🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10068o27q7hm7da@corp.supernews.com>, Jeff Strickland 
<beerman@yahoo.com> writes
>"John Beardmore" <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:DHTg9XixJvAAFwqu@wookie.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <1005rh2oa19itbe@corp.supernews.com>, Jeff Strickland
>> <beerman@yahoo.com> writes
>> >"Don Quijote" <donquijote1111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:d82348eb.0401100824.32fbfea5@posting.google.com...

>> >Anti-social SUV drivers? You are the anti-social element that I see here,
>> >not the SUV drivers.
>>
>> A conclusion you have to reach for to be consistent with the other views
>> you express.
>>
>Not really.
>
>I never propose that SUVs should be banned. I agree that they are a poor
>choice of personal transportation, but people that buy them have to pay for
>the gas, not me. I agree that we can do other things to move SUV buyers into
>products that are more environmentally sound, but I think we should develop
>those products and ween the SUV buyers away from the addiction they have
>today into the addictin that makes more sense.

Normal sizes cars should do the trick unless you feel SUV drivers will 
need pharmaceutical support ?


>I would never stoop so low as to call SUV ownership "anti-social",

Depends on how they are used I grant.


> nor would
>I call for people to abandon their SUVs without offering them a replacement.

Smaller vehicles are readily available from most leading manufacturers.


>And, I would never make the argument that SUVs should be banned solely
>because they are large.

No, but I can see why people will campaign against inappropriate use.


> There have been arguments here that SUVs ought to be
>banned for no other reason than their size -- the drivers accused of being
>anti-social because of the size of the SUV. There have also been arguments
>that promote banning the SUV with no suitable replacement.

What did you have in mind ?


> And, there have
>been calls for banning SUVs because they pollute, but the facts are that
>there are dozens of commercial vehicles -- light truck models -- that are
>identical to the SUVs, and these vehicles are typically in a poorer state of
>repair -- certainly a poor state of visual repair, and I assume the
>mechanical repair is not far behind (or ahead) -- that makes them an easier
>target of the enviro nazis.

I think the environmentalists case is that while a truck may haul goods 
to perform worth while trade, the use of an SUV as a commuter 'ego 
basket' is an unnecessary use of road space and fuel, and an 
unnecessarily polluting way to travel.


>I happen to think that emerging technologies will go a long way in reducing
>the environmental impacts of SUVs (hybrid is around the corner and fuel
>cells seem to be looking good),

Maybe, though we may need to make deeper cuts in consumption, and more 
radical changes to what we consume, than just finding ways to burn 
hydrocarbons in a fuel cell.


> but we will still have the issue of size -
>an issue that I have never been opposed to.

My opposition is contingent on the type of use.  If you have a big 
family and a big dog, a six seater may be wholly appropriate.

If on the other hand you generally use a vehicle this size to get to the 
office, then I'm happy that this is seen as antisocial.


Cheers, J/.
-- 
John Beardmore