What I think needs to be done about oversized trucks and SUV's.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
T

TheOriginalJames

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,395
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
People aren't buying SUVs because celebrities buy them. They believed the hype from the auto manufacturers that "Bigger is better" or that they're "safer" or because of the sheer size, they can run into anything at any speed and not get as hurt.

Meanwhile people bitch and complain about the price of a gallon of gas.
 
  • 220
    Replies
  • 5K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list
All Else Failed

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
TheOriginalJames said:
People aren't buying SUVs because celebrities buy them. They believed the hype from the auto manufacturers that "Bigger is better" or that they're "safer" or because of the sheer size, they can run into anything at any speed and not get as hurt.

Meanwhile people bitch and complain about the price of a gallon of gas.
Click to expand...
There is that too. There are a few factors involved.
 
G

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
All Else Failed said:
There are plenty of cars that can fit 5 people in them that get around 34 miles to the gallon.
Click to expand...
AEF, I need a vehicle that seats more than 5. My children have friends and I do things with them. We go places together. Also taking care of a family of 5 means buying things for a family of five. Going to visit grandma means packing for 5 people and loading all of that up into a vehicle.

This is silly. I don't know why I am explaining this to you.
 
N

NightWarrior

Guest
GraceAbounds said:
AEF, I need a vehicle that seats more than 5. My children have friends and I do things with them. We go places together. Also taking care of a family of 5 means buying things for a family of five. Going to visit grandma means packing for 5 people and loading all of that up into a vehicle.

This is silly. I don't know why I am explaining this to you.
Click to expand...

He doesn't understand such things.
 
All Else Failed

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
GraceAbounds said:
AEF, I need a vehicle that seats more than 5. My children have friends and I do things with them. We go places together. Also taking care of a family of 5 means buying things for a family of five. Going to visit grandma means packing for 5 people and loading all of that up into a vehicle.

This is silly. I don't know why I am explaining this to you.
Click to expand...
Van. Problem solved.
 
All Else Failed

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
GraceAbounds said:
And what pray tell is that ingenious plan? If you've stated it already in this thread, I apologize as I have not taken the time to read it.
Click to expand...
What I think should be done is, companies should halt all production on overly large trucks and SUV's to be sold to private civilians that do not have a valid reason for owning one. People like contractors and people that live in rural areas that actually have a reason for owning one would have a special license that they can show to the company that produces them that yes, they can own one because they have a reason too. People that already own large trucks/SUV's would be given a special deal where they can trade them in for a more gas efficient car for a lower price. The trucks/SUV's that are traded in will either be recycled or sold to people who actually need them. This will stimulate the economy and give people jobs. This process is totally optional and voluntary, no one will be forcing you to give up your truck, although with the way gas and oil prices are going....odds are it will be a favorable option to consider.
 
G

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
Ok. I don't see how that will help my situation. My van gets sucky gas mileage. But a van is what we need, so a van is what we have.
 
dt3

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
GraceAbounds said:
Ok. I don't see how that will help my situation. My van gets sucky gas mileage. But a van is what we need, so a van is what we have.
Click to expand...
Don't you see Grace? You have to get rid of your large truck/SUV! That'll improve the mileage of your van.


Polluter. :p
 
B

Breath

Banned!
Messages
3,824
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I think in theory that what AEF is advocating is 100% on the mark. It sounds to me that the tree hugger part of your personality implies that you are all for conservation, for recycling, for the prevention of global warming (and all of the other etcs that go along with those ideas). And if we all would just sit around the campfire and make some s'mores together and just talk ideas rather than try to bash each others' opinions, I think we'd all agree with the theory.
I don't have a source to back this up ('cause I don't feel like searching), but I believe that it's fairly common knowledge that American is one of the most wasteful societies in the world. We live in a throw-away culture.
We all know we need to rely less on oil and that we can do that by increasing our fuel economy. We should walk more. We should take more public transportation. We should recycle glass and paper and aluminum. We should insulate our homes. We should use less (or no) styrofoam. There are a myriad of other tasks we could all accomplish that would be less polluting to our world.
There is nothing wrong with those ideas. And AEF is simply reiterating that basic concept by his passionate opinion that large oversized trucks and SUVs are not conducive to a green world. Used by people who "don't really need them" (as he states) is a materialistic pleasure. No question about that at all.
The theory is beautiful, it's admirable even, but not going to ever be realistically put into practice. So let's stop the bickering since it's essentially not convincing anyone of anything, and take it to another direction.
Given that conservation is desirable,
Given that in America we have a right to pursue happiness,
Given that the diversity of the population makes it impossible for everyone to think alike...
Would it be out of line to suggest that manufacturers police themselves and produce a smaller number of offending products than they do now? I am sure that they'd be willing to take a tax cut for this "service" to the community. This could impact all sorts of commodities, from the largest gas guzzling vehicles to the production of soft drinks. Those who choose to purchase and use the products anyway would be forced to pay more (due to there being less product so the cost per unit would have to increase). The plus side is there would be less of the environmentally offensive products on the market. And the population would be "forced" to utilize more environmentally-friendly alternatives. There are plenty of ramifications to this idea. I am sure the biggest argument would be, "Why should anyone have to do without?" The answer is that a society exists so that the individual members can contribute to the good of the whole. Quite simply, we have to take care of each other AND the world.
 
G

GameCrazed

In Memoriam
Messages
155
Reaction score
9
Tokenz
0.00z
Wow...just wow. I'll have to break this up a bit.

1.) Thank you, AEF, for opening my eyes to the dark and disturbing truth that people actually don't need everything that they buy. Coincidentally you told me this on a computer through an internet connection both unescessary for your basic survival.

2.) If you want to help save the environment then driving smaller cars WILL NOT HELP. If you really want to save the environment, then start driving an electric car that runs on solar energy. Or try horse and buggy.

3.) First off, stop reffering to the Constitution as if it's some moral backing. The Constitution has been rethought, rewritten and blatanlty violated. It exists now to give people the illusion that their freedoms are safe. It means nothing.

Plus it was written almost 250 years ago before modern technology and enviromental issues even existed, let alone were relevant.

Secondly, telling people what they can and cannot purchase with their own money is a slippery slope and can olny open new doors to eliminating freedom. Not as if that mentality doesn't already exist, but it doesn't need to be perpetuated in any new outlets.

4.) And seriously, this is personal opinion dressed up as logical thought taken to a frighteneningvel. It sounds to me like you're pissed off at some dickhead Hummer guy and are taking it out in the form of a "philisophical topic."
 
78,874Threads
2,185,388Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top