And if the auto companies do as they have in the past, dumping off huge numbers of skatemobiles on car rental companies and corporate fleets at or near cost in order to be able to make more high-profit SUV’s, nothing has changed except for the boost in overall vehicle prices. We end up getting the same stuff but paying more. And we pay for it in higher death rates and in vehicles that don’t really fill any need other than basic urban transpo, but are fairly worthless for anything else. Like cargo hauling and long-distance trips and families and….

I assume you’re addressing tresa with the penis substitute thing? I think they addressed the need for quite well, and I do not disagree that certain people and companies NEED large utilitarian vehicles. But to roll an H2 around the burbs for groceries and soccer practice is really dumb.

Need is a tough word. Why would anyone need to buy a penis substitute like a Hummer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

Read this and then explain to me why you would need to buy this car.

The conditions I just descibed to you happen to me all the time and I do live and work in these conditions. My point is that Obama is mandating these new 35 mpg rules, a hybrid is proven to have problems when the car gets about 100K miles on it and shoot, I put 50K miles a year on my car and winter our here lasts 6 months out of the year on a good year! I need the SUV in order to do my job and I certainly am not going to make two car payments in order to have one car on the road during the week and to drive another car at night and on the weekends, that would be silly. I just think that these cafe standards need to be waived for those of us who live in the upper midwest and northeast who live in the snowy, icy, windy tundra.

You’re so far off point it’s not even funny.

The SUV is a purpose built vehicle for that purpose. The 235 mpg VW is a purpose built vehicle for good conditions and running errands, and maybe even taken weekend jaunts with the significant other. Do I want the local fire department running around in these things? Uh, NO! I want them to have the heaviest, best equipped vehicles at their disposal. That is their purpose.

If you need a vehicle, buy it for what you need. If you need something that can handle hellacious winters and off road conditions, buy the 5000 lb AWD SUV. But don’t buy an SUV to look cool when you buy friggin groceries or take your 2.25 kids to soccer practice at 15mpg when a 45 mpg clean diesel or hybrid will do the job just fine.

And who said these were government mandated?

Go to North Dakota in the winter during a snow storm when the wind is blowing at about 50 mph. Let me warn you that it is against the law in ND to use salt on the roads and the temperature does get to 70 below 0 with the windchill in the winter, so you are driving on a sheet of ice covered by snow with 50 mph winds…..you have no choice because in your field of work you are a sales rep of medical equipment and you need to get a demo unot to your customer because the Fed Ex truck has broken down and the patient needs this ventilator to breath and the hospital is out of stock. You have to have space in your car for every possible accessory, your personal belongings and yourself.

Which type of vehicle would you rather have?

1) The new government mandated car that sits low to the ground and you are now smooshed in because there really is not enough room, is blowing in the wind because it is light and low to the ground, has no 4 wheel drive, no traction control, probabaly no remote starter or heated seats so you practicaly get frostbite starting the thing in the morning because I can tell you there is not a single hotel in North Dakota with indoor parking, no built in GPS because there just is not any room in the smart car and no get up and go power because you have a crappy V4 engine

2) Your SUV that sits up off the ground, has some weight to it so you are not swaying in the wind, has 4 wheel drive and traction control, has a remote starter and heated seats, has a GPS that pulls down from the top of the visor to get you around the 6 detours due to the numerous road closures and keeps you from sliding on the ice

Now remember you are saving a persons life in this scenario

I am not alone.

Good point, KK. In cities where the speeds are low, the danger disparity is still the same but the overall danger is not as great.

Which is precisely what a smart car screamed at me the first time I saw one. Maybe it’s ok to drive round a city at low speeds. But on the highway? White knuckle stuff. RH lane. Big following distances. At the speed limit.

It can be hard for folks to wrap their heads round why a smaller lighter car is inherently less safe. So for those still struggling with it, go down the scale to the extreme. You are traveling 40 mph towards a C class benz in a car with mass 0 and size 0. In other words you are just hurtling through the air towards the C benz. All you. No protection, nothing to absorb energy..nothing with friction to slow your momentum. Nothing else to crumple but you. Mosquito. Windshield. Smoosh.

That’s a rather devastating bit of video. And C-class Benzes aren’t that big. But of course you’ve got that built-like-a-brick construction.

I would like to see Smart vs. Smart.

Mostly just because it’s fun to watch Smart cars crash.

And to reiterate, it’s not just larger car vs. smaller car that is less safe. Smaller/lighter vehicles are less safe than larger/heavier ones at ANY given level of safety tech, in ANY type of collision, and half of all traffic fatalities in smaller vehicles are single-car accidents. That rate drops as size/mass of the vehicle increases. The rate of traffic fatalities for the new subcompacts is pretty much exactly that of the old ones.

Now, I think Milloy’s figures are somewhat off (annual toll from previous CAFE is understated, toll for additional 100-lb reductions is overstated to the max estimated range, at least for initial reductions — fatality rate rises as weight decreases further) but the point is still that with this proposal the government is willing to “sell” human lives (Milloy’s figures) for gas savings at a discount rate of 35 to 1 in dollar terms, or 5.07 lives per $1M in gas saved.

I have no objection to people choosing less safe vehicles for their own reasons. Free country, their choice, their gamble. I object mightily to the government forcing people into less safe vehicles by removing/reducing their safer choices.

His argument is that using the government’s own cost/benefit calculation for the dollar value of human life, the cost/benefit figures of the Obama proposal are wildly out of whack with life as a consideration, and thus is “selling” life much cheaper than the government’s own official valuation. What’s wrong with the argument?

The Smart Car completely failed the test, BTW. The question is not how the car “holds its shape” but how much damage the occupants could expect from such a collision. Nor is the massive interior intrusion visible from the exterior shots. The occupants do not care how well the car “holds its shape” on the outside. They care about whether or not they survive the impact with no more than minor injuries. And they wouldn’t. Did you not notice the dummy’s head hitting the steering wheel both though and around the airbag? That the Benz’s front end would have crushed the dummy’s legs entirely? Thus the IIHS rating of POOR. From the report:

After striking the front of the C class, the Smart went airborne and turned around 450 degrees. This contributed to excessive movement of the dummy during rebound – a dramatic indication of the Smart’s poor performance but not the only one. There was extensive intrusion into the space around the dummy from head to feet. The instrument panel moved up and toward the dummy. The steering wheel was displaced upward. Multiple measures of injury likelihood, including those on the dummy’s head, were poor, as were measures on both legs.

Translation: The driver/dummy of the SmartCar was toast. Major head, chest, and leg injuries. IIHS has no rating below POOR. The Benz? Little movement, little intrusion, quite survivable. Rating of GOOD.

Once again, as to “holding its shape,” compare to the Toyota Yaris, which didn’t hold its shape at all, but which performed better by injury measures.

This guy is clearly one-sided.

“But such dealing is an impossibility since the greens are ideologically driven and won’t be happy until capitalism is stamped out.

The greens are not interested in compromise. Like blood in the water to sharks, compromise by businesses signals its weakness and vulnerability, and, therefore, opportunity for the greens.”

That is one heck of an ignorant statement. Wow. All those people who are making money off of clean energy I’m sure are saying they want to see capitalism stamped out. Good lord Steve Milloy is an idiot.

The video didn’t really show anything I didn’t expect. The fortwo held its shape quite nicely in the occupant cabin (I couldn’t listen to it, sorry).

The other article was pretty interesting though. It was a good read.