It's Official: SUV owners survive crashes 50% better

[PICK3]

I don't care about safety ratings

I just want to look kool when I roll up to teh club



just sayin'

 

[mrplunkey]

I don't care about safety ratings

I just want to look kool when I roll up to teh club



just sayin'

I'd think you would want a car that could handle a big load.

 

[PICK3]

I'd think you would want a car that could handle a big load.

If I were a Mo of your status ...

I woodn't be rawking a RR






just sayin'

 

[miplank]

I don't care about safety ratings

I just want to look kool when I roll up to teh club



just sayin'

Does the beige malibu get the job done?

 

[PICK3]

Does the beige malibu get the job done?

yes



along with a 10" cawk

 

[cindylou]

also, as a parent safety shouldn't be the only factor, but it should be your most important reason.

you'll never guilt me into buying a minivan!

 

[nimbus]

I'm complaining about escalating the use of fuel efficiency standards to create artificial markets for cars that consumers don't want and that are less safe. It's a retarded idea, regardless of administration.

What's new are two elements: First, we now know for a fact that bigger, SUV-style cars are safer. Second, despite this knowledge we'll still try to force consumers into less safe cars.

consumers actually do want them, mfrs just aren't making them. also, the new standards are based on vehicle footprint and don't really change vehicle size. mfrs can still make SUVs, they'll just pay if the SUV is inefficient compared to other SUVs of similar size. and before you bring it up, lightweighting is not a strategy used to achieve fuel economy reduction; there are other way cheaper ways to do it still.

Consumers should be able to make their own choices, balancing fuel economy, safety, convenience, luxury, and a whole host of other factors into buying a car -- without government "help". That's not a super-radical idea.

greenhouse gas emissions and oil security issues are externalities, so no, you're wrong, they shouldn't be able to make their own choices without government "help".

 

[nimbus]

Seems only fitting that CAFE might help shoot down the SUV. The SUV as we know it was created by CAFE in the first place. When the CAFE standards first came into effect in the late 1980s, trucks were either exempted or had a much more lax standard. Anyway, the car makers discovered that they could take pickup trucks, turn them into giant station wagons, put nice interiors in them, and get around the CAFE fleet numbers. So they loaded up the dealers' lots with Suburbans, Tahoes, Blazers, Explorers and Expeditions, and a trend was born.

So now that SUVs have lost their unfair regulatory advantage, people like you are boo-hooing.

standards differentiated by class/footprint mean that CAFE pretty much isn't gonna do shit to SUVs. If anything they might get bigger so that they can jump classes and be subject to less stringent standards

 

[PICK3]

In late 2007, CAFE standards received their first overhaul in more than 30 years. On December 19, President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires in part that automakers boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg by the year 2020. This requirement applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks." Politicians had faced increased public pressure to raise CAFE standards; a July 2007 poll conducted in 30 congressional districts in seven states revealed 84-90% in favor of legislating mandatory increases.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mrplunkey]

consumers actually do want them, mfrs just aren't making them. also, the new standards are based on vehicle footprint and don't really change vehicle size. mfrs can still make SUVs, they'll just pay if the SUV is inefficient compared to other SUVs of similar size. and before you bring it up, lightweighting is not a strategy used to achieve fuel economy reduction; there are other way cheaper ways to do it still.



greenhouse gas emissions and oil security issues are externalities, so no, you're wrong, they shouldn't be able to make their own choices without government "help".

When left alone, successful companies give customers what they want.

And since you are so keen on government managing externalities, do you like how they are "helping" us with steroid regulation, prostitution laws, recreational drugs, postal service, social security management and every other mess they've created?

Don't get me wrong -- the moment I can decide (or at least influence) the person who decides which externalities further my goals the best, I'll be all for regulating them too.