🚀 go-pugleaf

"John Beardmore" <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vAbb8RGXkBBAFwn9@wookie.demon.co.uk...
> 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.
>
>

That is precisely the point, the people that buy SUVs are convinced that
they need the shere size. Just because you and I may not agree with them
doesn't make them wrong, it ojnly says that they have different priorities
than you and I have. We can not take away the size, but we should be able to
replace the gas guzzling with fuel efficiency. I happen to think this is
just around the corner, probably something on the order of less than 10
years, and perhaps in as few as three years.




> >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 ?
>
>
What do I have in mind? Nothing.

I predict that hybrid technology will find its way into the SUV market. It
should be adequate for families if not sufficient for commercial uses. (The
actual suitablity remains to be seen.)




> > 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 do not buy into the "ego basket" theory. Here is why. I have an ego the
size of Mount Rushmore, so I drive a BMW. My Bimmer gives me nearly 30 mpg
at close to 90 mph. Why would anybody satisfy their ego in a Suburban and
get less than half the fuel mileage and none of the handling, comfort and
safety? People that drive Suburbans must have some other need to satisfy
than an ego.

For the price of a Suburban, one can have a 5 Series BMW wagon, or similar
Mercedes, or any of a dozen other choices. These all lack something that the
buyer of a Suburban needs. I can't begin to know what they lack, but the
buyers are willinig to buy twice as much gas as I buy just to satisfy an
ego. I think there are other forces at work on the purchase decision than
just ego.




> >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 a fuel cell can be used to power a host of residential and even some
business power supply needs, it is not a technology that will be limited to
cars.



> > 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.
>
>
But, how do you know that the 6- or 9-seater sitting in front of the office
is not going to go and get 5 or 8 more people later today? You and I only
see that 6-seater (or whatever) for a tiny fraction of the the time it is
being used. It is very dangerous to draw conclusions as to how the vehicle
is used the rest of the time based upon the few minutes that we have to
share the road, or parking lot.

We can't go around bashing another's purchases just because our purchases
might be different. We should understand that all purchases go through some
kind of thought process, and the buyers make decisions that suit them, not
you and I. the best we can do is recognize what drives them, then offer
products that meet their needs and satisfies environmental concerns. We
can't force them to make ecologically sound decisions if those decisions
cramp their style. It is incumbant upon us to design stuff that meets the
consumer demand, not alter that demand to meet what we have designed.