Allow me: Hands-Free Phones Just As Bad As Handheld

 

But that is America and part of what makes America great. People can buy what they want for their own reasons. Its just their opinion just like you have the right to yours. You choose not to participate in the "Biggness". On the other hand, obviously, a huge part of the population could care less about "twisties and performance" and thats is exactly what makes America Great ... the freedom to choose.

Oh no ... thats called socialism. Regulation is a bad thing. There is a reason the government has move to "deregulate" things like the communications and airline industries. If you move to "regulate" the size of SUVs or 4 x 4 trucks, another person will move to regulate the size of small cars as being death traps. Its a road you really dont want to go down.

Its much better to have a society where you are FREE to buy whatever you want. Anything else and you might as well all by Yugos in Bosnia (or whatever). Free enterprise, Free choice.

We live in a market economy. The market will determine what is sold and what is not. If SUVs go the way of Edsels, so be it but the Market will decide, not some politician in DC.

 

Whats an Edsel

 

before your time kiddo

 

Scooter - thanks for the link. That is perfect.

Chows good post as always.

I guess in relation to what Chows is saying it comes down to this: We are all able to buy whatever we want and the industry can make vehicles as they so choose within the parameters of safety regulations. I suppose the basic problem the anti-SUV people have is that SUV is regulated like a truck but used like a car. This results in what they would say is an unfair safety disadvantage to cars. Anyone who does not like this unlevel playing field should direct this at their legislators not the people who buy SUVs.

So the state of regulations being what it is, it then comes down to voluntary personal responsibility. Again my feeling is that we all make less than perfectly responsible decisions whether it is cars, SUVs or cell phones. Some of those choices are just as (or more) dangerous as the vehicle buying decision.

 

coughmy drivewaycough

 

It seems to me that a Mini Cooper is a sport utility vehicle (SUV) with the emphasis on "sport."

 

That is patentedly unfair. I am not trying to define anything - all 125+ posts (save the last few) have been focused on SUVs/pickups, pro vs. con, safety, fuel effiency & pollution. That is the entire basis of discussion in the thread! How am I swaying the debate? Shall we now talk about tire manufacturers, rubber compounds and tread patterns with regard to safety? Shall we talk about brake manufacturers and brake pad compounds? Shall we talk about suspension components? How am I "defining" the debate in any sort of narrow way when the debate has already been happening? And I'm not even disagreeing with you that those are valid issues, not to mention that I commented on them anyway!It's an issue, just like any other... an issue worthy of discussion. Are we to only pay attention to the very most important issues and ignore all others? Why trample on the idea of having the discussion if there are valid points to be made? I don't think anyone in this thread said "This is the most important automotive safety issue of the day".That may well be true (and I'd tend to agree), but we weren't comparing brands, we were comparing overall design philosophy when designing a vehicle for daily use. The brand didn't come into the discussion.Also very true - but driver-independent, machine-operated safety tests demonstrating force dispersion can suffice to remove the difference in drivers from the equation. The whole "MINI vs F150" crash test comparison of 3 years ago was a good example of this. It may have even contributed to pressure for Ford to improve their design significantly for the 2004 model (article).Point well taken. I don't think that means we shouldn't be discussing it. I don't think that saying "other issues are more important" should be a valid defense against doing something about this one too.Or how about dealing with all of them at the same time? Who said we had to look at one issue (or only the top few) at a time? We could start threads on each of those safety issues, if you want.Well, we did talk about those things earlier, actually...I already said that - didn't you catch it?Being involved in a two-way (i.e. bi-directional) interaction with anything but the road ahead of you is a very serious problem, especially if that something isn't even sharing your "situation awareness", as a passenger would. Cell phones in cars are absolutely a serious safety issue, no doubt about it, I 100% agree. I try to minimize my "in the car" cellphone use for that very reason.

 

So then I guess you are saying you have no problem with anyone who buys an SUV when it comes to safety.

If not, then what is your point? Is it simply SUVs should be regulated like cars? Is it that people should be responsible and not buy SUVs if they don't "need" one?

 

I agree, the freedom to choose is a wonderful thing, something we should all enjoy... provided it does not infringe upon or endanger others while doing so. Think back to the "second hand smoking" point I made. Same would go for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. There are limits, there have to be.Not always. Regulation is what helps companies from trampling all over the average joe. Regulation is what keeps our food safe, our water clean, and our air (hopefully) less polluted. Regulation can and does serve a very important purpose, even in a free society. Lack of all regulation would quite easily be termed anarchy. The question just becomes - how much regulation, and on what. And thus the essence of the debate.You're still assuming it's all or nothing that I'm trying to debate. I'm not. I am more concerned about the exact point that Electric Shock just made:Precisely, at least for me.

 

Your post popped up while typing mine (above), but yes... in essence, if SUVs were regulated like the cars, since that is how they are now used 99% of the time, then I am confident that many of my concerns would be addressed. And I'm not just talking about fuel efficiency, but all of it, including safety (for others too, not just the occupants) and pollution.

 

I believe that the ones built on car frames are regulated like cars. Examples include the Honda SR-V and RAV4. If you look closely at the tags, you will see, at least in our state, they are not truck tags but car tags for exactly that reason.

As to regulation, the regulations are mostly for health reasons and yes I understand you concern about public safety. The problem is money. Way to much money buying and selling ...it is all about the market ... lobbying, etc and therefore its doubtful anything will be done. Get the regulated as cars and maybe everyone will be happy

On the other hand, individual localities can do something. DIdn't i just read that some parts of CA Ban vehicles more than 5000 pounds (which, of course, includes H1, H2s) from residential roads. This is not a safety issue but a tearing up the road issue.

I still believe anyone should be able to buy anything they want. No one else has to like it. Local (not federal) laws like seat belts DO save lifes.

 

My gosh, we are social animals. Since just about everything we do infringes upon others in some way, it sounds like there is nothing that should not be regulated. So the debate becomes just how much regulation are we to be subjected to. Some seem to be suggesting more tolerance of other's choices and, therefore, less regulation. Others seem to be suggesting less tolerance of other's choices and, therefore, more regulation. I wonder where the happy middle ground might be.

 

LOL, you know thats an extreme the opposite of a socialist state. The fact is that the federal government is moving in the direction of deregulation. Just like AT&T being broken up. Just like they dont control the airlines anymore. Next in line will be the cable companies running their small monopolies.

Having Laws for safety are fine. Telling an AMerican they cannot buy a product is NOT fine. We thrive on the market ...
its just like gold. We used to be on the gold standard but the US could not control the price of gold so we said ..."trust us", these are just green pieces of paper we back up on our good faith. US cannot control the world car market either. Even companies like Porsche sells SUV (and Lambo?) why ... follow the money ...

 

That is an EXCELLENT observation. And, if you look closely, all things go in cycles. The US "tried" to regulate Booze. We all know how well that went. The US "tries" to regulate some drugs ... how well is it doing. Maybe tax them

Society SHOULD protect its members from obvious ills, like smoke in confined areas. Seat belt laws save lives and lower insurance costs. Thats OK. But forcing vendors to make SUVs more nimble or brake better is more in the economics areas than anything else. Again ... follow the money because the money will drive the results.

 

I have to say from a logical perspective that is hard to disagree with.

But to the extent that this whole SUV thread started with general attitude toward anyone that has an SUV, well that is what I have a problem with. As long as they are regulated the way they are (as trucks) I just can't slight anyone for having an SUV.

 

So you can bring up second hand smoke but I can't bring up issues directly related to vehicle safety?

No need to respond I understand.

(Although smoking is another one on the driving distraction issue).

 

Of course they are, because they are built on car frames. Your point is meaningless, chows. The point was that many, many vehicles USED as cars regulated as trucks because they were built on a truck platform. Looser regulations. The regulations are out of date and out of sync with what has happened in the auto industry... and you're right, the strong arm of the auto (and petroleum) industry lobbying groups are fighting hard to maintain the status quo.Oh, believe me, I understand why things are the way they are - big business doesn't want to change. When in history have they? This is why I want us (and others, not just "us here on NAM") to have this discussion.Interesting, hadn't heard this, I like it, even though I like the idea for different reasons! I don't care what they buy or what they do with it, as long as it isn't on public roads. Buy a monster truck, for all I care. Public roads are EVERYONE'S business, not just the one person that buys the vehicle. That's where you forget - no one person owns the roads (yes, I know... including me), so the safety of ALL should be taken into consideration on public roads and -only- on public roads.No more extreme than you labelling me (or my views) as socialist! Comprende? That's the point I was making. You made a very blanket statement - "Regulation is a bad thing." I was trying to prove just how false that statement is. Hopefully you get my point now... SOME regulation is good. It's just a question of where, when and how much.

Just because something (in a totally unrelated industry) is happening does not make regulation wholesale "bad", "good" or otherwise. Laws change, they go in different directions for different reasons... just as politicans get voted in and out of office. That's American society. I don't agree that a deregulation "trend" in those industries is necessarily a foretelling of deregulation in the auto industry either, especially around safety issues.Hey, at least we agree on one thing... HEAR THAT MINIUSA? WE WANT OUR OEM POWER FOLDING MIRRORS AND OUR OEM FRONT & REAR CAMERAS FOR OUR FACTORY NAV!

 

I was thinking, if you wanted to regulate SUVs like cars, but you don't want those regs to aplly to pickups, then it would be very tricky defining the difference in some cases. Not that it can't be done but think about it - do you define a pickup then by the haulability? Some SUVs may have just as much haulablity (especially those built on picup platforms). Do you define in terms of passenger seating - some trucks now have as much seating capacity.

With all the hybrid cross-over things going on or that could happen - it would be tricky.

 

Here is the article on 5000 pound cars banned from CA roads

http://www.slate.com/id/2104755/

In particular, read this

It's no accident the automakers churn out so many SUVs that break the 6K barrier. By doing so, these "trucks" (and that's how they're classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation) qualify for a huge federal tax break. If you claim you use a 3-ton truck exclusively for work, you can write it off immediately. All of it. Up to $100,000 (in fact, Congress raisedstate tax breaks in California (up to $25,000) and elsewhere. These vehicles are also exempt from the federal "gas guzzler tax" because they're trucks. the limit from $25,000 just last year). Heavy SUVs qualify for similar

You learn something new everyday! I knew it was money driving this stuff, just not sure where. If you can write off the cost of the SUV the first year ... whoop, so much for banning them ... they are endorsing them ... How do you get around changing the IRS laws?

 

As Chows has said, the thought of further regulation of the big SUV is a nice thought in some ways but certainly very unlikely at this point. The SUV popularity in the US has been a huge shot in the arm for the US auto makers over the last several years. I hate to think with GM in particular where they would be now if not for the last several years of SUV sales. At this point they are already going to shrink their size and talk of GM ending up in bankruptcy gets bandied about.

On the one hand, further regulation could force them to be more competitive. But I don't think placing any burden on the US auto makers with a product that is predominantly a US product is going to happen any time soon.

 

Chows, I could be wrong but I think those tax breaks ended at the end of 2004. I remember in the second half of 2004 getting all sorts of solicitations from Ford and GM at my office promoting this tax break and I think they said the 2004 was the last opportunity for this.

 

Ahh, so I learned something new again!

 

People will always cry when others choices makes their prefered choice less appealing. How anyone hate to have their prefrence somehow made lesser.

The cost of a mini will get you into a KIA SUV, so if safety and not being afraid of the bigger cars is your issue..buy. Don't whine about others choices affecting yours.

Semi's are on the road 24/7 carrying a much higher GVW and longer stopping distances and a much higher fatality rate if you get hit by one. Whatever should we do?


Bigger vehicles hit harder, fact of life. If that scares you buy a bigger vehicle or get over it.


The disparity wouldn't be there if you bought such a tiny vehicle.


I ride a motorcycle, should cars have huge safety contraints or regulations to make MY CHOICE of a motocycle safer? Just the thought of that makes me laugh. After all I should be free to choose to drive around in a open air vehicle like a motorcyle sipping gas and not have to worry about thes Mini Coopers.



Bigger vehicle hit harder and do more damage---no argument, You don't like them ---no problem, You want to stop others--houston we have a problem. Claim safety when there is an option to protect yourself, well..too bad, you could have bought big also.


Paul

 

Paul (i.e. pcnorton), you insist on putting labels like, "whine" and "crying" in your text, also interjecting direct attacks like "last time I spun a globe it spun on its axis not around you". To be honest, you can say what you want, stick in those barbs all you want, but it doesn't mean I'm going to respect, value or even pay attention to what you're going to say. It's not that I'm easily offended like K9MINI said earlier (because quite honestly I don't give a damn what people say about me if they lose my respect), there's just no point in trying to debate with a forum troll. Concentrate on the topic, not insulting the person. To do less only makes you look foolish.

You pretty much ignored all of the arguments I already made against most of your points, yet I'm not going to continue to repeat myself over and over again just to get the same text back again, because it will never end. I believe I have made a reasonable argument, and even those who disagree with me have agreed that at least I present logical statements.

So please bring up something new, or don't bother. The only new-ish thing you mentioned, and the only thing I will respond to, is a comparison with semis... but semis are an extremely low percentage overall on the road today. SUVs (and pickups, Electric... I don't always type "pickups" but I intend both (post #144)) are EVERYWHERE, so safety issues I raise are multiplied by sheer numbers.