Big vehicles kill

[sol]

We really don't.

Looks like that graph says we buy 16% of our from the Middle East, and someone else said it's closer to 10%.  It's about 30% if you count all OPEC member states.  Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the lower figure.  If you spend the US average of $2,000/year on gasoline (which is way low right now due to depressed gas prices) then you're sending $200/year to the Middle East and some more to Communist Venezuela.  Do you donate $200/year to a charity you believe in?  Or do you give more to Saudi Arabia than you do to your chosen charity?

So you can claim it's a minor fraction of our total oil consumption, and you'd be right.  But you're still sending hundreds of your US dollars per year to hostile countries that support terrorists bent on destroying America.  So am I, though maybe slightly less than you are. 

For those who object to gas taxes on principal, one question: do you believe that the actual total cost from the ground to the pump is $2-3 per gallon?

No, of course not.  The health impacts from fossil fuel burning alone add up to more than that.  Nevermind the lost tax revenue by giving tax breaks to oil companies, the environmental damage of extraction, the human rights violations, or the political instability engendered by the relentless pursuit of corporate profit at all costs (as long as those costs are born by the American taxpayer and not the corporation).

Nations that are net importers of oil typically pay 2-3 times as much as US drivers for fuel.

Some of them, like Germany, tax gasoline at over 100% instead of ~30% that America does.  And yet they're the most vibrant and successful economy in Europe, so let's not hear any BS about how higher gasoline taxes would be economic suicide.

What I would say to all these questions is pretty simple: nobody gets any credits against the carbon tax.

The idea behind the per capita refund on income taxes to offset carbon taxes is that people generally vote against raising taxes overall.  If the carbon tax were revenue neutral, at least for the first few years, it's much more likely to find political support from all parties.  Then the rebates could phase down, or the taxes could phase up, if and when Congress decides they need to curtail fossil fuel consumption.  For example, in wartime they might jack up the gas taxes in order to conserve fuel for military use instead of the domestic leisure market.

[seattlecyclone]

What I would say to all these questions is pretty simple: nobody gets any credits against the carbon tax.

The idea behind the per capita refund on income taxes to offset carbon taxes is that people generally vote against raising taxes overall.  If the carbon tax were revenue neutral, at least for the first few years, it's much more likely to find political support from all parties.  Then the rebates could phase down, or the taxes could phase up, if and when Congress decides they need to curtail fossil fuel consumption.  For example, in wartime they might jack up the gas taxes in order to conserve fuel for military use instead of the domestic leisure market.

I think we're mostly on the same page here. I'm all for a revenue-neutral plan because it's more likely to receive support from the right side of the aisle than a revenue-raising plan. Whether the revenue-neutrality is implemented by giving everyone the same amount (better for the poor, but the rich get something too) or by lowering existing tax rates (better for the rich, but the poor get something too) makes little difference to me.

What I don't think we should do is create special exemptions for the carbon tax for business use, or exclude certain industries, or make it so poor people pay less at the pump than rich people. Let's keep it simple. Everyone pays the same tax to burn hydrocarbons, whether they're burning tons at a time in a coal-fired power plant, or a couple gallons a week in a hybrid car.

[Bakari]

So you can claim it's a minor fraction of our total oil consumption, and you'd be right.  But you're still sending hundreds of your US dollars per year to hostile countries that support terrorists bent on destroying America.  So am I, though maybe slightly less than you are. 

For those who object to gas taxes on principal, one question: do you believe that the actual total cost from the ground to the pump is $2-3 per gallon?

No, of course not.  The health impacts from fossil fuel burning alone add up to more than that.  Nevermind the lost tax revenue by giving tax breaks to oil companies, the environmental damage of extraction, the human rights violations, or the political instability engendered by the relentless pursuit of corporate profit at all costs (as long as those costs are born by the American taxpayer and not the corporation).

Just in case there was any unclearness on my part: Sol, I am 100% in agreement with everything you've said, all through out this thread.
I was saying that without even counting the externality type costs (that libertarians generally feel comfortable pretending don't exist), looking at just concrete quantifiable infrastructure the costs of fuel are obviously subsidized by the tax payers

[sol]

Just in case there was any unclearness on my part:

None at all, Bakari.  I've read enough of your material here to have a pretty good feel for where you stand on these issues.  I was only responding to your question in order to express my support of its premise.  You are of course correct to point out that the US government subsidizes the oil economy on a variety of levels.

[Syonyk]

If you're going to tax gas, it only makes sense to implement it as a general carbon tax.  Unless it's really just a "I want to punish people who drive large gas or diesel powered vehicles" desire.  An electric jacked up truck would be just as hostile on the road, except probably heavier since batteries are heavy.

[sol]

If you're going to tax gas, it only makes sense to implement it as a general carbon tax.  Unless it's really just a "I want to punish people who drive large gas or diesel powered vehicles" desire.

What other carbon sources would you include?  I've sort of been using "gasoline" as a shorthand for all carbon fuels, including diesel and jet fuel and motor oil and propane, etc.
 

[JLee]

We really don't.

Looks like that graph says we buy 16% of our from the Middle East, and someone else said it's closer to 10%.  It's about 30% if you count all OPEC member states.  Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the lower figure.  If you spend the US average of $2,000/year on gasoline (which is way low right now due to depressed gas prices) then you're sending $200/year to the Middle East and some more to Communist Venezuela.  Do you donate $200/year to a charity you believe in?  Or do you give more to Saudi Arabia than you do to your chosen charity?

So you can claim it's a minor fraction of our total oil consumption, and you'd be right.  But you're still sending hundreds of your US dollars per year to hostile countries that support terrorists bent on destroying America.  So am I, though maybe slightly less than you are. 

For those who object to gas taxes on principal, one question: do you believe that the actual total cost from the ground to the pump is $2-3 per gallon?

No, of course not.  The health impacts from fossil fuel burning alone add up to more than that.  Nevermind the lost tax revenue by giving tax breaks to oil companies, the environmental damage of extraction, the human rights violations, or the political instability engendered by the relentless pursuit of corporate profit at all costs (as long as those costs are born by the American taxpayer and not the corporation).

Nations that are net importers of oil typically pay 2-3 times as much as US drivers for fuel.

Some of them, like Germany, tax gasoline at over 100% instead of ~30% that America does.  And yet they're the most vibrant and successful economy in Europe, so let's not hear any BS about how higher gasoline taxes would be economic suicide.

What I would say to all these questions is pretty simple: nobody gets any credits against the carbon tax.

The idea behind the per capita refund on income taxes to offset carbon taxes is that people generally vote against raising taxes overall.  If the carbon tax were revenue neutral, at least for the first few years, it's much more likely to find political support from all parties.  Then the rebates could phase down, or the taxes could phase up, if and when Congress decides they need to curtail fossil fuel consumption.  For example, in wartime they might jack up the gas taxes in order to conserve fuel for military use instead of the domestic leisure market.

Comparing Germany to the US is kinda funny.  It's roughly half the size of Texas with about three times as many people. It's much easier to have a competent public transit system in that case, no?

[Syonyk]

If you're going to tax gas, it only makes sense to implement it as a general carbon tax.  Unless it's really just a "I want to punish people who drive large gas or diesel powered vehicles" desire.

What other carbon sources would you include?  I've sort of been using "gasoline" as a shorthand for all carbon fuels, including diesel and jet fuel and motor oil and propane, etc.

Coal.  Natural gas.  If it's got carbon atoms, hasn't sucked it's carbon out of the atmosphere in the last 100 years, and burns with oxygen, it gets counted proportionally to it's output.

So, specifically, it would get counted for power costs, and ideally raw material mining.

Good luck getting a global carbon tax, so you'd probably have to do the math for all imports in the country you wish to destroy.

[former player]

Comparing Germany to the US is kinda funny.  It's roughly half the size of Texas with about three times as many people. It's much easier to have a competent public transit system in that case, no?

Size doesn't matter, it's what you do with it, right?

For instance, it would have been perfectly possible for Texas to build its cities to the same population density as those in Germany, which would make competent public transport systems just as easy.  There would still be big distances between cities, but railway transport is just as, or more, efficient, economic and effective over those bigger distances.

So it's not directly about size, it's about the human reaction to size.  Which in Texas has and will continue to be a fail from the efficient, economic and effective point of view.

[Bertram]

Infrastructure is very expensive. No matter whether its roads and bridges or public transport. It sems like a lot of it was built in times when taxes were higher and people were willing and eager to invest in these types of things.

Today the prevailing attitude sems to be to take things for granted that exist and the way to improve people's live is to let them keep more of what they earn to themselves. Most countries can barely make the money to keep the existing infrastructre somewhat safe and from coming crumbling down. It's impossible to build big new things. ANd I am not talking about the US here, also about most european countries, especially germany. The train system got as good as it did during a time when it was payed for by taxes. Ever since the privatization things have been getting worse - less connections, more expensive, more technical failures, and it's not seen as a viable enough business that could survive an IPO. And it's really very similar with roads and bridges, except they have not been privatized - yet, but people are talking about it.

I remembering watching Gangs of New YOrk when it came out and found the scene with the two private fire trucks arriving and fighting with each other rather than putting out the fire to be laughable then. Now when I watch it again, it's rather uncanny and makes me uncomfortable because it seems plausible enough we might see stuff like that again...

[MilesTeg]

Speaking of vehicle size/weight changes. Sedans are the worst offenders in this category:

Ford Taurus (midsize sedan): 1986/2016:

Curb Weight (3000/4000lb) 33% increase!
Length: (188/203in): 8% increase!
Width: (71/76in): 7% increase!

Toyota Camry (midsize sedan): 1982/2016

Curb Weight (2300/3400lb) 48% increase!
Length: (174/190in): 9% increase!
Width: (67/71in): 6% increase!

Those crazy midsize car owners are clearly arming up for the highway wars! Those owners clearly want to kill some folk with that kind of increase in size and weight.

The poor F-150 owners are in trouble and need to step up their game:

F-150 (largest, heavest available 4x4): 1987/2016'

Curb Weight (5200/4900lb) 6% DECREASE.
Length: (246/250in): 2% increase
Width: (79/80in): 1% increase

You can't compare by model. Cars grow over time, because the car co wants you to keep buying your trusty (Camry, Accord) but you need a larger car as your family expands. They introduce smaller cars to take the place of the displaced.

So a Civic now, is as big as an Accord 10-ish years ago.

Sure you can, car size and weight inflation has happened across all market segments, even economy cars. And that inflation (driven primarily by safety and emissions equipment) is worse on the lower end.

[MilesTeg]

This has gotten pretty far off topic, everyone all obsessed with gasoline taxes and changing vehicle sizes and most of all proving that ones facts are accurate (and therefor, presumably, their arguments)...

For those who object to gas taxes on principal, one question: do you believe that the actual total cost from the ground to the pump is $2-3 per gallon?

If you don't want ("Big") government messing with the free market, do you advocate equally hard for making the oil companies pay every portion of the cost of acquiring and transporting it?
I'm not just talking tax breaks or subsides here.


The US Coast Guard makes regular armed patrols of coastal oil ports and refineries.  Since they are considered "critical assets" this is a public service which the oil companies pay nothing for.  The US military guards oil wells overseas.  The Coast guard and Navy protect tankers transiting the ocean.  The US government and military provides the GPS network and buoys and lighthouses and all the other navigation infrastructure needed to deliver that oil across the sea, and the roads and bridges to transport it across land.
Do you advocate that the US government should play no role in the negotiation of securing foreign oil rights?
Never mind the whole multi-billion dollar war over "terrorism" thing...


Nations that are net importers of oil typically pay 2-3 times as much as US drivers for fuel.


You seem to find it offensive that anyone suggest you should have to pay more, but perhaps as good a question is why do you feel entitled to cheap fuel?

Gasoline price should reflect it's true cost (including both direct and indirect costs). It should not be artificially manipulated to "punish" any particular market segment (nor should idiocy like criminal charges for making bad choices be even considered). Such ideas are the pinnacle of foolishness, because for every jackwagon running a lifted, dually F-250 that has never towed so much as a bicycle wagon there are legions of legit commercial and private users and people who benefit from the use of of large vehicles and no consistent way to differentiate between the two types of people.

And every single person in this industrialized countries benefits from the use of big vehicles, even if you've never set foot inside one.

[GuitarStv]

This has gotten pretty far off topic, everyone all obsessed with gasoline taxes and changing vehicle sizes and most of all proving that ones facts are accurate (and therefor, presumably, their arguments)...

For those who object to gas taxes on principal, one question: do you believe that the actual total cost from the ground to the pump is $2-3 per gallon?

If you don't want ("Big") government messing with the free market, do you advocate equally hard for making the oil companies pay every portion of the cost of acquiring and transporting it?
I'm not just talking tax breaks or subsides here.


The US Coast Guard makes regular armed patrols of coastal oil ports and refineries.  Since they are considered "critical assets" this is a public service which the oil companies pay nothing for.  The US military guards oil wells overseas.  The Coast guard and Navy protect tankers transiting the ocean.  The US government and military provides the GPS network and buoys and lighthouses and all the other navigation infrastructure needed to deliver that oil across the sea, and the roads and bridges to transport it across land.
Do you advocate that the US government should play no role in the negotiation of securing foreign oil rights?
Never mind the whole multi-billion dollar war over "terrorism" thing...


Nations that are net importers of oil typically pay 2-3 times as much as US drivers for fuel.


You seem to find it offensive that anyone suggest you should have to pay more, but perhaps as good a question is why do you feel entitled to cheap fuel?

Gasoline price should reflect it's true cost (including both direct and indirect costs).

Given that it demonstrably does not, what remedy do you propose?

[stlbrah]

It's also worth pointing out that the drivers who are most likely to be involved in fatal crashes per mile driven are generally males under 30. It's not texting teenagers, distracted parents, or passed out seniors. It's men.

http://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/2015/07/most-dangerous-drivers-us-16-29-year-old-men.html/
http://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/2016/01/how-dangerous-senior-drivers-compared-teenagers.html/

Can't argue with that. Every day I see physically weak 20 something men looking to prove themselves by bullying people around on the road.

[Bakari]

This has gotten pretty far off topic, everyone all obsessed with gasoline taxes and changing vehicle sizes and most of all proving that ones facts are accurate (and therefor, presumably, their arguments)...

For those who object to gas taxes on principal, one question: do you believe that the actual total cost from the ground to the pump is $2-3 per gallon?

If you don't want ("Big") government messing with the free market, do you advocate equally hard for making the oil companies pay every portion of the cost of acquiring and transporting it?
...
You seem to find it offensive that anyone suggest you should have to pay more, but perhaps as good a question is why do you feel entitled to cheap fuel?

Gasoline price should reflect it's true cost (including both direct and indirect costs).

There is this system that humans have come up with to help pay for indirect costs.  Its called "taxes".
Taxes are a way to incorporate externalities that don't naturally show up in "free market" transactions because they are diffused across society.  Government creates infrastructure because it benefits everyone and no one company could cost effectively build all their own.

It should not be artificially manipulated to "punish" any particular market segment

Taxes are not a punishment.  They are the cost of living in a complex modern society.
We can either pay for it out of general funds, or we can incorporate the costs into the particular goods being used.  The latter makes a lot more sense from a resource efficiency standpoint, because it gives individuals incentives to avoid waste.

Businesses that have legitimate reason to use large heavy vehicles (I happen to be one of them myself!) will pass the cost on to their customers.  Either way, in the end the person most directly benefiting from the use of fuel pays for it.  If my client wants some large heavy thing moved across town, they can pay $1 per mile for it.

The alternative is everyone pays equally for the external costs, regardless of how much they use.  How would that be more fair?
 Why should the government subsidize my fuel so that they only have to pay 50 cents a mile, when that money will have to be made up for somewhere else (by the general tax payers)?

[Jack]

Speaking of vehicle size/weight changes. Sedans are the worst offenders in this category:

Ford Taurus (midsize sedan): 1986/2016:

Curb Weight (3000/4000lb) 33% increase!
Length: (188/203in): 8% increase!
Width: (71/76in): 7% increase!

Toyota Camry (midsize sedan): 1982/2016

Curb Weight (2300/3400lb) 48% increase!
Length: (174/190in): 9% increase!
Width: (67/71in): 6% increase!

Those crazy midsize car owners are clearly arming up for the highway wars! Those owners clearly want to kill some folk with that kind of increase in size and weight.

The poor F-150 owners are in trouble and need to step up their game:

F-150 (largest, heavest available 4x4): 1987/2016'

Curb Weight (5200/4900lb) 6% DECREASE.
Length: (246/250in): 2% increase
Width: (79/80in): 1% increase

You can't compare by model. Cars grow over time, because the car co wants you to keep buying your trusty (Camry, Accord) but you need a larger car as your family expands. They introduce smaller cars to take the place of the displaced.

So a Civic now, is as big as an Accord 10-ish years ago.

Sure you can, car size and weight inflation has happened across all market segments, even economy cars. And that inflation (driven primarily by safety and emissions equipment) is worse on the lower end.

The Crown Victoria is gone. The Taurus is now Ford's full-size sedan. The mid-size sedan is the Fusion, so an apples-to-apples comparison would be between a 1986 Taurus to a 2016 Fusion.

Similarly, the Civic is no longer Honda's sub-compact car. Instead, the Fit is. An apples-to-apples comparison would be old Accord vs. new Civic (compact-to-compact), or old Civic vs. new Fit (subcompact-to-subcompact).

[Metric Mouse]

This has gotten pretty far off topic, everyone all obsessed with gasoline taxes and changing vehicle sizes and most of all proving that ones facts are accurate (and therefor, presumably, their arguments)...

For those who object to gas taxes on principal, one question: do you believe that the actual total cost from the ground to the pump is $2-3 per gallon?

If you don't want ("Big") government messing with the free market, do you advocate equally hard for making the oil companies pay every portion of the cost of acquiring and transporting it?
I'm not just talking tax breaks or subsides here.


The US Coast Guard makes regular armed patrols of coastal oil ports and refineries.  Since they are considered "critical assets" this is a public service which the oil companies pay nothing for.  The US military guards oil wellsTrade Routes overseas.  The Coast guard and Navy protect tankers all trade vessels transiting the ocean.  The US government and military provides the GPS network and buoys and lighthouses and all the other navigation infrastructure needed to deliver that oil every imported and exported goodacross the sea, and the roads and bridges to transport it across land.
Do you advocate that the US government should play no role in the negotiation of securing foreign oil rights?
Never mind the whole multi-billion dollar war over "terrorism" thing...

Nations that are net importers of oil typically pay 2-3 times as much as US drivers for fuel.


You seem to find it offensive that anyone suggest you should have to pay more, but perhaps as good a question is why do you feel entitled to cheap fuel?

Any ideas on what will happen when America gets tired of single-handedly footing the bill for securing free trade for the entire globe? Interesting stuff, for sure...

[Syonyk]

Any ideas on what will happen when America gets tired of single-handedly footing the bill for securing free trade for the entire globe? Interesting stuff, for sure...

We'll dust off our old factories and then realize that the Chinese bought all the machinery out of them for pennies on the dollar a decade or two ago.

[MilesTeg]

Speaking of vehicle size/weight changes. Sedans are the worst offenders in this category:

Ford Taurus (midsize sedan): 1986/2016:

Curb Weight (3000/4000lb) 33% increase!
Length: (188/203in): 8% increase!
Width: (71/76in): 7% increase!

Toyota Camry (midsize sedan): 1982/2016

Curb Weight (2300/3400lb) 48% increase!
Length: (174/190in): 9% increase!
Width: (67/71in): 6% increase!

Those crazy midsize car owners are clearly arming up for the highway wars! Those owners clearly want to kill some folk with that kind of increase in size and weight.

The poor F-150 owners are in trouble and need to step up their game:

F-150 (largest, heavest available 4x4): 1987/2016'

Curb Weight (5200/4900lb) 6% DECREASE.
Length: (246/250in): 2% increase
Width: (79/80in): 1% increase

You can't compare by model. Cars grow over time, because the car co wants you to keep buying your trusty (Camry, Accord) but you need a larger car as your family expands. They introduce smaller cars to take the place of the displaced.

So a Civic now, is as big as an Accord 10-ish years ago.

Sure you can, car size and weight inflation has happened across all market segments, even economy cars. And that inflation (driven primarily by safety and emissions equipment) is worse on the lower end.

The Crown Victoria is gone. The Taurus is now Ford's full-size sedan. The mid-size sedan is the Fusion, so an apples-to-apples comparison would be between a 1986 Taurus to a 2016 Fusion.

Similarly, the Civic is no longer Honda's sub-compact car. Instead, the Fit is. An apples-to-apples comparison would be old Accord vs. new Civic (compact-to-compact), or old Civic vs. new Fit (subcompact-to-subcompact).

A Honda Fit is 2600lb, whereas an "old school" civic from the 80s/90s were between 1800 and 2200lb. The original civic was 1,500lb. Like I said, all cars in all market segments are getting larger and heaver, and the smaller cars are seeing more of this inflation.

An again, that's due to the addition of safety an emissions equipment overshadowing the improvements in materials and power density of engines.

[MilesTeg]

There is this system that humans have come up with to help pay for indirect costs.  Its called "taxes".
Taxes are a way to incorporate externalities that don't naturally show up in "free market" transactions because they are diffused across society.  Government creates infrastructure because it benefits everyone and no one company could cost effectively build all their own.

You're getting dangerously close to arguing against a straw man. To be clear, I am not against taxation of gas -- that's how you recover indirect costs as I mentioned.

Taxes are not a punishment.  They are the cost of living in a complex modern society.
We can either pay for it out of general funds, or we can incorporate the costs into the particular goods being used.  The latter makes a lot more sense from a resource efficiency standpoint, because it gives individuals incentives to avoid waste.

Taxes are used as a form of market manipulation to reduce undesirable economic activities _all the time_. The various sin taxes (and other similar taxes) punish things we think people shouldn't do, and on the flip endless tax breaks reward some and punish others that don't do those things that we want to reward.

More to the point, I was referring to the folks in this thread saying we should just arbitrarily set a really high gas taxes (or create criminal punishments), such as just because we don't like that some people use large vehicles for things that don't require a large vehicle.

The alternative is everyone pays equally for the external costs, regardless of how much they use.  How would that be more fair?

 Why should the government subsidize my fuel so that they only have to pay 50 cents a mile, when that money will have to be made up for somewhere else (by the general tax payers)?

Again, you're starting to tilt against a straw man.

[MilesTeg]

Given that it demonstrably does not, what remedy do you propose?

You can start by not subsidizing profitable energy companies (i.e. padding their profits) and by making the gas taxes fullfill their stated purpose (i.e. to fund roadway construction and maintenance). Those things are very, very straightforward to do** -- except for the politics involved.

It gets a lot murkier if you try to tax the indirect costs, like pollution/climate change because there is no reliable way to measure those impact to assign a value. We certainly need to handle those costs, but don't have the information available to do it in a fair way, IMHO.

For example, should we tax people that have children? Children have a larger carbon footprint than cars, by a wide margin....

**in the short term while ICE engines are the vast majority of vehicles on the road. When EVs become more prevalent, it will be slightly harder to do (probably involving auditing mileage).

[Chris22]

Given that it demonstrably does not, what remedy do you propose?

You can start by not subsidizing profitable energy companies (i.e. padding their profits)

Generally speaking, energy subsidies are to encourage further exploration, which actually drives DOWN energy company profits.  Thus the reason the government subsidizes them, otherwise they'd be less likely to do it.

[Jack]

Ford Taurus (midsize sedan): 1986/2016:

Curb Weight (3000/4000lb) 33% increase!
Length: (188/203in): 8% increase!
Width: (71/76in): 7% increase!

Toyota Camry (midsize sedan): 1982/2016

Curb Weight (2300/3400lb) 48% increase!
Length: (174/190in): 9% increase!
Width: (67/71in): 6% increase!

You can't compare by model.

A Honda Fit is 2600lb, whereas an "old school" civic from the 80s/90s were between 1800 and 2200lb. The original civic was 1,500lb. Like I said, all cars in all market segments are getting larger and heaver, and the smaller cars are seeing more of this inflation.

Excellent; that's much more persuasive evidence than you cited before.

An again, that's due to the addition of safety an emissions equipment overshadowing the improvements in materials and power density of engines.

That does not follow: what does engine power density have to do with vehicle weight, other than making it possible for the latter to increase without penalizing acceleration?

[MilesTeg]

Ford Taurus (midsize sedan): 1986/2016:

Curb Weight (3000/4000lb) 33% increase!
Length: (188/203in): 8% increase!
Width: (71/76in): 7% increase!

Toyota Camry (midsize sedan): 1982/2016

Curb Weight (2300/3400lb) 48% increase!
Length: (174/190in): 9% increase!
Width: (67/71in): 6% increase!

You can't compare by model.

A Honda Fit is 2600lb, whereas an "old school" civic from the 80s/90s were between 1800 and 2200lb. The original civic was 1,500lb. Like I said, all cars in all market segments are getting larger and heaver, and the smaller cars are seeing more of this inflation.

Excellent; that's much more persuasive evidence than you cited before.

An again, that's due to the addition of safety an emissions equipment overshadowing the improvements in materials and power density of engines.

That does not follow: what does engine power density have to do with vehicle weight, other than making it possible for the latter to increase without penalizing acceleration?

By engine density I mean power output (horsepower) per engine weight. Cars have improved a LOT in that respect we're getting much lighter engines that produce more horsepower and torque. A modern 2.5L small block, aluminum, EFI, OHC turbo produces more power and torque than a 60's big block 7.4L, cast iron, carburated, pushrod naturally aspirated V8 at a fraction of the overall weight and fuel usage. 

Unfortunately the additions of weight for other things (mostly safety equipment/emissions equipment but some contribution from creature comforts) are still resulting in big net increase in vehicle weight. Air bags, crumple zones, high profile bodywork, anti-lock break systems, cats, traction controls systems, etc. add a lot of weight to a vehicle.

[Syonyk]

And if you put one of those fancy modern high efficiency engines in a Honda CRX body or a first gen Insight (1800lb cars that are super slick), you'd have something that would be as good as a modern hybrid with none of the complexity.

One guy swapped a little turbodiesel into an Insight (not even keeping the hybrid system) and had a 90+mpg car.

[MilesTeg]

And if you put one of those fancy modern high efficiency engines in a Honda CRX body or a first gen Insight (1800lb cars that are super slick), you'd have something that would be as good as a modern hybrid with none of the complexity.

One guy swapped a little turbodiesel into an Insight (not even keeping the hybrid system) and had a 90+mpg car.

Naw, you'd have a rolling suicide machine. Extremely high power to weight ratio and no safety equipment = lose control easily and have nothing to protect you when you do.

Bonus suicide points if you are an idiot, like some hypermilers, and way over-inflate your tires with that combo.

[Syonyk]

Small engine. 50hp turbo diesel or something. Just more efficient.

[GuitarStv]

Given that it demonstrably does not, what remedy do you propose?

You can start by not subsidizing profitable energy companies (i.e. padding their profits) and by making the gas taxes fullfill their stated purpose (i.e. to fund roadway construction and maintenance). Those things are very, very straightforward to do** -- except for the politics involved.

It gets a lot murkier if you try to tax the indirect costs, like pollution/climate change because there is no reliable way to measure those impact to assign a value. We certainly need to handle those costs, but don't have the information available to do it in a fair way, IMHO.

For example, should we tax people that have children? Children have a larger carbon footprint than cars, by a wide margin....

**in the short term while ICE engines are the vast majority of vehicles on the road. When EVs become more prevalent, it will be slightly harder to do (probably involving auditing mileage).

Your response suggested:
- removing energy company subsidies
- taxing children (based on an assumed carbon footprint which is certainly up for debate)

You've sidestepped the question of how to make costs associated with driving fair entirely.

[JLee]

And if you put one of those fancy modern high efficiency engines in a Honda CRX body or a first gen Insight (1800lb cars that are super slick), you'd have something that would be as good as a modern hybrid with none of the complexity.

One guy swapped a little turbodiesel into an Insight (not even keeping the hybrid system) and had a 90+mpg car.

"As good as" from a fuel economy standpoint, sure...not remotely there from a safety perspective.

[Syonyk]

"As good as" from a fuel economy standpoint, sure...not remotely there from a safety perspective.

Pick your poison.

You want cheap and efficient, it's not going to be particularly safe.

You want safe and efficient, it's not going to be cheap.

I'd at least like to have the choice, instead of having heavy, expensive cars that don't beat a CRX HF for fuel mileage.

My Daihatsu Charade got an honest 45mpg.  It was a tin can, and I'm not sure it was safe against a stiff breeze, but it was cheap, efficient, and stupidly light - which made it fun to drive, even with only 50hp.

[Bakari]

An again, that's due to the addition of safety an emissions equipment ...

Do you have any evidence to support this claim you keep making?
How much does an air bag and catalytic converter actually weigh?


According to one study, in the average modern car (compared to the average in 1975) has an additional 246lbs due to safety equipment, 99lbs for emmissions, and 540lbs because of optional comfort and convenience equipment (this includes "secondary" weight increases from needing more power, brakes, and suspension).


http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/MacKenzie%20Zoepf%20Heywood%20Car%20Weight%20Trends%20-%20IJVD.pdf


"past 30 years, as has feature content. This thesis shows that safety features, emissions controls, and optional equipment account for a total mass that mirrors growth in vehicle mass during this time period. Chief among these are optional features designed to improve the comfort and convenience of passenger cars."


http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/Zoepf_MS_Thesis.pdf


Adding to that is significantly more power (partially to compensate for the additional weight, but primarily because people like fast cars)


"during this same 26-year period, vehicle curb weights increased by 26 percent, while engine power output grew by a whopping 107 percent...  if Americans today were driving cars that were equivalent in size and power to those on the road back in 1980, the fleet fuel economy average would be approximately 37 mpg – 10 mpg above the current average of 27 mpg.“Most of the technological progress [we’ve seen] has gone into compensating for [weight and horsepower],” said Knittel, who observed that despite gains garnered from introduction of features such as electronic fuel injection, multi-cam engines and transmissions with an ever increasing number of speeds, Americans in particular continue to favor, larger, more powerful and better equipped vehicles."

http://www.hybridcars.com/mit-study-vehicle-weight-gains-have-offset-potential-mpg-improvements-41708/

[MilesTeg]

Given that it demonstrably does not, what remedy do you propose?

You can start by not subsidizing profitable energy companies (i.e. padding their profits) and by making the gas taxes fullfill their stated purpose (i.e. to fund roadway construction and maintenance). Those things are very, very straightforward to do** -- except for the politics involved.

It gets a lot murkier if you try to tax the indirect costs, like pollution/climate change because there is no reliable way to measure those impact to assign a value. We certainly need to handle those costs, but don't have the information available to do it in a fair way, IMHO.

For example, should we tax people that have children? Children have a larger carbon footprint than cars, by a wide margin....

**in the short term while ICE engines are the vast majority of vehicles on the road. When EVs become more prevalent, it will be slightly harder to do (probably involving auditing mileage).

Your response suggested:
- removing energy company subsidies
- taxing children (based on an assumed carbon footprint which is certainly up for debate)

You've sidestepped the question of how to make costs associated with driving fair entirely.

Actually, I've said I don't know how to make it entirely fair, only more fair, and pointed out with a "modest proposal" why it's a very difficult proposition to make it 100% fair. That's the best answer I can give.

[HPstache]

We have the freedom to buy what we want. You are allowed to make your own decision.


What I find the most hilarious thing about this forum, is people can whine all day long about the safety regarding larger vehicles and how they "shouldn't be on the road," yet when it comes to towing and hauling there's SO MUCH general consensus that if your 4 cyl Honda Fit can "tow the load" it means it's safe to tow it. Despite these cars specifically called out in the owners manual for being unable to tow, and not being equipped with proper breaks or engine/tranny cooling mechanisms.

You know what's more unsafe than trucks on the road? Greatly exceeding tow ratings to save money on tow vehicles.

This x1,000

[MilesTeg]

An again, that's due to the addition of safety an emissions equipment ...

Do you have any evidence to support this claim you keep making?
How much does an air bag and catalytic converter actually weigh?

Your cited data does a good job for me. An average of 885 lbs with 345 lbs coming directly from safety & emissions equipment equipment ( 39% ) and additional equipment that is, in part, necessary to support that equipment (e.g. beefier suspension to hold up the added weight, and more breaking power to stop the addition weight). Easily puts the weight contribution of safety equipment (as defined in your citations) and >=50%

Your sources also seem to be counting only mandated safety features in their counts rather than all safety features, and are call things like power steering, AWD and other things as "comfort" items, which is at best debatable. I also didn't see any reference to changes in body structure (such as crumple zones and increased bodywork height/reduced window size) accounted for, though I only skimmed them.

Unfortunately, the bits you quoted here don't come directly from the links you posted (you seem to be paraphrasing) so it's difficult for me to look any closer.

[MilesTeg]

"As good as" from a fuel economy standpoint, sure...not remotely there from a safety perspective.

Pick your poison.

You want cheap and efficient, it's not going to be particularly safe.

You want safe and efficient, it's not going to be cheap.

I'd at least like to have the choice, instead of having heavy, expensive cars that don't beat a CRX HF for fuel mileage.

My Daihatsu Charade got an honest 45mpg.  It was a tin can, and I'm not sure it was safe against a stiff breeze, but it was cheap, efficient, and stupidly light - which made it fun to drive, even with only 50hp.

I support your choice to drive such a vehicle, but I don't support the choice of folks endangering others (such as children passengers who are unable to make their own informed choice).

[Bakari]

Your cited data does a good job for me. An average of 885 lbs with 345 lbs coming directly from safety & emissions equipment equipment ( 39% ) and additional equipment that is, in part, necessary to support that equipment (e.g. beefier suspension to hold up the added weight, and more breaking power to stop the addition weight). Easily puts the weight contribution of safety equipment (as defined in your citations) and >=50%

The secondary weight (additional engine, suspension, brakes, to make up for the feature) is proportional to the addition, you can't add it separately for some features yet count it against only the weight of other features.  In other words, the secondary weight is (according to the study) 80%.  If you add that 80% on to the 345 (276), you also have to add it the remaining 540 (432).  So safety features plus secondary weight is 621 out of 1593.  Still 39%. 

In other words, your claim was false, the majority of weight increases have not come from safety features.

Your sources also seem to be counting only mandated safety features in their counts rather than all safety features, and are call things like power steering, AWD and other things as "comfort" items, which is at best debatable.

Correct.  Point to any evidence you can find, but I do not believe there is any evidence that power steering or AWD have actually reduced accident rates or crash severity in any way.  Having gone personally from manual steering to power and back, I would say it is 100% a comfort and convenience issue.

I also didn't see any reference to changes in body structure (such as crumple zones and increased bodywork height/reduced window size) accounted for, though I only skimmed them.

They talk at length about changes in body material and structure.  They have contributed to off-setting the over all weight gain by decreasing average vehicle body weight.

Unfortunately, the bits you quoted here don't come directly from the links you posted (you seem to be paraphrasing) so it's difficult for me to look any closer.

Every line I put in quotes was copy/pasted from the link that follows the quote.

[Syonyk]

I support your choice to drive such a vehicle, but I don't support the choice of folks endangering others (such as children passengers who are unable to make their own informed choice).

So you don't support people with children putting them in anything but the safest vehicles on the road?

Until they are of such an age as to make their own decisions, the children are subject to the parent's judgement.  And if that judgement involves a "less safe" car that the parents can afford, I have no problem with that.

My truck is not very safe at all by modern standards, but I don't have the $60k to purchase a new one that will do what I want.  You object to me putting my daughter in said truck?  My wife & I are fine with it.

[MilesTeg]

Your cited data does a good job for me. An average of 885 lbs with 345 lbs coming directly from safety & emissions equipment equipment ( 39% ) and additional equipment that is, in part, necessary to support that equipment (e.g. beefier suspension to hold up the added weight, and more breaking power to stop the addition weight). Easily puts the weight contribution of safety equipment (as defined in your citations) and >=50%

The secondary weight (additional engine, suspension, brakes, to make up for the feature) is proportional to the addition, you can't add it separately for some features yet count it against only the weight of other features.  In other words, the secondary weight is (according to the study) 80%.  If you add that 80% on to the 345 (276), you also have to add it the remaining 540 (432).  So safety features plus secondary weight is 621 out of 1593.  Still 39%. 

You have a jumble of numbers there that I was working with, none of which exist in the article quoted near them (or any other article):

http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/MacKenzie%20Zoepf%20Heywood%20Car%20Weight%20Trends%20-%20IJVD.pdf

Can you explain where your numbers are coming from, and to be clear, this is the block of your text I am talking about:

"According to one study, in the average modern car (compared to the average in 1975) has an additional 246lbs due to safety equipment, 99lbs for emmissions, and 540lbs because of optional comfort and convenience equipment (this includes "secondary" weight increases from needing more power, brakes, and suspension)."

Your sources also seem to be counting only mandated safety features in their counts rather than all safety features, and are call things like power steering, AWD and other things as "comfort" items, which is at best debatable.

Correct.  Point to any evidence you can find, but I do not believe there is any evidence that power steering or AWD have actually reduced accident rates or crash severity in any way.  Having gone personally from manual steering to power and back, I would say it is 100% a comfort and convenience issue.
[/quote]

The NHTSA consider a safety issue worthy of recall. I'm pretty sure they have slightly more of an authoritative opinion than you do, if you like that sort of argument.

Moreover, did you completely miss the gigantic, ongoing recall by GM over vehicle ignitions being faulty and killing people because the ignitions turned off causing loss of power steering assist leading to loss of control? (and the double whammy of other safety systems, such as air bags, being disabled as well leading to deadly crashes).  In other words, have you had your head in a hole the last two years?

The biggest cause of accidents on the road that aren't related to driver distraction are related to a driver's inability to control a vehicle. Power steering assist is something that significantly improves a driver's ability to maintain control over a vehicle -- particularly but not limited to situations where quick maneuvers are necessary at relatively low speeds (like, for example, in heavy city traffic). The deaths in the GM recall are a very good, if morbid example of that. People unable to control their vehicles -- not in a major way like being in an uncontrolled skid -- but just enough that they ended up crashing and dying.

As for AWD, it certainly is a safety feature, it provides improved maneuverability (read: control of the vehicle) on all surfaces while the vehicle is (or needs to) maneuvering under power. It's benefits are not limited to conditions like snow/ice where winter tires CAN be better bang for the buck (though your best solution in that situation is AWD+Snow Tires as they both provide benefits to controlling of vehicle in different ways). Of course, snow tires also have serious maintenance, pollution, cost and usability issues that are often overlooked.

I know the MMM cult group-think is against AWD, but that's just because people are happy to accept confirmation bias when a certain level of knowledge "confirms" their beliefs (for example: AWD doesn't help you stop on snow and ice, ergo AWD is useless!), rather than seeking a full understanding. I can detail the physics for you of the benefits of AWD, if you'd like. Or would that just be a waste of my time?

I also didn't see any reference to changes in body structure (such as crumple zones and increased bodywork height/reduced window size) accounted for, though I only skimmed them.

They talk at length about changes in body material and structure.  They have contributed to off-setting the over all weight gain by decreasing average vehicle body weight.

The only mention I saw was the switch to unibody design, which is a manufacturing cost saving measure that results an increase in "disposable vehicle" problems. If there's something in there about crumple zones and safety design requirements re: body work height/etc. feel free to point them out.

Unfortunately, the bits you quoted here don't come directly from the links you posted (you seem to be paraphrasing) so it's difficult for me to look any closer.

Every line I put in quotes was copy/pasted from the link that follows the quote.

Not the bits that are most interesting (see my early response in this message).
[/quote]

[MilesTeg]

I support your choice to drive such a vehicle, but I don't support the choice of folks endangering others (such as children passengers who are unable to make their own informed choice).

So you don't support people with children putting them in anything but the safest vehicles on the road?

Until they are of such an age as to make their own decisions, the children are subject to the parent's judgement.  And if that judgement involves a "less safe" car that the parents can afford, I have no problem with that.

No, I don't support parent's decisions to unnecessarily put their children in harm's way. Just because parent's are responsible for children does not mean they "own" them. Note, I said unnecessarily. And to be clear, "not supporting" is not the same thing as "want to force you to act a different way".

My truck is not very safe at all by modern standards, but I don't have the $60k to purchase a new one that will do what I want.  You object to me putting my daughter in said truck?  My wife & I are fine with it.

No, but I would object if you could reasonably make different decision that would lead to a significant increase in safety for your family. In other words, if you had the financial ability to buy a car that is _significantly_ safer but chose to use a car that was significantly less safe is where I would start drawing a line.

To put it in a different context, you could feed your kids with ultra cheap processed food for a lot less money and time expense than nutritional home cooked food. There are some people that _need_ to feed their kids that way, but there are also people (lots of them) who _choose_ to feed their kids that way despite having the means to provide nutritional, home cooked food which is objectively better in a significant way.

There are, of course other factors which blur where exactly the line is, but hopefully that clarifies a bit.

[Metric Mouse]

Any ideas on what will happen when America gets tired of single-handedly footing the bill for securing free trade for the entire globe? Interesting stuff, for sure...

We'll dust off our old factories and then realize that the Chinese bought all the machinery out of them for pennies on the dollar a decade or two ago.

We have the second largest manufacturing base in the world. And the largest consumer market. We will be quite fine. (Comparatively speaking)

[GuitarStv]

As for AWD, it certainly is a safety feature, it provides improved maneuverability (read: control of the vehicle) on all surfaces while the vehicle is (or needs to) maneuvering under power. It's benefits are not limited to conditions like snow/ice where winter tires CAN be better bang for the buck (though your best solution in that situation is AWD+Snow Tires as they both provide benefits to controlling of vehicle in different ways). Of course, snow tires also have serious maintenance, pollution, cost and usability issues that are often overlooked.

I have been driving for twenty years now.  I have never needed 'maneuverability under power' in a crisis/near accident situation.  Reduction of speed, and grip for turning were essential though.  Please do elaborate on the physics of the benefits of AWD.  It's hard to imagine that an emergency situation where regular safe driving practices (reducing speed when conditions warrant it, leaving safe following and stopping distance, paying attention to driving at all times) would warrant it's use.



Can you elaborate on the 'serious maintenance, pollution, cost, and usability issues' that you mention are related to snow tires?  This has not been my experience at all.

Maintenance:  Once a year you need to take 20-30 minutes to swap on the winter tires.  Once a year you need to take 20-30 minutes to swap on the regular tires.

Pollution:  They're an extra set of tires . . . but they also reduce wear on your regular tires.  So, maybe slightly increased?

Cost:  Costs are pretty minimal.  Our winter tires were 65$ each and required 25$ steel rims (which are a one time purchase that can be reused for your next sets of winter tires).  So, all in it's under 400$ for five or six years of winter tires that reduce wear on your regular tires for 1/3 of the year.

Usability:  Not sure what you mean by this.  Using winter tires is simpler than using all seasons in the winter . . . they stop faster, they skid less, and they're easier to control.

[Fastfwd]

Please do elaborate on the physics of the benefits of AWD.  It's hard to imagine that an emergency situation where regular safe driving practices (reducing speed when conditions warrant it, leaving safe following and stopping distance, paying attention to driving at all times) would warrant it's use.

You are stopped at a red light on slippery pavement and see the guy behind coming in wayyy too fast.

Never had to use it for this but I have AWD; mostly for fun and for easy parking in/out without using a shovel.

[Fastfwd]

As for big trucks.
I have driven a <500lbs white motorcycle wearing a bright red jacket and been cut off more times than I can remember.
I have driven an F250 and was NEVER cut off in traffic; once at a stop sign from a girl texting; she eventually stopped and looked up when she saw a huge truck occupying her whole windshield.

You should get a license class based on experience. I never had a single accident in 20 years so I should be allowed to drive a bulletproofed hummer  :)

Right now I drive a relatively small Ford escape but I miss my slightly bigger MDX. Next will probably be an explorer/pilot/4runner.

[GuitarStv]

Please do elaborate on the physics of the benefits of AWD.  It's hard to imagine that an emergency situation where regular safe driving practices (reducing speed when conditions warrant it, leaving safe following and stopping distance, paying attention to driving at all times) would warrant it's use.

You are stopped at a red light on slippery pavement and see the guy behind coming in wayyy too fast.

Never had to use it for this but I have AWD; mostly for fun and for easy parking in/out without using a shovel.

You won't accelerate faster on a slippery road with AWD and regular tires than with winter tires and an FWD vehicle, so how does your scenario prove an advantage for AWD?

[Fastfwd]

Please do elaborate on the physics of the benefits of AWD.  It's hard to imagine that an emergency situation where regular safe driving practices (reducing speed when conditions warrant it, leaving safe following and stopping distance, paying attention to driving at all times) would warrant it's use.

You are stopped at a red light on slippery pavement and see the guy behind coming in wayyy too fast.

Never had to use it for this but I have AWD; mostly for fun and for easy parking in/out without using a shovel.

You won't accelerate faster on a slippery road with AWD and regular tires than with winter tires and an FWD vehicle, so how does your scenario prove an advantage for AWD?

I don't have a study or anything but I have lived almost my entire life in Quebec and driven FWD with snow and AWD with snow. AWD definitely gets going MUCH faster. Now snow tires are mandatory on all cars so the question of FWD with winters vs AWD with summer does not happen.

[paddedhat]

10 inches (~5%) longer, on average. GET OUT THE PITCH FORKS! CHARGE THEM WITH CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!

Oh yeah, and all that extra weight is pretty much the norm for ALL cars. A full compliment of air bags, crumple zones, stability control systems, anti-lock breaks, emissions control systems and all the other required safety/emissions gear does not get added to a any vehicle without adding weight.

 And I'm the one being accused of hyperbole. I only broke out the measuring tape after being accused of complete bullshit.

Can't win on the internet - you'd think I would have learned by now
[/quote]

I'm making fun of your hyperbole (and the crazy train you've inspired in this thread). You clearly are not well informed about this topic -- you've made several absolutely absurd assertions about vehicle size, weight and efficiency. The reason you are getting a lot of flack is because you're making judgments about others from a position of complete ignorance.

For the record, I don't own a truck and would only do so if I had a specific, reasonably, need to do so.
[/quote]

Thank you. Talk about a complete absence of even a bit of a clue. I spent a decades long career in construction and owned and/or driven everything from the cheapest, smallest POS compact trucks to cargo vans, and F350s up to class six rigs. That said, reading as somebody devotes multiple posts to firmly stating things that have nothing to do with reality, is pretty odd. Kind of like when the local news has one of their clueless blow dries covering a hunting accident or event. The have never fired a BB gun, would soil themselves if they shot a round through a large bore shotgun or handgun, but drone on like experts, calling shotguns "rifles", and cartridges "bullets".

For the record,  I have not owned anything more manly than a CRV in years. It is the single vehicle that the wife and I share. In the event that I find a long term need for a truck in the future, I will buy the right tool for the job, and use it as little as possible to accomplish the work it was purchased for, the get rid of it.

[Syonyk]

My truck is not very safe at all by modern standards, but I don't have the $60k to purchase a new one that will do what I want.  You object to me putting my daughter in said truck?  My wife & I are fine with it.

No, but I would object if you could reasonably make different decision that would lead to a significant increase in safety for your family. In other words, if you had the financial ability to buy a car that is _significantly_ safer but chose to use a car that was significantly less safe is where I would start drawing a line.

Ok.  Assuming I can trivially afford such a thing, how much newer of a truck should I replace a 1997 F350 with to improve my family's safety, according to you?  I use it for hauling crap, rarely drive it empty, and once my daughter gets a bit older, we're going to spend a good bit of time on the highway with a 5th wheel, touring the country, homeschooling, and going to museums cheaply during the school year.  Since we'll be living in that for a good period of time, assume a 10k-12k lb trailer - so slightly beyond what a Fit can tow.

How much newer of a truck should I replace it with, in your terms, to improve my family's safety?  My truck currently simply doesn't have crash ratings, because full size trucks weren't rated back in the late 90s.  It doesn't even have airbags (in the cab - it's got bags for load leveling).

It's not our only car.  Most of her miles are in a smaller, newer car with much better crash ratings.  But she's been in the truck and will continue to ride in the truck when we're taking it places.

And, you know what?  She's going to spend time in 1920s cars too.  And 30s, 40s, 50s vehicles.

By your standards, I probably shouldn't ever put my daughter on the back of a bicycle, either.  Because driving her everywhere in a $60k Volvo or $100k Model S would be "safer" than taking her out on a bicycle.  God forbid I let her ride her own bicycle when she's old enough to - she could get killed!

Sorry, I think your argument is absurd, and the amount of "I should be able to tell other people what to do because I know better than them!" in this thread is downright frightening.

[FIRE47]

10 inches (~5%) longer, on average. GET OUT THE PITCH FORKS! CHARGE THEM WITH CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!

Oh yeah, and all that extra weight is pretty much the norm for ALL cars. A full compliment of air bags, crumple zones, stability control systems, anti-lock breaks, emissions control systems and all the other required safety/emissions gear does not get added to a any vehicle without adding weight.

 And I'm the one being accused of hyperbole. I only broke out the measuring tape after being accused of complete bullshit.

Can't win on the internet - you'd think I would have learned by now

I'm making fun of your hyperbole (and the crazy train you've inspired in this thread). You clearly are not well informed about this topic -- you've made several absolutely absurd assertions about vehicle size, weight and efficiency. The reason you are getting a lot of flack is because you're making judgments about others from a position of complete ignorance.

For the record, I don't own a truck and would only do so if I had a specific, reasonably, need to do so.
[/quote]

Thank you. Talk about a complete absence of even a bit of a clue. I spent a decades long career in construction and owned and/or driven everything from the cheapest, smallest POS compact trucks to cargo vans, and F350s up to class six rigs. That said, reading as somebody devotes multiple posts to firmly stating things that have nothing to do with reality, is pretty odd. Kind of like when the local news has one of their clueless blow dries covering a hunting accident or event. The have never fired a BB gun, would soil themselves if they shot a round through a large bore shotgun or handgun, but drone on like experts, calling shotguns "rifles", and cartridges "bullets".

For the record,  I have not owned anything more manly than a CRV in years. It is the single vehicle that the wife and I share. In the event that I find a long term need for a truck in the future, I will buy the right tool for the job, and use it as little as possible to accomplish the work it was purchased for, the get rid of it.
[/quote]

Sorry, but after a 2 day long self-imposed absence in the thread you've had to call me out again.

Not sure what driving the vehicles has to do with it - a classic fallacy, you drive the big truck therefore everything you say about them is correct and anyone who drives a smaller car and interacts with them on a daily basis has nothing to say on the matter.

And yes I have driven everything other than the rig in your list - not sure how this has any bearing on the  facts presented in the thread. Is  it really at all rare to drive such vehicles and therefore makes one who has an expert on all matters vehicle and accident related?

Here's reality, which you conveniently choose to ignore while zealously calling out certain facts that are only small parts of my argument - is it perhaps because you can't refute the primary argument?

This was actually a separate source than the initial article and both say the same thing.

"The researchers confirm that the heavy cars kill. Indeed, controlling "for own-vehicle weight, being hit by a vehicle that is 1,000 pounds heavier results in a 47 percent increase" in the probability of a fatal accident. The chance is even higher if the heavy car is an SUV, pickup truck, or minivan. (Taller vehicles tend to do outsize damage, too.)"

"The researchers then set out to calculate the value of the "external risk" caused by our heftier vehicles. First, they considered a scenario in which a driver chose between a car with the 1989 model-year average weight of 3,000 pounds or the 2005 weight of 3,600 pounds. The heavier car increased the expectation of fatalities by 0.00027 per car—27 deaths per 100,000 such vehicles. "Summing across all drivers," they write, "this translates into a total external cost of $35 billion per year," using the Department of Transportation's value of a statistical life of $5.8 million. Judging against a baseline in which a driver chose the smallest available car, such as a Smart Cars, the cost is $93 billion per year. The price tag climbs beyond $150 billion per year if you include the cost of pedestrian and motorcyclist deaths and figure in multi-car collisions."

Given the relationship between big cars and bad accidents, it might make sense to make such cars more expensive to buy or drive. You could do this with insurance premiums, or lawsuits. But the economists suggest a gas tax, "because it is simple and because gasoline usage is positively related to both miles driven and vehicle weight." They say it would take a 27-cent-per-gallon gas tax to account for the $35 billion per year in extra costs from heavier cars. (To account for the $150 billion in extra costs would require a tax of more than $1 per gallon.)"

None of this even mentions the obviously much larger cost then of a 5000lb pickup or 6000 lbs SUV in the dollar amounts. Simply the choice between 3000 and 3600 LBS. You can only assume the cost would be very large.

[Bakari]

Your cited data does a good job for me. An average of 885 lbs with 345 lbs coming directly from safety & emissions equipment equipment ( 39% ) and additional equipment that is, in part, necessary to support that equipment (e.g. beefier suspension to hold up the added weight, and more breaking power to stop the addition weight). Easily puts the weight contribution of safety equipment (as defined in your citations) and >=50%

The secondary weight (additional engine, suspension, brakes, to make up for the feature) is proportional to the addition, you can't add it separately for some features yet count it against only the weight of other features.  In other words, the secondary weight is (according to the study) 80%.  If you add that 80% on to the 345 (276), you also have to add it the remaining 540 (432).  So safety features plus secondary weight is 621 out of 1593.  Still 39%. 

You have a jumble of numbers there that I was working with, none of which exist in the article quoted near them (or any other article):

http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/MacKenzie%20Zoepf%20Heywood%20Car%20Weight%20Trends%20-%20IJVD.pdf

Can you explain where your numbers are coming from, and to be clear, this is the block of your text I am talking about:

"According to one study, in the average modern car (compared to the average in 1975) has an additional 246lbs due to safety equipment, 99lbs for emmissions, and 540lbs because of optional comfort and convenience equipment (this includes "secondary" weight increases from needing more power, brakes, and suspension)."

page 10
"In total, features were estimated to add a total of 109 kg (240 lbs) to the
average 1975 passenger car. In 2010, the estimated contribution grows to 223 kg
(62 kg safety, 25 kg emissions, 136 kg comfort/convenience; a total of 491 lbs).
These estimates do not include the contribution of secondary weight, discussed in
the following section."


I converted kg to lbs...


"Secondary weight represents the notion that for every unit of weight added to
(or removed from) a vehicle, the supporting systems and structures also grow
(or shrink) so that structural integrity and braking, acceleration and handling
performance can be maintained. Typically, the secondary weight is expressed as
some percentage an initial (primary) weight change...
 For
the purposes of this study the secondary weight was assumed to be 80% of the
primary weight added"


Then added 80%


The specific numbers don't even matter.  You could have taken the main point from the pictograph I attached (taken from the same study): the majority of weight increases has been comfort and convenience items, not safety and emissions as you kept claiming.

The NHTSA consider a safety issue worthy of recall.

There have been no fleetwide recalls of vehicles with manual steering or 2WD.

...killing people because the ignitions turned off causing loss of power steering assist leading to loss of control?

There is an enormous difference between having a car which has a manual steering gear installed from the factory and having the power steering pump fail on a power steering car.  A manual gear has a different gear ratio which makes it significantly easier to turn.  Since with power steering the engine is doing most of the work of turning the wheels, they make the gear ratio smaller so you don't have to turn the wheel as many times to go from full right to full left.  Furthermore, when a power steering system is in place, but not running, the driver has to not only move the wheels, they also have to overcome the resistance of the pump itself, forcing the power steering fluid back through it.  In other words, its is significantly harder to turn the wheel on a power steering system currently not engaged than it is to turn a manual steering gear. 
I know this automotive theory, but I've also switched multiple vehicles from power steering to manual, and actually driven them with full power steering, with power steering installed but not active, with a power steering gear but fluid and pump removed, and with a manual gear installed.


Probably even more relevant is that in the GM case vehicles were suddenly and unexpectedly making this switch from easy to turn wheel to very difficult to turn wheel, which is far more of a control issue than the actual force it takes.

  In other words, have you had your head in a hole the last two years?

Why do you feel it helps your argument to throw in random personal attacks? 

The biggest cause of accidents on the road that aren't related to driver distraction are related to a driver's inability to control a vehicle.

citation?

Power steering assist is something that significantly improves a driver's ability to maintain control over a vehicle

citation?


If these two things are true, then there will be a significantly significant correlation between vehicles with manual steering and accident rates.

-- particularly but not limited to situations where quick maneuvers are necessary at relatively low speeds (like, for example, in heavy city traffic).

Relatively low speeds are unlikely to require quick maneuvers, because of the low speeds involved.  In the event of an accident, speed is the single largest factor of impact severity, and at low speeds serious injury or death are unlikely.

I can detail the physics for you of the benefits of AWD, if you'd like. Or would that just be a waste of my time?

I'd be more interested in the statistics showing that all AWD vehicles have significantly lower crash rates than all 2WD.  The physics would indicate that ABS makes cars safer, but the statistics say in reality it doesn't.






All of this is so beside the point! 
Clearly you kept saying "mostly safety and emissions" because you want to blame "big government" for bad things (grr, regulations!)
Now that I found actual data that says otherwise you are looking for any technicalities to try to justify the original claim, even though it was based on political ideology to begin with.

Cars are inefficient because American consumers want big powerful cars with power everything.
If you disagree, explain why Europe has higher emissions and safety requirements (with correspondingly lower emissions and lower fatality rates in accidents), yet has smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles.

[Chris22]

Cars are inefficient because American consumers want big powerful cars with power everything.
If you disagree, explain why Europe has higher emissions and safety requirements (with correspondingly lower emissions and lower fatality rates in accidents), yet has smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles.

I'm not going to wade into your guys' quote fest, but first, with its high concentration of diesels, Europe does NOT have lower emissions.  In fact, particulate emissions are extremely high, which is why they are backing away from diesels in places like Paris.  Yes, they are more efficient from a CO2 perspective, largely because they tend to have higher mileage (mpg) diesel cars, but at the expense of higher particulates.  Personally, having been around Europe and experienced diesels, I'll take the CO2 every time.  Particulates are what actually make you cough and hack and such.

Second, Europeans have smaller, lighter cars because they have smaller, denser countries.  It's not about being smart or dumb or anything else, it's about buying the right tool for the job.  In America we aren't as size constrained so it isn't nearly as big a concern outside major cities.