November 23rd, 2004, 1:24 pm

User avatar
Mr-914
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5810
Joined: January 12th, 2004, 7:44 am
Location: Montréal, QC
I'm totally against a type of licensing...however the regulations regarding fuel economy and pollution are less stringent on trucks because of the idea that they are mainly used on farms, and are therefore, a niche market. This kind of policy should be changed to acknowledge their current place in the market.

I agree with ML too, it is not the cars, but the drivers. My wife often scolds me for driving like a grandpa, despite the fact my car is a low sporty import. But I've seen quite a few accident photos in the paper showing similar cars wrapped around telephone polls after accidents that had to be 30+ mph over the posted limit. C'est la vie.

While I am against special licensing, I would agree with speed limiters of, let's say, 80 mph for cars sold in the US. Especially SUV's, as noted by ML, have the power to exceed 75-80 mph quite easily, but they lack the lower center of gravity and sticky tires to do so safely. Also, there is no reason to exceed the posted limits.

November 23rd, 2004, 3:04 pm

ML nsi
Mr-914 wrote: While I am against special licensing, I would agree with speed limiters of, let's say, 80 mph for cars sold in the US. Especially SUV's, as noted by ML, have the power to exceed 75-80 mph quite easily, but they lack the lower center of gravity and sticky tires to do so safely. Also, there is no reason to exceed the posted limits.
Well unless it is set up mainly for off-road. Ram may have hemi but the differentials I have on it limits the top-end to @85 b4 red-line. But she will anialate any off-road trail...as long as I can get it turned around at the end.

November 23rd, 2004, 4:30 pm

dflux
Mr-914 wrote: While I am against special licensing, I would agree with speed limiters of, let's say, 80 mph for cars sold in the US. Especially SUV's, as noted by ML, have the power to exceed 75-80 mph quite easily, but they lack the lower center of gravity and sticky tires to do so safely. Also, there is no reason to exceed the posted limits.
thats a pretty smart way to deal with it i guess: there is no need to go over even 60mph if you are offroad, that will cut out a large chunk of the market that buys suvs to use them in the city.

November 23rd, 2004, 4:32 pm

dflux
by the way, can you state why you are against any licensing?

November 23rd, 2004, 5:48 pm

ML
step four
step four
Posts: 263
Joined: August 20th, 2004, 2:17 pm
Personally I am for special licensing requirments. I had to get a CDL when I turned 21 so that I could drive our Air Break equiped grain truck, yet the 85 yr old driving the Greyhound turned into a RV need nothing more than his standard drivers license. You also need a special Motorcycle license.

Personally I think there should be weight classes or divisions such as:

1. Passenger car / MiniVan
2. Van (up to a 10 person van)
3. Light Truck (<1/2 ton trucks Ranger, S-10, etc. Including Small SUV's pilot, Vue, Liberty, etc.)
4. Mid duty trucks 1/2 ton to 1-ton (F150-F350, Dodge/Chevy 1500-3500, Titan, etc. Including mid and full size SUV's)
5. 3 or 4 with trailer towing ability
6. RV calss all RVs both powered as well as fifth-wheel trailers
7. Large trucks. The tow rigs such as fathers F650 2.5 ton truck used to pull antique tractors and 45 ft camper. (but he has CDL with HazMat as well)

November 23rd, 2004, 5:55 pm

User avatar
CASPER
step three
step three
Posts: 140
Joined: January 9th, 2004, 10:08 am
Location: First star to the left and straight on till morning
ufo wrote:i don't think suvs will last long. i was in china few weeks ago and there wasn't even one suv in sight.if china is the next big car market the suv is an extinct species.
However, SUV's have found a new home in Europe. Sad but true.
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.

November 23rd, 2004, 6:06 pm

ML
step four
step four
Posts: 263
Joined: August 20th, 2004, 2:17 pm
Uncles inlaws own a Hummer Dealer ship, they have sold 20 units in the last 2 months to individuals who came to the States to purchase and H2 or H2 truck to be shipped back to India. That market is also exploding with the desire for Large US automobiles, at least for the wealthy. Uncle said his father in-law said the freight and duty fees were almost as much as the sales price.

November 24th, 2004, 9:39 am

User avatar
Mr-914
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5810
Joined: January 12th, 2004, 7:44 am
Location: Montréal, QC
I'm against establishing permits based on needing an SUV/truck, because people's needs change all the time. Who are we to say that a person that hauls dirt once every two years does not need a truck and a person that tows a boat every year does need one?

Liscensing drivers for different size vehicles though...that does make sense...I'll second that.

November 24th, 2004, 10:28 am

User avatar
yo
Administration
Administration
Posts: 17281
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 6:57 pm
Coroflot: 67242
Location: SoCal
I can't figure out why your first reaction would be to control and force people when they don't do what you want. It kind of disgusts me.

I know I'm reading into your statements a bit, but step back and think and you see the broader concept of forcing a whole bunch of people to do something they don't want.

People are going to act irationally, make illogical decisions, be unpredictable, and in general do stuff you don't like. Suck it up. We are the only creatures that have the ability to make decisions not based on need, but on want, and you need to take the bad with the good on that one. It has produced great works of art and music, air travel that has gone from the first rickity flight to a man on the moon in 60 years, and a weird American taste for SUV's that seems to be globaly contageous (couldn't believe how many Jeep Grand Cherokees I saw last time I was in Paris and London, not to mention all the SUV's I saw last time in Korea), your going to have to learn to deal because you cannot make people do what you want, even if you think you know it's better for them, and still get all the good stuff that comes with all of that illogical unpredictableeness.

November 24th, 2004, 10:56 am

User avatar
cg
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 2498
Joined: January 10th, 2004, 12:21 am
Location: San Diego
I heard that the upcoming Hummer H3 doesn't have a market, but GM's Shreveport plant is sitting idle, and labor deals with the UAW mean the workers are paid regardless... So, we get the H3. Lot's of H3's. Dealers will be shoving them down peoples throats via deep discounts to move the surplus off the lots.
Image
Isn't GM the company that's supposed to rescue us from all of this with Hydrogen? Wha happan?

November 24th, 2004, 3:56 pm

dflux
yo wrote:People are going to act irationally, make illogical decisions, be unpredictable, and in general do stuff you don't like. Suck it up. We are the only creatures that have the ability to make decisions not based on need, but on want, and you need to take the bad with the good on that one. It has produced great works of art and music, air travel that has gone from the first rickity flight to a man on the moon in 60 years, and a weird American taste for SUV's that seems to be globaly contageous (couldn't believe how many Jeep Grand Cherokees I saw last time I was in Paris and London, not to mention all the SUV's I saw last time in Korea), your going to have to learn to deal because you cannot make people do what you want, even if you think you know it's better for them, and still get all the good stuff that comes with all of that illogical unpredictableeness.
I totally agree, and thats why i threw the question out there. for some reason 'licensing' seems wrong, but one of many solutions to stop the problem.

THAT is the reason for narrowing the market: there is a PROBLEM with people buying huge trucks they dont need. Art, super technology or sending a man to mars will not come from letting people buy more SUVs they dont need. Looking for a solution might help and also may even help develop future technologies.

This is why i thought the idea of a speed limitor was a feasible solution: whoever wants to buy a super-off-road vehicle can. the catch is, how many who wont need one will still want one when they find out it doesnt go too fast? You filter down until you get the customer that truly needs one (or really really wants one).

that way YOU are not limiting who can and cannot buy this kind of vehicle, the customers are doing it themselves based on their likes/dislikes/needs etc.

November 24th, 2004, 6:47 pm

User avatar
yo
Administration
Administration
Posts: 17281
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 6:57 pm
Coroflot: 67242
Location: SoCal
I am just playing devils advocate here:

People are telling you what they want, with their dollars, they want a big hunk of metal that goes fast. Simple....

it doesn't relate to NEED at all. The same way we didn't NEED to go to the moon at all. We don't NEED the Metropolitan Museum of Art either. You are of course welcome to point out that there are a whole bunch of side benifits that happened as a result of WANTING to go to the moon, new developments in materials and technologies (the fuel cell was origionally developed as part of the space program). The same could be said of the Met. The result of having such a large permenant collection on view in the largest concentraion of people in the US is not something you can measure. Perhaps there are things you are not allowing yourself to see as the result of the development of the SUV? I can't think of any, then again I would never buy one, but I didn't buy one out of CHOICE, not because it was regulated out.

Besides those artificial speed limiters can be jury rigged around at your local garage man. The Air Jordan I was banned by the NBA and it instantly became the best selling shoe. As soon as you tell people they can't have it, demand will increase. You gotta let it run it's natural corse conceptualy and water the concept down with a bunch of high cars like the CRV and RAV4.

November 24th, 2004, 10:56 pm

Guest
bigger better faster stronger

more more more

no to kyoto

buy buy buy

oil oil oil

burn burn burn

kill kill kill

well you liberated a country and found some oil so you have to use it right?

November 24th, 2004, 11:02 pm

Guest
You are of course welcome to point out that there are a whole bunch of side benifits that happened as a result of WANTING to go to the moon, new developments in materials and technologies (the fuel cell was origionally developed as part of the space program).
but no one ever really went to the moon (don't take it as history becos you remember images on tv or read it in books)

its the perennial myth, the american dream that doesn't exist but can be used to propel an economy toward a certain mentality

which is good in a sense because everyone's geared to achievements and progress (side benefits yes)

i agree on the technology part, they developed photoshopping in the 60s n 70s when they shot those incredible photographs of the alleged moon landing

November 25th, 2004, 12:10 am

User avatar
yo
Administration
Administration
Posts: 17281
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 6:57 pm
Coroflot: 67242
Location: SoCal
Anonymous wrote:(don't take it as history becos you remember images on tv or read it in books)
...but we should believe everthing we read in discusion forums by unregistered guests, more proof of the illogical side of human nature
Reply