our founders for even implying they were like you. I doubt you could write anything that could stand the test of time for over 200 years and still be relevant. So timeless and elegant, they didn't HAVE to put in cars, nukes, or spaceships.

These men left their entire lives behind and traveled to the other side of the world because of an IDEAL. And in doing so changed the history of the entire planet. Dumbasses like you can't be bothered to pay attention to who you vote for.

No, sorry, they were not like you.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Suomynona on 9/16/2009 1:49:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
These men left their entire lives behind and traveled to the other side of the world because of an IDEAL.


Wait, when did the founders go to Asia? I must have missed that part.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/2009 1:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
You know there weren't Oceanic flights or Luxury liners back then right ??

I was trying to illustrate the scope of what they did. But if you like being stupidly cute and literal, then congratulations, you did it.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 6:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
wow you're retarded. Extrapolate a little


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By thurston on 9/16/2009 11:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please don't insult our founders for even implying they were like you. I doubt you could write anything that could stand the test of time for over 200 years and still be relevant. So timeless and elegant, they didn't HAVE to put in cars, nukes, or spaceships. These men left their entire lives behind and traveled to the other side of the world because of an IDEAL. And in doing so changed the history of the entire planet. Dumbasses like you can't be bothered to pay attention to who you vote for. No, sorry, they were not like you.


Did I hear Lee Greenwood playing in the background when I read this?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/2009 1:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ah the constitution people. The Constitution also didn't mention anything about nuclear bombs, cars in general, lasers, or space ships.


*scratches head*

Seriously ? Is that seriously your argument ?

quote:
The people who wrote the constitution are normal people like you and I.


Please don't insult our founders for even implying they were like you. I doubt you could write anything that could stand the test of time for over 200 years and still be relevant. So timeless and elegant, they didn't HAVE to put in cars, nukes, or spaceships.

These men left their entire lives behind and traveled to the other side of the world because of an IDEAL. And in doing so changed the history of the entire planet. Dumbasses like you can't be bothered to pay attention to who you vote for.

No, sorry, they were not like you.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By alpensiedler on 9/16/2009 1:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
you took the words right out of my mouth! sometimes it seems like the constitution has become some sort of holy document which people quote as if everyone else believes it is fact. just because one BELIEVES something doesn't make it a universal truth for everyone else in the world. personally i think the constitution is an excellent documnent that was very well thought out. is everything in there perfect, especially considering the USA of today isn't the USA of 1788? i don't think so. it just feels a little too much as if the constitution has become a bible to a new red white and blue religion.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 1:41:20 PM , Rating: 5
It is not a bible. It is the founding document on which our government is based. If you want a different government, then you need to try to overthrow our current one or move elsewhere.

Until then, it should be abided by. Kind of like any law. If you are unhappy with the law, try to change it. Not get around it with rhetoric, accusations of racism, and plays on emotion.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By alpensiedler on 9/16/2009 2:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
i'm not saying it's a bible, i'm saying it seems to me that some people view it as such.

and as for that tired line about "if you don't like it..." nonesense, it's obsurd for you to suggest that i should either leave or stage a coup. i mean you were just arguing that we should have the freedom that the constitution and other documents afford us to: not leave, not start a civil war, and still not like the documents upon which the government was founded all at the same time.

at any rate, i agree that the constitution has many principles that apply directly to today, however i still don't think it's perfect. and sometimes it even seems that people can't step back and see that they just believe stuff because they've been told it's good for them. honestly it just seems to me that sometimes people don't evaluate their beliefs/opinions before they believe them.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 2:16:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
at any rate, i agree that the constitution has many principles that apply directly to today, however i still don't think it's perfect.


That is why there is an amendment process. If Congress decides the Constitution doesn't cover something, it's job is to amend the Constitution to cover it. However that makes things more difficult so they just try to bend what is already said and claim the Constitution is "living and breathing". However if you take that mindset, then the words of the Constitution don't mean anything at all.

Look at the General Welfare clause. It has been used to pass all these social programs off as being Constitutional. However in the Federalist Papers themselves, Madison addresses that. He says that clause applies specifically to the powers the federal government is granted in the Constitution. And follows it with why would they have given the federal government limited powers to begin with if they intended the federal government to do anything and everything.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By alpensiedler on 9/16/2009 2:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
i agree, that is why there is an amendment process. my problem is with people who blindly assert that there is no need to amend the constitution because it is perfect the way it is. personally i also don't like when congress decides to "interpret" something instead of amending the constitution. i guess they do it because they couldn't get enough support for an amendment, which is the whole point; to block people from passing stupid amendments.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 2:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you'll find any serious conservative who thinks the Constitution never needs to be amended. What gets us angry is because Congress never does it. It just twists what they're trying to do to some vague interpretation of what's already there. Why? Because amending the Constitution is a big deal. One that even today's media would have a problem covering up. And the liberals in power right now don't want that much attention. So instead they play race politics and don't even acknowledge or dismiss any questions of whether what they're doing is Constitutional.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/2009 3:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i agree, that is why there is an amendment process.


But does Congress ever USE this process ? NO. They just ram home whatever changes or bills they want and call it law.

Like two months ago when the Democrats met at 3. A.m and tried to secretly ram a bill down the American peoples throats. Does that sound like the kind of thing the Forefathers had in mind ? One party, meeting in secret, to decide the fate of us all with no voting, no deliberation, no opposing view being allowed ?

Nobody is saying the Constitution is perfect. We would just prefer it got used more. And if you want to change it, great, it comes built in with a way to LEGALLY have it changed.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By andrinoaa on 9/16/2009 5:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
As an outsider, I find it ironic that you recognise the fallacies of your constitution but will die stopping anyone from modernising it. its the new version of M.A.D.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 6:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
You apparently lack the ability to read.

How does saying "There is an amendment process. If you want to make a change, use it." equate to "willing to die to stop anyone from modernizing it"?

And no where did we admit fallacies in our Constitution. We said that it does not cover everything(nor does it need to spell everything out). That does not make it wrong.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By thurston on 9/16/2009 11:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You apparently lack the ability to read.


Don't be so hard on him. He's probably a Frenchy or some other kind of Commie that can't read English.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Spuke on 9/17/2009 7:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't be so hard on him. He's probably a Frenchy or some other kind of Commie that can't read English.
No, he's just an a$$hole. This is the same person that thinks Osama Bin Laden makes good points.

quote:
So what your saying is that YOUR tastes are more important than someone else's. Your a bogan through and through. So long as you can suck gas through your carb, nothing else has a place. I say Osama has a point when he says Americans think through the tip of their guns .


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By thurston on 9/17/2009 11:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
So he's worse than a Red? He's a terrorist! I take it back. Be VERY hard on him.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By andrinoaa on 9/18/2009 1:20:00 AM , Rating: 2
keep sucking on the gas , sucker.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By andrinoaa on 9/18/2009 1:35:41 AM , Rating: 2
Just goes to show I was right, you don't think but shoot, lol.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By andrinoaa on 9/18/2009 1:33:12 AM , Rating: 2
Really, after posting your diatribe, you can't put the picture together yourself? Anyone who has followed your postings can see through the BS. Read? Is that all, no one can have a constructive debate with you because your a BOGAN. Remember this, I am not the one who postulates or makes silly premises and ascertions. Because you do, I like to throw them back in your face. You can't handle the truth!! ha ha ha ha ha aha ha


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 6:50:41 AM , Rating: 2
PLay by the rules don't make new ones in the middle of the game without people agreeing on them. Our country is based on federalism and choice. What people lament is the elemination of choice due to the federal government taking more and more power from the states and citizens.

How many revolutions took place in European and Asian coutries and how long have you had your constitiution? That's what I thought come back in 200 years and discuss the merits of your government's founding documents.

Must of the Euro's on sites like this love to act superior when Europe has caused WAY more problems in the world than the US ever has and who takes the blame? We do. Britain conquered and had colonies all over the world and subjugated peoples and engaged in the slave trade and who are the evil ones? the US, Spain and Portugal came to South American and destroyed Civilizations in the most populated areas of the americas and who gets the blame? the US. Germany and Britain were the main combatants in 2 world wars with America eventually and releuctantly drawn in and then HELPING Europe rebuild when we could very well have left you to the Russians and commies if we wanted and who gets the blame? Communists overthrew regines and slaghtered MILLIONS of people, Socialist have formed soft tyrannies throughout the world now and facist dictators are murders political rivals and oppressing their people and somehow it's our fault? We have military bases throughout Europe protecting you from danger saving you billions on military expenditures and how are we thanked? Well listen up those of you ungrateful sniveling miserablely opressed people in Europe we dont want to be like you where the government controls and regulates out lives until our choices are taken away. We want to be ADULTS and have our own person responsibility to make our own choices and mistakes and learn from them. We want to have a right to our property and our labor and choose what we do with it not have the government no matter how well intentioned take it from us an decide what we should do with it. The government by it's very nature is but a nesseccary evil that should FOLLOW the rules and do what it was told it can do and no more. The government is told EXPLICITLY in our nations founding documents what it can and cannot do. A government that cannot follow the rules set up and agreed upon by its citizens is thus falling towards tyranny and this maust be stopped.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Spuke on 9/21/2009 5:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have military bases throughout Europe protecting you from danger saving you billions on military expenditures and how are we thanked?
This will be changing, IMO, as President Obama wants to reduce the amount of overseas bases. he wants to concentrate more on diplomatic and economic tires with foreign governments versus military one's. I agree wholeheartedly. He is not advocating isolationism or protectionism (although some of his policies have been accused of such by other governments) but just a different way of dealing with other governments. I've always wondered why we had to be the "world's police". Let the other countries handle their own issues.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By ClownPuncher on 9/16/2009 1:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
It outlines the meaning of freedom in western culture, how can that be irrelevant?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By alpensiedler on 9/16/2009 2:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
i didn't say/mean that it was irrelevant to today, i said it's not perfect meaning it doesn't line up perfectly with the USA of today vs the USA of then. read the constitution once, it has all kinds of arbitrary numbers in it (age and term limitations) and which person/group of people can do what. i'm not saying we should throw it all away, but given that'd we've used the system for so long, we might be able to improve upon some of the ideas. i'm just saying wouldn't it be nice if we could create a "more perfect union" today just as they were trying to do back then by improving our system of government.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By ClownPuncher on 9/16/2009 2:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
Improving our government is one thing, expanding it to regulate what cars we drive and what fuels we use to drive them is another. Don't get me wrong, I am all for reducing pollution, but regulating industry to force innovation is largely anti free market.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By wrekd on 9/16/2009 1:13:10 PM , Rating: 5
Less efficient vehicles cause negative externalities on the population (pollution). This is a cost that the public has to bear. This affects all people, even those who can't or don't drive. To offset this, we tax and regulate. By forcing car companies to increase efficiency, new car customers get to bear more of the cost, and the public less, as it should be.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By rninneman on 9/16/2009 1:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
CO2 is not pollution. OBD II vehicles and newer burn so clean and catalyze what remains so well, the emissions from vehicles are relatively insignificant.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 1:30:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Less efficient vehicles cause negative externalities on the population (pollution).
Less efficient than what? A person's fantasy about what today's MPGs should be?

By your argument, we should all be living in caves, since that minimizes environmental impact.

Let me tell you this: Today's cars are very highly optimized for efficiency, given the constraints of cost, technology, safety, and consumer preferences. If you decide to radically improve efficiency, you lose some of the other attributes. That is unavoidable.

You also ignore the value to people in owning and driving larger vehicles. People should have a right to judge and decide the tradeoffs without having it decided for them by a "nanny state."


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By andrinoaa on 9/18/2009 10:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you worry about that, the market has spoken. Gm and Chrysler have been buried alive. And guess what, they made "clunkers". So whats the difference, the market regulates what you buy too. At least now we have real innovation happening. If you think that having a more efficient car means living in a cave, what are those callouses on the back of your hand. Really you have to have a stronger premis to validate your piss-weak arguement


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Spuke on 9/21/2009 5:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At least now we have real innovation happening.
Like what?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By foolsgambit11 on 9/16/2009 1:29:46 PM , Rating: 5
It is too in the Constitution. It's right there in the commerce clause, "To regulate commerce ... among the several states..."

Don't like the broad interpretation of the commerce clause? How about this one: What is the penalty for failing to meet the regulation? A fee is levied against them. On can call this fee an excise tax, as it is levied against the producer of certain goods (those goods being vehicles whose average mileage doesn't meet certain standards). And to quote the Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect ... excises ... to ... provide for the ... general welfare of the United States". I've cut out all the extraneous bits. The next clause, however, mandates that these excises be uniform throughout the country, so I do have a problem with different manufacturers having different caps.

Additionally, the "it's un-American because I should be able to do X if I want to" argument is, on the face of it, pretty thin. "I should be able to shoot somebody if I choose to", "I should be able to invade Poland if I choose to", "I should be able to masturbate in public if I choose to", "I should be able to sell crack to 8 year olds if I choose to". None of those arguments would embody American ideals (except maybe invading a foreign country - Bam!). You need to explain specifically why choosing what car you drive is different than those other arguments, as well many others less patently unpalatable that those.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 2:10:15 PM , Rating: 1
The commerce clause is one of the most raped clauses in the Constitution. It has been used to regulate farmers who do not sell the fruits of their farms outside state lines or even at all.

If you actually go back and read the discussions from when the Constitution is being written as should be done when interpreting the Constitution, you see that they were talking about the buying and selling of goods between state lines. So if Congress wanted to control how many of a good was sold in a given time period, they could. Or how the good was transported. But how a good is created or designed? No. It does not cover that.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By metasin on 9/16/2009 3:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
The commerce clause was written to PROMOTE commerce between the states not a mechanism to punish commerce. This clause is often misused and misinterpreted. For example there is not one reasonable legal scholar who can argue that the founders intended this clause to allow the federal government to create criminal penalties, such as federal gun laws, or that a chicken farmer in Montana is subject to federal regulations even if he does not sell his product across state lines because his lack of selling may affect prices of products that are sold between states.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Regs on 9/16/2009 11:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
In the old days when all you had was specialized manufactured goods being transported by horse back between states then you might have a point FIT. Though the supreme court has made way to the Commercial clause being more modernized. In truth, our economy has become so intertwined and codependent on each other that it's very difficult not to justify legislation to have the fed regulate commerce. For instance, if a bank HQ'ed in North Carolina decided to charge a higher interest rate on any organization who does business with Microsoft, than you can see that there will be a interstate problem.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 7:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
Bad example. However the fed shouldn't be involved in something like that the main reason was to stop one state from leveling a tax on goods from another state thus reducing competition and unfair business treatment be state governments. What the fed is now doing is what it specifically should be stopping states from doing which is destroying competition and interfering with how industry operates.

Also I would like to know jut how much you think the country has changed becase even though the technology may be differnet people are still the same as they were and the interactions of business just as complex. Just because before we moved things across state lines with a horse and wagon and now we have planes, trains and trucks doesn't mean that somehow that means the constitution needs to change to refect it. The constitution was deliberately vague on HOW things should be done but not what abilities the government should or should not have.

A quick example is that the government has the right to make a currency. However it doesn't specify how the currency should be made? Why is that? Well the reason is that the Framer of our Constitution knew that technology would change and that if they were to mandate in specific detail HOW something should be done then the Constitution would fail. This however does NOT mean that the Fed can ABUSE its power and this is why the Framers intended on giving it very specific bounderies and limitations on what it's role should be. Regulating the gallons per flush of a toilet or the co2 emissions on a car is not a rightful duty of the fed it should be left up to the states or the citizens to decide. Which means that if we as citizens think the Fed should have that right we need to have a Constitutional amendement proposed and then ratified by the states that gives that power to the fed.

Until that day shove off.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Truxy on 9/16/2009 1:37:50 PM , Rating: 1
Lets have a look at GM. They weren't able to preemptively think, "Hey truck sales would go down with high gas prices... let's convert a plan". So the company goes into major debt and many people lose their jobs. Being a major industry that the country relies on, every tax paying person gets their fraction of the bill to keep the company afloat.

Lets hope that next time, since the governments have a stake, some forethought will be made.

It's all fine and good to have the "American right" to buy whatever you please. But when having that option means to also send your country into the financial toilet, are you still American for wanting that fate for your country?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 1:44:58 PM , Rating: 3
Tell me, what will gas cost in 5 years from now? Because that's the development timeframe that the automotive OEMs work with.

Let me remind you that nobody predicted high gas prices - nobody. Nice try...

And I think the country being in the financial toilet happened because of the banking industry, not the auto industry. The current state of the auto instry is a symptom, not the root cause.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By joker380 on 9/16/2009 3:01:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It's un-American because I should be able to drive around in a 2mpg monster truck if I choose to. Who gave the federal government the power to regulate the auto industry? It's definitely not in the Constitution.


Well GM learned their lesson the Hard Way. You seems to be on your way to be doing the same. Keep driving your Gas Guzzler and keep paying Middle East your money to Terrorize you. And if you are worried about Constitution go back past 8 years and see how many times have Bush disregarded or broke your Beloved Constitution. Where were you than?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By ebakke on 9/16/2009 1:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just what does it take to be American?
Freedom to do whatever the hell I want, so long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By adiposity on 9/16/2009 1:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else.


Unfortunately, this clause is as open to interpretation as the commerce clause.

Am I affected negatively when I see an interracial couple walking down the street? Well, if it makes me upset, yes.

-Dan


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/2009 1:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
Nowhere is it written that you have the right to NOT be offended by something though. So keep trying there Dan.

I know it's hard for you liberals to understand, but what we're talking about here is a lot bigger than your feelings about something.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By adiposity on 9/16/2009 4:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nowhere is it written that you have the right to NOT be offended by something though.


Well, duh. However, I am referring to the freedom of the couple, not the observer. Just because their marriage pisses some people off, does not mean it can/should be restricted. Therefore, some issues of freedom necessarily ignore some of the negative implications for others.

For example, driving a big vehicle might make things more dangerous for small car drivers. Just because this is true, it does not mean we should ban big vehicles.

FYI, I am a libertarian, not a liberal.

-Dan


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 2:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Am I affected negatively when I see an interracial couple walking down the street? Well, if it makes me upset, yes.
Wow, way to totally miss the whole point of the "freedom is relative" principle. Are you really that ignorant, or are you just trying to make some kind of point?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By adiposity on 9/16/2009 4:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
The point is, as soon as you say, "as long as it doesn't negatively impact someone else," you leave the freedom idea wide open to interpretation.

To choose a less crazy example, the banning of cigarettes in public is a loss of personal freedom. However, other would argue cigarette smoke harms third parties, therefore it is justified.

Similarly, having big vehicles on the freeway definitely negatively impacts people with low cars as they can't see as well. Does this mean it's not an issue of freedom just because it affects some people negatively?

If freedom is defined in part as not negatively affecting others, then you can ban just about anything based on that premise. That's my point.

-Dan


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 7:20:38 AM , Rating: 2
Freedom is hard and it is dangerous. Tyranny is seductive and seems easy. Freedom means having faith and trust in your fellow citizens that they will do the right thing. Tyranny is distrustful of our fellow people and fearful. Freedom can be scary which is why so many people never feel the thrill or exhileration that comes with it. The ability of people to suffer is great as can be evidenced in the multitude of oppressive regimes. With freedom comes personal responibility and person power and choice, whereas tyranny seeks to limit choice and personal power and responsibility.

Freedom may negatively effect another person but tyranny negatively effects all. Does my owning a car, house, boat, rv, gun, buying food, going to the movies hurt anyone? I may drive my boat into a swimmer and kill them this is a risk. Had I lived in a tyranny that said boats are bad and didn't allow me to own one then I never would have caused a death. If my government says I can't own a car I can never crash into someone and injury or kill another person or myself. Does standing next to someone smoking for a few minutes really going to negatively effect your health soo much that you will die from it?

The flip side of this though is that the person swimming in the area where i killed them had the freedom to choose to come to the water and swim that day. The person in the bicycle had a choice on whether to ride a bike. And theperson standing and inhaling 2nd hand smoke has the choice to move away. This is usually lost too. Swimming can be dangerous because there are boats that could kil you lets get rid of boats. Someone may drown swimming because they weren't good at swimming we should ban it because some people are not responsible. We should fine poeple for not wearing a seatbelt, or a helmet, or whatever else. This is limiting to your freedoms and choices and takes away your responsibilities as a person.

Regardless of whether our choices negatively or positively effect another person we still need the freedom to be personally responsible otherwise we're gonna be a bunch of mind numbed robots drinking the koolaid as the solf tyranny we're in becauses a hard tyranny.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Triple Omega on 9/16/2009 12:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
That must be one of the most popular sayings in the USA. And it's especially funny if two opposite sides both call the other's plans/opinions/etc. un-American. Really, you can just slap that behind anything you don't agree with as long as your an American.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Iaiken on 9/16/2009 12:56:22 PM , Rating: 4
You're looking at it all wrong.

Even if you don't give a s*** about the environment, it is in everyone livings best interest to stretch out the longevity of our fossil fuel supplies until an alternative can be found.

Because unless viable alternatives can be found, your way of life as you know it will end during your lifetime.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 1:01:26 PM , Rating: 5
Ok fine we'll go down this road. The materials that batteries are made from are far more rare than oil. So what happens when we switch to electric cars and run out of those?

If the government was pushing us towards a biofuel that doesn't effect food prices, people would probably largely be ok with it. But they're not. This is about the internal combustion engine and getting rid of it due to an ignorant hatred of CO2. And politicians in power stand to become extremely wealthy by making it so. Al Gore has become extremely rich due to the green movement. As has Nancy Pelosi.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By adiposity on 9/16/2009 1:06:59 PM , Rating: 3
algae, not batteries


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Iaiken on 9/16/2009 1:48:26 PM , Rating: 4
You're putting words in my mouth.

I never proposed any form of solution, and I certainly did not propose current battery technology as a solution.

Last time I checked, the main US and Canadian government initiative was to foster the development of fuel cell technology. Again, not perfect, but better than batteries... in theory of course...

The problem with our current approaches is that everything is just so damned clumsy. That ever happened to great American science projects like the Hoover Dam, the Manhattan Project or the moon missions? Why was there no great American fusion project? Why are there no great American sustainable energy projects? When did the government doing things that made the US the envy of the world be come un-American?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Iaiken on 9/16/2009 2:23:49 PM , Rating: 4
Wow... what is with people putting words in my mouth today?

I want you to QUOTE where I wrote that... If you are going to take issue with what I wrote, at least have a frigged clue in your head about what was actually being said.

I wrote about a sustainable energy project and that is in no way the same as saying I think we should eliminate CO2.

Learn to read.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/2009 3:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sustainable energy is a pipe dream right now. You act like people aren't working on it. Hello, earth to Iaiken, they have been working on it for decades. Where are the breakthroughs ??

Why must gasoline and sustainable energy always be put forth as a mutually exclusive argument ? You want sustainable energy, great, you go wait for that to happen. Why do you act like people driving whatever vehicle they want somehow takes away from your sustainable energy goal ?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Iaiken on 9/16/2009 4:23:50 PM , Rating: 4
In no way did I say that the were to be mutually exclusive, you gents are on a role for putting words in other peoples mouths so that you can spout off about something they never said.

If energy independence was as important to national security as the government has been saying for years, why has there been no concerted government effort to achieve sustainable alternative energy supplies? It's better to have something to fall back on if oil supplies are interrupted for an extended period than it is to land on the cold hard ground.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Spuke on 9/21/2009 5:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If energy independence was as important to national security as the government has been saying for years, why has there been no concerted government effort to achieve sustainable alternative energy supplies?
Because it's not a national security problem. It's a social issue but because politicians desire votes, they'll SAY (and maybe do a couple of things) whatever it is we want to hear. And, let's be real here, the American people generally don't give two sh!ts about being "green", it's just the latest fad. When this is done, they'll move onto something else and collectively forget that they ever even owned a Prius. Will there be SOME changes? Sure! But like every other fad/trend, there are always some leftovers.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 7:31:27 AM , Rating: 2
I actually wrote a paper on hydregen as a source of fuel and you know what? It's bogus.

1. Water vapor is the greatest contributor to the greenhouse effect. (assuming you beleive in global warming this is a huge problem, I personally don't think man made global warming is good science yet so I don't care atm)

2. Hydrogen is stuck on other elements such as C, O, N, etc. Thus you need to input energy to remove it from the other atom. Depending on what you are stripping it from you will need for example to remove hydrogen from a water molecule 4x the amount of useable energy you would then get from the hydrogen not counting a further input of energy to compress, transport and distribute said compressed gas.

3. Imagine a 5,000 or 10,000psi tank being somehow ruptured. Though this isn't an insurmountable problem it is a slight cause for public relations concern.

4. Oil may actually become a renewable resouce very soon. Or at least something feasibley replaceable such as butanol. So why bother changing the entire energy infrastructure if you don't need to? Butanol is especially good since unlike ethanol the energy content is much closer to regular gasoline and doesn't corrode pipelines.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/16/2009 1:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
Despite lithium being scarce, it is very recyclable. Little should be lost from generation to generation, barring negligent disposal (which seems unlikely if the proper financial incentives are in place). And new chemistries should be on their way.

I think that electric is *one* viable solution as it allows renewable or long-term sources of power like nuclear power, stirling engine solar, an algae oil to be power the cars of the future. Efficiencies would be also higher under this scheme as a nuclear plant, even with transmission losses would perform better than an internal combustion engine.

I think in the long run algae-based biodiesel with clean diesel engines in the best bet. Though who knows... maybe we'll be driving around with mini fusion power plants in our cars someday.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Xenoterranos on 9/16/2009 3:31:59 PM , Rating: 4
Oil is the most useful naturally occurring substance on the planet. You can make practically anything out of it - including plastics that are nigh-indestructible. It can be used to create countless numbers of other extremely beneficial chemical compounds, and can even be used to make food grow better!

I think the worst possible thing you can do with it is burn it. And not just burn it, but burn it in the most inefficient way possible: individual combustion engines that undergo minimal maintenance at best.

Oil has great energy density, but I just don't see how throwing away a giant chunk of that energy as heat and inefficiency losses is helping anyone. If you want to burn oil, do it in a 90%+ efficiency power plant and send that power to a lithium-battery-powered-car that's damned near 100% recyclable anyway.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 1:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
My way of life has ended. I was born into a free-market democracy/republic, and now I live in a mildly socialist state. I feel like I moved to Europe or something.

And it's not like I don't care about the environment. I agree with the goals, just not the implementation. CO2 should not be regulated until we determine there is a high probability of "Gore being right." So far, it doesn't look so good.

I'm not sure when we're going to run out of oil, but it seems like that time has been 50 years away for at least fifty years now. Sort of a moving target. If we really wanted to solve that problem, and at the same time become energy-independent, we should be building nuclear plants like crazy. That is one positive thing we can copy from certain countries in Europe.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By adiposity on 9/16/2009 1:06:24 PM , Rating: 1
Sounds like you are un-American.

-Dan


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 1:13:37 PM , Rating: 1
A quote from Obama monday at the AFLCIO convention (AFL/CIO? I dunno)

quote:
"And the fundamental test of this century, of our time, is whether we will heed this lesson. Whether we will let America become a nation of the very rich and the very poor, of the haves and the have nots. Or whether we will remain true to the promise of this country and build a future where the success of all of us...is built on the success of each of us."


There's a word for a country that follows that idea.

The Constitution does not promise prosperity to all. Only the freedom to pursue prosperity to all.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By ChickenMcTest on 9/16/2009 1:38:33 PM , Rating: 5
I guess its convenient you left of the part of Obama's speech that followed:

quote:
That we are all created equal; that we all deserve a chance to pursue our happiness and achieve our goals.


which seems very similar to what you said:

quote:
The Constitution does not promise prosperity to all. Only the freedom to pursue prosperity to all.


But hey confirmation bias means selective quoting ya?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 2:25:09 PM , Rating: 3
And what you fail to realize is that you cannot have both.

One cannot pursue their own happiness and achieve ones own goals when they are forced to not only support themselves but those who cannot or will not do it on their own.

And by his very actions, he is a hypocrite. He lives in a large house, eats the best foods, travels via private jet, etc. yet seeks to steal that from others who have worked for it and demonize anyone else who isn't in league with him who attempts to attain it for themselves by calling them greedy.

He encourages self improvement and self responsibility with one hand and then seeks to remove the need for them with the other. Who needs to work hard when the government says it'll provide everything for them? Do you work your hardest to be better than everyone else when you'll just get the same as everyone else in the end?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By ChickenMcTest on 9/16/2009 5:17:29 PM , Rating: 4
Obama is a hypocrite for living in the White House? Are you are saying that he doesn't deserve to be there because he has not worked hard?

When Obama talks about corporate greed he is referring to things like Selling Mortgage Debt when you know the home owner will default, executives taking large salaries and bonuses in spite of their company taking a loss.

Hard work does not always bring economic gain.

Taxes are not theft.

A public insurance option is not a Robin Hood attempt to steal from the rich and give to the poor. The current insurance system creates huge problems. It is a burden for individuals, employers, and doctors. Once a problem reaches this size it demands government action. Even the republicans have like 30 reform bills floating around the House.

I know you don't want to pay to save my cancer ridden aunt (I don't actually have a cancer ridden aunt). But if her insurance drops her and medical bills bankrupt her society suffers: her employer loses an employee, her children lose a mother, her creditors lose the money she owes to them, I can go on. The net benefit of public care is positive for society and the economy.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 6:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama is a hypocrite for living in the White House? Are you are saying that he doesn't deserve to be there because he has not worked hard?


I was referring to his personal home. But really no, he has not worked hard. He has no experience in leading anything. He has spent his whole life in academia, activism, and politics. Personally I don't like anyone being president who hasn't been a governor or at least ran a private business. Obama was never in a leadership position until he was President of the United States and it shows.

quote:
When Obama talks about corporate greed he is referring to things like Selling Mortgage Debt when you know the home owner will default, executives taking large salaries and bonuses in spite of their company taking a loss.


He has called every large industry in this nation greedy. From oil companies, to banks, to insurance companies, etc. While I do not like corporate executives making millions while their companies lose money, that is for the board of directors of that company to deal with, not the federal government. And a bank does not give a loan they know the borrower will default on unless there is an outside force making them. Said force was the government.

quote:
Hard work does not always bring economic gain.


True but that is no ones fault but the person doing said work.

quote:
Taxes are not theft.


True. Taxes in and of themselves are not. Excessive taxes due to reckless government spending on endless social entitlement programs for that "feel good feeling" are though.

quote:
A public insurance option is not a Robin Hood attempt to steal from the rich and give to the poor. The current insurance system creates huge problems. It is a burden for individuals, employers, and doctors. Once a problem reaches this size it demands government action. Even the republicans have like 30 reform bills floating around the House.


No it is the government overstepping its authority by driving private industry out of business. Our system does have flaws. But the government involvement already in existence has created many of them. My mom works in health care. She deals with government BS every day. And the majority of doctors are against this because they realize what it will mean for them. Republicans bills out there call for TRUE reform. Allowing competition in the insurance market, getting rid of that fraud and waste Obama loves to talk about (but strangely doesn't seem to want to address unless the government takes over health care), tort reform to lower malpractice insurance costs and reduce frivolous lawsuits, letting individuals get the same benefits as people who get their insurance through their employer, and yes, helping out those who truly can't get coverage on their own due to pre-existing conditions.

quote:
I know you don't want to pay to save my cancer ridden aunt (I don't actually have a cancer ridden aunt). But if her insurance drops her and medical bills bankrupt her society suffers: her employer loses an employee, her children lose a mother, her creditors lose the money she owes to them, I can go on. The net benefit of public care is positive for society and the economy.


No one is saying to just screw all the people who are sick. But no system will ever be perfect. Certainly not a government run one. There will be rationing. Obama says health care is currently 1/6 of our economy. That's $1.6 trillion dollars. Yet he and Democrats claim they can give us the same quality of care over the next 10 years for only $850 billion total? While adding what they claim to be 50 million more people? Not to mention all the jobs that will be lost when private insurance carriers go out of business. Which results in lower tax revenues too further increasing the deficit and reducing the federal government's ability to pay for all this (I'm sure the federal government collects some pretty hefty tax revenues off private insurance companies).

And I'm fine with putting in a bill that private insurance companies can't drop patients who fulfilled all their obligations when signing up for coverage and have paid their premiums but now need coverage and didn't think to mention they had back pain once 10 years ago so they're dropped (i guess the practice is called rescission).

You have to be a complete moron to believe what these people are selling. Private industry will always be better than government at doing things.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By ChickenMcTest on 9/16/2009 8:02:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Obama was never in a leadership position until he was President of the United States and it shows.

I know you don't support Obama, but, trying to deny his leadship abilities is laughable. You support your statement by saying "it shows". Being president of the Harvard Law Review is does not meet your definition of leadership but being managing editor of a newspaper would?

quote:
He has called every large industry in this nation greedy. From oil companies, to banks, to insurance companies, etc. While I do not like corporate executives making millions while their companies lose money, that is for the board of directors of that company to deal with, not the federal government.

What has Obama done on the issue? He is supporting H.R. 3269 which allows shareholders of public companies to vote on increases to executive compensation. That seems be be what you are calling for right?

quote:
Excessive taxes due to reckless government spending on endless social entitlement programs for that "feel good feeling" are though.

Taxes are legal, stealing is not. If you don't like a tax or an social welfare program write to your representative cast your vote. (well I am sure you all ready do that FIT so I guess keep posting and trying to convince people you are right, well you all ready do that too...)

quote:
My mom works in health care. She deals with government BS every day. And the majority of doctors are against this because they realize what it will mean for them.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...
False most doctors support some a public option.

Yes it will shake the shit out of the economy, people are going to lose jobs but new jobs will be created.

Private industry is not as efficient as you like to tout it to be. My local DMV office works much more efficiently than trying to exchange a broken DVR with my local cable provider. Non-emergency response times from my police and fire departments are nothing short of amazing, epically compared waiting for a non-emergency plumber. The city trash collection has never missed a day, but I have had furniture delivered over two days late from Ethan Allan.

quote:
No one is saying to just screw all the people who are sick. But no system will ever be perfect.


This is the real issue. The rest of my post is just petty bickering with you. (but its fun)

You are saying: you don't want to have your earnings taxed and that money used to give health care to poor people.

I am saying: I am willing to pay tax and tax other people and use that money to provide health care to other people.

There are moral short comings with both sides:

Your side being that you wouldn't give a dime to help save a drying person.
My side being that lazy 'neredowell people get hand outs from the government.

There are positives to both sides:

On your side undeserving people don't get a free ride.
My side every one is given treatment for medical conditions.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Nfarce on 9/17/2009 8:16:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am saying: I am willing to pay tax and tax other people and use that money to provide health care to other people.


So, like FIT said, you like to steal other people's money for your causes. I don't want my money going to illegal immigrant health care. Period. What YOU believe is not necessarily what someone ELSE believes and for you to just sit back smugly and say "I think it's right" is arrogant and a reason why this nation is tearing apart, not coming together as Obama promised. You'll be in for a rude awakening in 2010 and 2012 methinks.

Finally, the MAJORITY of Americans are against Obamacare. What's the rush anyway? It has taken DECADES for private industry to comprise 20% of the US economy, and those asshats in Washington who can't even run Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Postal Office think they can run this efficiently? Talk about delusional!

And if you think government is competent or can be in health care, you've never had to deal with a Veterans Administration clinic. Sure, we need reform, but not complete TEAR DOWN and rebuild under government doctrine whose failures are already well known.



RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By ChickenMcTest on 9/17/2009 2:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't want my money going to illegal immigrant health care. Period. What YOU believe is not necessarily what someone ELSE believes and for you to just sit back smugly and say "I think it's right"

I agree I don't want to provide coverage to illegal immigrants.

I understand we believe different things that is why FIT is my favorite DT commenter. I am not sure I have ever replayed to any one else, well except for you now :D

quote:
Finally, the MAJORITY of Americans are against Obamacare.

Yes but the poll resuts are all over the place.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
It has taken decades for the majority of Americans to move from middle age to senior citizens who all need health care. Its not surprising that health care has become such a major part of the economy, or that prices have risen so much, because demand for health care is super high.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2009 9:32:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story... False most doctors support some a public option. Yes it will shake the shit out of the economy, people are going to lose jobs but new jobs will be created.


You're quoting NPR as a source? Seriously?

And yes jobs will be created. GOVERNMENT jobs. Which do not create wealth. They are paid by the tax payer. Now yes I work in the defense industry. So that's my job. But given that the federal government is empowered and required to provide for the national defense, that kind of government spending is ok.

quote:
My local DMV office works much more efficiently than trying to exchange a broken DVR with my local cable provider. Non-emergency response times from my police and fire departments are nothing short of amazing, epically compared waiting for a non-emergency plumber. The city trash collection has never missed a day, but I have had furniture delivered over two days late from Ethan Allan.


Yeah waiting hours in line at the DMV is great... I don't know about your cable company, but if I need a new box, I just drive the old one down to their office and get a new one. And yes LOCAL services are efficient in most places because they're not saddled with the bureaucracy of the federal government. You call a number and they come. It's simple. You're comparing apples to oranges with your garbage collection analogy.

quote:
Your side being that you wouldn't give a dime to help save a drying person.


Yeah I'd just wipe them off with a towel. But seriously, where am I saying let people die? Who dies in the street today outside a hospital which refuses to treat them (unlike in Britain where they will keep people in ambulances outside to get around their mandates that people must get care within a certain time period). People who need emergency care get it. And this country gives BILLIONS in charity every year. Doctors are not legally allowed to treat people for free most of the time (under government rules for Medicare) but they take a loss many times and will set up payment plans (I am on one myself at the moment for emergency surgery I had earlier this year) for as little as a few dollars a month (per a doctor at a recent town hall I attended).


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By ChickenMcTest on 9/17/2009 2:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're quoting NPR as a source? Seriously?

NPR reported on the survey which was conducted by Drs. Salomeh Keyhani and Alex Federman of Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Can you provide a specific problem you have with the survey methodology? Rejecting the data because a news outlet you do not like reported the information reeks of confirmation bias.

Even if you don't trust that survey here is another:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58F3...
This one is conducted by the RWJ Foundation.

quote:
And yes LOCAL services are efficient in most places because they're not saddled with the bureaucracy of the federal government.


So compare a multi-national company to dealing with the federal government. The bureaucracy in private industry is just as bad. Read some stories over at the consumerist. Private Industry is not the gleaming beacon of efficiency you believe it to be.

quote:
Doctors are not legally allowed to treat people for free most of the time

What? Most doctors won't treat people for free but I couldn't find any where Medicare specifically forbids that.

In fact medicare recipients are specifically allowed to privately contract with doctors to receive services, so doctors could contract services for free if they wanted to. HCFA interpretations of section 4507 of H.R. 2015 from 1997 would not allow doctors to do so before conservatives complained.

quote:
v But seriously, where am I saying let people die?

I am saying it is intrinsic to your argument if you take it to the extreme.

You continually say that a socialized health care system steals from the rich to give health care to the poor and unworthy.

I am saying that you would prefer a person do die rather than pay more taxes to provide them medical care.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Steve1981 on 9/17/2009 2:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am saying that you would prefer a person do die rather than pay more taxes to provide them medical care.


False dilemma.

In general those who are opposed to being taxed to provide health care for others are not opposed to charitable giving. They are opposed to the idea of forced charity.

To put it another way: I gladly give money to charities including those that help the sick like St. Jude. There are few things as noble or rewarding in life as giving to those in need, and that is something I think everyone can agree on.

On the other hand, there is nothing noble or rewarding about the type of forced charity that you seem to be advocating.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By andrinoaa on 9/18/2009 1:46:00 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, someone who beleives his own BS. choke, splutter chuck


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 7:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you think someone should not have to pay for a service?

If you went and took a car off a car lot that is theft.
If you go to a retail outlet and take some cloths that is theft.
If you went and took your neigbors wallet that is theft.
If you have the government go and take money from someone so you can go get a free ride in a hospital that isn't theft?

I'll admit that allowing someone to die because they couldn't afford to pay for care isn't exactly the nicest thing in the world but there are other ways to deal with it than ahving the fed come in and unconstitutionally take over the industry which DESPITE what you want to read about the bill WILL happen in the end. Just as SS and MEDICARE weren't SUPPOSED to cost as much and despite the promises made by the politicians both are going to fail sooner or later.

Also I'm sure you have heard some stories since they aren't all that uncommon about doctors refusing to take medicare patients? This isn't because the doctors aren't recieving payments from the fed is it? oh no! It couldn't be that! Or how about the recent polling data showing that doctors are deciding to quit and find something else and closing their practices or that fewer people are entering medical school now.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 8:23:14 AM , Rating: 2
Actually hospitals are required by law to treat you whether you can pay or not. Why do you think they are underfunded and many shut down?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 7:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree the tax system as it stands currently is theft.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 8:20:52 AM , Rating: 2
They figure doctors will work for free like they do trying to get medicare reinbursments


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Breathless on 9/16/2009 4:32:07 PM , Rating: 1
I bet the democrats stood up in their seats and applauded with tears gently trickling down their cheeks when they heard that quote. "So powerful! Hope and change!" (sob, sob)


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By xmichaelx on 9/16/2009 3:11:24 PM , Rating: 1
Unless you were born pre-1920, you either were not born into a free-market democracy/republic, or you have no idea what those words (or 'socialist', for that matter) mean.

Side note: I don't give a shit about global warming, but I'm apparently one of the few who still cares about Islamic extremism. If you get less than 30mpg, you should just change your name to Osama and move to Saudi Arabia.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 3:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
I know what the words mean. And last time I checked, we import the greatest fraction of our oil from Canada. But thanks for the FUD anyway.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2009 4:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
You realize that most oil is sold on the open market right? So really in the end, where it comes from doesn't matter.

Now I choose not to buy from Citgo because it is owned by Venezuela and I'm not spending a dime with a company owned by Chavez.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By thurston on 9/16/2009 11:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You realize that most oil is sold on the open market right? So really in the end, where it comes from doesn't matter.


I bet you would also say we need to drill more so we don't have to depend on foreign oil.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By thurston on 9/16/2009 11:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My way of life has ended. I was born into a free-market democracy/republic, and now I live in a mildly socialist state. I feel like I moved to Europe or something.


That's pretty dramatic. Are you going to go throw yourself on a sword or something? Also nice slap in the face to the Frenchys too.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Hiawa23 on 9/16/2009 12:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
...sucks. I just hate the politics of "green" that are effectively depriving consumers from being able to buy the vehicles they want to buy. It's un-American.

huh??? No one is being forced to buy any vehicles. I would like to see more regulations on getting gas prices down & keeping them down around $2/gallon or less, as electric vehicles are not the answer & most folks will not even be able to afford them, so why not bring the EVs to the market & do more pumping drilling here in the states, as gas is it for most of us.

I went to the pump today & filled up my 2006 Mitsu Lancer ralliart 2.4L, & I figure it gets in the lower 20MPGs. I don't get how the govt is going to expect the auto manufacturers to bring these cars to the market at the 34MPG standard & not give up something.

I am kind of disturbed that my Lancer doesn't get 30MPGs & have never gotten close to that no matter how I drive yet the sticker said it would get 29MPG. Hindsight 20/20, Looking back, kind of wished I had bought another Honda Civic & just given up alittle power for the hight MPGs.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 1:11:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No one is being forced to buy any vehicles
Of course you will be. After all, you are forced to buy what is offered, and your choices are limited by economics.

If today's average is around 25MPG, and they have to get to 35-38MPG in ~5 years, there's only way that is going to happen: The OEMs are going to have to sell a lot more small cars.

Sure there will be some overall increase in efficiency due to technology, but going up by 40+% in that short of time is otherwise not going to happen without a sacrifice (small cars). After all, MPG has only been rising at a rate of a little more than 1%/year for the past 25 years or so. Think about it...

Obama wants us to all drive small cars like Europe. That's the goal. The sooner you realize that, the better. USA = Europe.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By Hiawa23 on 9/16/2009 1:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
Of course you will be. After all, you are forced to buy what is offered, and your choices are limited by economics.

If today's average is around 25MPG, and they have to get to 35-38MPG in ~5 years, there's only way that is going to happen: The OEMs are going to have to sell a lot more small cars.


Good point, I only meant that if you didn't want to buy a small car then being realistic, there is noway this 34MPG is even possible based on the autos we have on the market today, so I am sure even when this regulation goes live, if you want the gas guzzling SUV, or big truck, they will be available, & I always thought that this was a guide, only, something for automakers to strive for.

I prefer smaller cars like Civics, Lancers, & what not as I only have one child & don't plan on having anymore, but you are right you should have choice & I am sure you will have choice.

You brought up that choice is limited based on economics. Of course it is. Everything you buy, the way you live your life is by your choice & your economics so that kind of goes without saying.

I wanted the Evolution , but settled for the Ralliart cause the EVO was out of my price range, wanted a 3000 sq ft home but got the 1200 sq ft home, so like I said everything you do is somewhat based on your economics.

I would like something more done to bring down fuel prices, as to me this is root cause of everything & maybe bringing down our dependence on foreign oil.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By gargus on 9/16/2009 1:06:14 PM , Rating: 3
“The common people don't want war, but it is always a simple matter to drag people along. Just tell them they're being attacked, and denounce the pacifists as unpatriotic and exposing the country to danger.”

It's extremely hypocritical of you to call someone's point of view "un-American". The US was built on freedom of speech. Additionally, as a world leader, it is important for the US, not only to provide systematic research grants for our scientists, but ensure that the climate and environment that we live in will be suitable for future generations.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By foolsgambit11 on 9/16/2009 1:07:49 PM , Rating: 4
As opposed to the politics of "safety", "morality", "effectiveness", "national security", etc. that deprive consumers of being able to buy the other commodities they want to buy? If regulation for the sake of a national benefit is un-American, then America doesn't exactly have a great track record of being American.

Cars, children's toys, and food, to name a few, are all regulated to meet safety standards. The purchase of alcohol, pornography, and gambling are all regulated to meet community moral standards (although that's at a state level, not a national one). Drugs are required to be proven effective by national standards. The sale of classified information is prohibited for the sake of national security. All of these things deprive consumers of the ability to freely purchase the goods they may want to buy.

The regulation of markets is not, in and of itself, un-American. You're just using the term to add emotional emphasis to your argument, which is, boiled down to its essence, "I don't think environmental protection should be a priority for the US Government, because I don't think it will promote the general welfare as much as not protecting the environment would." And that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion, and you should make it known to your representatives in Congress, as well as by way of your vote when the time comes. But America is what we make it, and labeling something as un-American doesn't advance the debate, it stalls it.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By gargus on 9/16/2009 1:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
agreed... i like your post better than mine.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By andrinoaa on 9/18/2009 1:49:13 AM , Rating: 2
Halleluia, there IS intelligence out there.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By FITCamaro on 9/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By adiposity on 9/16/2009 1:51:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Regulating the auto industry so they're no longer allowed to build the cars people like to buy is not.


Right, but that's just an opinion. If certain vehicles are determined to be as bad for us as lead paint, it seems reasonable that those vehicles would be treated like lead paint.

-Dan


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 2:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
How can a vehicle be "bad"? The vehicle is only produced if there is someone to buy it, so by labeling a vehicle "bad," you are saying that a person should not have the right to choose to buy that vehicle.

And if you are going to do things like that, there had better be a damn good reason to do it.

Like pollution...oh wait, our country is cleaner now than it has been for decades.

Like global warming, oh wait, global temperatures are falling, and the CO2-AGW link is still unproven.

Sorry, your argument just died. Therefore, I'd like to continue to see the full range of types and sizes of cars offered at the local dealership when I buy my next car, thank you very much.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By adiposity on 9/16/2009 2:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How can a vehicle be "bad"? The vehicle is only produced if there is someone to buy it, so by labeling a vehicle "bad," you are saying that a person should not have the right to choose to buy that vehicle.


No, I am not saying any such thing. Stop making assumptions about what I mean. I did not label any vehicles bad. I did not say I support banning vehicles. You completely missed the point of my post. But yes, when something is banned, because it is "bad", it does mean people no longer have the right to buy it, such as lead painted dolls.

If the govt. can determine that lead paint should be banned, then they certainly can determine that a car can be banned. It is up to them to determine what things they want to ban. If a vehicle has arsenic-coated seats, then maybe they would ban that vehicle. If they decide that a vehicle causes GW (even if they are wrong), then maybe they would ban it.

And by the way, the argument "The vehicle is only produced if there is someone to buy it" is just false. Just like any product, vehicles are produced with the hope that someone will buy it.

quote:
Sorry, your argument just died. Therefore, I'd like to continue to see the full range of types and sizes of cars offered at the local dealership when I buy my next car, thank you very much.


Since you weren't arguing against what I said, my argument did not die. Next time try reading.

-Dan


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 3:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what to do about people like you who put forward an argument, and when it is refuted, they claim that wasn't what they said.

You said, "If certain vehicles are determined to be as bad for us as lead paint, it seems reasonable that those vehicles would be treated like lead paint."

Any thinking person would infer from that that you support banning certain types of vehicles, the same way lead paint has been restricted. Don't deny what you said; it is there clear as day, and my response stands.
quote:
If they decide that a vehicle causes GW (even if they are wrong), then maybe they would ban it.
Yes, and that would be what I call a "mistake," and it is exactly what Obama and company are effectively doing with these new regulations. The net effect of these regulations, assuming they don't get delayed, adjusted, or cancelled, is that we will all be buying only small cars. After all, you cannot increase fuel efficiency 40-50% in a few years and still have us driving the mix of cars we do today. It cannot happen. It is impossible.
quote:
And by the way, the argument "The vehicle is only produced if there is someone to buy it" is just false. Just like any product, vehicles are produced with the hope that someone will buy it.
Your argument is correct in theory, but irrelevant in reality. My point is that car companies make the kinds of cars people want to buy. I think you already understood that.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By adiposity on 9/16/2009 4:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any thinking person would infer from that that you support banning certain types of vehicles, the same way lead paint has been restricted. Don't deny what you said; it is there clear as day, and my response stands.


I guess you still don't understand. There isn't much I can do if you refuse to understand, even after I've explained the meaning of words. However, if you want to get petty about this, the truth is I do support the banning of certain types of cars. For example, a car that takes two lanes because it is so wide, should be banned (from the street, at least).

All I was saying was, the govt. has the right to ban things if they are determined to be "bad" or even just undesirable. They do it all the time. Why would we think the same idea would not apply to cars based on some notion of freedom that doesn't apply to lead paint?

I do not support banning cars based on MPG. Ok? But I can think of cases where cars ought to be banned. And if politicians think that MPG / Emissions is one of these reasons, they have a right to do it. If we don't like it, we need to elect someone else, not say, "the constitution doesn't allow this." The constitution does allow it, as it allows regulation of commerce.

quote:
Your argument is correct in theory, but irrelevant in reality. My point is that car companies make the kinds of cars people want to buy. I think you already understood that.


I did understand that; however my point is not irrelevant. There have been many vehicles designed which did not sell, causing financial harm to their parent companies. So no, production is not perfectly aligned to demand (duh). Another point might be, customers would like vehicles that don't break down, however it is not totally in the interest of car companies to provide that, as they can make money off service or upgrades to get new features (kind of like Apple only adding one feature per iPod version).

You say the politicians are making a mistake here, and perhaps they are. But that is different from arguing they don't have the right to make that mistake. We gave them the right when we elected them. That's how it works.

-Dan


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By foolsgambit11 on 9/16/2009 1:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Explain why, step by step, please. What is the value gained in not regulating the auto industry, both tangible benefits and intangible? The Government agencies in the article laid out a pretty complete list of the effects of regulation, and its overall benefit. What do you see as the benefit of not regulating?

Do you get this upset about how the government regulates pot-smokers? Why or why not? What is the difference between drug policy and auto policy?


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By TomZ on 9/16/2009 2:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
What is the benefit...? No compelling argument has been made on that side. We've only seen the costs. For example, what is the known/proven value of regulating CO2? What is the true economic/political benefit of reducing our use of gasoline/oil? All unknowns that are "assumed" valuable by those supporting these types of changes.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By foolsgambit11 on 9/16/2009 10:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
First, just because you haven't been compelled by the arguments about global warming in general, and CO2 in particular, nor the general health-related arguments related to other pollutants which are still released by automobiles, albeit in smaller quantities than the past, does not mean that compelling arguments haven't been made. However, even discarding the arguments related to the environment, the report claimed, based on in-depth study, that in sum this regulation would be a benefit to the auto industry. That is a benefit. It may or may not be outweighed by the risks of not achieving those claims, as well as collateral effects like increased deaths and automobile costs. But at least they weighed the effects of action.

There are true economic benefits from reducing our use of foreign oil in particular, including reducing the portion of our GDP which is shipped overseas. That's why economists often speak with concern about the US's current account defecit. Additionally, there's a tangible benefit to the average American by reducing his total cost of ownership of a vehicle.

As for those things which are assumed valuable, all projections of the future must be assumed, but those assumptions should be made based on the best analysis of the available data possible. You seem to ignore the fact that the best analyses currently available all support climate change (although there is no indication that this regulation will, by itself, have any substantial impact on global warming).

All propositions must begin with assumptions. Your assumption is that personal choice leads to the greatest good for the greatest number - and while this may be politically expedient, it is not born out by the data. People are imperfect reasoners, and they make decisions, en masse, which are not for their own or for society's benefit. That's why we have laws of any kind. Why should the purchase of an automobile be any different than the dumping of untreated sewage into a lake? If it pollutes the environment, and puts people's health at risk, there's a justification for regulation.


RE: Auto Industry Regulation
By hathost on 9/21/2009 7:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
I liked how you said this will be benificial to the auto industry maybe you missed the part about it costing $60b over 5 years whic is probably much lower than it will be and that obviously will come out to about $12b a year. now with the state the economy is in do you honestly think the auto industry could afford another $12b a year? I mean the American manufacutures (which I'm guessing were the only ones where the cost was taking into consideration since they prob aren't concerned with foreign car makers) would put them out of business. We've already loaned billions to GM and Chrysler and they have both declared bankrupcy. How are they going to be able to pay for this without MMORE government aid?


Here's an idea
By ZachDontScare on 9/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Here's an idea
By andrinoaa on 9/18/09, Rating: 0
"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki