Editorial: My Other Car Is a...(Hummer)

So what's your point? :?

 

Well, the author says that his H2 has 3 times more storage space than the Prius. I don't have any problem with that, although I doubt that H2 owners always utilize that 3x more space when using their vehicles.

There's also no need to buy a vehicle as inefficient as the hummer to move that 3x more cargo. I'm sure you could find a van or a truck that could handle the same amount of cargo but use less gas.

I don't really care what other people drive (even if they choose poorly), but I'd like to see the "tax loopholes" for big vehicles in the US removed.

 

I want a Hummer but an H1 with a 50cal BMG in the back on a tripod, and try and complain when I drive over your vehicles at a traffic jam!

 

Did ol' Brock seem just a tad STRIDENT to anybody else?

Easy, down, boy! Ain't nobody gonna take away your Hummer OR your Donzi, whatever the heck that is! Really! So unclench your sphincter--this is America! You can buy 16 Hummers if you want, and transport a whole herd of King Charles Spaniels, or Donzis, or whatever...

 

He has caught the scent of Change in the air, and it makes him uncomfortable. If I wanted to bother to register at that site my reply would be, "That's nice. Let's see how you feel about it in 2009."

 

As is often the case, I dislike the attitude and stereotyping, and disagree with the standpoint and values, of the people writing at techcentral.com.

However, I think the author's major point is correct -- the marketplace (i.e., consumer choices) is the way significant changes will be made to what cars are on the road.

However, I strongly support things like tighter emission standards and cleaner fuel laws, to reduce air pollution, and make cars safer.

 

Umm, those two opinions are contradictory. If we left everything up to the marketplace, most cars would not have seatbelts or airbags and they'd still use leaded fuel. This is not solely the fault of consumers because a market consists of consumers and producers. If producers don't offer a choice, then consumers don't have a choice; and if the true costs of a product are not reflected in it's price then the market can't act upon it. Americans first learned these lessons in the late 1800s, which is why we have a Food and Drug Administration, among other things.

 

Sir, get a new prescription for your glasses. That was not a thumb. :mrgreen:

 

You're right -- I stated that badly. At the same time, I think you've got to have consumer support for these regulations in the first place -- i.e., people have to want safer and cleaner cars in the first place.

What I meant to say was, to really get people behind using more fuel-efficient cars, the majority of citizens have to want it. If it comes in the form of regulations for better fuel efficiency, great; if it comes from manufacturers making more fuel efficient cars because consumers demand them, also great.

The latter, when possible, is the better, because you have everyone pulling in the same direction. But as you quite correctly point out, that isn't always possible.

 

The guy who wrote the editorial drives a Mini Cooper the rest of the time...but if he wants a big car, even a hummer for practical or just fun reasons, thats ok - but I agree we should tax cars that use more gas and polute more than necessary.... and I at least 1/2 bought my Prius for the other features - and 1/2 for the gas mileage - I was driving a Toyota Echo before....so its not that great a difference...