[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

E-M:/ Argument towards vehicles



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Steven L Golden" <goldens1@pilot.msu.edu>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I just thought I would put my two cents in.....

>  >>People don't buy them [45 mpg cars now available] because they have been
> 1) convinced that  bigger = safer (which is only true as long as the spread
> between the mass of vehicles is increasing such as the current
> self-fulfilling prophesy of the sale of more units of trucks--including
> SUV's--than cars in the U.S.)
>
>    Jerrod: Not true. Bigger provides greater crush distance and padding in
> single vehicle incidents. Has little or nothing to do with delta-mass.
> Besides, your argument turns on itself, because your crowd has been the one
> trying to force an abnormally great differential by pushing for artificial
> controls on mpg.
>
>
    Bigger cars are currently "safer" than the smaller ones, but can be equally
seen as death traps.  There are materials out there, such as certain
carbon fibers, which could be used in cars to increase safety.  These
materials distribute the energy in a crash in a different way than current
materials.  Why do you think the formula-1 cars get in the most horrific
accidents and the driver comes out with a broken leg?  They don't use
conventional materials.  These cars actually bounce off the collision at
impact.  As far as price goes, it would not be effective unless it is sold in
great quantities.  Cost vs. safety?  Another tough question.

>
>

    Jerrod: You can't be serious. I once saw an analysis like this that
> observed that toilets are almost never used, and therefore are "inefficient."
> You might try to remember that efficiency is proportional to output and
> inversely proportional to input, and that lots of people can have different
> ideas about how to measure those quantities. It's the height of arrogance to
> substitute your definition of "output" or "need" for that of the person
> actually putting up the money. Tch, tch.
>
    I think Jerrod has a valid argument.  For the mass of people who own a SUV,
how many of them use it to the capabilities it has (4x4, hauling, etc.)?  I
frequently visit Florida and am amazed at all the SUV's I see down there.
Most, yes I am generalizing, do not go off-roading in their SUV and there is
no harsh weather conditions to contend with.  I can understand those who truly
need a large vehicle for transporting large items, but why do we need to
include a 4x4 package which is very inefficient (excess weight among other
things) on all SUV's if the package is not needed?
    The true price (result of pollution, resource depletion, disposing of
vehicle at the end, etc.)  of these goods should be used to measure if it is a
real benefit or has the marginal value you thought it had, to invest in one of
the SUV's.




Steven Golden



--
***************************
* Steven Golden           *
* 2900 Northwind Dr. #411 *
* East Lansing, MI 48823  *
* (517) 336-9276          *
* goldens1@pilot.msu.edu  *
***************************

==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================