Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions

[HighwayStar]

Their accounting would have to change, which happens all the time in light of new regulations, that is just how it goes. If that changes the cost structure that much then don't be a contractor, simple as that.

Their work is barely profitable as it is, and hardly anyone stays anymore.  You just set up another impediment for no good reason.

As to the Corolla, I driven one all over the country and never had an issue, sounds more like the driver was at fault than the car. Keep in mind that people drove sedans all over this country until 30 years ago, its not rocket science.

So have I, bub.  By the way, that was more than 30 years ago.  No, it wasn't the driver's fault.  I've slipped and slid in a Corolla on those roads after a rain, myself.  Almost gotten stuck once or twice.  Don't pretend that a sedan is just as good as a truck when it comes to bad roads.  It isn't.

What you drive in Mexico has nothing to do with US regulation. Our laws apply here, and if you want to drive here you have to abide by them. Driving in other countries is not our problem and is not an appropriate way to make policy.

But how do you expect me to get there from here?

It's 700 miles from here to the border, then another 350 after that.  We can only afford to own one vehicle, and it's the evil SUV.  We traded in our minivan several years ago because we needed the off-road capability and high ground clearance.  Other members of the teams we lead ride in the vehicle with us.  A year ago, there were seven of us (our family plus two others) and we all did it in my family's SUV.

You are free to drive your US legal road vehicle to the border, past that it is not a problem for US policymakers. There are all kinds of laws on the books already regarding that, your insurance DOES NOT have to cover you in another country, another country DOES NOT have to recognize your drivers licensee, and not every vehicle legal in another country is legal in the USA. There is no reason the US policy should be set based on people wanting to take vehicles out of the US. 
And moreover 99% of miles driven by these machines are on paved roads to the mall, so undoing the regulatory distortion and making people drive actual passenger vehicles again makes sense.

[kphoger]

You are free to drive your US legal road vehicle to the border, past that it is not a problem for US policymakers. There are all kinds of laws on the books already regarding that, your insurance DOES NOT have to cover you in another country, another country DOES NOT have to recognize your drivers licensee, and not every vehicle legal in another country is legal in the USA. There is no reason the US policy should be set based on people wanting to take vehicles out of the US.

You're still missing the point.  US policymakers are not the ones saying on this thread that "SUVs need to be banned for on road use".  You are.  So I told you about a legitimate non-commercial, non-leisure use for an SUV that I have on a regular basis, and I asked you how you expect me to continue doing so.  Nonsense about driver's licenses and liability insurance is not an answer to that question.

[JayhawkCO]

You are free to drive your US legal road vehicle to the border, past that it is not a problem for US policymakers. There are all kinds of laws on the books already regarding that, your insurance DOES NOT have to cover you in another country, another country DOES NOT have to recognize your drivers licensee, and not every vehicle legal in another country is legal in the USA. There is no reason the US policy should be set based on people wanting to take vehicles out of the US.

You're still missing the point.  US policymakers are not the ones saying on this thread that "SUVs need to be banned for on road use".  You are.  So I told you about a legitimate non-commercial, non-leisure use for an SUV that I have on a regular basis, and I asked you how you expect me to continue doing so.  Nonsense about driver's licenses and liability insurance is not an answer to that question.

I mean, the answer is pretty obvious.  You just have to take three trips back and forth in a Corolla to get all your people and gear there, all in the name of fuel efficiency.

Chris

[kphoger]

You are free to drive your US legal road vehicle to the border, past that it is not a problem for US policymakers. There are all kinds of laws on the books already regarding that, your insurance DOES NOT have to cover you in another country, another country DOES NOT have to recognize your drivers licensee, and not every vehicle legal in another country is legal in the USA. There is no reason the US policy should be set based on people wanting to take vehicles out of the US.

You're still missing the point.  US policymakers are not the ones saying on this thread that "SUVs need to be banned for on road use".  You are.  So I told you about a legitimate non-commercial, non-leisure use for an SUV that I have on a regular basis, and I asked you how you expect me to continue doing so.  Nonsense about driver's licenses and liability insurance is not an answer to that question.

I mean, the answer is pretty obvious.  You just have to take three trips back and forth in a Corolla to get all your people and gear there, all in the name of fuel efficiency.

Then what?

[JayhawkCO]

You are free to drive your US legal road vehicle to the border, past that it is not a problem for US policymakers. There are all kinds of laws on the books already regarding that, your insurance DOES NOT have to cover you in another country, another country DOES NOT have to recognize your drivers licensee, and not every vehicle legal in another country is legal in the USA. There is no reason the US policy should be set based on people wanting to take vehicles out of the US.

You're still missing the point.  US policymakers are not the ones saying on this thread that "SUVs need to be banned for on road use".  You are.  So I told you about a legitimate non-commercial, non-leisure use for an SUV that I have on a regular basis, and I asked you how you expect me to continue doing so.  Nonsense about driver's licenses and liability insurance is not an answer to that question.

I mean, the answer is pretty obvious.  You just have to take three trips back and forth in a Corolla to get all your people and gear there, all in the name of fuel efficiency.

Then what?

Obviously your completely untouched, unstolen truck will be waiting at the border for you to take the rest of the way.

Chris

[HighwayStar]

You are free to drive your US legal road vehicle to the border, past that it is not a problem for US policymakers. There are all kinds of laws on the books already regarding that, your insurance DOES NOT have to cover you in another country, another country DOES NOT have to recognize your drivers licensee, and not every vehicle legal in another country is legal in the USA. There is no reason the US policy should be set based on people wanting to take vehicles out of the US.

You're still missing the point.  US policymakers are not the ones saying on this thread that "SUVs need to be banned for on road use".  You are.  So I told you about a legitimate non-commercial, non-leisure use for an SUV that I have on a regular basis, and I asked you how you expect me to continue doing so.  Nonsense about driver's licenses and liability insurance is not an answer to that question.

I mean, the answer is pretty obvious.  You just have to take three trips back and forth in a Corolla to get all your people and gear there, all in the name of fuel efficiency.

Chris

First, its not so much about efficiency but safety for all drivers by removing commercial vehicles from passenger use. And the .0001% edge case would not outweigh the 99% for efficiency purposes.

[kphoger]

My 2006 Nissan Pathfinder is not a commercial vehicle, though.  Also, it gets just barely worse mileage than the 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan we had before that.

[JayhawkCO]

You are free to drive your US legal road vehicle to the border, past that it is not a problem for US policymakers. There are all kinds of laws on the books already regarding that, your insurance DOES NOT have to cover you in another country, another country DOES NOT have to recognize your drivers licensee, and not every vehicle legal in another country is legal in the USA. There is no reason the US policy should be set based on people wanting to take vehicles out of the US.

You're still missing the point.  US policymakers are not the ones saying on this thread that "SUVs need to be banned for on road use".  You are.  So I told you about a legitimate non-commercial, non-leisure use for an SUV that I have on a regular basis, and I asked you how you expect me to continue doing so.  Nonsense about driver's licenses and liability insurance is not an answer to that question.

I mean, the answer is pretty obvious.  You just have to take three trips back and forth in a Corolla to get all your people and gear there, all in the name of fuel efficiency.

Chris

First, its not so much about efficiency but safety for all drivers by removing commercial vehicles from passenger use. And the .0001% edge case would not outweigh the 99% for efficiency purposes.

Against my better judgment... You're the one calling them commercial.  I'm calling them just another vehicle.  My car is far more safe to be on the road than a 1993 Ford Taurus with no ABS, yet you don't want my car out there.

Chris

[HighwayStar]

You are free to drive your US legal road vehicle to the border, past that it is not a problem for US policymakers. There are all kinds of laws on the books already regarding that, your insurance DOES NOT have to cover you in another country, another country DOES NOT have to recognize your drivers licensee, and not every vehicle legal in another country is legal in the USA. There is no reason the US policy should be set based on people wanting to take vehicles out of the US.

You're still missing the point.  US policymakers are not the ones saying on this thread that "SUVs need to be banned for on road use".  You are.  So I told you about a legitimate non-commercial, non-leisure use for an SUV that I have on a regular basis, and I asked you how you expect me to continue doing so.  Nonsense about driver's licenses and liability insurance is not an answer to that question.

I mean, the answer is pretty obvious.  You just have to take three trips back and forth in a Corolla to get all your people and gear there, all in the name of fuel efficiency.

Chris

First, its not so much about efficiency but safety for all drivers by removing commercial vehicles from passenger use. And the .0001% edge case would not outweigh the 99% for efficiency purposes.

Against my better judgment... You're the one calling them commercial.  I'm calling them just another vehicle.  My car is far more safe to be on the road than a 1993 Ford Taurus with no ABS, yet you don't want my car out there.

Chris

That is not the relevant comparison, because the sedans produced in response to this would have ABS, ESC, and all the other goodies. It is not a mandate to use old technology, that is a straw-man. Going forward, vehicles sold would still have the same safety technology AND fix the roll risk, etc. from high center of gravity vehicles.

[kphoger]

My 2006 Nissan Pathfinder is not a commercial vehicle, though.  Also, it gets just barely worse mileage than the 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan we had before that.

Also, our SUV has one more seat than our minivan did.  Last year's trip would have required two vehicles instead of one if we hadn't gotten our SUV.

[HighwayStar]

My 2006 Nissan Pathfinder is not a commercial vehicle, though.  Also, it gets just barely worse mileage than the 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan we had before that.

Also, our SUV has one more seat than our minivan did.  Last year's trip would have required two vehicles instead of one if we hadn't gotten our SUV.

You are apparently not familiar with the seating capacity of the old school cars. SUVs today seat 8 at the most, with captain's chairs they seat 7. The classic American Full Size sedan sat 6, so even there your average SUV has a passenger advantage of 1. The classic American Full Size Station Wagon sat 9 in most cases, which is more than any SUV seats today. Ford made some that actually sat 10.

[JayhawkCO]

That is not the relevant comparison, because the sedans produced in response to this would have ABS, ESC, and all the other goodies. It is not a mandate to use old technology, that is a straw-man. Going forward, vehicles sold would still have the same safety technology AND fix the roll risk, etc. from high center of gravity vehicles.

But are you also banning 1993 Ford Tauruses? (Tauri?)

You are apparently not familiar with the seating capacity of the old school cars. SUVs today seat 8 at the most, with captain's chairs they seat 7. The classic American Full Size sedan sat 6, so even there your average SUV has a passenger advantage of 1. The classic American Full Size Station Wagon sat 9 in most cases, which is more than any SUV seats today. Ford made some that actually sat 10.

So now, in the name of safety, we're seating the front middle seat?!?!?

Chris

[kphoger]

You are apparently not familiar with the seating capacity of the old school cars. SUVs today seat 8 at the most, with captain's chairs they seat 7. The classic American Full Size sedan sat 6, so even there your average SUV has a passenger advantage of 1. The classic American Full Size Station Wagon sat 9 in most cases, which is more than any SUV seats today. Ford made some that actually sat 10.

So now, in the name of safety, we're seating the front middle seat?!?!?

  Yeah, that's what I was thinking!

If my car's middle row were a bench, it would be an eight-seat vehicle.  If the front row were a bench, it would be nine.  That has nothing to do with its being an SUV.

[HighwayStar]

That is not the relevant comparison, because the sedans produced in response to this would have ABS, ESC, and all the other goodies. It is not a mandate to use old technology, that is a straw-man. Going forward, vehicles sold would still have the same safety technology AND fix the roll risk, etc. from high center of gravity vehicles.

But are you also banning 1993 Ford Tauruses? (Tauri?)

You are apparently not familiar with the seating capacity of the old school cars. SUVs today seat 8 at the most, with captain's chairs they seat 7. The classic American Full Size sedan sat 6, so even there your average SUV has a passenger advantage of 1. The classic American Full Size Station Wagon sat 9 in most cases, which is more than any SUV seats today. Ford made some that actually sat 10.

So now, in the name of safety, we're seating the front middle seat?!?!?

Chris

Obviously modern vehicles would have to meet modern safety standards, again, straw-man. The front middle is really not any different than the front passenger.
Most of the bad reputation of the front middle is due to the lack of a shoulder belt, restraint, and airbag. All three can be included in any modern safety package, headrest folding out of the way when not in use if desired. Not that hard.
Let me also point out however that the passenger argument has its limits as most SUVs don't seat any more than 5.

[HighwayStar]

You are apparently not familiar with the seating capacity of the old school cars. SUVs today seat 8 at the most, with captain's chairs they seat 7. The classic American Full Size sedan sat 6, so even there your average SUV has a passenger advantage of 1. The classic American Full Size Station Wagon sat 9 in most cases, which is more than any SUV seats today. Ford made some that actually sat 10.

So now, in the name of safety, we're seating the front middle seat?!?!?

  Yeah, that's what I was thinking!

If my car's middle row were a bench, it would be an eight-seat vehicle.  If the front row were a bench, it would be nine.  That has nothing to do with its being an SUV.

Obviously not? The point is that seating was actually MORE plentiful in the era before the SUV, and there is nothing inherent to the SUV as far as seating more is concerned, so yes, you have justified my point that the SUV is not required for more seating. 

[SeriesE]

So, what are contractors supposed to use to get between their house and the grocery store?  What are farmers supposed to drive to go to church?  How is a person with a large lawn and garden supposed to haul landscaping materials from Lowe's to his property?

For the answer to the first 2 questions, those people can still drive their pickup trucks for personal purposes. The trucks are still has a commercial/work purpose; the non-commercial usage part is basically incidental in the lifetime of those trucks. My original thought was only to disincentivize pickup trucks being used as mall crawlers, not completely ban them.

As for the last question, they can rent the trucks from the hardware store when needed and own/lease/finance a more passenger-oriented vehicle for normal use.

[kphoger]

You're right.  We need bigger SUVs so they can fit more people.  A bunch of miniature buses toodling around.

[JayhawkCO]

Obviously modern vehicles would have to meet modern safety standards, again, straw-man. The front middle is really not any different than the front passenger.
Most of the bad reputation of the front middle is due to the lack of a shoulder belt, restraint, and airbag. All three can be included in any modern safety package, headrest folding out of the way when not in use if desired. Not that hard.
Let me also point out however that the passenger argument has its limits as most SUVs don't seat any more than 5.

Again, are you also banning 1993 Ford Tauruses?  '57 Chevys?

Chris

[oscar]

That is not the relevant comparison, because the sedans produced in response to this would have ABS, ESC, and all the other goodies. It is not a mandate to use old technology, that is a straw-man. Going forward, vehicles sold would still have the same safety technology AND fix the roll risk, etc. from high center of gravity vehicles.

Your high-center-of-gravity assumption may not always be true. My compact SUV has relatively high ground clearance, but that's offset by its close-to-the-ground flat-four engine.

BTW, that fancy (and pricey) new Hummer electric pickup Chris mentioned might have a low center of gravity for similar reasons, with its heavy batteries all under the passenger compartment and cargo bed.

So, what are contractors supposed to use to get between their house and the grocery store?  What are farmers supposed to drive to go to church?  How is a person with a large lawn and garden supposed to haul landscaping materials from Lowe's to his property?

For the answer to the first 2 questions, those people can still drive their pickup trucks for personal purposes. The trucks are still has a commercial/work purpose; the non-commercial usage part is basically incidental in the lifetime of those trucks. My original thought was only to disincentivize pickup trucks being used as mall crawlers, not completely ban them.

Isn't HighwayStar's thought that pickup trucks/SUVs disappear from the road, not just "disincentivized"?

[JayhawkCO]

BTW, that fancy (and pricey) new Hummer electric SUV Chris mentioned might have a low center of gravity for similar reasons, with its heavy batteries all under the passenger compartment.

I think maybe HighwayStar's main issue is that if their Corolla got into an accident with the Hummer, the Corolla would be an accordion.  Maybe the real ban should be small vehicles that can't withstand a larger vehicle's impact.

Chris

[HighwayStar]

BTW, that fancy (and pricey) new Hummer electric SUV Chris mentioned might have a low center of gravity for similar reasons, with its heavy batteries all under the passenger compartment.

I think maybe HighwayStar's main issue is that if their Corolla got into an accident with the Hummer, the Corolla would be an accordion.  Maybe the real ban should be small vehicles that can't withstand a larger vehicle's impact.

Chris

That is wasteful of fuel and does not solve for the rollover risk, relatively poor braking, handling issues, etc. of SUVs. Yes collision compatibility matters, although the type of car that would be satisfying peoples desire for large cars would obviously not be a Corolla, but something more akin to the Panther Platform, which actually performed well in collision testing.
The point is that SUVs only replaced the full size sedan due to unintended regulatory effects, and that should be undone.

[HighwayStar]

That is not the relevant comparison, because the sedans produced in response to this would have ABS, ESC, and all the other goodies. It is not a mandate to use old technology, that is a straw-man. Going forward, vehicles sold would still have the same safety technology AND fix the roll risk, etc. from high center of gravity vehicles.

Your high-center-of-gravity assumption may not always be true. My compact SUV has relatively high ground clearance, but that's offset by its close-to-the-ground flat-four engine.

BTW, that fancy (and pricey) new Hummer electric pickup Chris mentioned might have a low center of gravity for similar reasons, with its heavy batteries all under the passenger compartment and cargo bed.

So, what are contractors supposed to use to get between their house and the grocery store?  What are farmers supposed to drive to go to church?  How is a person with a large lawn and garden supposed to haul landscaping materials from Lowe's to his property?

For the answer to the first 2 questions, those people can still drive their pickup trucks for personal purposes. The trucks are still has a commercial/work purpose; the non-commercial usage part is basically incidental in the lifetime of those trucks. My original thought was only to disincentivize pickup trucks being used as mall crawlers, not completely ban them.

Isn't HighwayStar's thought that pickup trucks/SUVs disappear from the road, not just "disincentivized"?

It does not matter where you put the weight, it will always have a higher center of gravity than an equivalent design in sedan form. It is a dead weight loss. And yes, my point is that they need to be related to what they are, non-passenger vehicles that should be treated as such. Sure you might drive one for commercial use, but not for going to the mall (which is 99% of what they actually do, commercials and fanboys aside)

[SeriesE]

So, what are contractors supposed to use to get between their house and the grocery store?  What are farmers supposed to drive to go to church?  How is a person with a large lawn and garden supposed to haul landscaping materials from Lowe's to his property?

For the answer to the first 2 questions, those people can still drive their pickup trucks for personal purposes. The trucks are still has a commercial/work purpose; the non-commercial usage part is basically incidental in the lifetime of those trucks. My original thought was only to disincentivize pickup trucks being used as mall crawlers, not completely ban them.

Isn't HighwayStar's thought that pickup trucks/SUVs disappear from the road, not just "disincentivized"?

Yeah, that's what HighwayStar's original thought. My thought on that is since a complete ban might be impractical, disincentivizing ownership of such vehicles might be a better approach to achieve practically the same result.

[kphoger]

It sounds like what you really want is safer SUVs.  Not no SUVs.

99% of miles driven by these machines are on paved roads to the mall

going to the mall (which is 99% of what they actually do

You sure throw that number around a lot.  Where did you get the data?

Also, that cargo space sure does help when buying a washing machine from the mall department store.

[formulanone]

Obviously modern vehicles would have to meet modern safety standards, again, straw-man. The front middle is really not any different than the front passenger.

Most of the bad reputation of the front middle is due to the lack of a shoulder belt, restraint, and airbag. All three can be included in any modern safety package, headrest folding out of the way when not in use if desired. Not that hard.
Let me also point out however that the passenger argument has its limits as most SUVs don't seat any more than 5.

Nobody wants to sit in the middle front seat for the same psychological and physiological reasons they don't like middle seats on airplanes. Also, people seem to like their center armrests and the cubby volume store things. I never hear people complain about that feature and hope it goes away.

I'm not a fan of most SUVs (give me the nimble behavior of most cars on most any day), but along with the proliferation of trucks, they're here to stay and the public has spoken.