Quote:
Originally posted by LarryP
The only reason people are allowed to make that choice is because, as was pointed out before me, the government permits (read "encourages") is by omitting them from CAFE ratings, so there is great incentive for auto manufacturers to shove them down our throats. And if you think people would "choose" to drive them absent that, you are kidding yourself.
|
Now that was laughable, and who knows, maybe you're trying to elicit a response; I know I try to have fun with these debates from time to time. People are "allowed to make that choice" because we are free to make a lot of choices here. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of an 'anything goes', rape and pillage mindset, but lets look at the vilified soccer mom in her ONE Envoy, 4Runner or Expedition: on the production side, how much more wasteful is it really than someone with two cars and two motorcycles?
Facts are annoying things, if only for the fact that when you (or I) point one finger at someone else, there are three pointing back at yourself. {go ahead, make the classic INDEX finger pointing gesture and you'll see}
And boo hoo, here come the Big, Bad Auto Manufacturers... no manufacturer is shoving SUVs down anyone's throats. Heck, up until a few years ago they didn't even need incentives. Here's a fact: most SUVs are not omitted from CAFE, but the Light Truck standard for them is more lenient than cars (about 21mpg vs. 27 IIRC), so you would be right to tell your gov't rep to raise it if that's the way you think things should go. However, while everyone was snapping up these trucks, there was no shortage of smaller, more efficient vehicles, and there was no conpiracy to keep them out of the public's hands, people just didn't want them. If you think the 0% and other incentives are a ploy to sell more SUVs, they're not... they're intended to keep the plants operating, because they'll really start to bleed red ink if they stop. And it won't take long for the spillover to other sectors of the economy.
BTW, I work in the auto components industry, so I know what we do to bring products to market to meet the buyer's needs and desires. Therefore I take issue with "Auto manufacturers respond to what is necessary and no more". To be sure, regulations have a valued place, they help and protect the consumer, and they also make sure no manufacturer can fake their way to compliance and get an undue economic advantage. And you are right about airbags: sounds like you knew that GM actually came out with airbags on the 1974 Toronado, well before they were mandated. With demand so low, it was reported that they lost so much on each car equipped with them that if they could have gotten the cost for the airbags it would have been a smaller loss just to give away the car. So, without the regs, probably no airbags. But to imply that that they will do the absolute minimum of benefit and loop-hole their way to hood-winking you into buying something you don't want or need discredits a lot of people who work pretty hard at making a good product, and further suggests that you find the consumer too stupid to know any different.