Hypocritical SUV drivers
And I'm one of them, well I was. It seems that trucks weighing over 3 tons (6000 pounds) are prohibited on many residential streets across the nation. MSNBC's slate magazine has the details.
Now, when we were hit by the drunk driver, we were driving a Cadillac Escalade. We were hit with such force by a Dodge Pickup that we had over 29,000 dollars in damage and lifetime injuries for both of us. So, I suspect that had we been riding in a smaller vehicle (a coupe or sedan, for instance) one or both of us would be dead or severely disabled for life.
This is why the solution in the MSNBC article doesn't go far enough. Safety on smaller cars must be brought up to snuff (side impact air bags mandatory, for one), trucks (even small trucks) and SUVs must be reduced in numbers drastically (to reduce the chance of accidents occuring where a large vehicle impacts a smaller one), and bumper levels must all be in a uniform range (so as to do the least damage to any vehicle they strike).
I would go even a step farther (although not as far as California went in 90s clean air legislation) and mandate a percentage of cars (say 25% to start) sold to be high MPG (at least 50 MPG in cities) or completely alternate fuel sourced. In order to sell that many efficient cars, dealers will have to make the prices more in line with traditional combustible fuel cars. Right now you pay through the nose (at least $3,000) for the right to drive a fuel efficient car.
It should be the other way around. Cars that recklessly use the planet's resources, are a danger to other vehicles in accidents, and/or weigh so much they cause damage to our public roads, should have a surcharge to pay for all that damage. Instead they get tax breaks. Are we living in Bizzarro world and no body told me?
Now, when we were hit by the drunk driver, we were driving a Cadillac Escalade. We were hit with such force by a Dodge Pickup that we had over 29,000 dollars in damage and lifetime injuries for both of us. So, I suspect that had we been riding in a smaller vehicle (a coupe or sedan, for instance) one or both of us would be dead or severely disabled for life.
This is why the solution in the MSNBC article doesn't go far enough. Safety on smaller cars must be brought up to snuff (side impact air bags mandatory, for one), trucks (even small trucks) and SUVs must be reduced in numbers drastically (to reduce the chance of accidents occuring where a large vehicle impacts a smaller one), and bumper levels must all be in a uniform range (so as to do the least damage to any vehicle they strike).
I would go even a step farther (although not as far as California went in 90s clean air legislation) and mandate a percentage of cars (say 25% to start) sold to be high MPG (at least 50 MPG in cities) or completely alternate fuel sourced. In order to sell that many efficient cars, dealers will have to make the prices more in line with traditional combustible fuel cars. Right now you pay through the nose (at least $3,000) for the right to drive a fuel efficient car.
It should be the other way around. Cars that recklessly use the planet's resources, are a danger to other vehicles in accidents, and/or weigh so much they cause damage to our public roads, should have a surcharge to pay for all that damage. Instead they get tax breaks. Are we living in Bizzarro world and no body told me?
posted by John | 11:45 PM
|
0 comments
