Yeah, this should help gas prices!

[Playboypenguin]

One thing I do think we need to keep sight of is that it does not matter if an SUV is safer or not. There is no need to validate driving a lower mileage vehicle.

I do believe that we should be developing better alternatives and not being so worried about mileage alone. Mainly to help curb pollution and not to make it cheaper to drive. Because even if we develope cars that get 120mpg instead of 30mpg the oil companies would raise the price of gas from $3 to $12 and we would still be spending the same amount but we would be burning less fossil fuel.

Now if we could create non-fossil fuel dependent vehicles we would be getting somewhere...but try getting that off the ground while the oil companies weild such monetary influence and political power.

 

[73 Jock]

He also said that numbers are rapidly catching up with SUV's as they start to be more common and driven more often as primary vehicles and the numbers are completely changing to where insurance companies are starting to consider SUV's as more risky than mid-sized passenger cars. Mainly because of single vehicle accidents.

I imagine we shall see how it develops, as the DOT Fatality Analysis Reporting System releases data over the next few years.

However, I believe that as modern unit-body SUVs (X-overs) replace the traditional truck-based in family households, this will serve to improve the overall score of the category.

I agree with an earlier assertion of yours that more can be done to improve light truck economy. The domestic big three who dominate this market historically react, rather than lead, but they are finally being forced to address light truck fuel economy. (In the eyes of the DOT this includes SUVs.)

When the Carter Administration CAFE standards took effect, horsepower fell off the charts. But auto science met the challenge, and now we have economy, emissions and horsepower that the management suits swore couldn't be done.

Set the standards, let the automakers compete and the consumer decide, and we will have solid, family vehicles that are safe and efficient.

 

[Redworm]

My assertion is that the most fuel efficient vehicles are the most likely to fatally injure their occupants in collisions, and I have presented studies adequately supporting that claim.

The larger argument follows that increasing fuel efficiency by reducing vehicle size/weight presents an unacceptable public safety risk.

I'm sorry but you're coming to those conclusions and the data doesn't solidly support them.

You're still ignoring the greater risk of larger vehicles causing accidents since they're harder to handle and harder to stop, you're still ignoring the physics behind body-on-frame construction, you're still ignoring that when the IIHS says "across vehicle groups" they're not separating them by vehicle designs, you're still ignoring the fact that most of these improvements in SUV safety have come in the past few years and that the vast majority of the trucks and SUVs on the road are still of the very unsafe variety.

You're interpreting the IIHS's statistics to suit your needs. Needs less confirmation bias.

However, I believe that as modern unit-body SUVs (X-overs) replace the traditional truck-based in family households, this will serve to improve the overall score of the category.

Set the standards, let the automakers compete and the consumer decide, and we will have solid, family vehicles that are safe and efficient.

Well at least we agree on that.

 

[73 Jock]

I do believe that we should be developing better alternatives and not being so worried about mileage alone. Mainly to help curb pollution and not to make it cheaper to drive.

The most promising alternatives seem to be clean diesel, hybrid electric, hydrogen fuel cell and biofuel.

Referencing the OP article, the proposed taxes are directed against the five largest oil companies, which are primarily in the transport sector. Obviously the hostility toward them is focused on their profits and the pump price we are all paying.

Yet the proposed 18 billion is intended to stimulate growth in alternatives largely unrelated to transport, and Hoyer seems to admit this.

Hoyer acknowledged "this legislation alone will not bring down gas prices." But he said the measure will provide a needed boost to alternative energy industries -- solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal -- and help promote energy conservation. "That may bring down gas prices three years from now, 10 years from now," he said.

Solar, wind and geothermal won't be transport energy solutions anytime soon. Biofuels are the only one considered, and without a short-term promise to reduce the pain at the pump, I don't see much popular support for the bill.

If they truly want to reduce oil conglomerate influence (and funding hostile countries) I think biofuel has lesser transport promise than funding clean diesel, hybrid-electric and hydrogen fuel cell.

Actually, I wouldn't be opposed to a Manhattan style project, with the participation of the major automakers, but their intense competition would likely prevent such cooperation.

 

[alan]

73 Jock:

Re a Manhattan Project type program that you mentioned, I suspect that Exxon, Shell, etc., etc., would be rather upset at the idea, likely sufficiently upset to sig their lobbyists on it. I also suspect that they could manage to kill such a program.

 

[JaserST4]

I don't get it. Either the oil companies are working together to screw us or they aren't. Which is it?