The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: solon on April 05, 2018, 01:10:33 PM
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gm-to-kill-chevrolet-sonic-subcompact-car-1522850577
We're losing the battle for the roads to SUVs and pickups.
American auto makers are embarking on a historic shift away from passenger cars, as more-profitable sport-utility vehicles and pickup trucks continue to expand their share of the market.
General Motors Co. will end production of the Chevrolet Sonic subcompact as early as this year, according to people familiar with the matter. GM is also considering discontinuing the Chevy Impala big sedan in the next few years, these people said, a decision that would kill a 61-year-old car model.
and
Ford Motor Co., meanwhile, plans to stop building the Fiesta small car for the U.S. market within the next year, and will discontinue the large Taurus sedan, said people briefed on the plans.
But it's our fault.
But Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and Ford are considering far more aggressive pullbacks from passenger cars because of the respective success of Jeeps and the F-150 pickup truck.
The company views consumer preference for SUVs over cars as "largely permanent"
Ford is also shifting. It recently put on sale the EcoSport small crossover SUV in the U.S. at a starting price of $20,000—almost $6,000 more than the Fiesta, with which it shares an underbody.
“The EcoSport is basically the same vehicle and they can charge several thousand dollars more for it,” said George Waikem II, who manages Nissan, Kia and Ford dealerships in northeastern Ohio. Small cars, such as the Fiesta, he said, are “definitely on an island that is sinking.
-
I don’t have a WSJ subscription - did they mention the change in CAFE standards? I feel like we’re just moving into the future - two steps forward, one step back.
-
Chevy makes the Volt. At least in my far left coast state it would be silly to pass up the electric subsidy.
At least I hope that's the reason.
-
This is the only thing mentioned:
With the Trump administration planning to roll back fuel-economy standards for auto makers’ fleets, the shift to SUVs and trucks is only likely to continue.
-
Means it's about time for another oil crisis.
-
This is why instead of counter-productive CAFE regulations that do nothing but encourage car makers to play games with car classifications (that SUV is actually a truck, har har!), we need to directly tax vehicles through a formula based on weight, emissions, MPG, CO2 emissions and miles driven. All car infrastructure should be funded directly by vehicle use (which of course would filter down to consumers/indirect use) and we should be funding R&D into alternative fuel vehicles and climate change mitigation (both mitigating the actual change and mitigating the consequences of those changes).
We also need to get people to STOP complaining about things like SUVs. All that does is remove the availability of (relatively) sane choices for completely insane choices, such as a full size truck for occasional towing, hauling and offroading instead of of (relatively) more efficient midsize SUV. Instead of people using compromise vehicles for a mix of uses, they are now more frequently buying specialized vehicles that have been bastardized into abominations (such as the increasingly common 4-door pickup trucks)
-
Means it's about time for another oil crisis.
As a nation we love to celebrate the end of an oil crisis with truck purchases.
-
Heck, I'll just give you the entire article.
By Mike Colias and Christina Rogers
Updated April 4, 2018 9:06 p.m. ET
DETROIT—American auto makers are embarking on a historic shift away from passenger cars, as more-profitable sport-utility vehicles and pickup trucks continue to expand their share of the market.
Long thought to be necessary for combating Japanese rivals and catering to budget-minded or young customers, small cars have fallen out of favor amid low gasoline prices and efficiency improvements in SUVs. Now, large sedans also are on the chopping block.
General Motors Co. will end production of the Chevrolet Sonic subcompact as early as this year, according to people familiar with the matter. GM is also considering discontinuing the Chevy Impala big sedan in the next few years, these people said, a decision that would kill a 61-year-old car model.
Ford Motor Co., meanwhile, plans to stop building the Fiesta small car for the U.S. market within the next year, and will discontinue the large Taurus sedan, said people briefed on the plans.
Ford executives are still considering the future of the Ford Fusion, a midsize sedan once billed as an answer to the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, these people said.
Sedans, coupes and other car categories accounted for 37% of U.S. sales last year, down from 51% in 2012. With the Trump administration planning to roll back fuel-economy standards for auto makers’ fleets, the shift to SUVs and trucks is only likely to continue.
The U.S. industry’s strategic shift is potentially lucrative, but risky.
While American vehicle makers have long earned the bulk of their profits from pickup trucks and SUVs, GM, Ford and Chrysler have suffered when gasoline prices rise and dealers are left with a stale or limited selection of fuel-efficient offerings. Toyota Motor Corp. , Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. have laid out investments to keep sedans and coupes such as the Civic and Altima fresh even as demand wanes.
GM will continue to sell several small cars, including the compact Chevy Cruze built in Ohio and the electric Chevy Bolt produced in the Michigan factory that also assembles the Sonic. The company also will offer its Chevy Malibu and Buick and Cadillac sedans.
But Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and Ford are considering far more aggressive pullbacks from passenger cars because of the respective success of Jeeps and the F-150 pickup truck.
Fiat Chrysler took the first step in killing off small cars several years ago when it discontinued the Chrysler 200 sedan and Dodge Dart compact to free up money and assembly lines for pickup and SUV production. The company is now reporting record profits and has indicated to its suppliers it might be considering an end to larger cars, including the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger sedans, within a few years.
The death of the Sonic is as symbolic as it is strategic. The car, which went on sale in 2011, was heralded as a hit because of features not typically seen on inexpensive small cars, such as heated seats. Chevy sold nearly 100,000 Sonics in 2014, far more than its previous subcompact models, but deliveries dwindled to about 30,000 last year.
The Sonic is built at the Orion Assembly plant in suburban Detroit, which was saved from closure during GM’s 2009 bankruptcy through a $1 billion lifeline of grants and tax incentives from the state of Michigan, local municipalities and the federal government.
Seen as a small-car plant preserved largely by the Obama administration, it was refurbished to represent the Motor City’s renewed commitment to small and efficient automobiles.
The plant, however, produces about one-quarter the number of vehicles that one of the company’s busy truck factories turns out. GM laid off thousands of factory workers last year as the auto maker sought to adjust car production with lower-than-expected demand.
The company views consumer preference for SUVs over cars as “largely permanent” and is assessing “how we best deploy assets in critical passenger-car segments to ensure we’re getting a return,” GM finance chief Chuck Stevens told analysts last year.
Ford is also shifting. It recently put on sale the EcoSport small crossover SUV in the U.S. at a starting price of $20,000—almost $6,000 more than the Fiesta, with which it shares an underbody.
“The EcoSport is basically the same vehicle and they can charge several thousand dollars more for it,” said George Waikem II, who manages Nissan, Kia and Ford dealerships in northeastern Ohio. Small cars, such as the Fiesta, he said, are “definitely on an island that is sinking.”
Jim Farley, Ford’s president of global markets, said the company will offer fewer models over time. “We are looking at a more rationalized, more thoughtful passenger car lineup, because we want to play where we can win,” he said in a recent interview.
The move away from sedans, coupes and hatchbacks has executives even outside Detroit considering how to respond.
It is a consumer shift “we really haven’t seen before,” Toyota U.S. sales chief Bill Fay said at an industry conference in New York last week. Another Toyota executive forecast the sale of cars shrinking to 30% of the American market in the near future, and said the Japanese auto maker might need to expand its SUV lineup.
—Chester Dawson contributed to this article.
Write to Mike Colias at Mike.Colias@wsj.com and Christina Rogers at christina.rogers@wsj.com
Appeared in the April 5, 2018, print edition as 'Car Makers Step Back From Cars.'
-
This is the only thing mentioned:
With the Trump administration planning to roll back fuel-economy standards for auto makers’ fleets, the shift to SUVs and trucks is only likely to continue.
Thanks.
Even my relatively pro environment friends seem to favor light SUVs over cars - Subarus or crossovers. So basically without regulations to save us from ourselves we’re screwed.
I was looking at NASA’s climate website the other day and was shocked by the steady increase in atmospheric CO2- I know it’s happening, obviously, but the change in just my lifetime is disheartening.https://climate.nasa.gov (https://climate.nasa.gov)
-
Heck, I'll just give you the entire article.
As a general rule (applying 99.9% of the time), quoting an entire article is in violation of copyright laws (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html). I recommend not doing so.
-
I can see the appeal of a hauler car like a truck or SUV, although as for myself, I have a VW station wagon (wow, remember those?) that can fit just about anything I need to fit (and I just rent a U-Haul anytime it's too small). I actually like a small car with a low center of gravity. I think that the efficiency push for the engines in these big vehicles has actually made them almost as economical as all but the slowest "secretary's' car". Folks who get the small cars get the same engine, and combined with the lower effective aerodynamic drag coefficient, the small cars are peppy as opposed to lumberous.
-
Given the United States' rise to #1 oil producer I'm not surprised manufacturers are willing to cut small cars. No one expects to see $4/gallon gas again for a long time because the US has too much influence over oil availability now.
-
TheHusbandHalf and I would be dead if we hadn't been in an F150. With all these 'no driver' cars coming (or whatever they're called) we're going to need something higher up to fight off all the insane non-drivers
-
Means it's about time for another oil crisis.
This, although I don't see it happening anytime soon. Nothing gets folks switching to more fuel efficient cars like $4-5/gal gas. It's kind of like the economy. When it's going well, folks are stockpiling debt with large houses, new cars, etc. Then when the house of cards collapses, they blame everyone else for their financial ineptitude. Rinse and repeat.
-
Is there a double-wide car yet? I really need one of those for myself. It would make my 10 mile round trip commute far more luxurious and I would be extremely safe in such a large vehicle.
-
Is there a double-wide car yet? I really need one of those for myself. It would make my 10 mile round trip commute far more luxurious and I would be extremely safe in such a large vehicle.
Perhaps just get a diesel rig and let it idle in the grocery store parking lot for 25 minutes...
-
Aw c'mon, you have to have a 3 ton SUX 6000 to shuttle your little
Jeffrey Dahmer Einstein to school and soccer practice, because--safety! I mean, what if it rains????
-
I haven't read the WSJ article, but I had caught a Reuter's TV segment (https://www.reuters.tv/v/xEL/2018/03/30/suv-overflow-threatens-to-flood-auto-market) covering the same news. I don't entirely disagree with the stuff quoted up at the beginning here, but I think the answer and reason why the rise of SUVs is a lot simpler than we're willing to admit. There was a little thing wedged in there at the end that pretty much explained all we need to know as to why the shift and push into SUVs in an already saturated market.
Right now, they can fetch anywhere between one-third and 50% more for SUVs compared to a car without higher production cost. So even if that number gets smaller, that's not the kind of profit margin any automaker is willing to turn down.
They're making SUVs because they can charge more money for nearly the same amount of resources, which provides higher profit margins. When you're selling fewer cars, you gotta keep profits up somewhere. "Screw the planet, we want money."
-
Maybe it's because Muricans are now so fat!!! Especially Gen X!! (my generation BTW, but I am not overweight). Seriously, you see much less obesity and far fewer SUVs in other countries.
It's amazing meeting all my wife's Gen X former classmates who were once thin:
That nerdy kid? FAT!
The prom queen/blonde Barbie cheerleader? FAT!!
The kinda popular girl most people liked, but some hated? FAT!!!
The computer geek who was once rumored to have scored with Amy? FAT!!!!
The jock/football quarterback? FAT!!!!!
Load 'em all up in the SUV!
-
This is why instead of counter-productive CAFE regulations that do nothing but encourage car makers to play games with car classifications (that SUV is actually a truck, har har!), we need to directly tax vehicles through a formula based on weight, emissions, MPG, CO2 emissions and miles driven. All car infrastructure should be funded directly by vehicle use (which of course would filter down to consumers/indirect use) and we should be funding R&D into alternative fuel vehicles and climate change mitigation (both mitigating the actual change and mitigating the consequences of those changes).
While it would certainly curtail SUVs due to higher running costs, it'll never happen because people don't want to face reality. Imagine telling >50% of Americans that they're moochers and owe more for road maintenance than the Civic driver next door. Not gonna happen.
We also need to get people to STOP complaining about things like SUVs. All that does is remove the availability of (relatively) sane choices for completely insane choices, such as a full size truck for occasional towing, hauling and offroading instead of of (relatively) more efficient midsize SUV. Instead of people using compromise vehicles for a mix of uses, they are now more frequently buying specialized vehicles that have been bastardized into abominations (such as the increasingly common 4-door pickup trucks)
I kinda doubt anyone complaining about SUVs has anything to do with the availability of sane vehicle choices. As Daley noted, SUVs are pushed because of the profit margin. A small minority rolling their eyes at the fabricated SUV/pickup lifestyle has no effect on what Ford/GM/Toyota/etc. does.
-
I kinda doubt anyone complaining about SUVs has anything to do with the availability of sane vehicle choices. As Daley noted, SUVs are pushed because of the profit margin. A small minority rolling their eyes at the fabricated SUV/pickup lifestyle has no effect on what Ford/GM/Toyota/etc. does.
Honestly, I find this conversation especially interesting given the community that it's taking place in... one driven by money and profit margins for the benefit of the self. I wonder how many people here who are taking part in market returns and dividends within the auto industry for the sake of their own ability to retire realize that they're the ones driving this market shift in the first place. After all, stock holders are the ones demanding profits and returns, the corporations are simply responding in the only way they know how to meet those demands.
-
I kinda doubt anyone complaining about SUVs has anything to do with the availability of sane vehicle choices. As Daley noted, SUVs are pushed because of the profit margin. A small minority rolling their eyes at the fabricated SUV/pickup lifestyle has no effect on what Ford/GM/Toyota/etc. does.
Honestly, I find this conversation especially interesting given the community that it's taking place in... one driven by money and profit margins for the benefit of the self. I wonder how many people here who are taking part in market returns and dividends within the auto industry for the sake of their own ability to retire realize that they're the ones driving this market shift in the first place. After all, stock holders are the ones demanding profits and returns, the corporations are simply responding in the only way they know how to meet those demands.
That's not what this site is about.
-
I kinda doubt anyone complaining about SUVs has anything to do with the availability of sane vehicle choices. As Daley noted, SUVs are pushed because of the profit margin. A small minority rolling their eyes at the fabricated SUV/pickup lifestyle has no effect on what Ford/GM/Toyota/etc. does.
Honestly, I find this conversation especially interesting given the community that it's taking place in... one driven by money and profit margins for the benefit of the self. I wonder how many people here who are taking part in market returns and dividends within the auto industry for the sake of their own ability to retire realize that they're the ones driving this market shift in the first place. After all, stock holders are the ones demanding profits and returns, the corporations are simply responding in the only way they know how to meet those demands.
That's not what this site is about.
You certain about that? How many here have invested in index funds to enable FIRE and expect market and dividend returns to live off of? How many people here are convinced they have to get their own before they can do good in the world for others?
Note, I'm not trying to convict here. I'm simply pointing out conflicting interests between the heart of the philosophy via seeking material wealth to enable that goal, and the unintended consequences that might come with that.
-
I kinda doubt anyone complaining about SUVs has anything to do with the availability of sane vehicle choices. As Daley noted, SUVs are pushed because of the profit margin. A small minority rolling their eyes at the fabricated SUV/pickup lifestyle has no effect on what Ford/GM/Toyota/etc. does.
Honestly, I find this conversation especially interesting given the community that it's taking place in... one driven by money and profit margins for the benefit of the self. I wonder how many people here who are taking part in market returns and dividends within the auto industry for the sake of their own ability to retire realize that they're the ones driving this market shift in the first place. After all, stock holders are the ones demanding profits and returns, the corporations are simply responding in the only way they know how to meet those demands.
That's not what this site is about.
You certain about that?
Yes.
-
I kinda doubt anyone complaining about SUVs has anything to do with the availability of sane vehicle choices. As Daley noted, SUVs are pushed because of the profit margin. A small minority rolling their eyes at the fabricated SUV/pickup lifestyle has no effect on what Ford/GM/Toyota/etc. does.
Honestly, I find this conversation especially interesting given the community that it's taking place in... one driven by money and profit margins for the benefit of the self. I wonder how many people here who are taking part in market returns and dividends within the auto industry for the sake of their own ability to retire realize that they're the ones driving this market shift in the first place. After all, stock holders are the ones demanding profits and returns, the corporations are simply responding in the only way they know how to meet those demands.
That's not what this site is about.
You certain about that?
Yes.
Nice side-step of every other point made.
-
Cars are becoming more like the family room than a mode of transportation because people spend much more of their time in them than in the past. Driving to work, school, stores, and recreation takes up a lot of waking hours these days. Traffic everywhere you go and hours spent stuck in it. Entertainment systems to keep the kids quiet and occupied and the phones for multitasking while inching your way onto the freeway. Gotta be bigger and taller than the next guy because of the perceived safety advantage. Cars equal freedom and now comfort and safety.
It's going to be tough to move back to limited car use and public transit. Nobody wants that when safe, clean, and comfortable private transportation to anywhere is available at any time.
-
Heck, I'll just give you the entire article.
As a general rule (applying 99.9% of the time), quoting an entire article is in violation of copyright laws (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html). I recommend not doing so.
Oh good grief. Hows your sister Debbie Downer?
-
Heck, I'll just give you the entire article.
As a general rule (applying 99.9% of the time), quoting an entire article is in violation of copyright laws (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html). I recommend not doing so.
Oh good grief. Hows your sister Debbie Downer?
When the forum gets sued and we can't have these conversations, I'll be sure to note your delight in not caring about copyright law. You rebel you...
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
-
I mean F150's are one thing, but it seems like most of these "SUVs" are just taller versions of sedans. Its not that much of a difference except the cost and perception. I would like to see better accounting for externalities like weight, miles, and emissions, but otherwise people can blow their money however they want and I won't cry about it. Especially if they are willfully going far out of their way to spend an extra 6 grand on something totally frivolous. Knock yourselves out kids. Don't blame me later.
Things will get twice as bad when cheap self driving electrics are available. "Migrant workers" will take on a whole different level of meaning. 500 mile daily commutes by RV will not be uncommon.
-
Cars are becoming more like the family room than a mode of transportation because people spend much more of their time in them than in the past. Driving to work, school, stores, and recreation takes up a lot of waking hours these days. Traffic everywhere you go and hours spent stuck in it. Entertainment systems to keep the kids quiet and occupied and the phones for multitasking while inching your way onto the freeway. Gotta be bigger and taller than the next guy because of the perceived safety advantage. Cars equal freedom and now comfort and safety.
It's going to be tough to move back to limited car use and public transit. Nobody wants that when safe, clean, and comfortable private transportation to anywhere is available at any time.
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
-
Cars are becoming more like the family room than a mode of transportation because people spend much more of their time in them than in the past. Driving to work, school, stores, and recreation takes up a lot of waking hours these days. Traffic everywhere you go and hours spent stuck in it. Entertainment systems to keep the kids quiet and occupied and the phones for multitasking while inching your way onto the freeway. Gotta be bigger and taller than the next guy because of the perceived safety advantage. Cars equal freedom and now comfort and safety.
It's going to be tough to move back to limited car use and public transit. Nobody wants that when safe, clean, and comfortable private transportation to anywhere is available at any time.
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
The people in the cars outnumber you. People vote for all kinds of tax increases for public transit, in hopes the other guy takes it when it's built so the roads will be clearer. Unless public transit is safe, clean, reliable, comfortable, and convenient, people that are able to avoid using it will choose to do so.
-
I'm waiting for peak oil. Please then only refer to me as "Lord Humungus"
-
Cars are becoming more like the family room than a mode of transportation because people spend much more of their time in them than in the past. Driving to work, school, stores, and recreation takes up a lot of waking hours these days. Traffic everywhere you go and hours spent stuck in it. Entertainment systems to keep the kids quiet and occupied and the phones for multitasking while inching your way onto the freeway. Gotta be bigger and taller than the next guy because of the perceived safety advantage. Cars equal freedom and now comfort and safety.
It's going to be tough to move back to limited car use and public transit. Nobody wants that when safe, clean, and comfortable private transportation to anywhere is available at any time.
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
The people in the cars outnumber you. People vote for all kinds of tax increases for public transit, in hopes the other guy takes it when it's built so the roads will be clearer. Unless public transit is safe, clean, reliable, comfortable, and convenient, people that are able to avoid using it will choose to do so.
Those are my biggest issues with public transmit where I live. Often I won't even consider public transit an option at all because of those two things.
-
I don’t have a WSJ subscription - did they mention the change in CAFE standards? I feel like we’re just moving into the future - two steps forward, one step back.
Interesting that it talks only about US automakers.
I wonder if this is just because they feel like they can be more competitive in the truck and SUV market instead of sedans which seem to be dominated by Japanese automakers.
-
I'd never even heard of a Chevy Sonic, so I looked it up and it looks terrible. I would guess that the real reason they killed it is that it couldn't compete with imports in its own segment, but of course Chevy didn't want to say that.
-
I'd never even heard of a Chevy Sonic, so I looked it up and it looks terrible. I would guess that the real reason they killed it is that it couldn't compete with imports in its own segment, but of course Chevy didn't want to say that.
This is a huge part of it, but I think it's less about not wanting to say it, and more about actually refusing to believe it.
-
is public transport less safe than driving? ( ﾟдﾟ)""
i think there's also that some of the people who might have bought smaller cars chose instead to not buy any car. a lot of urban centers are very bike and public transport friendly. so you've got the new market filling in the extremes: no car at all and large suv/truck, with fewer people taking the middle of smaller sized car/suv.
-
is public transport less safe than driving? ( ﾟдﾟ)""
i think there's also that some of the people who might have bought smaller cars chose instead to not buy any car. a lot of urban centers are very bike and public transport friendly. so you've got the new market filling in the extremes: no car at all and large suv/truck, with fewer people taking the middle of smaller sized car/suv.
Different kind of safety problems. Cleveland public transit can get kind of stabby from time to time.
-
We tend to think about humans and problems rationally, and, in doing so, we assume rational actors. (We know better, but this is more of an initial tendency, and as humans, we do other irrational things, like cling defensively to our first thoughts.) Buying a car is, at surface-level only, a rational decision. How much can I afford without impacting my other goals? What features are required? What will be nice to have? Some of us even succeed in answering these questions, negotiating with cold indifference, and getting a great deal on an apparently near-perfectly suited car for our needs. Many of us... do not.
As you're visiting your parents, eating a meal, you mention that you're car shopping. Your dad rants for a few minutes about how dangerous the interstate has become, and how he'll never drive anything smaller than his truck. Part of your brain remembers that time you were on the highway, and a tractor trailer started coming into your lane. You remember how the snow plow covered your windshield in slush. You feel fear. Your sister boasts about how comfortable her Lexus is. Again. Your mom says "that's such a nice car!" You feel envy.
You research cars. You find several suitably fitting vehicles. You talk to your bank and you determine a limit on what you're going to spend. Does everything go as planned? You visit a dealership. You talk to the dealer about the exact car you want. You take it for a test drive. For some reason, it's a clunker. There's a weird light on the dashboard, and it keeps making a buzzing sound. It just doesn't feel right. You know you should thank the dealer and be on your way to the next car you see, but you decide it can't hurt to drive some other cars just for comparison. While the sub-compact hatchback was a good idea, there's a brand new sub-compact SUV that's only a little more expensive, but roomier, boasts AWD, and you know you'd be one of the first of your friends to have this model. (Your rational brain says this is a stupid thing that you shouldn't listen to, but the voice in your head is drowned out as the salesperson points to the new smartphone connectivity feature in the radio. You don't care, and you largely ignore them. You pull out onto the road.
You feel optimistic about this car. Why weren't you looking into these? This has nice visibility. It seems to move easily and smoothly down the road. Your butt feels good in that warm seat. But that's stupid! You're not going to buy this. You're just taking it out for comparison. You complete your drive and hand the keys back to the salesman. They don't even have to say anything. You ask some more questions about it anyway. You feel excited. They invite you in to talk, just talk, while they check out your trade-in. You crunch some numbers on your calculator app. You double check the pre-approved loan amount. Hours go by, and you don't know why you're still sitting there talking about buying this car. You're hungry and you're ready for this to end. You agree to some things and sign some papers. They hand you a pair of keys...
The automobile manufacturers know all this. They've always known. They can build a Chevrolet Sonic, a Chevrolet Trax and a Buick Encore all based off the same platform and major components. But when it hits the dealer lots, they'll sell for $17k, $23k and $29k respectively. The cost of upgraded trim is almost an afterthought at the factory. When you make your 60 monthly payments, it's $50-100. No big deal. You feel like you made a great choice. You even got that one hint of jealousy when you showed your sister how you could pair your phone up to your new car and use Apple CarPlay. Her slightly used Lexus doesn't have that yet. Your lizard brain won this battle. It often does.
-
Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. The US had tons of gas guzzlers, then the oil crises of the 70's hit. Toyota and Honda came and ate Detroit's lunch after that because they had small efficient cars ready to go.
-
Don't blame the automakers, they are a business just like every other business seeking to maximize profits. The blame goes to consumers who don't give a damn about the environment. Even though I'm more libertarian than anything, I think raising the gas tax is the only fair and sensible solution. Let consumers feel the weight of their full external costs.
-
You certain about that? How many here have invested in index funds to enable FIRE and expect market and dividend returns to live off of? How many people here are convinced they have to get their own before they can do good in the world for others?
Note, I'm not trying to convict here. I'm simply pointing out conflicting interests between the heart of the philosophy via seeking material wealth to enable that goal, and the unintended consequences that might come with that.
I'm not saying that people on this forum aren't doing these things; but certainly anyone "mustachian" isn't doing this. If they are only about accumulating wealth, they are misappropriating the name. Pete espouses a philosophy of doing good for others and for the world. It isn't just about getting as much money as possible. Heck, half of it is NOT NEEDING nearly as much money as people tell you that you do. In the process you create fewer emissions, less waste, and use your money for good.
It's because of this site (and the Frugalwoods) that I know about a DAF. I gave away 1/4 of my gross salary last year and I am on track to do that again.
My husband actually DOES have a small, hybrid, SUV (Escape)- but he bikes to work 80% of the year.
-
Having made my FIRE stash in the auto industry and still being very connected, I can tell you that the OEM's goal is simply to respond to customer demand. They literally ship dollars attached to the hoods of small sedans, but make buckets of cash on the vehicles people actually want. It's crazy to me to read about people being disgusted that a company wants to run as effeciently and profitably as possible. These same companies are all also making major shifts in their future method of propulsion, so no need to get so worked up, it's all going to work itself out. Half of these SUV's will be electric in 10 years anyway, maybe more. I do agree with the whole climate change angle and we are impacting the environment, but then again the exact spot where I live was below 1 mile of ice only 10,000 years ago. (SUV's not the cause of that Ice melting...)
-
GM has made a verbal commitment to attack electric and autonomous driving, but you can trust they aren't doing it out of any opinion about managing our resources. Moving the fleet off gas will probably stabilize buying trends (no longer facing the weekly gas bill and instead lumped into the electric bill and probably ignored) and once these things go full level 6 autonomous, those larger vehicles may start to even feel more necessary as ever as you can now put those larger builds to use (interacting with family, sleeping if it's legal, who knows.)
Cars are already used ridiculously, but use will probably increase further the more autonomous and cost-obfuscated the car becomes. Commutes become less relevant to daily user's lifestyles and sprawl will probably increase.
Better? I dunno, honestly. In general, I feel progress goes in the right direction but it's not always 100% forward and some costs become permanent. Embrace the clown! :p
-
Having made my FIRE stash in the auto industry and still being very connected, I can tell you that the OEM's goal is simply to respond to customer demand. They literally ship dollars attached to the hoods of small sedans, but make buckets of cash on the vehicles people actually want. It's crazy to me to read about people being disgusted that a company wants to run as effeciently and profitably as possible. These same companies are all also making major shifts in their future method of propulsion, so no need to get so worked up, it's all going to work itself out. Half of these SUV's will be electric in 10 years anyway, maybe more. I do agree with the whole climate change angle and we are impacting the environment, but then again the exact spot where I live was below 1 mile of ice only 10,000 years ago. (SUV's not the cause of that Ice melting...)
Those companies are not responding to customer demand, they're creating it. Otherwise why would there be truck ads everywhere?
And electric cars don't solve the problem. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
-
is public transport less safe than driving? ( ﾟдﾟ)""
i think there's also that some of the people who might have bought smaller cars chose instead to not buy any car. a lot of urban centers are very bike and public transport friendly. so you've got the new market filling in the extremes: no car at all and large suv/truck, with fewer people taking the middle of smaller sized car/suv.
Different kind of safety problems. Cleveland public transit can get kind of stabby from time to time.
Speed holes make you go faster though. (At least the threat of them has always made me go faster) :P
-
I don’t have a WSJ subscription - did they mention the change in CAFE standards? I feel like we’re just moving into the future - two steps forward, one step back.
PRO TIP: If you can't read the entire WSJ article, copy the URL (e.g. https://www.wsj.com/articles/gm-to-kill-chevrolet-sonic-subcompact-car-1522850577) and go to archive.is, paste the URL and search. If there isn't an existing archived copy, you can request it to be archived and it'll be ready for you in about a minute.
-
And electric cars don't solve the problem. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
Sort of. Average load in my area is 50% non-carbon. I'll take that over F-150 fuel usage. Obviously doesn't win again a bike.
-
And electric cars don't solve the problem. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
I vote Hydrogen fuel cells. Use the excess energy created by the solar duck curve to generate H2, power the cars and off-hours grid with hydrogen.
-
The people in the cars outnumber you. People vote for all kinds of tax increases for public transit, in hopes the other guy takes it when it's built so the roads will be clearer. Unless public transit is safe, clean, reliable, comfortable, and convenient, people that are able to avoid using it will choose to do so.
Those are my biggest issues with public transmit where I live. Often I won't even consider public transit an option at all because of those two things.
Public Transit is quite often at least as safe as other options, but often fails on the other 5 measures.
-
And electric cars don't solve the problem. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
The energy mix for electric cars is getting cleaner every year with greater capture of combustion byproducts at the generating stations and coal plants being taken out of the mix and supplanted by Natural Gas, Wind and Solar. This will continue through the life of an electric vehicle.
A purely gas based vehicle, on the other hand will likely become more polluting over time (especially as the oil sources get tighter and dirtier to replenish vs the original crude sources that required relatively little energy input to recover and the emissions systems get older without careful maintenance and monitoring).
-
"Public Transit is quite often at least as safe as other options, but often fails on the other 5 measures."
Crime is what I'm comparing in safety.
No pickpockets in my car.
No armed robbers in my car.
No one publicly indecent in my car.
No drug addicts or alcoholics in my car.
No rapists in my car.
No child molesters in my car.
No unpredictable insane people in my car.
All of the above commonly found on public transit.
-
"Public Transit is quite often at least as safe as other options, but often fails on the other 5 measures."
Crime is what I'm comparing in safety.
No pickpockets in my car.
No armed robbers in my car.
No one publicly indecent in my car.
No drug addicts or alcoholics in my car.
No rapists in my car.
No child molesters in my car.
No unpredictable insane people in my car.
All of the above commonly found on public transit.
you forgot bedbugs and lice on public transit. Google it and be afraid.
The neighbor's kid I drop off at school might have those...
Seriously, have you ridden public transit recently? Not much of that in LA/OC, I guess. I took public buses all through high school in an urban part of the Bay Area almost 50 years ago. Would not even consider it today. The human urine smell on BART, the "upper" end of public transit, is overwhelming. No thanks!
-
"Public Transit is quite often at least as safe as other options, but often fails on the other 5 measures."
Crime is what I'm comparing in safety.
No pickpockets in my car.
No armed robbers in my car.
No one publicly indecent in my car.
No drug addicts or alcoholics in my car.
No rapists in my car.
No child molesters in my car.
No unpredictable insane people in my car.
All of the above commonly found on public transit.
you forgot bedbugs and lice on public transit. Google it and be afraid.
The neighbor's kid I drop off at school might have those...
Seriously, have you ridden public transit recently? Not much of that in LA/OC, I guess. I took public buses all through high school in an urban part of the Bay Area almost 50 years ago. Would not even consider it today. The human urine smell on BART, the "upper" end of public transit, is overwhelming. No thanks!
I haven't used public transit in years (don't commute) but due to the homeless probelms in OC/LA most buses and bus stops are so massively trashed due to transients, many with mental health, drug or alcohol problems, I would be wary also. Biking for the win! Although it would be nice if they brought back small 4 cylinder station wagons like the Ford Focus or Jetta. I think a lot of people get SUVs because there really isn't much choice between a tiny hatchback or an SUV for those that need a larger cargo area.
I have ridden public transport every work day for the better part of 25 years.
Never been assaulted, robbed or flashed but I'll admit I now have a rather robust immune system after picking up every imaginable cold and flu virus under the sun in that time.
-
Having made my FIRE stash in the auto industry and still being very connected, I can tell you that the OEM's goal is simply to respond to customer demand. They literally ship dollars attached to the hoods of small sedans, but make buckets of cash on the vehicles people actually want. It's crazy to me to read about people being disgusted that a company wants to run as effeciently and profitably as possible. These same companies are all also making major shifts in their future method of propulsion, so no need to get so worked up, it's all going to work itself out. Half of these SUV's will be electric in 10 years anyway, maybe more. I do agree with the whole climate change angle and we are impacting the environment, but then again the exact spot where I live was below 1 mile of ice only 10,000 years ago. (SUV's not the cause of that Ice melting...)
Those companies are not responding to customer demand, they're creating it. Otherwise why would there be truck ads everywhere.
Really? What’s your background in the industry? I guarantee you that your statement is 100% incorrect.
-
The neighbor's kid I drop off at school might have those...
Seriously, have you ridden public transit recently? Not much of that in LA/OC, I guess. I took public buses all through high school in an urban part of the Bay Area almost 50 years ago. Would not even consider it today. The human urine smell on BART, the "upper" end of public transit, is overwhelming. No thanks!
I haven't used public transit in years (don't commute) but due to the homeless probelms in OC/LA most buses and bus stops are so massively trashed due to transients, many with mental health, drug or alcohol problems, I would be wary also. Biking for the win! Although it would be nice if they brought back small 4 cylinder station wagons like the Ford Focus or Jetta. I think a lot of people get SUVs because there really isn't much choice between a tiny hatchback or an SUV for those that need a larger cargo area.
I have ridden public transport every work day for the better part of 25 years.
Never been assaulted, robbed or flashed but I'll admit I now have a rather robust immune system after picking up every imaginable cold and flu virus under the sun in that time.
Well you're from Oz so maybe all the things there that kill all the other things there killed the bed bugs and lice - which of course are probably full of deadly toxic venom there. I have ridden public transit in other countries before (and in the US but not for awhile) and its all nice and clean and safe in comparison.
Eh, I ride BART/Caltrain fairly regularly. There are homeless people sleeping in the back of some of the cars, and sometimes the cars smell, but it's not that big of a deal. It beats sitting on 82.
-
"Public Transit is quite often at least as safe as other options, but often fails on the other 5 measures."
Crime is what I'm comparing in safety.
No pickpockets in my car.
No armed robbers in my car.
No one publicly indecent in my car.
No drug addicts or alcoholics in my car.
No rapists in my car.
No child molesters in my car.
No unpredictable insane people in my car.
All of the above commonly found on public transit.
Yes their are often unpleasant people on public transit (and even more often unpleasant people loitering around public transit stops). Unpleasant people are also fairly common in public parking garages in most cities. The most common problems unpleasant people on transit cause are noise and filthiness, neither are actually safety concerns.
Where public transit is reliable and convenient it gets used frequently by normal people and unpleasant people are generally not a problem. The sprawl of most North American cities makes it too expensive to make public transit convenient, so we see more of those problems here.
-
Those companies are not responding to customer demand, they're creating it. Otherwise why would there be truck ads everywhere?
And electric cars don't solve the problem. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
Yep, from our biggest and effectively inexhaustible source: Sol
That's not to say that EVs have zero environmental cost. There will always be costs, but the energy to power the vehicles can certainly come a zero marginal cost (both financially and environmentally).
-
And electric cars don't solve the problem. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
I vote Hydrogen fuel cells. Use the excess energy created by the solar duck curve to generate H2, power the cars and off-hours grid with hydrogen.
Why use a chemical battery (HFC) that is only ~50% efficient (source to tank) and still requires nuclear or fossil fuel use to create in quantities, when you can use a chemical battery that is 90%+ efficient (LI-ON, or whatever comes next) and doesn't rely on nuclear or fossil fuels to make the "fuel"?
-
And electric cars don't solve the problem. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
I vote Hydrogen fuel cells. Use the excess energy created by the solar duck curve to generate H2, power the cars and off-hours grid with hydrogen.
Why use a chemical battery (HFC) that is only ~50% efficient (source to tank) and still requires nuclear or fossil fuel use to create in quantities, when you can use a chemical battery that is 90%+ efficient (LI-ON, or whatever comes next) and doesn't rely on nuclear or fossil fuels to make the "fuel"?
Hydrogen electrolysis using excess off-peak solar capacity. It's power we wouldn't otherwise be using because it's generated in the middle of the day when demand is low. Easier to move around than batteries (or transmission infrastructure), faster refueling, etc.
-
And electric cars don't solve the problem. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
I vote Hydrogen fuel cells. Use the excess energy created by the solar duck curve to generate H2, power the cars and off-hours grid with hydrogen.
Why use a chemical battery (HFC) that is only ~50% efficient (source to tank) and still requires nuclear or fossil fuel use to create in quantities, when you can use a chemical battery that is 90%+ efficient (LI-ON, or whatever comes next) and doesn't rely on nuclear or fossil fuels to make the "fuel"?
Hydrogen electrolysis using excess off-peak solar capacity. It's power we wouldn't otherwise be using because it's generated in the middle of the day when demand is low. Easier to move around than batteries (or transmission infrastructure), faster refueling, etc.
Using off peak excess solar is more efficiently done with batteries, and electrons are easier to move (along existing infrastructure) than liquid hydrogen (which has effectively zero infrastructure right now). "Faster refueling" is only a temporary advantage to HFC; it's only a matter of time before EV chemistries and charging solutions make EV charging quick enough for pretty much any use case (when combined with "home charging" still being the primary fueling source). And importantly, the best way to use "off peak" excess solar capacity is while your EV sits in your garage or some parking lot.
HFC has a use in the future for some vehicle types (in particular vehicles which need to operate "off-grid") but EVs are the better product.
-
Those companies are not responding to customer demand, they're creating it. Otherwise why would there be truck ads everywhere?
And electric cars don't solve the problem. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
Yep, from our biggest and effectively inexhaustible source: Sol
That's not to say that EVs have zero environmental cost. There will always be costs, but the energy to power the vehicles can certainly come a zero marginal cost (both financially and environmentally).
Eventually we'll be able to supply our needs from solar alone, but for now those cars are still running off coal.
And energy is by far not the only issue. You've got health, safety, sprawl, and traffic among others.
Having made my FIRE stash in the auto industry and still being very connected, I can tell you that the OEM's goal is simply to respond to customer demand. They literally ship dollars attached to the hoods of small sedans, but make buckets of cash on the vehicles people actually want. It's crazy to me to read about people being disgusted that a company wants to run as effeciently and profitably as possible. These same companies are all also making major shifts in their future method of propulsion, so no need to get so worked up, it's all going to work itself out. Half of these SUV's will be electric in 10 years anyway, maybe more. I do agree with the whole climate change angle and we are impacting the environment, but then again the exact spot where I live was below 1 mile of ice only 10,000 years ago. (SUV's not the cause of that Ice melting...)
Those companies are not responding to customer demand, they're creating it. Otherwise why would there be truck ads everywhere.
Really? What’s your background in the industry? I guarantee you that your statement is 100% incorrect.
Since you're the expert, teach me what the purpose of ads are, then.
-
I haven't read the WSJ article, but I had caught a Reuter's TV segment (https://www.reuters.tv/v/xEL/2018/03/30/suv-overflow-threatens-to-flood-auto-market) covering the same news. I don't entirely disagree with the stuff quoted up at the beginning here, but I think the answer and reason why the rise of SUVs is a lot simpler than we're willing to admit. There was a little thing wedged in there at the end that pretty much explained all we need to know as to why the shift and push into SUVs in an already saturated market.
Right now, they can fetch anywhere between one-third and 50% more for SUVs compared to a car without higher production cost. So even if that number gets smaller, that's not the kind of profit margin any automaker is willing to turn down.
They're making SUVs because they can charge more money for nearly the same amount of resources, which provides higher profit margins. When you're selling fewer cars, you gotta keep profits up somewhere. "Screw the planet, we want money."
Isn't the blame more on consumers? I think there is a mindset in consumers that a smaller car should be cheaper, and if the next size up is only slightly more, I would be getting a bargain with it. I know when I bought my Chevy Malibu, I originally looked into the Sonic and Cruze but didn't see hardly any savings. Might as well get the car that fits a set of golf clubs or fits 3 other buddies comfortable for road trips. Plus the bigger cars retain value better from my limited experience. When being honest, consumers like me don't have a couple miles in MPG or saving the environment on their top 3 list for buying a car.
-
OT but aren't these the opposite of clown cars? I always picture a clown car being a small volkswagon beetle with all the clowns crammed in.
-
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
Don't blame the automakers, they are a business just like every other business seeking to maximize profits. The blame goes to consumers who don't give a damn about the environment. Even though I'm more libertarian than anything, I think raising the gas tax is the only fair and sensible solution. Let consumers feel the weight of their full external costs.
I agree that automakers are responding to demand. And I think raising gas tax is a great start to charging the cost of externalities to the users.
As more people transition to electric vehicles we will need other ways to charge people for the cost of maintaining the infrastructure they use. Maybe increased vehicle registration fees that use a formula based on vehicle weight and miles driven.
Although it would be nice if they brought back small 4 cylinder station wagons like the Ford Focus or Jetta. I think a lot of people get SUVs because there really isn't much choice between a tiny hatchback or an SUV for those that need a larger cargo area.
They are still here. Ford has the Fiesta and Focus in wagon form, the Jetta wagon is now the Golf SportWagen, and you can buy a regular Golf or get an e-Golf. Subaru has the Impreza wagon, the Civic is available as a wagon again and Honda also makes the Fit. Toyota offers the Yaris, Corolla iM, Prius and Prius v depending on how much space you need. Hyundai has the Elantra GT, Kia has the Soul, the Rio 5-Door and the Forte5. Volvo makes the V60 and V90. I could keep going, but the point is there are a lot of station wagons with 4 cylinders ranging from tiny to quite large. It isn't that manufacturers are making them, it's that people prefer SUVs.
-
Since you're the expert, teach me what the purpose of ads are, then.
Not the OP, but the primary purpose is to affect their market share, ie piece of the pie.
Buy the Ford, not the Chevy, etc.
Obviously there's a non-zero effect on people who might be convinced to buy a truck instead of a car, but that's pretty tiny.
-
"Public Transit is quite often at least as safe as other options, but often fails on the other 5 measures."
Crime is what I'm comparing in safety.
No pickpockets in my car.
No armed robbers in my car.
No one publicly indecent in my car.
No drug addicts or alcoholics in my car.
No rapists in my car.
No child molesters in my car.
No unpredictable insane people in my car.
All of the above commonly found on public transit.
you forgot bedbugs and lice on public transit. Google it and be afraid.
The neighbor's kid I drop off at school might have those...
Seriously, have you ridden public transit recently? Not much of that in LA/OC, I guess. I took public buses all through high school in an urban part of the Bay Area almost 50 years ago. Would not even consider it today. The human urine smell on BART, the "upper" end of public transit, is overwhelming. No thanks!
I haven't used public transit in years (don't commute) but due to the homeless probelms in OC/LA most buses and bus stops are so massively trashed due to transients, many with mental health, drug or alcohol problems, I would be wary also. Biking for the win! Although it would be nice if they brought back small 4 cylinder station wagons like the Ford Focus or Jetta. I think a lot of people get SUVs because there really isn't much choice between a tiny hatchback or an SUV for those that need a larger cargo area.
I have ridden public transport every work day for the better part of 25 years.
Never been assaulted, robbed or flashed but I'll admit I now have a rather robust immune system after picking up every imaginable cold and flu virus under the sun in that time.
I live in Edmonton, Canada. The police have recently finally arrested 32 teenage boys and 2 men on 460 charges of organized theft and violent assault around our commuter train system. These types of public spaces are ripe for this kind of crap. It would be far safer to take the bus in my opinion.
I have to provide a car for my work so public transit is not an option, but I will be driving my CR-V into the ground and hopefully replacing it with a deep winter climate suitable electric car in 6-8 years.
-
Hey, when you are insured by the Federal Government (and thus the tax payer), why not play the short game? I'm sure we'll see another "Cash for clunkers" program as well.
-
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
I don't think gas tax is the answer. We ought to tax the cars themselves, more tax for more emissions/worse MPGs.
A gas tax is really really regressive, since most poor people can't afford to just buy a more fuel efficient car like the rich folks can when gas spikes. If you expand the gas guzzler tax though, you impact the demand side of the equation, then suddenly its not so profitable for the automaker to make giant crew cab pickups anymore.
I agree with ol1970, the automakers are making what the customers want. We just need to change what the customers want.
-
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
I don't think gas tax is the answer. We ought to tax the cars themselves, more tax for more emissions/worse MPGs.
A gas tax is really really regressive, since most poor people can't afford to just buy a more fuel efficient car like the rich folks can when gas spikes. If you expand the gas guzzler tax though, you impact the demand side of the equation, then suddenly its not so profitable for the automaker to make giant crew cab pickups anymore.
I agree with ol1970, the automakers are making what the customers want. We just need to change what the customers want.
Great point I hadn't thought of how regressive they are.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
-
Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. The US had tons of gas guzzlers, then the oil crises of the 70's hit. Toyota and Honda came and ate Detroit's lunch after that because they had small efficient cars ready to go.
Same thing in 2008 -- I paid $16k for a 3yo Tundra with 36k miles on it because nobody wanted trucks when gas was $4/gal.
Means it's about time for another oil crisis.
Conveniently enough, here we go! (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/potential-for-big-oil-price-spike-grows-after-provocative-missile-strikes.html)
-
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
I don't think gas tax is the answer. We ought to tax the cars themselves, more tax for more emissions/worse MPGs.
A gas tax is really really regressive, since most poor people can't afford to just buy a more fuel efficient car like the rich folks can when gas spikes. If you expand the gas guzzler tax though, you impact the demand side of the equation, then suddenly its not so profitable for the automaker to make giant crew cab pickups anymore.
I agree with ol1970, the automakers are making what the customers want. We just need to change what the customers want.
If there is a sudden spike is prices, then you are correct, the transaction costs would be too high for a poor person to go out and find a more fuel efficient car. But generally speaking, the more fuel efficient vehicles are generally the cheaper vehicles (excluding EVs and latest hybrid tech). If gas taxes rose gradually, poor people could choose to buy inexpensive fuel efficient vehicles.
-
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
I don't think gas tax is the answer. We ought to tax the cars themselves, more tax for more emissions/worse MPGs.
A gas tax is really really regressive, since most poor people can't afford to just buy a more fuel efficient car like the rich folks can when gas spikes. If you expand the gas guzzler tax though, you impact the demand side of the equation, then suddenly its not so profitable for the automaker to make giant crew cab pickups anymore.
I agree with ol1970, the automakers are making what the customers want. We just need to change what the customers want.
If there is a sudden spike is prices, then you are correct, the transaction costs would be too high for a poor person to go out and find a more fuel efficient car. But generally speaking, the more fuel efficient vehicles are generally the cheaper vehicles (excluding EVs and latest hybrid tech). If gas taxes rose gradually, poor people could choose to buy inexpensive fuel efficient vehicles.
I remember econoboxes going for ridiculous money back in 2008-ish. As fuel goes up, fuel efficient vehicles will get more expensive because they'll have more value. Kinda like how house prices go up when mortgage rates are down.
-
In the spring of 2007, gas prices were between $3 and $4. I owned a 1999 Tahoe. With the wind at my tail downhill, I got about 15 mpg and I easily drove 1200 miles per month. Assuming 15 mpg (generous!) and $3.50 gallon, that's $280 / month.
I was able to buy a top of the line trim level 2007 Honda Fit Sport for $15,700. I averaged 33 mpg over the next 4 years (I drive fast!) Assuming gas prices remained at $3.50 (they didn't), that would be a 4 year savings in gas of $7,330. (But even after trade-in, I spent ~$11,000 to buy the car. So I guess I never broke even. Fortunately, people can be smarter and buy used cars... right? They can do that?)
Yeah, all else equal, better gas efficiency is better. But all else is not equal.
-
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
I don't think gas tax is the answer. We ought to tax the cars themselves, more tax for more emissions/worse MPGs.
A gas tax is really really regressive, since most poor people can't afford to just buy a more fuel efficient car like the rich folks can when gas spikes. If you expand the gas guzzler tax though, you impact the demand side of the equation, then suddenly its not so profitable for the automaker to make giant crew cab pickups anymore.
I agree with ol1970, the automakers are making what the customers want. We just need to change what the customers want.
I can see the point about the regressiveness of a gas tax; but a gas tax economically deals with the vehicles on the road now and would be easier to tune over time. A tax on new vehicles based on efficiency might have the desired influence on demand (we've seen over the years that gas prices also influence new car demand) but fails to address vehicles on the road, does not promote maintaining efficiency, and could be circumvented by aftermarket modifications. If the vehicle efficiency tax is recurring as part of registration fees, it would be just as regressive as the gas tax.
I've been in favor of a revenue neutral fossil fuel tax for a long time. To avoid the tax shifting even more production overseas, imported goods would have to have a tariff based on the fossil fuels used to produce and transport them (lots of cheap stuff from China wouldn't be so cheap anymore - we'd want to make sure to coordinate the system similar systems implemented by other countries to avoid double taxing the fossil usage represented by imports). To ensure that the fossil fuel tax is creating the desired economic incentive for conservation everywhere, there should be no exemptions to the tax (even apply the tax to fossil fuel use within the government and non-profits). One way to address the regressiveness would be to make the program revenue neutral by returning to taxpayers it as a refundable tax credit. I would want the fossil fuel tax to be eased in (perhaps the law would specify how much the tax could be adjusted per year with a target emissions level that would determine if the tax should be increased).
-
Having made a couple of European trips the past couple of years, I noticed that #1 - there's a lot more small cars there than here in the US. #2 - there's a lot more diesel cars there. Now I realize that the European economy is not a 1:1 comparison to the US, but I think that in the interest of best practices, there are some lessons that we should apply.
We talk about infrastructure. I believe that we should apply a heftier gas tax and it should pay solely for transportation infrastructure. It would be okay to me to apply a 60/40 percentage more heavily slanted toward public transportation. But if we make gas more expensive, it should pay for our transportation needs.
I also think diesels make a lot of sense. There is more energy in a gallon of diesel than in a gallon of gasoline. I know that there are environmental hangups here, but I'd really like to have more diesel options here in the US. It's more efficient and thus good for my personal economy.
On the subject of crime in public transportation, I think that we should also invest some of the aforementioned tax money on security. Here in the Chicago area, the train system is wonderful from a convenience perspective. And statistically, it's very safe. But there are areas that make you feel hinky. Place an armed officer at the stops/stations. It's an unfortunate reality that there are bad people out there with bad intentions.
-
I thought of this thread on my way home from the pharmacy yesterday. I happened to pass by the elementary school in my neighborhood at dismissal. The school is zoned so that every kid lives close enough to walk there, and there are crossing guards and flashing lights in every direction.
There must have been 60+ clown cars idling out front. Every single one was an SUV. All of them <4 years old. Not a single compact or sedan in the bunch. Our town's median household income is roughly $72,000, but we're in NJ so we pay out the nose in property tax and auto insurance costs. Our town also has very little in the way of industry. Nearly everyone who lives here drives somewhere else to work. It makes no sense to own these SUVs!
I'm already swimming in a sea of clown cars!
-
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
I don't think gas tax is the answer. We ought to tax the cars themselves, more tax for more emissions/worse MPGs.
A gas tax is really really regressive, since most poor people can't afford to just buy a more fuel efficient car like the rich folks can when gas spikes. If you expand the gas guzzler tax though, you impact the demand side of the equation, then suddenly its not so profitable for the automaker to make giant crew cab pickups anymore.
I agree with ol1970, the automakers are making what the customers want. We just need to change what the customers want.
This thread is about clown cars. Is it really a huge societal concern that poor people cannot afford gas-guzzling clown cars? As others have mentioned, the more fuel-efficient vehicles tend to be the cheapest anyway.
The U.S. has become far too vehicle-centric in the design of its infrastructure. Poor people especially should be living in places where a car is not as necessary. Maximize the dollars they do have instead of wasting them on transit.
If cars are expensive and gas is expensive, we'll adapt! We'll have more bike lanes, buses will be utilized more commonly, sidewalks are omnipresent (have you ever noticed that some suburban areas don't have sidewalks!!?? I digress...), etc.
I don't think we can change what people want en masse until gas is expensive.
-
Making some cars pay more than others for registration is a piss poor way of doing things. It leads market distortions where people try to game the system, and penalizes people who have trouble planning ahead.
Progressively raising gasoline taxes is much easier to implement, doesn't create sudden shocks, and doesn't shield people from the externalities of their actions because they happen to be in this or that tax bracket.
-
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
I don't think gas tax is the answer. We ought to tax the cars themselves, more tax for more emissions/worse MPGs.
A gas tax is really really regressive, since most poor people can't afford to just buy a more fuel efficient car like the rich folks can when gas spikes. If you expand the gas guzzler tax though, you impact the demand side of the equation, then suddenly its not so profitable for the automaker to make giant crew cab pickups anymore.
I agree with ol1970, the automakers are making what the customers want. We just need to change what the customers want.
This thread is about clown cars. Is it really a huge societal concern that poor people cannot afford gas-guzzling clown cars? As others have mentioned, the more fuel-efficient vehicles tend to be the cheapest anyway.
The U.S. has become far too vehicle-centric in the design of its infrastructure. Poor people especially should be living in places where a car is not as necessary. Maximize the dollars they do have instead of wasting them on transit.
If cars are expensive and gas is expensive, we'll adapt! We'll have more bike lanes, buses will be utilized more commonly, sidewalks are omnipresent (have you ever noticed that some suburban areas don't have sidewalks!!?? I digress...), etc.
I don't think we can change what people want en masse until gas is expensive.
I don't think we will adapt though. What will happen is that the rich will still drive places they don't need to, still in gigantic cars, and the poor will be more and more fucked as their salary covers less and less of their daily needs. Not only that, since the poor are the ones most priced out of automobile transportation, only poor people will want buses and trains. The surest way to make something "uncool" and therefore unused is to attach the "only poor people use it" stigma.
You need to change the behavior of the people at the top to effect the culture, and if the rich aren't influenced to change their transportation habits, then no change will happen.
-
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
I don't think gas tax is the answer. We ought to tax the cars themselves, more tax for more emissions/worse MPGs.
A gas tax is really really regressive, since most poor people can't afford to just buy a more fuel efficient car like the rich folks can when gas spikes. If you expand the gas guzzler tax though, you impact the demand side of the equation, then suddenly its not so profitable for the automaker to make giant crew cab pickups anymore.
I agree with ol1970, the automakers are making what the customers want. We just need to change what the customers want.
This thread is about clown cars. Is it really a huge societal concern that poor people cannot afford gas-guzzling clown cars? As others have mentioned, the more fuel-efficient vehicles tend to be the cheapest anyway.
The U.S. has become far too vehicle-centric in the design of its infrastructure. Poor people especially should be living in places where a car is not as necessary. Maximize the dollars they do have instead of wasting them on transit.
If cars are expensive and gas is expensive, we'll adapt! We'll have more bike lanes, buses will be utilized more commonly, sidewalks are omnipresent (have you ever noticed that some suburban areas don't have sidewalks!!?? I digress...), etc.
I don't think we can change what people want en masse until gas is expensive.
I don't think we will adapt though. What will happen is that the rich will still drive places they don't need to, still in gigantic cars, and the poor will be more and more fucked as their salary covers less and less of their daily needs. Not only that, since the poor are the ones most priced out of automobile transportation, only poor people will want buses and trains. The surest way to make something "uncool" and therefore unused is to attach the "only poor people use it" stigma.
You need to change the behavior of the people at the top to effect the culture, and if the rich aren't influenced to change their transportation habits, then no change will happen.
I think the last time the U.S. had $4 gas for an extended period, there were plenty of changes in consumer auto habits. If they didn't stick, that at least tells me the general consumer is pretty elastic (and that there will still be an element of burn/use it all up before we are forced to use alternatives). Imagine if the U.S. had $6 or $8 gas!
There will always be plenty of rich people spending exorbitant amount of money on bells and whistles regardless of the economic situation. What they buy or how they think of things doesn't really alter my behavior much. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are swayed by stigma but I wouldn't expect to find many on this board or in the general lower and middle class (IMO - if stigma can alter your behavior to spend more money frivolously, you aren't lower or middle class, you're pretty well off). The guy commuting by himself in his $60,000 7 seat vehicle who looks down on those that ride the bus somehow give me more satisfaction as I sit on the bus/metro browsing via the free wifi and doing the crossword and sudoku, gently unwinding after a day of work rather than sitting in traffic. At least it would have if I still commuted in DC, now I work remotely and my commute is only 17 stairs and about 30 feet but I am still tickled at the notion. I am thankful for the wealthy and their spending, though. Various technologies get the kinks worked out that after they become more mainstream, they are more efficient and have a more favorable price point.
Some places you need a car more than others, I get that. I think change can come from bottom up, or at least "middle up". If enough lower class and middle class people do something or demand something, the powers at be will accommodate those demands so they can make a buck off of it. If a certain layout/infrastructure or type of public transit isn't adequately suiting what people are asking for, then I would argue not enough are demanding it. We might just agree to disagree.
I'm normally fairly sympathetic to the bottom 20-30% of households and the barriers/systemic cycles they face but somehow the lower class of the U.S. bitching about how the still-subsidized cost of a gallon of gasoline is making the cost of their commute for their privately owned vehicle higher just doesn't tug at my heartstrings that much.
-
Technically it will be trucks, not cars. Trucks have much higher profit margins than cars. Most are larger than typical passenger cars, and the platform is used for minivans and SUVs as well. There is less competition from foreign brands.
-
I don't think we will adapt though. What will happen is that the rich will still drive places they don't need to, still in gigantic cars, and the poor will be more and more fucked as their salary covers less and less of their daily needs. Not only that, since the poor are the ones most priced out of automobile transportation, only poor people will want buses and trains. The surest way to make something "uncool" and therefore unused is to attach the "only poor people use it" stigma.
You need to change the behavior of the people at the top to effect the culture, and if the rich aren't influenced to change their transportation habits, then no change will happen.
Yes, many of the rich will still drive around in gigantic cars, but the middle class would likely make more practical choices. We're so far away from public transit being the practical choice that I don't think we'll get there (mostly due to how spread out our cities have become), so the practical choice will be more efficient cars and auto makers will adapt to the demand.
-
I don't think we will adapt though. What will happen is that the rich will still drive places they don't need to, still in gigantic cars, and the poor will be more and more fucked as their salary covers less and less of their daily needs.
Sounds good to me- tax the rich doing unnecessary harmful things, and use that money to fund alternatives for everyone else.
-
Making some cars pay more than others for registration is a piss poor way of doing things. It leads market distortions where people try to game the system, and penalizes people who have trouble planning ahead.
Progressively raising gasoline taxes is much easier to implement, doesn't create sudden shocks, and doesn't shield people from the externalities of their actions because they happen to be in this or that tax bracket.
I agree that gas taxes can be part of the solution, but I don't think that someone driving a $140,000 6700 lb. Tesla Model X should pay nothing toward maintaining the roads that they drive on. It is great that they aren't burning fossil fuels, and they should pay less tax than a similar size ICE vehicle, but shouldn't they should pay something based on vehicle weight and miles driven?
-
Having made a small fortune in the clown car industry, I have never ceased to have been amazed at the prices of new automobiles and the escalation of features that are now considered the bare minimums. At the family Thanksgiving when we'd go around and ask what we are thankful for, and my response was always "rear door map pockets on cars and trucks", you know those worthlessly small areas to hold gum wrappers and empty juice boxes...well I exaggerate a little bit, but its because of them I was able to retire in my early 40's.
Someone asked me why they advertise trucks so much...it is because I believe the auto industry and their marketing people are absolute masters at convincing people to buy shit they cannot afford and don't need for their maximum profit. Seriously people think they could not possibly live without power windows, heated seats, and air conditioning. (I won't go into how safety and gov regulations have increased the price of cars, but for a interesting watch, YouTube the offset crash test of a '59 Bel Air to an '09 Malibu and tell me what car you'd rater be in)
What other industry (other than housing) has so thoroughly and successfully convinced us that we need to spend the equivalent of a years salary on their product? I had a heated debate with my auto-executive friends last summer about the marginal utility of an automobile and about how once you go beyond $10k it is all about want and not need...but the average new vehicle sells for close to $50,000!?!?! Hell I agree you can argue the number for marginal utility is a lot lower! Stark reality is generations were all brainwashed by this amazing job they've done selling their product. I will say though that I think the kids born in the last few years won't have any desire to actually own an automobile. The industry will turn upside down over the next few decades and be more of a commodity type producer with a few niche specialty guys. The change everybody wants is coming, not because of politics or opinions, but because the technology is going to drive how people get around. It inevitable, but I very well could be wrong.
-
Making some cars pay more than others for registration is a piss poor way of doing things. It leads market distortions where people try to game the system, and penalizes people who have trouble planning ahead.
Progressively raising gasoline taxes is much easier to implement, doesn't create sudden shocks, and doesn't shield people from the externalities of their actions because they happen to be in this or that tax bracket.
I agree that gas taxes can be part of the solution, but I don't think that someone driving a $140,000 6700 lb. Tesla Model X should pay nothing toward maintaining the roads that they drive on. It is great that they aren't burning fossil fuels, and they should pay less tax than a similar size ICE vehicle, but shouldn't they should pay something based on vehicle weight and miles driven?
Sure. To be honest I completely disregarded EVs because they're such a small portion of the private passenger fleet right now. Maybe we could bump their registration fees, or significantly tax electricity consumption of residential households over a certain threshold.
-
Is there a double-wide car yet? I really need one of those for myself. It would make my 10 mile round trip commute far more luxurious and I would be extremely safe in such a large vehicle.
The Canyonaro! (https://binged.it/2qvbeQq)
-
Making some cars pay more than others for registration is a piss poor way of doing things. It leads market distortions where people try to game the system, and penalizes people who have trouble planning ahead.
Progressively raising gasoline taxes is much easier to implement, doesn't create sudden shocks, and doesn't shield people from the externalities of their actions because they happen to be in this or that tax bracket.
I agree that gas taxes can be part of the solution, but I don't think that someone driving a $140,000 6700 lb. Tesla Model X should pay nothing toward maintaining the roads that they drive on. It is great that they aren't burning fossil fuels, and they should pay less tax than a similar size ICE vehicle, but shouldn't they should pay something based on vehicle weight and miles driven?
Sure. To be honest I completely disregarded EVs because they're such a small portion of the private passenger fleet right now. Maybe we could bump their registration fees, or significantly tax electricity consumption of residential households over a certain threshold.
Put home recharging stations on a separate meter? It wouldn't help if people just plugged into a regular outlet though (which might be adequate for overnight charging and low mileage).
-
Making some cars pay more than others for registration is a piss poor way of doing things. It leads market distortions where people try to game the system, and penalizes people who have trouble planning ahead.
Progressively raising gasoline taxes is much easier to implement, doesn't create sudden shocks, and doesn't shield people from the externalities of their actions because they happen to be in this or that tax bracket.
I agree that gas taxes can be part of the solution, but I don't think that someone driving a $140,000 6700 lb. Tesla Model X should pay nothing toward maintaining the roads that they drive on. It is great that they aren't burning fossil fuels, and they should pay less tax than a similar size ICE vehicle, but shouldn't they should pay something based on vehicle weight and miles driven?
I think the idea is that they're incentivizing EVs in order to get people to switch. They get a free pass for now, kicking the whole road maintenance issue down the line.
-
This is why instead of counter-productive CAFE regulations that do nothing but encourage car makers to play games with car classifications (that SUV is actually a truck, har har!), we need to directly tax vehicles through a formula based on weight, emissions, MPG, CO2 emissions and miles driven.
I mostly agree, except that you could just tax the hell out of the fuel (at least until there are too many electrics).
-
I haven't had time to read every response but wanted to post this nugget for though. My state is proposing a tax on the most fuel efficient cars. I think it was going to be $150/year to use the roads. That's because are roads are falling apart, we don't have income or sales tax and the state heavily relies on the gas tax and tolls to fix the roads. The efficient cars aren't paying their "fair share" per the state.
I think it's funny since other states are offering incentives to buy fuel efficient cars and my state is penalizing it.
-
Nothing like living through an oil embargo, as I did, to really get a perspective of "pain at the pump"... One thing to pay more, a whole other to not be able to buy. God, are a lot of Americans absolute spoiled BRATS, with no discipline, no long term outlook, and just embarrassingly fucking lazy and wasteful. While at it, anyone else notice all of the ads for HELOC's??? Yep, even the front page of the 'Area Shopper' here in BFE is a full page add for one. "But it's different this time"...
-
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
I don't think gas tax is the answer. We ought to tax the cars themselves, more tax for more emissions/worse MPGs.
A gas tax is really really regressive, since most poor people can't afford to just buy a more fuel efficient car like the rich folks can when gas spikes. If you expand the gas guzzler tax though, you impact the demand side of the equation, then suddenly its not so profitable for the automaker to make giant crew cab pickups anymore.
I agree with ol1970, the automakers are making what the customers want. We just need to change what the customers want.
This thread is about clown cars. Is it really a huge societal concern that poor people cannot afford gas-guzzling clown cars? As others have mentioned, the more fuel-efficient vehicles tend to be the cheapest anyway.
The U.S. has become far too vehicle-centric in the design of its infrastructure. Poor people especially should be living in places where a car is not as necessary. Maximize the dollars they do have instead of wasting them on transit.
If cars are expensive and gas is expensive, we'll adapt! We'll have more bike lanes, buses will be utilized more commonly, sidewalks are omnipresent (have you ever noticed that some suburban areas don't have sidewalks!!?? I digress...), etc.
I don't think we can change what people want en masse until gas is expensive.
I don't think we will adapt though. What will happen is that the rich will still drive places they don't need to, still in gigantic cars, and the poor will be more and more fucked as their salary covers less and less of their daily needs. Not only that, since the poor are the ones most priced out of automobile transportation, only poor people will want buses and trains. The surest way to make something "uncool" and therefore unused is to attach the "only poor people use it" stigma.
You need to change the behavior of the people at the top to effect the culture, and if the rich aren't influenced to change their transportation habits, then no change will happen.
That's exactly what would happen.
If gas quadrupled in price, my savings rate would drop but I could easily carry on my same lifestyle. Someone just barely getting by would be fucked.
-
Having made a couple of European trips the past couple of years, I noticed that #1 - there's a lot more small cars there than here in the US. #2 - there's a lot more diesel cars there. Now I realize that the European economy is not a 1:1 comparison to the US, but I think that in the interest of best practices, there are some lessons that we should apply.
We talk about infrastructure. I believe that we should apply a heftier gas tax and it should pay solely for transportation infrastructure. It would be okay to me to apply a 60/40 percentage more heavily slanted toward public transportation. But if we make gas more expensive, it should pay for our transportation needs.
I also think diesels make a lot of sense. There is more energy in a gallon of diesel than in a gallon of gasoline. I know that there are environmental hangups here, but I'd really like to have more diesel options here in the US. It's more efficient and thus good for my personal economy.
On the subject of crime in public transportation, I think that we should also invest some of the aforementioned tax money on security. Here in the Chicago area, the train system is wonderful from a convenience perspective. And statistically, it's very safe. But there are areas that make you feel hinky. Place an armed officer at the stops/stations. It's an unfortunate reality that there are bad people out there with bad intentions.
Europe is much more densely populated than the US, and the majority of US cities were either developed primarily around auto mobility or were adapted to it. This gives US roadways much more space, hence the bigger vehicles. I drove an Audi A2 around Europe in the early 2000s. The infrastructure would not work for an F150 even if you were willing to pay for the gas. US infrastructure almost encourages them.
Gas taxes won't pass as a means to influence infrastructure. With the rise of electric vehicles, there are enough political/geographical differences that gas tax wouldn't suffice and would be politically untenable. It would have to be a wheel tax, or some other tax to get passed IMO.
RE: Diesel. See particulate emissions, VW sham on the EPA, DEF. Diesel is dead in the US except for trucks. Even VW has basically quit pushing them.
On transit security...mostly agreed, but that's too many cops getting bored, looking for "trouble." I'm not sure that is the correct answer.
-
Biking for the win! Although it would be nice if they brought back small 4 cylinder station wagons like the Ford Focus or Jetta. I think a lot of people get SUVs because there really isn't much choice between a tiny hatchback or an SUV for those that need a larger cargo area.
Go look at the MPG of those vintage wagons. LOTS of new cars and crossovers - some bigger - better that vintage MPG.
I have a medium size SUV that gets better fuel economy than the tiny SUV we have from 20 years ago. Loads more comfortable and quiet at highway speeds. Our medium size SUV MPG is about the same as our 18 yr old car.
-
I don't disagree with much of anything you're said. I don't like the idea of government trying to change our behavior, but we do need to nudged at times. A gas tax works well until people overwhelmingly buy electric cars. But in this case, the nudge works.
Then, of course, you'd have to go to something like a "wheel tax". But a Volt has the same number of wheels as an F150. And if you wanted to go by weight, a Volt likely weighs about the same as a Mustang or Camaro. The long pole in the tent is the fuel, so I think that there needs to be a hefty gas tax today to nudge the population into becoming more fuel economy conscious. But obviously there would have to alternate funding in the future because of the unintended (or maybe intended) consequences of using less fuel.
-
I don't disagree with much of anything you're said. I don't like the idea of government trying to change our behavior, but we do need to nudged at times. A gas tax works well until people overwhelmingly buy electric cars. But in this case, the nudge works.
Then, of course, you'd have to go to something like a "wheel tax". But a Volt has the same number of wheels as an F150. And if you wanted to go by weight, a Volt likely weighs about the same as a Mustang or Camaro. The long pole in the tent is the fuel, so I think that there needs to be a hefty gas tax today to nudge the population into becoming more fuel economy conscious. But obviously there would have to alternate funding in the future because of the unintended (or maybe intended) consequences of using less fuel.
Tires might be a better way to do it. Truck tires taxed at a higher rate, more driving = shorter tire life.
-
With the current administration, I'd not be surprised to see CAFE replaced by requirements to include a coal burning car in the lineup. You know.....cleeeeeeeen coal. Really cleeeeeeeeen coal.
-
We've seen that a certain portion of the voters won't tolerate gov't nudges very well. Especially if the president happens to be from a minority group or I suspect, female.
-
"Public Transit is quite often at least as safe as other options, but often fails on the other 5 measures."
Crime is what I'm comparing in safety.
No pickpockets in my car.
No armed robbers in my car.
No one publicly indecent in my car.
No drug addicts or alcoholics in my car.
No rapists in my car.
No child molesters in my car.
No unpredictable insane people in my car.
All of the above commonly found on public transit.
you forgot bedbugs and lice on public transit. Google it and be afraid.
The neighbor's kid I drop off at school might have those...
Seriously, have you ridden public transit recently? Not much of that in LA/OC, I guess. I took public buses all through high school in an urban part of the Bay Area almost 50 years ago. Would not even consider it today. The human urine smell on BART, the "upper" end of public transit, is overwhelming. No thanks!
I haven't used public transit in years (don't commute) but due to the homeless probelms in OC/LA most buses and bus stops are so massively trashed due to transients, many with mental health, drug or alcohol problems, I would be wary also. Biking for the win! Although it would be nice if they brought back small 4 cylinder station wagons like the Ford Focus or Jetta. I think a lot of people get SUVs because there really isn't much choice between a tiny hatchback or an SUV for those that need a larger cargo area.
I have ridden public transport every work day for the better part of 25 years.
Never been assaulted, robbed or flashed but I'll admit I now have a rather robust immune system after picking up every imaginable cold and flu virus under the sun in that time.
Well you're from Oz so maybe all the things there that kill all the other things there killed the bed bugs and lice - which of course are probably full of deadly toxic venom there. I have ridden public transit in other countries before (and in the US but not for awhile) and its all nice and clean and safe in comparison.
I've ridden public transport in LA and found it clean and convenient, although that was around ten years ago. The concierge at my hotel was shocked I wanted public transport to the museum and tried to get me to order a car because she had no idea how the transit system in LA works. I gave her a day and she found out, with many warnings how inefficient it is, unsafe etc. I took the bus from marina del ray and changed to another bus for the rest of the trip to The Getty Villa. I had left ample time as I was told it was unreliable but it ran exactly to time table. I also took the bus on another visit to the Getty Center. The NYC subway was a bit grotty and old but seemed to work fine and I found the BART perfectly good. Of course American public transport isn't as nice or as efficient as other developed or even developing nations but it's not the nightmare many people seem to think it is.
With regards to the topic of safety, I call SUVs "baby killers" because of the high rate of parents accidentally running over their own children due to the poor visibility of SUVs. The current rate is 50 children per week in the US with 70% of that number accounted to SUVs. That number will only rise as they increase market share.
https://www.kidsandcars.org/how-kids-get-hurt/backovers/
Also should be noted that while SUVs might be marginally safer for those in the car they increase fatalities in two car collisions. Ie, you're much more likely to kill others on the road. I doubt many will care much for this argument, I have brought it up with those who talk about the "safety" of SUVs and their responses indicate the only safety they care about is their own. Also SUVs have higher fatalities rates than cars for single car crashes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1847494/
They're basically responsible for the increased road death toll after many years of decreases due to safety and driver education.
-
...Seriously people think they could not possibly live without...air conditioning. (I won't go into how safety and gov regulations have increased the price of cars, but for a interesting watch, YouTube the offset crash test of a '59 Bel Air to an '09 Malibu and tell me what car you'd rater be in)
...
I tried to make it through a Phoenix AZ summer without A/C. No can do, not even close.
I kept a nice big bottle of ice & water in the drink holder (another of those options that you may be discussing even though you didn't specifically call it out), had a misting bottle that sprays a very fine atomized mist, nice infrared (and UV) rejection tint all around (including the front windshield) -> made it to about early June before I had to run the A/C. When it is 115+ degrees Fahrenheit outside and the interior of your car gets to 140 degrees Fahrenheit, going without A/C wasn't something I could do. I can't imagine my driving was improved by attempting this no A/C experiment (especially when I tried misting myself about every 10-15 seconds to keep cool).
-
"Public Transit is quite often at least as safe as other options, but often fails on the other 5 measures."
Crime is what I'm comparing in safety.
No pickpockets in my car.
No armed robbers in my car.
No one publicly indecent in my car.
No drug addicts or alcoholics in my car.
No rapists in my car.
No child molesters in my car.
No unpredictable insane people in my car.
All of the above commonly found on public transit.
you forgot bedbugs and lice on public transit. Google it and be afraid.
The neighbor's kid I drop off at school might have those...
Seriously, have you ridden public transit recently? Not much of that in LA/OC, I guess. I took public buses all through high school in an urban part of the Bay Area almost 50 years ago. Would not even consider it today. The human urine smell on BART, the "upper" end of public transit, is overwhelming. No thanks!
I haven't used public transit in years (don't commute) but due to the homeless probelms in OC/LA most buses and bus stops are so massively trashed due to transients, many with mental health, drug or alcohol problems, I would be wary also. Biking for the win! Although it would be nice if they brought back small 4 cylinder station wagons like the Ford Focus or Jetta. I think a lot of people get SUVs because there really isn't much choice between a tiny hatchback or an SUV for those that need a larger cargo area.
I have ridden public transport every work day for the better part of 25 years.
Never been assaulted, robbed or flashed but I'll admit I now have a rather robust immune system after picking up every imaginable cold and flu virus under the sun in that time.
Well you're from Oz so maybe all the things there that kill all the other things there killed the bed bugs and lice - which of course are probably full of deadly toxic venom there. I have ridden public transit in other countries before (and in the US but not for awhile) and its all nice and clean and safe in comparison.
I've ridden public transport in LA and found it clean and convenient, although that was around ten years ago. The concierge at my hotel was shocked I wanted public transport to the museum and tried to get me to order a car because she had no idea how the transit system in LA works. I gave her a day and she found out, with many warnings how inefficient it is, unsafe etc. I took the bus from marina del ray and changed to another bus for the rest of the trip to The Getty Villa. I had left ample time as I was told it was unreliable but it ran exactly to time table. I also took the bus on another visit to the Getty Center. The NYC subway was a bit grotty and old but seemed to work fine and I found the BART perfectly good. Of course American public transport isn't as nice or as efficient as other developed or even developing nations but it's not the nightmare many people seem to think it is.
With regards to the topic of safety, I call SUVs "baby killers" because of the high rate of parents accidentally running over their own children due to the poor visibility of SUVs. The current rate is 50 children per week in the US with 70% of that number accounted to SUVs. That number will only rise as they increase market share.
https://www.kidsandcars.org/how-kids-get-hurt/backovers/
Also should be noted that while SUVs might be marginally safer for those in the car they increase fatalities in two car collisions. Ie, you're much more likely to kill others on the road. I doubt many will care much for this argument, I have brought it up with those who talk about the "safety" of SUVs and their responses indicate the only safety they care about is their own. Also SUVs have higher fatalities rates than cars for single car crashes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1847494/
They're basically responsible for the increased road death toll after many years of decreases due to safety and driver education.
Vehicle size doesn't mean much - if I put something behind your bumper in an economy car, you're not going to see it any better than you are in an SUV. Incidentally, the source you provided said over 70% of the kids ran over by vehicles are struck with larger vehicles, like SUVs, trucks, and vans. The much-heralded minivan fits into this category too, so perhaps consider how you are selectively applying facts to fit your agenda.
Your single-vehicle crash statistics are talking about SUVs from 1988 to 2004, which is utterly irrelevant when applied to today's crossover market.
Regardless, backup cameras are mandatory on new cars anyway. https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/new-backup-camera-rule-cameras-will-be-mandatory-2-223739
If you visit NYC for two days and do nothing but take three stops back and forth in Midtown, then sure the subway is fine. If you do more than that? Not so much.
https://ny.curbed.com/2018/3/20/17141380/mta-subway-performance-on-time-delays
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/nyregion/subway-late-early-new-york.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/opinion/new-york-subway-mta.html
-
Vehicle size doesn't mean much - if I put something behind your bumper in an economy car, you're not going to see it any better than you are in an SUV. Incidentally, the source you provided said over 70% of the kids ran over by vehicles are struck with larger vehicles, like SUVs, trucks, and vans. The much-heralded minivan fits into this category too, so perhaps consider how you are selectively applying facts to fit your agenda.
Your single-vehicle crash statistics are talking about SUVs from 1988 to 2004, which is utterly irrelevant when applied to today's crossover market.
Regardless, backup cameras are mandatory on new cars anyway. https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/new-backup-camera-rule-cameras-will-be-mandatory-2-223739
If you visit NYC for two days and do nothing but take three stops back and forth in Midtown, then sure the subway is fine. If you do more than that? Not so much.
https://ny.curbed.com/2018/3/20/17141380/mta-subway-performance-on-time-delays
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/nyregion/subway-late-early-new-york.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/opinion/new-york-subway-mta.html
Could also be self-selection bias; more families have larger vehicles than smaller ones.
-
With the current administration, I'd not be surprised to see CAFE replaced by requirements to include a coal burning car in the lineup. You know.....cleeeeeeeen coal. Really cleeeeeeeeen coal.
(https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/outlet-graph-large.jpg)
If the stats are similar to the 2016 stats above, aren't 1/3 of EVs already coal powered cars?
From the chart above, I think we can think of EVs as:
- 1/3 as coal cars,
- 1/3 as natural gas cars,
- 1/3 hybrid nuclear / renewable energy vehicle.
-
A couple of things I wanted to bring up that I don't have the math to back up:
First: How many people can afford a more expensive and profitable bottom tier SUV if they were looking at an inexpensive small car?
Would the price increase to a more profitable, less efficient style lead to a lower total number or automobiles bought such that the total fuel consumption is lower than it would be if there were more affordable options that happened to be more efficient? Maybe a family having one SUV instead of two small cars or someone who has to stretch too far to get a small car, and decides against a vehicle at the SUB starting price.
Second: To encourage the use of public transportation be it buses or subways when they are associated with the dirty, slow, last resort options of the lower classes. Would it make sense to have premium buses and designate one or two cars on the train as premium cars that cost more, are more luxurious, and attract a more affluent crowd? They have to be in aggregate more efficient than personal cars, but cool enough to attract the right people. They also have to be expensive enough to discourage the lower classes from using them but not so expensive they aren't used enough to be profitable.
-
If the stats are similar to the 2016 stats above, aren't 1/3 of EVs already coal powered cars?
From the chart above, I think we can think of EVs as:
- 1/3 as coal cars,
- 1/3 as natural gas cars,
- 1/3 hybrid nuclear / renewable energy vehicle.
Although 3-4 years out of date, this provides somewhat more reliable state-level power mix information. While it can reasonably be further refined by utility company, time of day, etc., I'm not aware of any easily available information that gets more granular than the state level. It seems to me that where you live is a better predictor of how EV's are powered than a a more arbitrary 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split.
https://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/319535020/coal-gas-nuclear-hydro-how-your-state-generates-power
-
If the stats are similar to the 2016 stats above, aren't 1/3 of EVs already coal powered cars?
From the chart above, I think we can think of EVs as:
- 1/3 as coal cars,
- 1/3 as natural gas cars,
- 1/3 hybrid nuclear / renewable energy vehicle.
Although 3-4 years out of date, this provides somewhat more reliable state-level power mix information. While it can reasonably be further refined by utility company, time of day, etc., I'm not aware of any easily available information that gets more granular than the state level. It seems to me that where you live is a better predictor of how EV's are powered than a a more arbitrary 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split.
https://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/319535020/coal-gas-nuclear-hydro-how-your-state-generates-power
Interesting data, thanks for the link!
-
This is why instead of counter-productive CAFE regulations that do nothing but encourage car makers to play games with car classifications (that SUV is actually a truck, har har!), we need to directly tax vehicles through a formula based on weight, emissions, MPG, CO2 emissions and miles driven.
I mostly agree, except that you could just tax the hell out of the fuel (at least until there are too many electrics).
Wear-and-tear to roads is almost entirely a function a weight and traffic volume. Roadway damage resulting from axle weight increases exponentially, while damage from traffic volume increases linearly. 100 million bicycle trips scarcely equal one trip in a truck in terms of pavement damage. I like tax = miles * (weight + emissions) as a basic framework to recapture the lost costs of vehicle ownership.
-
Cars are becoming more like the family room than a mode of transportation because people spend much more of their time in them than in the past. Driving to work, school, stores, and recreation takes up a lot of waking hours these days. Traffic everywhere you go and hours spent stuck in it. Entertainment systems to keep the kids quiet and occupied and the phones for multitasking while inching your way onto the freeway. Gotta be bigger and taller than the next guy because of the perceived safety advantage. Cars equal freedom and now comfort and safety.
It's going to be tough to move back to limited car use and public transit. Nobody wants that when safe, clean, and comfortable private transportation to anywhere is available at any time.
All these reasons is why I support passing a law that would automatically raise the gasoline tax by 20 cents every year for the next 10 years.
The people in the cars outnumber you. People vote for all kinds of tax increases for public transit, in hopes the other guy takes it when it's built so the roads will be clearer. Unless public transit is safe, clean, reliable, comfortable, and convenient, people that are able to avoid using it will choose to do so.
Yup.
"Convenient" being the key.
When I need/want to go somewhere, I want to go now. I don't want to find a bus schedule, trudge to the bus stop, sit around and wait for the bus, then "enjoy" the ride with society's finest.
That's why public transit in most cities (usually buses) is largely the realm of the desperate who have no alternative.
-
We've seen that a certain portion of the voters won't tolerate gov't nudges very well. Especially if the president happens to be from a minority group or I suspect, female.
Consider for a moment the possibility that free adult citizens may just not like being told what to do by obnoxious, know-it-all do gooders who think they have the right to use government to bludgeon people into compliance with their world view? A world view that most Americans, including many Democrats, don't agree with.
Could it be that they are fighting more against overbearing government than "the black guy" or "the woman?"
I don't recall Bill Clinton, who's as white as you can be, passing a whole lot of that sort of legislation, even with control of both houses of Congress. Because he knew the American people wouldn't put up with it.
-
We've seen that a certain portion of the voters won't tolerate gov't nudges very well. Especially if the president happens to be from a minority group or I suspect, female.
Consider for a moment the possibility that free adult citizens may just not like being told what to do by obnoxious, know-it-all do gooders who think they have the right to use government to bludgeon people into compliance with their world view? A world view that most Americans, including many Democrats, don't agree with.
Could it be that they are fighting more against overbearing government than "the black guy" or "the woman?"
I don't recall Bill Clinton, who's as white as you can be, passing a whole lot of that sort of legislation, even with control of both houses of Congress. Because he knew the American people wouldn't put up with it.
Do you know what "nudge" means?
-
We've seen that a certain portion of the voters won't tolerate gov't nudges very well. Especially if the president happens to be from a minority group or I suspect, female.
Consider for a moment the possibility that free adult citizens may just not like being told what to do by obnoxious, know-it-all do gooders who think they have the right to use government to bludgeon people into compliance with their world view? A world view that most Americans, including many Democrats, don't agree with.
Could it be that they are fighting more against overbearing government than "the black guy" or "the woman?"
I don't recall Bill Clinton, who's as white as you can be, passing a whole lot of that sort of legislation, even with control of both houses of Congress. Because he knew the American people wouldn't put up with it.
I'm not sure I understand your complaint. You often self-identify as a Libertarian.
One of the core tenants of Libertarian philosophy is that if you leave other people alone, you should be left alone to do what you want. If you cause harm to people through force however, that's unacceptable and a reasonable time for the government to step in. That's basically what the concept of 'natural rights' is all about. So the government is allowed to create a police force to stop murders, slavery, and theft for example, because these violate natural rights. When you drive an inefficient vehicle, you are creating and contributing to the pollution that directly causes harm to others . . . about 58,000 deaths a year in the US alone (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/ (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/)). That violates the natural rights of these people to breathe clean air and stay alive.
Given that, Libertarians should be wholeheartedly on-board with government pollution controls on vehicles. Free adult citizens might not like being told they can't keep slaves, or murder other people by obnoxious know-it-all do gooders . . . but they're in the wrong from a libertarian perspective as their actions violate natural rights of others. So too with driving a vehicle that spews out significant pollution.
-
We've seen that a certain portion of the voters won't tolerate gov't nudges very well. Especially if the president happens to be from a minority group or I suspect, female.
Consider for a moment the possibility that free adult citizens may just not like being told what to do by obnoxious, know-it-all do gooders who think they have the right to use government to bludgeon people into compliance with their world view? A world view that most Americans, including many Democrats, don't agree with.
Could it be that they are fighting more against overbearing government than "the black guy" or "the woman?"
I don't recall Bill Clinton, who's as white as you can be, passing a whole lot of that sort of legislation, even with control of both houses of Congress. Because he knew the American people wouldn't put up with it.
I'm not sure I understand your complaint. You often self-identify as a Libertarian.
One of the core tenants of Libertarian philosophy is that if you leave other people alone, you should be left alone to do what you want. If you cause harm to people through force however, that's unacceptable and a reasonable time for the government to step in. That's basically what the concept of 'natural rights' is all about. So the government is allowed to create a police force to stop murders, slavery, and theft for example, because these violate natural rights. When you drive an inefficient vehicle, you are creating and contributing to the pollution that directly causes harm to others . . . about 58,000 deaths a year in the US alone (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/ (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/)). That violates the natural rights of these people to breathe clean air and stay alive.
Given that, Libertarians should be wholeheartedly on-board with government pollution controls on vehicles. Free adult citizens might not like being told they can't keep slaves, or murder other people by obnoxious know-it-all do gooders . . . but they're in the wrong from a libertarian perspective as their actions violate natural rights of others. So too with driving a vehicle that spews out significant pollution.
When you drive an efficient vehicle, sometimes it's worse. A Fiat 500 (https://www.fiat.com/content/dam/fiat/cross/models/500_family/family_page/slider/Slider-module_500.jpg) produces over twice the NOx and over triple the hydrocarbons as a Ford SVT Raptor (http://www.automoblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Ford-F150-SVT-Raptor-blue.jpg) does.
For some more perspective, a half hour working in your yard with a 2 stroke leafblower pollutes as much as driving a Raptor from Texas to Anchorage, AK (nearly 4000 miles).
Source (https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/emissions-test-car-vs-truck-vs-leaf-blower.html)
tldr; you are conflating emissions controls with efficiency.
-
I'm not sure I understand your complaint. You often self-identify as a Libertarian.
I think he's just got tired of the race card being played every time he objected to policies put forth by the Obama administration and was responding to Just Joe playing the card again. As a libertarian he opposes government "nudges" wherever they come from.
One of the core tenants of Libertarian philosophy is that if you leave other people alone, you should be left alone to do what you want. If you cause harm to people through force however, that's unacceptable and a reasonable time for the government to step in. That's basically what the concept of 'natural rights' is all about. So the government is allowed to create a police force to stop murders, slavery, and theft for example, because these violate natural rights. When you drive an inefficient vehicle, you are creating and contributing to the pollution that directly causes harm to others . . . about 58,000 deaths a year in the US alone (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/ (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/)). That violates the natural rights of these people to breathe clean air and stay alive.
Given that, Libertarians should be wholeheartedly on-board with government pollution controls on vehicles. Free adult citizens might not like being told they can't keep slaves, or murder other people by obnoxious know-it-all do gooders . . . but they're in the wrong from a libertarian perspective as their actions violate natural rights of others. So too with driving a vehicle that spews out significant pollution.
I identify with Libertarian philosophy of government and think taxation based on externalities like as pollution is a great idea (much better than taxes based on productive economic activity like income an sales). I've been criticized on these forums when suggesting such taxes as an alternative to hard caps.
For pollution I think taxing the fossil fuel is easier and better than taxing the vehicle miles (and could be applied fairly to non-transportation fossil fuel use as well).
For road maintenance I think there should be some combination of:
- property taxes (perhaps based on frontage length)
- congestion tolls
- weight adjusted vehicle miles driven
-
We've seen that a certain portion of the voters won't tolerate gov't nudges very well. Especially if the president happens to be from a minority group or I suspect, female.
Consider for a moment the possibility that free adult citizens may just not like being told what to do by obnoxious, know-it-all do gooders who think they have the right to use government to bludgeon people into compliance with their world view? A world view that most Americans, including many Democrats, don't agree with.
Could it be that they are fighting more against overbearing government than "the black guy" or "the woman?"
I don't recall Bill Clinton, who's as white as you can be, passing a whole lot of that sort of legislation, even with control of both houses of Congress. Because he knew the American people wouldn't put up with it.
I'm not sure I understand your complaint. You often self-identify as a Libertarian.
One of the core tenants of Libertarian philosophy is that if you leave other people alone, you should be left alone to do what you want. If you cause harm to people through force however, that's unacceptable and a reasonable time for the government to step in. That's basically what the concept of 'natural rights' is all about. So the government is allowed to create a police force to stop murders, slavery, and theft for example, because these violate natural rights. When you drive an inefficient vehicle, you are creating and contributing to the pollution that directly causes harm to others . . . about 58,000 deaths a year in the US alone (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/ (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/)). That violates the natural rights of these people to breathe clean air and stay alive.
Given that, Libertarians should be wholeheartedly on-board with government pollution controls on vehicles. Free adult citizens might not like being told they can't keep slaves, or murder other people by obnoxious know-it-all do gooders . . . but they're in the wrong from a libertarian perspective as their actions violate natural rights of others. So too with driving a vehicle that spews out significant pollution.
When you drive an efficient vehicle, sometimes it's worse. A Fiat 500 (https://www.fiat.com/content/dam/fiat/cross/models/500_family/family_page/slider/Slider-module_500.jpg) produces over twice the NOx and over triple the hydrocarbons as a Ford SVT Raptor (http://www.automoblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Ford-F150-SVT-Raptor-blue.jpg) does.
For some more perspective, a half hour working in your yard with a 2 stroke leafblower pollutes as much as driving a Raptor from Texas to Anchorage, AK (nearly 4000 miles).
Source (https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/emissions-test-car-vs-truck-vs-leaf-blower.html)
tldr; you are conflating emissions controls with efficiency.
Did we really need yet another reason to discourage use of leaf blowers? :P It's already annoyingly loud and less efficient than just grabbing a rake.
But yes, you raise a valid point. I'd be happy to increase taxes upon the worst polluting vehicles, and let people pay as much as they want for gas otherwise. (Although the price we currently pay at the pump is artificially deflated by ignoring the damage that any burning of fossil fuel does to our health and the environment.)
-
Well,.....
Seems to me that American car companies did this once before when they dumped the Pinto and the Vega for big cars. It was kind of obvious that they didn't like building small cars back then either. The Japanese ate their lunch. So,.....they'll be all tooled up for the big cars again and history will repeat itself.
In 1980 I was working in Ann Arbor. One of the guys who worked at Chrysler told me, "People don't want small cars." I guess I wasn't a person to him. I think a lot of the people attracted to the car industry like racing and lots of horsepower. Building econoboxes has never been as much fun. Who killed the electric car a few years back?
To quote the lyrics from an old song, "When will they ever learn?"
-
Did we really need yet another reason to discourage use of leaf blowers? :P It's already annoyingly loud and less efficient than just grabbing a rake.
My leaf blower is 1/3 coal powered! ;) Also, not nearly as loud as gas. I use it when I need to blow out the laundry lint residue from the dryer. Works wonders. Let's see your rake do that!
-
We've seen that a certain portion of the voters won't tolerate gov't nudges very well. Especially if the president happens to be from a minority group or I suspect, female.
Consider for a moment the possibility that free adult citizens may just not like being told what to do by obnoxious, know-it-all do gooders who think they have the right to use government to bludgeon people into compliance with their world view? A world view that most Americans, including many Democrats, don't agree with.
Could it be that they are fighting more against overbearing government than "the black guy" or "the woman?"
I don't recall Bill Clinton, who's as white as you can be, passing a whole lot of that sort of legislation, even with control of both houses of Congress. Because he knew the American people wouldn't put up with it.
I'm not sure I understand your complaint. You often self-identify as a Libertarian.
One of the core tenants of Libertarian philosophy is that if you leave other people alone, you should be left alone to do what you want. If you cause harm to people through force however, that's unacceptable and a reasonable time for the government to step in. That's basically what the concept of 'natural rights' is all about. So the government is allowed to create a police force to stop murders, slavery, and theft for example, because these violate natural rights. When you drive an inefficient vehicle, you are creating and contributing to the pollution that directly causes harm to others . . . about 58,000 deaths a year in the US alone (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/ (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/)). That violates the natural rights of these people to breathe clean air and stay alive.
Given that, Libertarians should be wholeheartedly on-board with government pollution controls on vehicles. Free adult citizens might not like being told they can't keep slaves, or murder other people by obnoxious know-it-all do gooders . . . but they're in the wrong from a libertarian perspective as their actions violate natural rights of others. So too with driving a vehicle that spews out significant pollution.
Your application of the non-aggression principle is indirect, flimsy and not universally agreed up on at best.
Additionally, your proposed cure is worse than the disease.
-
It seems to me that where you live is a better predictor of how EV's are powered than a a more arbitrary 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split.
Even better than where you live is where your electricity actually comes from. Your utility releases an annual report that can tell you what fraction of your grid electrons are from which sources. For example, Seattle's: http://www.seattle.gov/light/FuelMix/
Or you can cheat the system, and put solar panels on your roof to charge your electric car. My car is definitely not 1/3 coal-powered, no matter how you slice it.
-
Did we really need yet another reason to discourage use of leaf blowers? :P It's already annoyingly loud and less efficient than just grabbing a rake.
My leaf blower is 1/3 coal powered! ;) Also, not nearly as loud as gas. I use it when I need to blow out the laundry lint residue from the dryer. Works wonders. Let's see your rake do that!
I....use my hands. ?? Or the (solar-powered) vacuum cleaner.
-
Ford is getting out of the car business over the next two years.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ford-motor-company-mustang-focus-survive-shedding-car-brands-fusion-taurus-fiesta-earnings-today-2018-04-25/
We are a fallen people.
-
Just to clarify or restate:
Ford is getting out of the sedan and sub-compact business. (Some people would say "car business" is the selling of automobiles, and Ford is not doing that at all!) They are going with the (current) market trends, and selling more "tall" vehicles, basically a wide variety of SUVs (like Toyota does with their RAV4/Highlander/Sequoia/Land Cruiser/4 Runner/CH-R). They are hoping the small/hybrid SUVs and Focus Active cover enough of the entry level to have good market coverage. And, zero surprises, they will continue to sell trucks ;)
-
I for one am happy to see this. One of my many peeves is people not using the horsepower under the hood to get up to freeway speed during on-ramp merges. Passing or changing lanes is another example.
I know many hybrid cars have the power, but the older, smaller gas vehicles, simply have to be driven very hard to accomplish this. When I'm moving up the freeway and some tin can car jumps into my lane to pass another slow moving car, they don't have the power to get it to the speed that everyone else is going, causing dangerous conditions for everyone behind. Ford, as an example, makes SUVs with tremendous power that allow you to quickly get to speed.
-
I for one am happy to see this. One of my many peeves is people not using the horsepower under the hood to get up to freeway speed during on-ramp merges. Passing or changing lanes is another example.
I know many hybrid cars have the power, but the older, smaller gas vehicles, simply have to be driven very hard to accomplish this. When I'm moving up the freeway and some tin can car jumps into my lane to pass another slow moving car, they don't have the power to get it to the speed that everyone else is going, causing dangerous conditions for everyone behind. Ford, as an example, makes SUVs with tremendous power that allow you to quickly get to speed.
Eh?
This makes zero sense. The vast majority of normal cars (like the ones Ford is eliminating) make sufficient power to do what you're saying without thrashing them. If you want to go back to the mid-90s and make that argument, then sure, some cars were underpowered, but 6 seconds was also considered a fast 0-60 time.
The heavier trucks need to be thrashed to match the smaller cars. In the last year, I've driven a rental Tahoe (V8), Suburban (V8), Expedition (V6T), Pathfinder (V8) and Murano (V6). They were all more sluggish than my Civic. I've driven Focuses in the recent past, and they weren't underpowered.
-
I for one am happy to see this. One of my many peeves is people not using the horsepower under the hood to get up to freeway speed during on-ramp merges. Passing or changing lanes is another example.
I know many hybrid cars have the power, but the older, smaller gas vehicles, simply have to be driven very hard to accomplish this. When I'm moving up the freeway and some tin can car jumps into my lane to pass another slow moving car, they don't have the power to get it to the speed that everyone else is going, causing dangerous conditions for everyone behind. Ford, as an example, makes SUVs with tremendous power that allow you to quickly get to speed.
Eh?
This makes zero sense. The vast majority of normal cars (like the ones Ford is eliminating) make sufficient power to do what you're saying without thrashing them. If you want to go back to the mid-90s and make that argument, then sure, some cars were underpowered, but 6 seconds was also considered a fast 0-60 time.
The heavier trucks need to be thrashed to do match the smaller cars. In the last year, I've driven a rental Tahoe (V8), Suburban (V8), Expedition (V6T), Pathfinder (V8) and Murano (V6). They were all more sluggish than my Civic. I've driven Focuses in the recent past, and they weren't underpowered.
+1
I drove a Ford Focus for years and never had any problem getting the vehicle quickly up to speed to pass slow moving traffic. I currently drive a Corolla and find the same to be true.
-
I for one am happy to see this. One of my many peeves is people not using the horsepower under the hood to get up to freeway speed during on-ramp merges. Passing or changing lanes is another example.
I know many hybrid cars have the power, but the older, smaller gas vehicles, simply have to be driven very hard to accomplish this. When I'm moving up the freeway and some tin can car jumps into my lane to pass another slow moving car, they don't have the power to get it to the speed that everyone else is going, causing dangerous conditions for everyone behind. Ford, as an example, makes SUVs with tremendous power that allow you to quickly get to speed.
Eh?
This makes zero sense. The vast majority of normal cars (like the ones Ford is eliminating) make sufficient power to do what you're saying without thrashing them. If you want to go back to the mid-90s and make that argument, then sure, some cars were underpowered, but 6 seconds was also considered a fast 0-60 time.
The heavier trucks need to be thrashed to do match the smaller cars. In the last year, I've driven a rental Tahoe (V8), Suburban (V8), Expedition (V6T), Pathfinder (V8) and Murano (V6). They were all more sluggish than my Civic. I've driven Focuses in the recent past, and they weren't underpowered.
+1
I drove a Ford Focus for years and never had any problem getting the vehicle quickly up to speed to pass slow moving traffic. I currently drive a Corolla and find the same to be true.
European here; i have a small hatchback with a 1.4, 101BHP engine in it, no issues merging on the autobahn. Also 40+mpg is pretty normal.
-
I for one am happy to see this. One of my many peeves is people not using the horsepower under the hood to get up to freeway speed during on-ramp merges. Passing or changing lanes is another example.
I know many hybrid cars have the power, but the older, smaller gas vehicles, simply have to be driven very hard to accomplish this. When I'm moving up the freeway and some tin can car jumps into my lane to pass another slow moving car, they don't have the power to get it to the speed that everyone else is going, causing dangerous conditions for everyone behind. Ford, as an example, makes SUVs with tremendous power that allow you to quickly get to speed.
Eh?
This makes zero sense. The vast majority of normal cars (like the ones Ford is eliminating) make sufficient power to do what you're saying without thrashing them. If you want to go back to the mid-90s and make that argument, then sure, some cars were underpowered, but 6 seconds was also considered a fast 0-60 time.
The heavier trucks need to be thrashed to do match the smaller cars. In the last year, I've driven a rental Tahoe (V8), Suburban (V8), Expedition (V6T), Pathfinder (V8) and Murano (V6). They were all more sluggish than my Civic. I've driven Focuses in the recent past, and they weren't underpowered.
+1
I drove a Ford Focus for years and never had any problem getting the vehicle quickly up to speed to pass slow moving traffic. I currently drive a Corolla and find the same to be true.
European here; i have a small hatchback with a 1.4, 101BHP engine in it, no issues merging on the autobahn. Also 40+mpg is pretty normal.
I've drive a 28 year old 1.6 liter car and have no problem wringing out my engine to appropriately merge on the freeway.
I will not be even a little bit sad if we have another gas price hike and Ford goes out of business.
-
I will not be even a little bit sad if we have another gas price hike and Ford goes out of business.
This is just for the US. Since they're global platforms, bringing them back in response to changes in demand won't be prohibitively expensive.
-
I will not be even a little bit sad if we have another gas price hike and Ford goes out of business.
You made no claims to be an expert in the automotive business, so I'll pull my punches. But I think the same people that think Telsa stock valuation is "spot on" just might have the same kind of narrow view of business to think Ford is even remotely more in danger of going out of business than their competitors. Remember - they've become an international business. That means they build and sell cars overseas, and the have a huge variety of vehicles that they'll continue to develop across the globe. If the market really does explode for small, efficient cars here in the States, they can pull in their European models.
-
In other news Ford announced that is getting rid of most of its cars by 2022. 90% of the vehicles it produces will be SUV's Trucks and commercial vehicles.
I doubt they are doing this because they want to jam trucks and SUV's down our throats. The free market economy has spoken. Keep in mind Ford is also investing $11B and committed to have 40 electrified vehicles on the road by 2022 as well...so it is not all doom and gloom, unless you really like sedans I suppose.
-
This is the only thing mentioned:
With the Trump administration planning to roll back fuel-economy standards for auto makers’ fleets, the shift to SUVs and trucks is only likely to continue.
Thanks.
Even my relatively pro environment friends seem to favor light SUVs over cars - Subarus or crossovers. So basically without regulations to save us from ourselves we’re screwed.
I was looking at NASA’s climate website the other day and was shocked by the steady increase in atmospheric CO2- I know it’s happening, obviously, but the change in just my lifetime is disheartening.https://climate.nasa.gov (https://climate.nasa.gov)
I don't think it should really be the government's job to save us from ourselves though... The good/bad news here is that the price of used, quality smaller cars is going to go up. Good news for owners, bad news for buyers.
-
I for one am happy to see this. One of my many peeves is people not using the horsepower under the hood to get up to freeway speed during on-ramp merges. Passing or changing lanes is another example.
I know many hybrid cars have the power, but the older, smaller gas vehicles, simply have to be driven very hard to accomplish this. When I'm moving up the freeway and some tin can car jumps into my lane to pass another slow moving car, they don't have the power to get it to the speed that everyone else is going, causing dangerous conditions for everyone behind. Ford, as an example, makes SUVs with tremendous power that allow you to quickly get to speed.
Eh?
This makes zero sense. The vast majority of normal cars (like the ones Ford is eliminating) make sufficient power to do what you're saying without thrashing them. If you want to go back to the mid-90s and make that argument, then sure, some cars were underpowered, but 6 seconds was also considered a fast 0-60 time.
The heavier trucks need to be thrashed to do match the smaller cars. In the last year, I've driven a rental Tahoe (V8), Suburban (V8), Expedition (V6T), Pathfinder (V8) and Murano (V6). They were all more sluggish than my Civic. I've driven Focuses in the recent past, and they weren't underpowered.
This generally is not down to any post 2000 vehicle, This is generally down to:
* Generally bad drivers who don't understand how unsafe velocity differentials are
* Assholes that think the road belongs to them
* Assholes who think their 'hypermiling' 90 second 0-60 is saving them significant money and saving the planet.
-
I have a strange suspicion that the complaint may well be related to:
* Generally bad drivers who don't understand how unsafe velocity differentials are
* Assholes that think the road belongs to them
* Assholes driving well above the speed limit, who fail to safely moderate speed for traffic conditions
:P
-
I have a strange suspicion that the complaint may well be related to:
* Generally bad drivers who don't understand how unsafe velocity differentials are
* Assholes that think the road belongs to them
* Assholes driving well above the speed limit, who fail to safely moderate speed for traffic conditions
:P
At least in my area, very rarely is the right lane moving even at the limit of the roadway. Lots of tractor-trailers and other slow vehicles (the left lanes on the other hand, I agree). Yet often I see Prius and other EV/econocar owners (frequently with various rear bumper literature proclaiming their desire to save the planet) not speed matching before attempting to merge. Even modern vehicles that are quite capable of being operated safely in the situation.
Don't take that as a slight toward frugal car ownership or environmentalism, but saving a few drops of gas on a freeway entrance isn't going to solve any financial or environmental problem and only increases the risks to yourself and other drivers. Hell, forcing several cars to have to brake and then re-accelerate because you don't match speed blows away any savings your one vehicle might realize. It's entirely idiotic.
But, even in the event people in the lane you are trying to merge into ARE speeding, it's still dangerous, illegal and counter productive to environmental goals to not match speed before doing so.
-
I for one am happy to see this. One of my many peeves is people not using the horsepower under the hood to get up to freeway speed during on-ramp merges. Passing or changing lanes is another example.
I know many hybrid cars have the power, but the older, smaller gas vehicles, simply have to be driven very hard to accomplish this. When I'm moving up the freeway and some tin can car jumps into my lane to pass another slow moving car, they don't have the power to get it to the speed that everyone else is going, causing dangerous conditions for everyone behind. Ford, as an example, makes SUVs with tremendous power that allow you to quickly get to speed.
When I got my first job I got the intern truck, a '92 F350 that could only break 74mph going downhill and did 0-60 in about 30 seconds (also the AC didn't work, so they sent it to Las Vegas just after I left). My dad has an '87 Blazer with an eight cylinder direct injection engine that technically gets up to 85 mph (or at least the speedometer does) but anything over 65 is scary as hell, plus it corners like a tall glass bottle. Fortunately, Honda makes Civics that have tremendous power that allow you to corner and get up to speed quickly (and have working AC).
-
Did we really need yet another reason to discourage use of leaf blowers? :P It's already annoyingly loud and less efficient than just grabbing a rake.
My leaf blower is 1/3 coal powered! ;) Also, not nearly as loud as gas. I use it when I need to blow out the laundry lint residue from the dryer. Works wonders. Let's see your rake do that!
My leaf blower is great at getting a bonfire really going. How many emissions is that?
-
We've seen that a certain portion of the voters won't tolerate gov't nudges very well. Especially if the president happens to be from a minority group or I suspect, female.
Consider for a moment the possibility that free adult citizens may just not like being told what to do by obnoxious, know-it-all do gooders who think they have the right to use government to bludgeon people into compliance with their world view? A world view that most Americans, including many Democrats, don't agree with.
Could it be that they are fighting more against overbearing government than "the black guy" or "the woman?"
I don't recall Bill Clinton, who's as white as you can be, passing a whole lot of that sort of legislation, even with control of both houses of Congress. Because he knew the American people wouldn't put up with it.
Well, this is just plain wrong. Bill Clinton passed DOMA, for one, which is about as anti-libertarian as you can get.
-
We've seen that a certain portion of the voters won't tolerate gov't nudges very well. Especially if the president happens to be from a minority group or I suspect, female.
Consider for a moment the possibility that free adult citizens may just not like being told what to do by obnoxious, know-it-all do gooders who think they have the right to use government to bludgeon people into compliance with their world view? A world view that most Americans, including many Democrats, don't agree with.
Could it be that they are fighting more against overbearing government than "the black guy" or "the woman?"
I don't recall Bill Clinton, who's as white as you can be, passing a whole lot of that sort of legislation, even with control of both houses of Congress. Because he knew the American people wouldn't put up with it.
Well, this is just plain wrong. Bill Clinton passed DOMA, for one, which is about as anti-libertarian as you can get.
Get out more. Makes no difference to me what a persons gender or race is but I've met alot of people for whom this is an issue. Sometimes they are out with it, sometimes they are subtle but clear in their opinions.
-
Get out more. Makes no difference to me what a persons gender or race is but I've met alot of people for whom this is an issue. Sometimes they are out with it, sometimes they are subtle but clear in their opinions.
Are you suggesting that gay marriage is a hot button issue that a majority of Americans strongly oppose? Because the polls seem to contradict that position.
Even in deep red states Americans seem to have embraced equality for gay people much more readily than embraced equality for black people. Maybe it's because they have gay people in their own families? There are still some hold outs on both causes, of course, but we typically call those people descriptive names, like "Bubba".
-
My leaf blower is great at getting a bonfire really going. How many emissions is that?
Zero. Bonfires are carbon Nuetral, dude!
The more I read about climate change, the more certain I am that the planet is screwed. Not so much for us, but everyone younger than our kids. Unless there is some miraculous conservation iniative started by rich countries along with new innovative tech by 2030 or at least until the aliens come and save us we're fucked. Despite my tree hugging tendancies and "it matters for that one starfish" mentality, I just don't think emissions matter anymore.
-
we're fucked.
The good news: climate change isn't as bad as you think! We could abandon half of the globe as unlivable hellscape, and still not use the majority of the other half. We have LOTS of unused land in places that are currently too cold, so as soon as we accept that Florida is toast we can start building a new Manhattan in Alaska.
The bad news: we're probably all getting wiped out by weaponized influenza or nuclear holocaust loooong before we finish building New Manhattan in Alaska. We're so focused on the "known unknowns" these days that I think we're uniquely vulnerable to global scale ecological collapse from a variety of causes that aren't even on most people's radar screens these days. Yellowstone could erupt. A gamma ray burst could sterilize one hemisphere. Thawing permafrost could unleash The Thing. Mass extinction is a regular part of Earth's history and climate change is just one of a thousand ways to do it.
-
The bad news: we're probably all getting wiped out by weaponized influenza or nuclear holocaust loooong before we finish building New Manhattan in Alaska.
Where I live now it will probably be malaria.
Mass exinction is a regular part of Earth's history and climate change is just one of a thousand ways to do it.
I think deGrasse Tyson said something similar. Unsure if it is comforting.
-
we're fucked.
The good news: climate change isn't as bad as you think! We could abandon half of the globe as unlivable hellscape, and still not use the majority of the other half. We have LOTS of unused land in places that are currently too cold, so as soon as we accept that Florida is toast we can start building a new Manhattan in Alaska.
The bad news: we're probably all getting wiped out by weaponized influenza or nuclear holocaust loooong before we finish building New Manhattan in Alaska. We're so focused on the "known unknowns" these days that I think we're uniquely vulnerable to global scale ecological collapse from a variety of causes that aren't even on most people's radar screens these days. Yellowstone could erupt. A gamma ray burst could sterilize one hemisphere. Thawing permafrost could unleash The Thing. Mass extinction is a regular part of Earth's history and climate change is just one of a thousand ways to do it.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/ (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/)
-
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/ (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/)
Exactly. But it doesn't mean we're not fucked. However, I'll continue to bicycle commute and vote.
-
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/ (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/)
Exactly. But it doesn't mean we're not fucked. However, I'll continue to bicycle commute and vote.
I think that's a good thing. Control what you can control and do what you think is best.
But, there's no point in worrying about how we're all going to die from something that we don't even know we're supposed to be worrying about yet.
For what it's worth. I firmly believe that we're not fucked. Human ingenuity is amazing and I trust in the traits that have brought us to the pinnacle of life (on this planet at least).
-
Aw c'mon, you have to have a 3 ton SUX 6000 to shuttle your little Jeffrey Dahmer Einstein to school and soccer practice, because--safety! I mean, what if it rains????
Does... does it come with cruise control?
-
But, there's no point in worrying about how we're all going to die from something that we don't even know we're supposed to be worrying about yet.
I think there's a whole Mustache post on optimism if I'm not mistaken. Oh, here it is: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/ (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/)
I'm not really worried about dying from climate change as it will start to get bad in about 40 years and I'll be on my way out. I'm more worried about people who are being born right after now. I know t's hard for us with short lifespans to contemplate a change over decades. For your daily dose of doom and gloom, I think people are putting too much faith into future tech that will save us all. What we have to do, right now, is conserve emissions and cut back on consumerism, which I don't think most people who read MMM will have difficulty with. I believe more in human greed and the ability to lie to ourselves than our ingenuity. We'll probably die from climate change induced war than malaria. Because we wont collectively do it now voluntarily for the future, authoritarian governments will take over to limit emissions abruptly. Go Scott Pruit.
So enjoy life now :)