Jump to content


Senate passes bill to increase car gas-milage standards


The_Godfather
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articl...73_FORTUNE5.htm

 

 

Congress wants cars and light trucks - minivans and sport utility vehicles - to average 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40% increase, in order to lessen dependence on foreign oil and reduce tailpipe emissions that are linked to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that the new standards will save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day.

 

This is absolutely ridiculous. F off government, you have no right to tell people that they have to drive small and/or hybrid cars. If somebody wants to buy a gas guzzling hummer with a huge engine, let them! If they can afford it, let it be.

 

Let the marketplace sort out what people buy, Government shouldn't tell people what to do and what to drive, that is not their job. Just another example of big Government trying to rule the people instead of serving them. This won't help a G'damn thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you realize how many regulations exist with vehicles that have played an enormously beneficial role? Everytime you drive down the highway there are ten government regulations that are affecting you, whether it be regulations on wheels for semis that prevents them from crashing and killing you to brake safety regulations that let you stop in time.

 

The marketplace does not fix everything. Government plays a role. It's not excessive in this country and has worked out pretty well by and large.

 

I'm sure glad the pure marketplace prevented the sub-prime mortgage crisis that will reverbate throughout the economy and set us up for a recession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid ass government making me wear a seat belt. f*** you, Ralph Nader. Let the market decide how many people should be thrown from their cars in accidents.

 

 

Umm ok? What does that have to with anything? One is a law that will save lives, one is a law that is equal to a socialist government telling us what kind of car we have to drive. If anything, these cars will be less safe due to using lighter material to build them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid ass government making me wear a seat belt. f*** you, Ralph Nader. Let the market decide how many people should be thrown from their cars in accidents.

 

 

Umm ok? What does that have to with anything? One is a law that will save lives, one is a law that is equal to a socialist government telling us what kind of car we have to drive. If anything, these cars will be less safe due to using lighter material to build them.

 

Ah, ok. So it's ok for the government to be socialist in one way, but not another?

 

I don't see how this could possibly be seen as a bad thing. Face it, it would be awesome if the market could correct things like this, but it doesn't, or it does it at such a slow pace that it's not worth waiting for. We need to increase fuel economy, and as long as gas is still relatively cheap, it's not going to happen without the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid ass government making me wear a seat belt. f*** you, Ralph Nader. Let the market decide how many people should be thrown from their cars in accidents.

Actually, why should it be law to wear a seat belt?

 

Its called personal responsibility.

 

If someone is dumb enough to not wear one, they will have to deal with the consequences. I never understood the need for seatbelt laws.

 

I actually don't have a problem with this bill and I drive a hog: a Ford F-250. To me this is better for the consumer in the long run along with improving driving conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid ass government making me wear a seat belt. f*** you, Ralph Nader. Let the market decide how many people should be thrown from their cars in accidents.

Actually, why should it be law to wear a seat belt?

 

Its called personal responsibility.

 

If someone is dumb enough to not wear one, they will have to deal with the consequences. I never understood the need for seatbelt laws.

 

On the one hand, I agree with this, but on the other, I can't see how it is a problem that the government is encouraging safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do they have to, though?

 

Thats the point.

 

They aren't encouraging common sense or safety, they are enforcing common sense and safety with fines and tickets.

 

Not wearing a seat belt is pretty much evoking a Darwin award so let it play out its course instead of pulling people over and forcing it down their throat. You reap what you sow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't have a problem with this bill and I drive a hog: a Ford F-250. To me this is better for the consumer in the long run along with improving driving conditions.

 

 

See, in the long run I don't think this is good for the consumer either, that's my problem. Yea all cars will have better gas mileage and may save people money in the long run, but at what cost? The cost is less choice for the consumers and possibly less safety too, thanks to the cars using less steel.

 

And if we get better gas mileage the oil companies will just raise the price of gasoline, it might not even save us much money. We need to find alternative fuels or just start drilling in Alaska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even think a government mandate is even necessary for that either. The market would sort that out. It is of little cost for car manufacturers to insert seatbelts in every one of their vehicles. No car company would make the decision to not insert the seat belt because that could entail more deaths, lower survival rates in accidents, thus less sales.

 

This is why it took government mandates to get seatbelts in cars in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bill doesn't go far enough, at least to me. It gives the automakers 13 years to get their standards up to just 35 MPG, which a lot of foreign-made cars have already.

 

The Republicans also managed to shoot down a provision of the bill which would have removed the tax breaks going to oil companies, and put that into alternative fuel development. Another sign that they are in the pocket of Big Oil (not that this is breaking news).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even think a government mandate is even necessary for that either. The market would sort that out. It is of little cost for car manufacturers to insert seatbelts in every one of their vehicles. No car company would make the decision to not insert the seat belt because that could entail more deaths, lower survival rates in accidents, thus less sales.

 

This is why it took government mandates to get seatbelts in cars in the first place.

That doesn't even make sense. The government did not initially recognize this as the problem and demanded safety precautions. It was the early doctors and engineers who conceived of them as ridership gradually changed. You cannot compare ridership of the 1920s to the 21st century. It is fallacious to assume that without the United States government stepping in, auto companies would have refrained from adding a device that would increase their safety ratings and profits.

 

bobbob speaks the truth. The auto companies were adamantly opposed to providing seat belts up until the 1970's I believe. In fact, there are taped conversations between Chrysler's CEO at the time and Nixon on this subject. It was Ralph Nader and a few other leaders in the movement that got Congress to pass the bill. The "market" doesn't always react the way you would expect it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bill should be that in 13 years we have cars that do not need gas. I really hate that the government is forcing this among the public. I felt that in 10 years auto makers on their own would have the majority of their fleet getting 50 MPG on the regular.

 

Does this bill regulate trucks such as semis and tankers? I cant forsee those things getting 35 MPG. I dont feel you can compare the gov't mandating airbags, seat belts, tire width or tire grade because those are saftey issues. A vehicle getting 35 MPG is not a saftey issue its a consumer issue and thus the gov't should not get involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Night Phantom

Foreign cars kick ass with gas mileage, or at least the Asian ones I've owned/own. (Camry, Elantra).

Probably why people will buy them rather than American cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who don't wear seat belts who die/suffer great bodily injury cost ALL of us money. Thats why there is a law for seat belts.

 

You don't wanna wear one, fine, I could care less but if my insurance rates go up because of you, **** you.

 

 

And FWIW, you can't be pulled over in Florida just because your not wearing a seat belt, its not a primary offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Its a good first start.

 

 

Its something that should have been done years ago, but thats what lobbyists do for you.

 

 

The bill is definitely watered down somewhat, should have had even more teeth to it, but again, thats Detroit and Big Oil for you.

 

 

I still find it both comical and riduclious at the same time how the cost of energy has skyrocked 10 times inflation in the last couple of years and we ultimately wonder why recession is knocking on our doors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate when non-car people discuss cars. I get the same amount of frustration from this as the people that get annoyed by the "OMG PUBLIC FUNDS ON A PRIVATE STADIUM" morons. To single-handedly bash American automakers is unfair and lazy, but whatever, it's quite easy to demonize H2s and F-150s, but there are plenty of German and Japanese luxury sedans that weigh in similar to a full-size pickup truck and get similar (read: crappy) gas mileage. I won't be naive and state that bad gas mileage is a good thing or some such nonsense, but let's be real here, most people want 10,000,000 gizmos in their cars and want to be able to brag to their douchebag neighbor about how much quicker their car is than someone else's so the automakers respond to that and build heavy and fast cars that get worse gas mileage than their lesser-powered and lighter competitors get.

 

Also, light weight and safety are not mutually exclusive. F1 cars are light as crap and pretty damn safe. It's the choices for materials that make all the difference. Pickup trucks are absurdly heavy, but they are usually quite awful in terms of occupant protection.

 

 

 

vs.

 

 

 

Those two vehicles probably have a 1500 pound weight discrepency. I think with the impending popularity of diesel engines in passenger cars that net huge fuel mileage and the increasing popularity, the gas mileage requirements will be met with ease. Also, with more lightweight, high-strength materials cars can also improve their fuel consumption while increasing performance. Also, you hippies can drive your boring old gas sippers and save the gas guzzlers for people like me that like driving cars as more than a mobile appliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, you hippies can drive your boring old gas sippers and save the gas guzzlers for people like me that like driving cars as more than a mobile appliance.

I agree with most of what you have to say here but come to a very different conclusion. Why can't I be a gas sipping car loving hippy that also enjoys performance automotive engineering? I don't believe the two have to be mutually exclusive either.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's an ELECTRIC car.

 

0-60? 3.7 seconds.

 

Range? 220 miles.

 

MPG? Equivalent to 135 MPG.

 

Torque? Between 100% and 1000% depending on where you are on the curve versus gasoline engines.

 

And this car is being developed in a world where the huge majority of the performance research is being geared towards combustion engines. How much better could this car get as engineers start shifting towards composite materials and nanotechnology research instead of trying to figure out how to make an engine block capable of sustaining greater explosive pressures?

 

Imagine how much faster this technology would eveolve if there was an Electric car [even hybrid car] race league as popular as Formula 1/IRL/NASCAR have become world wide.

 

To be honest? It's crazy to me that there has been ZERO advancement in fuel efficiency since sometime around 1980. Heck, my father's 1976 Chevy pickup with a 454 was getting comparable mileage to the Chevy Z series pickups from a couple of years ago. That's insane. And now Detroit is wondering how it is that Toyota is about to pass GM in world wide vehicle sales? It's simple to me - Detroit is STUPID. They don't get it. I don't give a crap about heated seats or in-dash DVD players or built-in speaker phone or Nav systems or any of that junk. I DO care that Honda and Toyota are kicking our butts in every aspect of reliability. I DO care that American cars aren't getting fuel efficiency ratings that match their foreign competition. I DO care that the American automotive industry is floundering and in danger of collapsing...

 

If it takes an act of Congress to wake up the industry? So be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...