What Good's An SUV If You Can't Afford To Drive It Where You Want To Go?

funny (2.00 / 1)

your post is more about one particular person's poor choice for a vehicle.  I'm certain most every conservative, supports a progressively but reasonable rising fuel efficiency standard at the federal level but not at the state level (for simple economic reasons).  take a look at Bush's EOP 2005 fuel efficiency standards, much of what Obama is carrying forward.  i'm conservative n i take public transportation to work 75% of the time and ride a bike 25% 25 miles of the other time.  40% my commuting distance is by auto and half of that is by suv (which I can afford the gas with.)  part of many ppl's occupation is driving and the reliability of an SUV or other AWD vehicles ensures one can maintain a schedule w/o worry of an accident or prolonged travel time due to inferior car handling.  this applies in the snow, rain and least than ideal road surfaces, especially if highway travel is involved.  those who work for themselves, run a small business or work for a small employer, have less flexiblity in their schedule compared to working for say a larger employer or the federal gov't as an example.

all those things you say about conservatives is far from the truth.  The problem with liberals is that most of them, live in urban areas so all that applies to them makes great sense, walking communities, single vehicle ownership, smaller or no vehicles, public transportation, etc, but doesn't necessarily fit reality for those living in the suburbs, in the bed n breakfast communities with long commutes to metro areas or for those who live in rural areas.  I've lived in Georgetown and Arlington so I understand the urban side of things.  If urbanites and their families moved farther out, and vice versa, perhaps there would be more understanding, less discourse, more compromising and progress.  

Fyi, why target just suv drivers?  there are many more vehicles which have just as bad fuel mpg:  minivans, pickups, many American sedans and European turbo-charged vehicles with similar crappy mpg.  anything on the higher end side of any make or model, has a bigger engine, more hp's, more weight, and lower fuel efficiencies.  

---

by: floodguy @ Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 06:27:13 AM UTC

Yesterday's Platts News Service headline (0.00 / 0)

US House Republicans blast proposed new fuel economy standards

Read more at TheGreenMiles.com and follow me on Twitter

---

by: TheGreenMiles @ Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 12:37:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They're locked in the past (0.00 / 0)

stuck in outmoded ways of thinking. Pretty much the definition of today's "conservatism" - mindless reaction about everything.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 13:05:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We need to crank up fuel economy standards... (0.00 / 0)

and we also need to internalize the "externalities" of fossil fuels in the price by, preferably, slapping on a (revenue-neutral if we want) carbon tax, as (big-time coal producer) Australia is about to do. We also need to reverse any and all policies which encourage sprawl, because those are the policies that, more than anything, got us addicted to "the devil's excrement" (oil) in the first place. Maybe it made sense to rely on oil back in the 1950s, but it sure as heck doesn't make sense in 2011 or in the years to come. Unfortunately, the oil companies will fight, tooth and nail (and with essentially unlimited advertising and lobbying $$$) any attempt(s) to get us off our addiction to their product. That's where the need to rein in out-of-control corporations meets advocacy for clean energy and the environment. In our current system, they go hand in hand.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 11:13:24 AM UTC

Another possibiity (0.00 / 0)

It might also help if we either eased up on the endless restrictions for keeping our children "safe".  Right now, the size of a rear facing car seat (which is recommended for use for two years by the American Association of Pediatrics) is enormous.  There are many really great fuel efficient cars that won't hold many of them and still allow two adults to sit comfortably in the front seat.  Subsequently, the strollers necessary to accomodate these seats are correspondingly larger.  Let's keep in mind that this isn't a short term problem -- most children must remain in some sort of child safety seat until they are eight years old.

And believe me, I know what people will say -- when it comes to your child, you can't be too safe.  (If, as the mother of an infant, I had a penny for every time I heard the phrase, "Well, better safe than sorry" I'd be able to afford any car I wanted and all the gas it needed!!)  But the number of infant fatalities last year in the entire United States was 109.  And that was BEFORE the AAP recommendation.  Yes, if it is my child (or your child, or any child) who is one of those 109 infants, there isn't any consolation.  However, at what point can we admit that we can't keep our children safe 100% of the time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week?

I would love to drive a smaller and more fuel efficient car.  (And our second car is a 10 year old Saturn that gets 35-40 miles to the gallon.)  But right now, I have a car seat that takes up half of the back seat of our Mercury Mariner SUV, a stroller in the hatch that won't fit two suitcases and various sundry items required to take a weekend trip, and a six foot two teenager.   I'm afraid that some sort of less than ideal car is in our future for at least the next few years.  

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 19:22:36 PM UTC