Individual wrongs v. common rights

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 07:09 AM) [snapback]488573[/snapback]</div>

I disagree if the choice is harmful. Part of the government's job is to keep society from destroying itself.

For instance, someone may choose to drive drunk. I don't resepect that choice because they make the roads less safe and could potentially harm others. Therefore, I support the government in enforcing laws to prevent a drunk individiual's harmful choices. Likewise, if a factory is dumping toxic sludge in a river and killing all the fish, I would support the government in enforcing pollution controls even if it condradicts the factory's "choice" and makes it more expensive for them to operate.

Now if we look at SUVs, you could argue a few things. First, they pollute a lot and should be regulated just like a factory spewing toxic sludge, they make the roads more dangerous for anyone in a car somewhat like driving drunk makes the roads more dangerous, and because of the increased fuel consumption, they drive up gas prices causing inflation and increased imports from countries hostile to American interests.

I have no problem with stricter regulation on SUV's/trucks.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FloridaWen @ Aug 1 2007, 06:21 AM) [snapback]488565[/snapback]</div>

SUV's serve a useful purpose, but I think the problem is that most SUV owners may only use the full capability of their SUVs a few times a year if at all.

It makes more sense to rent an SUV for those rare occasions instead of using the vehicle as a commuter 99.9% of the time. In fact, I may go caving soon at a location requiring a few miles of travel on a rocky, muddy 4-wheel drive road and I plan to drive my Prius close to the location, then rent a Jeep when I get there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Aug 1 2007, 02:14 PM) [snapback]488714[/snapback]</div>

First of all, today's SUVs produce lower emissions than the passenger cars of just a few years ago. While it is true that SUVs are currently allowed to emit twice the amount of smog-forming emissions (hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides) as passenger cars, this is still a minuscule amount, and represents a tiny fraction of what vehicles used to emit.

While automotive emissions remain a problem, the primary culprits are older vehicles and vehicles with poorly maintained or malfunctioning emission-control equipment. Such vehicles are a small proportion of vehicles on the road — only 10 to 20 percent of vehicles. Yet these gross polluting vehicles — cars and light trucks alike — account for an estimated 50 to 80 percent of smog-forming emissions. So, if you really want to make a difference, start with these vehicles first.

Also, for many families, owning an SUV is more of a reality than it is a choice. Inefficiency is really in the eye of the beholder. For a family of five, the Prius may be a terribly inefficient vehicle choice if it is incapable of meeting the family's transportation needs. Moreover, you can't haul 20 bags of play sand in the back of your Prius. I did that in one trip to Home Depot last weekend in my SUV. It would have taken 3 trips in my wife's Prius.

Of course, not every day requires SUV owners to shuttle loads of children or haul 1,000 pounds of sand, and SUVs get poor gas mileage all the time. This is true, but this is a cost that SUV owners are apparently willing to bear. Driving an SUV with lower gas mileage requires the purchase of more gas. SUV owners are paying for the costs of their choice, and then some, through gasoline prices which include substantial state and federal taxes, which are used to pay for roads among other things. SUVs may produce more wear and tear on roads because they are larger and heavier, but SUV owners also pay a greater proportion of road-construction costs because they purchase more gasoline and pay more in gas taxes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 12:37 PM) [snapback]488668[/snapback]</div>

If we look at this in a slightly different way, we are all paying the bills for polluting technologies.

 

Yes, older vehicles pollute a ton more than newer ones. If they aren't subject to the same emission standards as today's vehicles are, then that's just BS. It might suck that an older car still runs great, but if it can't make the grade then it should still be forced to be cut loose.

SUV standards are BS. How than can be categorized with trucks I'll never know. I don't know of a truck that can hold 7-8 people, do you? That's what I thought.

I did get my Prius to save gas money, but in effect that's really saving the environment.

Also, I can agree that having the right to say something is completely different than respecting what he/she actually said. I can not, however, agree that a person has a right to choose which vehicle he/she chooses. I only believe that because vehicles pollute THE AIR I BREATH. I could care less if he pollutes only the air he/she breathes, but that's not the case now is it. I can also say that it's quite obvious that other people believe this too, because if they didn't then we wouldn't have CAFE standards, now would we? I'm not gonna go force people to buy Prii, or even hybrids for that matter, but if a person doesn't need an SUV or pick-up THEN WHY HAVE ONE? I'm sorry but just because someone needs to show off how much cash they have doesn't mean I should suffer now does it? For that matter, why do we have high-performance cars at all? I can understand why we had them before, but why now? You can't legally go faster than like 70-80 MPH, so what are you gonna do with that 120 MPH that's going to waste?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Aug 1 2007, 10:42 AM) [snapback]488643[/snapback]</div>

Right!

Why is my right to NOT consume something overruled by someone else's right to consume it?

Why is my freedom from being killed by the rigid front axle of a jacked up monster truck overruled by the owner of that vehicle's right to drive such a truck on public roads?

In this society, we value "doing something" more than choosing NOT to do it. Why? 'cause our capitalistic ways are built on the exploitation of resources and people.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 03:20 PM) [snapback]488812[/snapback]</div>

You're rationalizing. We all know that America's fleet of vehicles is the least efficient of any developed country's. We all know that fuel economy increases are all but non existent here, while the fleets of road vehicles in other countries continue to get more efficient.

I suppose that driving a SUV *is* more efficient than pouring fuel down a stormdrain, I'll grant you that.

SUV owners *do NOT* pay their fair share for the environmental and foreign policy ramifications of their CHOICE (and it IS a choice ) of vehicle.

You'd do well to realize that what you refer to as "transportation needs" are really the consequences of lifestyle choices.

We don't NEED to tow boats. We WANT to tow boats. There is a difference, believe it or not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 1 2007, 04:40 PM) [snapback]488832[/snapback]</div>

Congratulations on fully embroiling us in the "Tragedy of the Commons" argument which we have been tip-toeing around all day...

The most common solution to the tragedy of the commons is regulation by an authority. Frequently, such regulation is in the form of governmental regulations limiting the amount of a common good available for use by any individual. However, none of us want to deal with gas rationing, so that idea is pretty much out the window.

Maybe the solution should be a tax based on emission rather than on consumption. Instead of paying taxes per gallon of gas consumed, you would pay a tax based on the level of CO2 emissions that your vehicle produces from that gallon of gas.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 03:50 PM) [snapback]488843[/snapback]</div>

If our denial of the finite nature of oil production, and the need to explore alternatives, continues, we might be rationing gas for a completely different set of reasons.

When you have them by the wallet, their hearts and minds will follow. Gas is simply too cheap right now, pure and simple.

It's funny...there's a NEED for us to conserve, but we seem to think of it as a choice. Meanwhile, our choices (towing a boat or whatever) have become NEEDS...and as such, are inviolate!

We've got it all backwards!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 09:37 AM) [snapback]488668[/snapback]</div>

You and I are neighbors. I have a a cat. My cat poops in my yard half the time, and in your yard the other half of the time. I'm happy because I don't have to deal with all the poop. Having your yard available for my cat to poop in allows me to enjoy my cat more than if I had to clean up ALL of its poop. We're sharing the effect of my personal choice of owning a cat that poops. Don't you dare tell me that I can't own the pet I want! Is your nose any closer to my personal "free choice" now?

Extend this to automobiles, and I hope maybe my point is in there somewhere. Until we all take responsibility (pay) our fair share for the damage our actions cause, we can't even bring up the "You can tell me what to do if I can afford to do it" argument.

In fact, my point is summed up pretty well in this quote directly from the article that started this thread.

Yes - This is the age-old tragedy of the commons. Because you can afford to foul my air, you should have that right.... for some reason that I can't quite understand.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 01:50 PM) [snapback]488843[/snapback]</div>

Yes, and the interesting part to me, is that it is so often the same people who want the right to do as they damn-well please... also don't want more laws.

It turns out that if we "do the right thing" all on our own, that we don't NEED more laws. But the more we do stupid things, like burn as much gas as we can afford, the more likely we'll have more laws that will tick off these same people who want all their "rights" to do stupid things.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 1 2007, 02:04 PM) [snapback]488856[/snapback]</div>

You did get the memo that our way of life is non-negotiable, right? Forget the fact that we aren't in control of the energy that currently supports our way of life... but it still isn't negotiable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 03:50 PM) [snapback]488843[/snapback]</div>

Completely true. Can't disagree with you there.

That's one option. Another option is taxing the use of that good, like a gas tax or a road tax. Another is regulating the industry that produces the goods, so the consumers have a choice selection that isn't what they would pick on their own. An example of this is gas furnaces, which were 50% efficient 20 years ago, but today must be 80% efficient or better. Refrigerators, other large appliances are similar. Vehicles are sort of covered in this category by the CAFE standards, but those haven't progressed in the last 20 years to keep up with technology like the other industries have. The only difference is the power of their lobbyists. (If I want to blow hot air out my chimney, that's my right! Why can't I buy a good old-fashioned American-built 55% efficient furnace anymore?)

Whoa - that's what those evil European socialist countries are doing! That can't be your final answer!


I completely agree with your view on personal rights, but I think the consensus here is that driving SUVs for the purpose of commuting to work and picking up groceries does affect my nose, more particularly, the air that goes in my nose. It also affects the safety and economic well-being of this country, as we are now funding both sides of the war on terror (terrorists don't get their money by selling camel dung, you know). So there are valid reasons to trump personal rights in this case.

The current administration has no problem overrunning personal rights when it comes to Constitutional rights (warrentless searches and a speedy trial primarily), which to me is much more important than what we drive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 04:50 PM) [snapback]488843[/snapback]</div>

It is also one of the poorest solutions. One of the better solutions lately has been education.

Remember the chlorofluorocarbons eating the Ozone layer. Due to intelligent planning, economic reasoning, and broad education, fantastic reductions were achieved. Yet at the time I remember intense complaining about how moving to R-114 would cause massive problems for the air-conditioning and auto industry. It was not the governments that started this movement, it was a very small group of committed experts. A lot of overfished areas are getting help along these lines as well.

My education (not my "rights") has made me aware that my next vehicle needs to be an electric car, and it's fuel source needs to be the sun. The word is speading, and at some point most everyone here will understand, most do already. In the meantime, the Prius will have to do. Let's hope Toyota takes it to the next level (and that they have strong competition.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Aug 1 2007, 05:19 PM) [snapback]488951[/snapback]</div>

Wait a minute! First you want to take away my right to drive a a car that harms everybody.... and now you want to take away my right to be ignorant!? That's just crazy talk!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Aug 1 2007, 08:19 PM) [snapback]488951[/snapback]</div>

And I suppose you are going to tell me that Toyota developed hybrid technology with the express purpose of reducing emissions? Hogwash. Toyota deserves kudos and is certainly at the head of the class in developing an economically viable alternative to the ICE in passenger automobiles, but to think they did it for any other reason than to gain marketshare by exploiting rapidly rising gas prices is ridiculous. Toyota, like any other corporation, is only as altruistic as its shareholders allow it to be.

 

Certainly people should have the right to buy an SUV if they so choose. However, we also have to consider the fact that SUVs are not trucks, they are passenger cars, and should be treated as such when it comes to EPA mileage requirements. If someone wants to buy a Navigator , get 12 MPG, and pay a $5,000 gas guzzler tax, more power to them. What I would like to see is the government encouraging folks to get into more fuel-efficient cars--not just hybrids. There are many cars and smaller SUVs that has good room, and get much better mileage than your typical Hummer.

 

Here in the Bay Area you won't believe how many solo drivers I see in a Bummer or Yuck-On or GM Planetoid. Granted I can't see the cargo they are driving, however my guess is that they are just coming back from a shopping trip to the mall. Oh and they are *always* on the dang cellphone

Yes choice needs to prevail. The only deciding factor should be that smart choices need to be rewarding. So case in point: saving gas money by driving a Prius and driving past the solo SUV drivers in my HOV stickered Prius is a big reward. Knowing that I am doing my part and that I can feel good about it is also immensely rewarding.

I can't help but think that stating that SUVs should be outlawed is like saying stupidity should be outlawed. It cannot be done, people are what they are and the choice, make that the **right choice** has to come from within. A little economic incentive ($5.00 per gallon)

Oh and I like the emissions tax. No takers on that idea?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Aug 1 2007, 10:06 PM) [snapback]489086[/snapback]</div>

Hey... I'm still trying to get some love on my cat poop analogy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 08:00 PM) [snapback]489030[/snapback]</div>

Not only rediculous, but also true. When the Prius came out, there were no 'rapidly rising gas prices" to exploit.

The Prius was built for one main reason: To comply with CA's promised (at the time) strict emissions standards. Short of an electric car, the ATPZEV rating is the golden boy of the acronyms. US car companies all but laughed at and ignored these standards and were caught with their pants down. The Japanese auto makers saw this wonderful opening - and taking CA at its word - made the cars in advance of the standards. Maybe this is picking nits - but to me this is not the same as exploiting rising gas prices. If that were the case, why did they also continue to build and sell some of the worst gas mileage trucks at the same time? By making the Prius, they got to offset enough emission credits to freely go about building the nasty cars that Americans so dearly love, and have a "right" to own.

 

I wish this thread had more substance about the safety issues. The first comment my mom made about my new Prius was that is wasn't very safe.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alexstarfire @ Aug 1 2007, 10:36 PM) [snapback]488828[/snapback]</div>

Of course, it all boils down to how you define "need".
But if you stretch this argument to its logical end, you will find that you question the whole basis of our society. Human beings have never been satisfied with a status quo, and that is the main source of both their success and their failure. Some people have compared humans to a cancer on the Earth, doomed to keep on growing until all resources are consumed.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Aug 1 2007, 11:22 PM) [snapback]488863[/snapback]</div>

I thought that the all-American solution would be that I would take my rifle and shoot your cat while it was pooping on my grass?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Aug 1 2007, 11:22 PM) [snapback]488863[/snapback]</div>

Totally true. And, in my opinion, it is one of the tasks of the government to make sure that everybody pays the full bill for the consequences of their actions (like buying a polluting car). At that point, you can let the free market play and do its magic.


On a side note, there is something about the whole SUV discussion that disturbs me a bit. Many people think about them as a single class of equally "evil" cars when it comes to fuel consumption. I think that, with the new trends in the market, this is not longer possible to hold. Not all SUV's are Ford Expeditions.
BMW (of all brands!) has a 2L diesel in its 2008 version of the X3 that, on the highway with European driving style, consumes less than a Prius. I would never be ashamed to put this car next to my Prius on the driveway. Do I "need" it? Of course not. But it is very versatile, fun to drive, and reasonably ecological.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Aug 1 2007, 11:42 AM) [snapback]488643[/snapback]</div>

History shows the free market works best in the long run. If driving an SUV gets to the point of being a jackass or is just to expensive to drive, the market will shift all on it's own. We have our view of where things are going, they have theirs, lets just sit back and watch. The only thing that changes anything in this country is money and crisis.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 1 2007, 07:00 PM) [snapback]489030[/snapback]</div>

I am in no position to preach Toyota's corporate philosophy, but the above post is only a regurgitation of the talking points many corporations push as their excuse for poor social behavior. It's nothing but an opinion based on junk in, junk out. It's old style thought, in a new style world.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geeky teacher @ Aug 1 2007, 11:38 PM) [snapback]489111[/snapback]</div>

Geek I suggest you present your mom with current crash test data. I believe it will show otherwise.