Nicely said.
-----Original Message-----
From: islander <islander@midmaine.com>
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Date: Thursday, March 01, 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] NEW FROM CHRYSLER-BENZ
>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
>
>
>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
>To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 04 2001 - 08:10:45 PDT