gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>
>>Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>
>>>In article .net>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/fuel_standards
>>>>
>>>>I took your advice, and I told my congressman to vote
>>>>against it. I'll write similar letters to my senators
>>>>as well, in the event the bill passes the House and
>>>>makes it to the Senate. And I'll write to President
>>>>Bush and ask him to veto the bill if it passes both houses.
>>>>
>>>>Fuel consumption standards for manufacturers are a bad
>>>>way, possibly the worst, to promote conservation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Because it doesn't incentivise the average consumer to do anything but
>>whine about why their new cars cost so much and why they can't buy the
>>cars they really want. It puts all the burden of conservation on the
>>manufacturers, who are in no position to determine exactly what vehicles
>>consumers will buy or how they will use them.
>>
>>Experience with CAFE has shown that a) American consumers, in general,
>>like large cars and b) if they can't get them, they will buy something
>>else that serves the same need (i.e. pickups and SUVs) generally to the
>>overall detriment of on-road fleet economy.
>
>
> SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
> and coupes.

Um, no they don't.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article >, Shawn Hirn
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
>>>and coupes.
>>
>>No. CAFE must be scrapped entirely. Then the government needs to end the
>>market protections for big oil and stop subsidizing big oil with military
>>and foreign aid expenditures.
>>
>>Getting back to a free market is the only thing that can fix this mess.
>
>
> That's an interesting strategy. Were it not for the fact that there's
> more likelihood of the moon reversing its orbit around the earth than
> for congress to stop protecting big oil interests, you might have a
> point there.
>
> When the ideas of making seat belts mandatory and better bumpers
> mandatory equipment in cars were first floated in congress, the big auto
> companies all hemmed and hawed that it would cut into profits. Same with
> making air bags mandatory, but now every car company would not think of
> offering a car without those features, even if the feds allowed it.

And yet there are consumers that would gladly buy a car without airbags,
traction control, etc. were they available.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:45:01 -0400, Nate Nagel > wrote:

>
>And yet there are consumers that would gladly buy a car without airbags,
>traction control, etc. were they available.
>
>nate

Me me me me me....

I haven't needed air bags in any of my cars since I started driving. And,
thanks to the air bag, if I ever do have an accident on a road rally, I'm
probably going to die 'cuz the road rally computer is between me and the air
bag, since I navigate and sit in the right seat. There's just no other place
to put it, and that air bag will pick it up and jam it thru my teeth. Our only
chance is _not_ to have an accident.

Traction control? Something else to go wrong. If I can't keep the damn thing
going straight with my driving skills, I don't _deserve_ to not crash. Traction
control is for incompetents and wimps.

And... I don't like antilock brakes, either...

Dave Head

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:

> Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article >, Shawn Hirn
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
> >>>and coupes.
> >>
> >>No. CAFE must be scrapped entirely. Then the government needs to end the
> >>market protections for big oil and stop subsidizing big oil with military
> >>and foreign aid expenditures.
> >>
> >>Getting back to a free market is the only thing that can fix this mess.
> >
> >
> > That's an interesting strategy. Were it not for the fact that there's
> > more likelihood of the moon reversing its orbit around the earth than
> > for congress to stop protecting big oil interests, you might have a
> > point there.
> >
> > When the ideas of making seat belts mandatory and better bumpers
> > mandatory equipment in cars were first floated in congress, the big auto
> > companies all hemmed and hawed that it would cut into profits. Same with
> > making air bags mandatory, but now every car company would not think of
> > offering a car without those features, even if the feds allowed it.
>
> And yet there are consumers that would gladly buy a car without airbags,
> traction control, etc. were they available.

Fewer and fewer consumers would buy such a vehicle. Most consumers
prefer to drive a reasonable safe vehicle. Just look at the sticker on
any new car where the auto manufacturer touts all the safety features as
if they are doing the consumer a favor by putting them there, when in
fact, they are federally mandated.

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:

>
> > SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
> > and coupes.
>
> Um, no they don't.

They don't now, but future models (say in about five years) ought to be
mandated to meet far better fuel economy standards.

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>
>>Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >, Shawn Hirn
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
>>>>>and coupes.
>>>>
>>>>No. CAFE must be scrapped entirely. Then the government needs to end the
>>>>market protections for big oil and stop subsidizing big oil with military
>>>>and foreign aid expenditures.
>>>>
>>>>Getting back to a free market is the only thing that can fix this mess.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's an interesting strategy. Were it not for the fact that there's
>>>more likelihood of the moon reversing its orbit around the earth than
>>>for congress to stop protecting big oil interests, you might have a
>>>point there.
>>>
>>>When the ideas of making seat belts mandatory and better bumpers
>>>mandatory equipment in cars were first floated in congress, the big auto
>>>companies all hemmed and hawed that it would cut into profits. Same with
>>>making air bags mandatory, but now every car company would not think of
>>>offering a car without those features, even if the feds allowed it.
>>
>>And yet there are consumers that would gladly buy a car without airbags,
>>traction control, etc. were they available.
>
>
> Fewer and fewer consumers would buy such a vehicle. Most consumers
> prefer to drive a reasonable safe vehicle. Just look at the sticker on
> any new car where the auto manufacturer touts all the safety features as
> if they are doing the consumer a favor by putting them there, when in
> fact, they are federally mandated.

Any vehicle is reasonably safe when driven by a reasonably safe driver.
We reached the point of diminishing returns sometime in the late 60's
or early 70's. Seatbelts were a good idea and not that expensive to
implement. So were side markers and collapsible steering columns. But
since then... each incremental safety feature has cost exponentially
more $$$ to implement...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>
>>>SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
>>>and coupes.
>>
>>Um, no they don't.
>
>
> They don't now, but future models (say in about five years) ought to be
> mandated to meet far better fuel economy standards.

Thus making them useless. You're a genius.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
>> And yet there are consumers that would gladly buy a car without airbags,
>> traction control, etc. were they available.

> Fewer and fewer consumers would buy such a vehicle. Most consumers
> prefer to drive a reasonable safe vehicle. Just look at the sticker on
> any new car where the auto manufacturer touts all the safety features as
> if they are doing the consumer a favor by putting them there, when in
> fact, they are federally mandated.

And you just destroyed your own government regulation stance and made a
free market argument.

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:59:57 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>> And yet there are consumers that would gladly buy a car without airbags,
>>> traction control, etc. were they available.
>
>> Fewer and fewer consumers would buy such a vehicle. Most consumers
>> prefer to drive a reasonable safe vehicle. Just look at the sticker on
>> any new car where the auto manufacturer touts all the safety features as
>> if they are doing the consumer a favor by putting them there, when in
>> fact, they are federally mandated.
>
>And you just destroyed your own government regulation stance and made a
>free market argument.
>

Unless of course consumers would only start to expect such things
after they were mandated.

Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> > Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > > In article .net>,
> > > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/fuel_standards
> > >>
> > >>I took your advice, and I told my congressman to vote
> > >>against it. I'll write similar letters to my senators
> > >>as well, in the event the bill passes the House and
> > >>makes it to the Senate. And I'll write to President
> > >>Bush and ask him to veto the bill if it passes both houses.
> > >>
> > >>Fuel consumption standards for manufacturers are a bad
> > >>way, possibly the worst, to promote conservation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because it doesn't incentivise the average consumer to do anything but
> > whine about why their new cars cost so much and why they can't buy the
> > cars they really want. It puts all the burden of conservation on the
> > manufacturers, who are in no position to determine exactly what vehicles
> > consumers will buy or how they will use them.
> >
> > Experience with CAFE has shown that a) American consumers, in general,
> > like large cars and b) if they can't get them, they will buy something
> > else that serves the same need (i.e. pickups and SUVs) generally to the
> > overall detriment of on-road fleet economy.
>
> SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
> and coupes.
>
So an SUV or a pickup has to get the same mileage as a tiny eco-box?
That's impossible. I guess you could put a leak in the eco-box fuel
tank.


--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"