Die Die SUVs Please Die

[SHRED]

"You hear that? That cheering and rejoicing and heavy exhausted sighing? Why, it's coming from the massively fatigued Prius-happy enviro-green set and it's all about the fact that sales of huge bloated oil-belchin' SUVs are in a major free-fall, down nearly 20 percent for the year and dropping faster than Jenna Bush can slam a bottle of Cuervo."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2005/06/01/notes060105.DTL&nl=fix

[Ian David]

1. Die Die SUVs Please Die

Die Die SUVs Please Die
Sales of the bloated monster trucks are in a huge slump. Time for enviro-lovers to rejoice?
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, June 1, 2005

You hear that? That cheering and rejoicing and heavy exhausted sighing? Why, it's coming from the massively fatigued Prius-happy enviro-green set and it's all about the fact that sales of huge bloated oil-belchin' SUVs are in a major free-fall, down nearly 20 percent for the year and dropping faster than Jenna Bush can slam a bottle of Cuervo.

Can we all just wave our Greenpeace flags high and scream an I-told-you-so and go spank an Expedition driver and be glad for that? Can I get a "Hell yeah"?

Because indeed, it's the kind of minor but still gratifying news you want to sort of dowse yourself in rub all over your progressive brain and inject into your withered Bush-bashed spirit and say ahh, finally, finally people are coming to their senses and finally the world is waking up and finally some enlightenment is peeking through.

This is the hope. Finally people are understanding just how inane and dangerous and pollutive and just plain stupid these vehicles so very much are, and maybe, just maybe, there is a tiny bit of hope that the planet can finally begin to exhale and unclench and we can finally begin to progress, to move toward something akin to health and compassion instead of this painful devolution and isn't that all happy sounding and positive? Aren't good things imminent and abounding?

More:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2005/06/01/notes060105.DTL

[Wilms]

2. Hell, even Barbie gets it.

[unsavedtrash]

3. Stupid Useless Vehicles

[suneel112]

8. My 8th-grade teacher...

...called them "Suburban Uh-ssault Vehicles" :)

[drm604]

4. Maybe I'm just cynical but...

I wish that I could believe that people are finally waking up.
But I think it may be simply self interest because of the high price of gas.

[Coastie for Truth]

6. Random walk and fluctuations in pump prices - BUT

that random walk and those fluctuations will be superimposed on a general upward trend. And that upward trend will exceed inflation.

Gas prices will not come down--
---Peak Oil.
---Competition with India and China for the crude.
---Costs (i.e., military) of "protecting" Caspian Sea crude.

[BlueJazz]

5. Is that your Car? (posted)

Damn...if it is..you're a brave Man and a Gutsy one.. :)

[Ian David]

7. Yes, it is. And thanks. See below

Lovely note left on my windshield:






See related DU thread:

Bigotry a loser in battle of the note
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x4668

[suneel112]

9. That's the kind of car I would buy

I don't know about here in Indiana. A Hum-Vee (not the wussy hummer) with liberal or republican-hating stickers would be a better idea. Then I could shoot those "Jesusmobiles" out of existence :evilgrin: :grr:

[funflower]

10. OK, SUV-haters. Explain this to me. (No. I don't own an SUV.)

I know SUV's are a lot worse than Shred's car when it comes to gas mileage. However, for people who need to transport more than four folks at a time, the gas mileage equation has to take into consideration the fact that moving 6+ people requires either a large vehicle or two small vehicles. According to the EPA, a 2005 Ford Explorer gets 17 combined MPG, and a Windstar minivan gets 19 (larger Ford Expedition SUV gets 16). A Ford Focus gets 29. So, yes, the minivan is better but not that much better, and, while the Focus is the best, moving that larger group would require using two of them. The Explorer, Windstar and Expedition can all carry seven people.

True the SUV gets the worst gas mileage, but it doesn't seem to me that the difference is so significant as to explain the level of hate these cars seem to generate (and the minivans don't).

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

[Kolesar]

11. I got 24.7 mpg in my last fillup in my 2000 Windstar

Half the distance I traveled was on a road trip, mostly on expressways. In my typical driving, I get 21 mpg on each tankful in the summer and a lot less in the winter. It is occasionally 19 mpg in the winter. I drive gently and never very fast. I seldom pass people on the freeway on my commute.

Minivans are more aerodynamic than the macho-poseur SUVs/trucks that are so popular now on account of styling.

[phantom power]

12. Our station wagon gets about the same.

Maybe a bit better, but then it's also a bit smaller.

[Kolesar]

16. The station wagon I replaced with the Windstar got 22mpg

It was 1000 pounds lighter and only got 1 mpg better. The van has a self-tuning "adaptive" transmission that has learned what my typical driving is and adapted to the local terrain, the loads I carry, and my deliberative, ponderous style of driving. My Chevy wagon had an overdrive lockup transmission, though, which I think is a great feature. That improves highway mileage.

[funflower]

22. I also drive a wagon, but when we have to transport a gang, we wind up

taking two cars. I wonder whether a minivan or SUV would be more gas-efficient for us much of the time.

[phantom power]

28. Well, if you are transporting more than 5 people frequently,

a 7-seat minivan would probably be the way to go. Some wagons, like our volvo, do come with an auxiliary seat option, but you basically lose the cargo space in the back. In that configuration, it would seat 7. The two in the back would have to be kids, I think. Adults wouldn't fit comfortably.

[happyslug]

14. I once got 25mpg on on 350cc, three speed pickup.

I was one a trip and in a mood, so a went as slow as I could in the highest gear I could between Dallas and New Orleans (It was late at night and traffic was light).

Now when I operated that Pickup normally its mileage was 10 mpg, but on that trip I wanted to see how much better than normal I could, thus what a car gets during one fill-up does NOT impress me, it is what you get normally that is important.

[Kolesar]

15. 350 cu in, I would expect

350 cc would be a commuter bike. The best economy I ever got in that van was 24.9 mpg. That was 60 miles of commuting and about three hundred miles along the lake plains from Ohio to the NY Thruway. It was flat and I drove 65 mph. Next month, I am driving to Montana and I think I will sacrifice economy for time and really open the throttle. At 90mph, I reckon I could cross North Dakota in four hours.

[happyslug]

19. I mistyped, should know better than to type when you have to run

n/t

[funflower]

21. I agree I dislike the macho factor associated w/ some SUV's

(especially despise the Hummer), but, from a purely environmentalist (rather than feminist!) standpoint, I'm not sure they're worth a lot of my negative energy.

Obviously, your mileage may vary. The numbers I quoted above are EPA "combined" averages.

[happyslug]

13. I remember A study, can not remember the term used.

But it was a term used by both SUV and Min-vans drivers (Control?). Anyway while both set of drivers used the same term for the reason they purchased their vehicle, when the study went into details it found the definition of that term was different for Mini-van and SUV drivers (With Pickup drivers more in line with mini-vans than SUV drivers).

The key difference was HOW each set of drivers perceived themselves within the community. Mini-Van drivers wanted to be able to haul their children and their children's friends to games, shows etc. SUV drivers just wanted to haul themselves and their children (and in that order).

Notice the difference is between someone who is an active member in the community and seeking to do things for the community, while the other is trying to hold his (or her) place in the community. As I write this I can not but help see the classic American difference between the Community oriented New England Puritans and the "Individualistic" southern cavaliers (I ran across one article that pointed out the 25% of the new cars purchased in NYC are SUVs while in the rest of the Country the number is only 17%, thus these two groups are more intermingled than a split between the North and the South).

This split in how one reacts to one's community has been known for centuries, even doing the settlement of the Mid-West the difference between communities whose people came from New England and those communities whose people came from the American South was reported (The New England derived were more community oriented, while the Southern Community was more what was your place in the Society). The Culture class between these two groups were (and are) immense.

Anyway, back to SUVs, SUVs are thus status symbols of a person's perceived place in Society, while Mini-vans and Pickups are purchased by people who want to help their community (I once worked with a co-worker who later purchased a SUV, and he told me he NEVER would purchase a Pickup for everyone would want to borrow it, I on the other hand when I owned a pickup left anyone who wanted it to use it, again how one sees one self within a community).

The study was interesting in that both groups of people used the same term to mean completely different things.

[funflower]

23. Wow. I find that quite flattering.

I currently drive a wagon, but have also owned a couple of minivans and my husband used to drive a pick-up, which he took pride in loaning out to anybody and everybody. Must be because our ancestors come from New England!

[happyslug]

26. The difference may have started as Puritan-Cavalier

That is just the starting point of the differences. Outside of New England and the American South the dominant nationality group is German not English in the US. What I mean by Dominate group is who settled that area as the Indians were pushed off the land. Now some counties within a state can have different dominate nationality than the state as a whole for example the "Black belt" Counties of Central Georgia through Central Arkansas, which is named for the rich black soil that became the basis for pre-civil war plantations, which lead to these counties having huge Afro-American populations to this day. Another example is the French Creoles in the Parishes of Southern Louisiana. In the Plains States and further west (and to a great Degree New Mexico) American Indians still dominant huge areas (Through low populations density compared to other areas).

While some counties are dominant by groups other than the groups that dominate the state, these populations have had less influence on "American Culture" than the top three (English Puritan, English Cavalier and Germans). Even the Germans influence is mostly agricultural (Most farming techniques in the US are German in deviation, developed in the US or from Native Americans as opposed to influence from English farmings techniques).

Thus American Culture is more complex than can be written in a short paper, so any paper on American Culture has to over simplify the situation. On the other hand to long a paper and no one will read it and the problems derived from Culture will be ignored.

This is further complicated by Industrialization. When industry first developed it was in areas of heavy Puritan influence. It then shifted to the Mid-West along areas settled by people from New England (again heavy Puritan influence). As Industry matured and expanded it looked for new workers, first to the old world and after 1919 the American South. In the North one response to increase Industrialization was a movement to Unions. In response Industry adopted several anti-union tactics, one was NOT to hire "Joiners". i.e. people who joined clubs, social groups etc to help their communities, these same people also joined and formed unions to do the same for their employers as their did for their communities. In the case of the Homestead Strike of 1892, the leaders where also the people who formed the various groups in improve the City of Homestead, social Groups etc. To prevent Unions from growing after 1892 Industry started to hire "non-joiners"
and to fire anyone who was a "joiner" (Who was NOT in management). This brought a lot of Southern "Cavaliers" into the Midwest and encouraged that mind set over the traditional Puritan point of view. This continued till the 1930s (and to a great degree to this day for one of the reason industry has moved south is that their could hire more people with a "Southern" point of view than they could in the Mid-West).

A third factor is popular culture. The Puritans disliked theaters etc, thus all of out forms of popular entertainment derived from the South and its Culture. This includes our music, our films, our theaters, our games, etc. Individualism is emphasis for these all came out of the South as opposed to the Communities of Puritan New England.

My point here is while difference appears to have started as Puritan-Cavalier, these two groups are more mixed in the US than they were in the 1700s. You see both in almost any city of the US, but as you go North and South you see the influence of each grow and the other fall as you go North and South.

[funflower]

27. I guess I come from a long line of "joiners." Our ancestors were mostly

German and Scandinavian Lutherans, a group that I find tend to be heavy supporters of community service (lots of doctors, nurses and teachers, but relatively few entrepreneurs, come from this demographic). "We" love nothing more than to sew quilts for people in refugee camps and spend our earnings on fair-traded coffee.

And we DO think about the environment when purchasing a car.

However, I have to say that if I lived somewhere like Colorado where I had to deal with snow and hills simultaneously for a lot of the year, I'd probably be tempted by something with four-wheel-drive, even if the gas mileage was a bit worse.

Your analysis is very interesting. You must have made some serious study of this topic!

[pstans]

17. I'd have to say not all SUV's are bad

There is a big difference between the huge Hummers, Denali's, Tahoe's and a CRV or Rav4.

I agree that SUV's are better when a lot of people are traveling, but how many times have you seen an SUV with just 1 person in it? I would say the majority of the time.

I have heard people talk about the Miles Per Person of a car. So a Civic that gets 35 miles per gallon and takes 2 people gets 70 miles per person, while a Minivan that gets 20 mpg and takes 5 people gets 100 miles per person.

My wife really wants a Honda CRV and I basically told that we can get that if I get a Prius to drive. :D

Love the bumperstickers! :yourock:

[funflower]

24. Miles per person.... That's a great concept.

Now I'll feel better about not trying to squeeze all of my kids' pals into a Prius!

[GumboYaYa]

18. SUVs are a nice symbol of excess, but the problem is way

bigger. It's not just the types of vehicles that we drive, it is the excessive lifestyle that requires using a car to begin with that is the biggest problem. Even if we take all the SUVs off the road, we are still burning way more gas than necessary with the massive commutes to and from work, driving to big box stores, etc. While driving a Prius may make people feel good about themselves, they are still part of the problem if they are getting on highways to go to and from work or to run daily chores.

[funflower]

25. We need an alternative transportation infrastructure.

I live within biking distance of our city center, but there is no place that is remotely safe to cycle between here and there. Now, if they'd just take a lane out of the highway and make it "bikes only," it would be completely do-able. As it is, I'd be taking my life in my hands to try to bike to work.

[Kolesar]

20. "Socially Unacceptable Vehicles"

Ok, one more gratuitous, self-righteous environmental swipe. Pardon me. :evilgrin: