Hi Jim,
I thought someone might take my comments this way. It is unfortunate, as
it is an extremely narrow way of reading what I wrote.
>if you take SUV out of your rant and put in 2-1/2 ton truck it sounds alot
>like the same people who want to outlaw our big trucks.
Not true at all. If D/C was marketing this Unimog type vehicle to the
average Joe and Jane (which apparently it is not?) it would be pushing
something into a market that doesn't need it. The 2.5 ton vehicles
market out there already exists and exists for a reason (largely
commercial). Therefore, the impact of 2.5 ton vehicles on our daily
lives is necessary and limited enough that it shouldn't be an issue.
Marketing such vehicles to Soccer moms driving 50mph in a 35mph zone,
without extra driver training, or some Dot.Comer doing the same while on
his cell phone and trying to receive a FAX is flat out irresponsible.
Just as is trying to get 5 year olds hooked on cigarettes.
Sometimes "Freedom" and "Responsibility" are at odds. This is a fact of
life. For example, having the "freedom" to drive through red lights or
to shoot your neighbor for having a better lawn than you are not
"responsible" acts. Therefore, we as a society have quite rightly made
such acts illegal, or in other words limited "freedom". I think we can
all agree that there are some reasons why "freedom" MUST be curtailed if
we are to survive as a society, or even a species. Some other issues are
not as clear cut, even though there are always people on both sides that
think they are. And if one of these issues, like gun control or
abortion, has some sort of impact on society, then we get fierce debate
about how to balance Freedom and Responsibility. That is the right way
of going about it. That is what Democracy is all about.
In case you haven't read, watched, or listened to the news lately we are
in another energy crisis. And more are on the way. We are also faced
with ever increasing pollution of the air we breath and all other living
things require to be healthy. Bigger vehicles, in larger numbers, means
higher gas prices and greater pollution, which in turn causes ripple
effects that increase other costs and decrease quality of life (in some
areas more than others). Life is all about choices and their trade offs.
Nothing is absolute, no matter how much some people would like to think
that way.
In my own personal opinion, vehicle manufacturers should be concentrating
on producing more efficient and safer vehicles, not steering people
towards gas guzzling behemoths with decreasing safety standards (I refer
to the lower bumper rating of, what is it now, 2.5 mph?). There is NO
need to introduce BIGGER vehicles into the average Joe and Jane market.
Better, safer ones... yes. But Bigger is not always Better. And some of
the recent safety studies confirme that.
>sad to say though that this kind of thinking is how
>we wind up with m151's and hummers being cut up for scrap.
Faulty example. 151s and Hummers are most likely cut up because of
backroom deals between the producers of these vehicles and the
government. Safety standards are used as one excuse, but it is clear
that it is just that -> an excuse. Evidence suggests this, and I for one
see it as far too logical (thinking of market forces behind the
arrangement) for it to not have at least some merit. So I say don't
confuse the issues.
>me, i'm putting the most precious things in my life in the
>largest, heaviest, most bullet proof vehicle i can find.
And this is exactly how the world wound up with so many nuclear weapons
of ever increasing power. Instead of coming up with a better way of
living with each other, we built bigger and more destructive nuclear
weapons. Much easier to do that. So what happens if you put your wife
in a 2.5 ton truck and then every other wife starts driving one? Do you
look for a 3.5 ton truck? No, there are better ways to make vehicles
safer (even at faster speeds) than just making something bigger.
Unfortunately, the vehicle industry is not interested in some of these
technologies as they can't make as much money off of them. Or, the
technologies could actually put them out of business. 10-15 years ago I
read about a car that was developed in Britain. IIRC it got 60mpg using
a ceramic lined engine that would likely never break or die. The frame
was made out of the same materials and methods as in the Concord. This
process made it stronger than any other vehicle out there AND the
manufacturing process and materials meant no rust or corrosion. The end
result was a safer, far more efficient (3x better gas mileage at the
time) vehicle that would last at least 10-20 years without major
maintenance. And at a price that would probably be cheaper than
comparable vehicles (once in mass production). What happened to it?
Last I heard one of the big car manufacturers bought up all the patents
and then filed them away in a dark basement somewhere.
So... who is blocking our "freedom" to acquire such a vehicle?
Government? Environmentalists? Nazis? Nope. Big business which acts
in their own interest, not in the interests of average Joe and Jane that
buy their products. This is as much a part of the problem with "freedom"
as you define it, especially since Government tends to protect and defend
business interests first, even at the expense of its citizens. And so it
has been since before this country (the USA) was ever founded. Just pick
up a history book and take a look if you don't believe me.
I am not saying that government should step in and regulate "need" per
se. I also think that there is a limitation on how much "responsibility"
can be legislated. Instead, I am saying that big corporations should not
try and create demand for something that does not need to exist when it
compounds very real and costly problems that already exist. There is no
"need" to remove 2.5 ton vehicles from their current use, but there is
also no "need" to get people to start buying them who really don't need
them. If you look at the problems of pollution, waste, and ever
decreasing natural resources you will always find irresponsible big
businesses right there at the beginning of it. And that is why I said:
"I have to say I think this is the most IRRESPONSIBLE thing a major
vehicle manufacturer could do."
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 04 2001 - 08:10:45 PDT