Always remember that there are regional, socioeconomic, and ethnic differences in people's behavior.

For example, in Georgia, in it impolite to mention how much money you make or, for that matter, how much anything costs.

However, when I went to visit relatives in California, I was shocked that everyone told me how much money they made, how much their car cost, how many square feet their house had and why it was in the best neighborhood.

To each his own I suppose.

-Biscuits

Yes, this was actually something I'd intended to convey in my first post. Here in Texas people don't give owning a large vehicle a second thought. Every family I know of has at least one truck, SUV, or van. Only by being part of such a diverse BBS do I get to hear the opinion that people don't like SUVs. That would be like saying "I think guns should be illegal" around here. Not really offensive, just so far out of the cultural reality that no one would expect it.

talking about salary is taboo a lot of places, and it probably plays to employers' benefit... When a coworker of mine was likely to leave, he was given a raise, to not significantly more than what I was getting, but more... I'd been there like 4 or 5 years longer.

I got about half the difference when I got my degree (he got his just before he left) and browbeat people for a year to get some more, specifically reminding them what he was getting and that I started in 1995.

I got what I wanted, but then I got a second jjob (at consulting rates ) and just stopped caring. Speaking of that, I wonder if they're behind on checks because they're doing tax crap?

I was shocked that everyone told me how much money they made, how much their car cost, how many square feet their house had and why it was in the best neighborhood.

I don't know. I'd think that braggadocio would be impolite in any subculture. Maybe I'm too provincial.

I think it is especially rude to mention money in almost any context in the south, more so than most places. People that move here from the rest of the country do not have the same inhibitions as the locals. In areas with a lot of influx of new people, the culture seems to be changing very quickly, with people suddenly becoming increasingly concerned with status symbols.

I think a lot of the difference is not so much that people are differentiating themselves and trying to set themselves higher, but that they are doing it in a different way. It is no longer relevant that you come from a "good family" when nobody knows your family or anything about you except what they see on first glance.

Still, mention what that watch cost you, whether $5 or $500 and people are going to look at you funny. Ask somebody else what their watch cost and they are probably going to hesititate before answering, if they do at all.

-Biscuits

I'm guessing you're from GA. I'm from NC. I'd have to say that stating that my watch cost $5 (``Look what a deal I got!'') wouldn't be a faux pas around here, but announcing that it cost $500 (``See how rich I am!'') would.

And I live in Raleigh, which probably has more Yankees than natives.

talking about salary is taboo a lot of places, and it probably plays to employers' benefit

Some employers in the UK try and make you agree not to discuss your salary with co-workers. Somehow being diddled always seems much worse to me when I'm forced to be complicit with it, and I tend to view this as an end-of-interview situation.

Peter

Off Yahoo's front page:

Regulator criticizes SUVs on safety front

Timely to this topic.

I pretty much talk at will about expenses, though not income. People seem initially uncomfortable with such conversations, but eventually get over, making the conversation much easier. It's not that I try to compare or brag, but when I try to tell someone about a story or gripe which involves a purchase I find myself talking around things if I don't just give figures. Of course, I generally don't buy things like the $5,000 watch that would make people feel uncomfortable. Usually it's: "look what a great deal I got!" kind of thing.

I must admit I probably wouldn't have told anybody what I paid for my Empeg if I had paid what it's really worth. That would make people who don't "get it" uncomfortable for sure. Then again, I tell them now what I should have paid for it. . .

I've actually turned down work because I thought the NDAs were excessive, and because the terms would have precluded something more interesting down the road. I'm under a mostly-uninteresting NDA now with my side job. When I say that, I mean the people pay me to fix problems they have and contribute them back into the open source software they're using. So I can't disclose the problems, but if you look at the fixes I suppose you can figure them out for yourself

As to my day job, I tell my coworkers what I get. I've been here longer than all of them, but I'm unmotivated to leave, so I could probably get more if I played like I was.

Yeah interesting I like these quote:

In reply to:

---

''Not all SUVs are created equal, and I would urge people not to just take what salesmen have to tell them about safety features, but to do their own research,'' he (NHSTA's Administrator Runge) said.

As for himself, Runge said he wouldn't drive an SUV that scored fewer than three stars in NHTSA's five-star rollover rating

More than 30, or about one-third, of the 2002 SUVs tested by the agency earned just one or two stars, including the top-selling SUV, Ford Explorer, and other popular models such as Chevrolet Tahoe, Toyota 4Runner, Nissan Xterra and Mitsubishi Montero

---

And then this bit is is interesting too:

In reply to:

---

Automakers don't like NHTSA's rollover ratings, derived from a mathematical equation based on wheel width and center of gravity.


''We don't agree that the current static stability method is a good one,'' Ford spokeswoman Sara Tatchio said.


''It doesn't take into consideration stability control technology that greatly affects driving performance.''


''NHTSA's current test doesn't factor in enhancements we make to suspensions, tire size and other handling features we put into our vehicles,'' General Motors spokesman Jim Schell said.


NHTSA is developing a test for rollover tendency based on driving maneuvers done on a track. A final standard for that test is expected this year. Meanwhile, the current rating method ''accurately predicts rollover behavior of SUVs in real-world driving,'' NHTSA spokesman Tim Hurd said

---

Where the Automakers say the test used by the NHTSA doesn't accurately predict rollover behaviour in newer SUVs and the NHSTA says "oh yes it does".

So, who do you believe - since the NHSTAs model seems to be accurate (according to them) for predicting past SUVs rollover behaviour, its probably a good predictor for current SUV models on the road.

Whether it accurate for future SUVs with all the handling control stuff that Detroit has finally put in there, who knows, but I guess thats why the NHSTA is implementing the newer testing model performed on a track to be finalised this year - and you can bet that there will be something about this testing procedure that Detroit won't like either - giving them more excuses to not change things for the better in the meantime.

I don't know about you, but I don't plan to roll over my vehicle any time soon. Barring rare unforeseen circumstances, such a tire blowout while going 70+ mph, I believe I am a good enough driver to avoid it.

That rollover rating is based upon two numbers (center of mass and wheelbase). Those are the two most important figures in determining whether a vehicle will roll over, but are they the only ones? These new handling devices are designed to prevent rollovers, so either they are frauds or they are not being taken into consideration.

The problem is that rollovers are even more dangerous in an SUV than in a ``regular'' car because the center of gravity is so much lower. This means that when a rollover occurs, the center of gravity is much higher, which means that the cabin gets driven into the ground with a much greater force than in a ``regular'' car, causing much greater upper-body injuries.

No one (except Evel Kneivel, et al.) intend to flip their cars. Yet it still occurs.

Of course, this is not to say that the NHSTA's methods are perfect, but, still, any increased chance of rollover is that much more chance of death or severe head injury.

Given that the NHSTA says that their current "mathematical model" accurately predicts rollovers I'd have to say that they probably have something right.
and the NHSTA is obviously correlating actual SUV rollovers statistics with predicted by their model statistics and saying the two agree pretty well.
So the NHSTA is in effect saying, regardless of what the current safety features on the existing SUVs say should or should not happen, actual driving experience tracks with our predictions.

I recall fo many years in the 90s that Detroit denied that their SUVs were more likey to rollover or be no more dangerous than other vehicles (e.g. cars) on the road.
I also recall that Detroit said that the (then) anti-rollover safety measures in their SUVs were effective and safe.

Statistics since then show otherwise - otherwise why is Detroit putting all these new safety features in their SUVs if the current safety features are "good enough"?

Those newer features may help prevent rollovers, but the proof of the pudding is in the actual driving statistics of SUV rollovers with new models with all the new features. And only for newer SUVs - the older SUV models without them will of course remain dangerous until they are scrapped.

Which is why the NHSTA is finalising a track test to simulate actual driving conditions SUVs and drivers face.

Only then will the truth or otherwise of Detroits claims to the effectiveness of the new features be known.

Nobody is going to flip their vehicle, no matter what kind, unless:

a) They are a bad driver and don't know how to handle their vehicle.

b) Someone else causes the wreck.

c) Some freak circumstance occurs and it is the will of God.


Many people who get in major wrecks that are their own fault end up wrecking many cars in their lifetime and would wreck just about anything on wheels. I used to own a Ford Bronco (which I couldn't have flipped if I tried) and I used to drive a Ford Explorer, but I'd know when I'm driving that Explorer that it's not going to handle like my mom's Taurus and I'm not going to be able to manuveur (spelling?) it like a car, so I handle it with a little more respect, and maybe I'll brake a little bit more in the turns or slow down a little more when it's wet. If someone doesn't think they can handle driving an SUV, then they shouldn't drive one. Same applies to other cars, motorcycles, planes, etc.

I'm sure if there was a study on the likelyhood of a bicycle crashing vs. a tricycle crashing, then the tricycle would be deemed the safer ride. And if there was a study to see if riding a tricycle was more perilous then walking, I'm sure it would show that walking would be much safer. And if there was a study to see if walking was inherently more dangerous than sitting down in a padded chair in a locked room..... I don't think the answer is to ban tricycles, bicycles, or SUV's. I think some people should be more competent when they are handling a 3000 lb vehicle. So instead of being anti-SUV, I guess I would be anti-bad-drivers.

In reply to:

---

Nobody is going to flip their vehicle, no matter what kind, unless:

a) They are a bad driver and don't know how to handle their vehicle.

b) Someone else causes the wreck.

c) Some freak circumstance occurs and it is the will of God.


Many people who get in major wrecks that are their own fault end up wrecking many cars in their lifetime and would wreck just about anything on wheels. I used to own a Ford Bronco (which I couldn't have flipped if I tried) and I used to drive a Ford Explorer, but I'd know when I'm driving that Explorer that it's not going to handle like my mom's Taurus and I'm not going to be able to manuveur (spelling?) it like a car, so I handle it with a little more respect, and maybe I'll brake a little bit more in the turns or slow down a little more when it's wet. If someone doesn't think they can handle driving an SUV, then they shouldn't drive one. Same applies to other cars, motorcycles, planes, etc.

---

Sure, but your first 2 points merely restate what Detroit used to say in the 50's and 60's about car safety - i.e. its the nut(s) behind the wheels fault in every case and we cannot be expected to produce cars that don't crash or kill people due to this. [or words to that effect].

To which the reply from the politicians and judges of the day [after a few court cases from Nader et al], was "you damn well will engineer safety into your vehicles even if it costs a little more and we expect you to build safety in from day one from now on"

Still Detroit didn't learn too fast:

The lawsuits over the Pinto and other cars of the 70s and 80's were not for nothing - in those cases, the folks in a Pintos would get incinerated through no fault of their own if they got rear ended due to the placement of the fuel tank right near the rear of the vehicle - inches from any impact point in a rear-ender.

There was a similar situation/design issue with a Lockheed plane in the late 50's I believe, that had the undercarriage retraction lever near the control stick/column, and in a position which could be easily knocked accidentally, now when the plane was in the air, who cared, but while the plane was on the ground, that would be a problem as there was no interlock to stop the undercarriage being retracted on the ground so if the lever was knocked while on the ground, sure enough the wheels fold up and the plane goes onto its belly causing lots of damage in the process.

Now the FAA and the Airlines didn't like this "no safety" design, and asked Lockheed to fix it, eventually Lockheed hmm'ed and looked into it and in the end the Lockheed fix for the problem was to simply stuck a small sign on the cockpit near the lever that said "Do not retract undercarriage while plane is on runway".

Now, given that the pilots of the day were no doubt very highly skilled people who were trained not to make mistakes, yet they managed to damage a few planes with a simple unprotected retraction lever.

So if a highly skilled and trained plane pilot makes mistakes, then drivers - no matter how skilled - have no chance of never making one, and in the case where you're driving a SUV and make a mistake (or someone else makes one for you), you can end up in a roll over that had you been driving a non-SUV vehcile may not have rolled.

In reply to:

---

... don't think the answer is to ban tricycles, bicycles, or SUV's. I think some people should be more competent when they are handling a 3000 lb vehicle. So instead of being anti-SUV, I guess I would be anti-bad-drivers.

---

Problem is that right now, with 25% of the new cars sold being SUVs, I see a lot of people buying or using them, who are doing so without proper driving skills being taught or required.

Sure, maybe 5 or 10 or even 15% of those SUVs are sold to people who know how to drive them and take care to drive within its and their limits.

But the other 80+% don't.

The issue is:

Is it the fault of the car (and by extension, the maker) that those 80+% can't drive them properly becuase they are so badly/differently engineered to start with, or is it the fault of the 80+% people who don't bother upgrading their skills to know how to drive their SUV properly?

See, any reasonable person would expect that if a SUV was this much harder/different to drive than a car, then the US lawmakers would require a different type of driving license or training to drive one.

But thats not the message that Detroit puts across - they say "anyone can drive a SUV safely" - they do that in all sorts of non-explicit ways, not least in the way they advertise them and where and how they show them being used.

I don't know about the US, but I need different license to drive a Motorcycle, a Car, a bus, a taxi, a heavy vehicle over 2.5 tons, a vehicle with tracks instead of tyres, a vehicle over 5 tons, a vehicle with more than 18 wheels, a vehicle with a cab and trailer combination, a vehicle with more than a cab and one trailer combination etc.

Thats not simply bureauracy gone mad, its simply because all of these require different skills or safety precautions and need specialist training that the average "car driver" just doesn't have/get from driving a car around.


So, if you are saying "its really only bad drivers" not bad SUVs - I can't agree - there is a line between making products that anyone can use safely, and making products that are unsafe at any speed without proper training but not telling anyone that.

I think SUVs are in the latter class of vehicles, and no-one in Detroit wants to admit that and lawmakers seem unwilling to address it either with stricter licensing rules.

17. An automobile engine produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide for every gallon of gas it burns, or about 1 pound per mile.

I don't dispute this, but am curious to know how it happens. A gallon of gasoline weighs a bit over six pounds. It seems like a stretch to generate 20 pounds of CO2 (along with all the nitrogen oxide, all the hydrogen compounds, and the considerable weight of water) from that six pounds of gasoline.

18. A hybrid car produces less than one half pound of CO2 per mile.

Here's proof that statistics don't lie, but people lie with statistics. Notice the careful juxtaposition of the two statements: "An automobile engine produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide for every gallon of gas...", and "A hybrid car produces less than one half pound of CO2 per mile." Wow! The hybrid car only produces one-fortieth the amount of pollution!

Wait a minute -- the first statement is pollution per gallon, the second statement is pollution per mile. Take a car getting 30 MPG, and it is producing 2/3 pound of CO2 per mile -- not that different from the hybrid. Keep in mind that even a hybrid car uses "...an automobile engine [that] produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide for every gallon of gas...". It just gets more miles per gallon.

Another factor to consider in all of this... the EPA does not rate vehicular pollution on the basis of amount of pollution per gallon of fuel burned, but instead on amount of pollution generated per mile traveled, regardless of amount of fuel consumed. This applies to automobiles, trucks may be different.

tanstaafl.

In reply to:

---

So how much pollution are SUVs really pumping out? Is it the 6x figure which seems absolutely incredible? Which kinds of pollution are most important and how do SUVs stack up with those?

---

The 6 times figure is probably gained from comparing the emission of Nitrous Oxides (NOX) compounds - a modern car will emit something like .2 grams per kilometer driven, wheras the average SUV starts at 1.2 grams per km and goes up.

(1.2 / .2 = 6 times)

I think the measurements are grams and kilometres.

NOX is one of the pollutants that causes smogs, and respitory diseases, Asthma and other conditions, as well contributing to acid rain.


Anyway, yes SUVs can and do emit 6 times (or more) the pollution levels of other modern vehicles - no-one disputes that fact.

I have a copy of the ChryslerDaimler Environmental report for 2002 at home I can get some figures from if you really want to know - but comparing the European car pollution figures with the US car figures make for very sobering reading as to how far behind the US car makers are in this area.

And as Chrysler don't make SUVs these are the "better looking" i.e. lower US car pollution figures than say Ford or GM pollution figures would be in comparison.

But I've yet to see the figures for GM or Ford vehicles - probably these aren't published very widely, for good reason.

Also there are some (possibly like yourself) who simply don't care about how "cool" a vehicle is.

Also keep in mind that people's definitions of "coolness" will vary considerably. The Rice Boy with his chromed, be-winged CRX with the six inch diameter exhaust piple thinks his car is really cool. The guy driving the monster-size Hummer with the blacked out trim and the knobbly tires thinks his car is the ultimate in cool, and laughs at the Rice Boy who in turn is laughing at him. I think my absolutely stock-appearing ShoWagon is cooler than anybody else's car on this bbs -- even though I know the great majority of you are laughing at me for thinking so.

Buying a car for the "coolness" factor is not necessarily a bad thing.

tanstaafl.

In reply to:

---

Another factor to consider in all of this... the EPA does not rate vehicular pollution on the basis of amount of pollution per gallon of fuel burned, but instead on amount of pollution generated per mile traveled, regardless of amount of fuel consumed. This applies to automobiles, trucks may be different.

---

Light Trucks (ie. SUVS) are different - they don't have to meet the rules that cars do - they are exempt from most pollution reduction laws and I am not sure if they even have to publish their pollution figures at all.

This is due to a historical situation in that years ago, before SUVs existed light trucks made up such a small %age of the US vehicle fleet and were used mainly for commercial purposes that congress exempted them from having to meet tough anti-pollution laws aimed at reducing the average level of pollution emitted from the US vehicle fleet.
The carmakers saw this loophole (which they helped engineer anyway) and immediately got SUV's classified as light trucks and here we are today, SUVs are now 25% and growing as a percentage of all new vehicles sold and the average MPG figures for the US vehicle fleet is declining thanks to SUVs and the levels of pollution (average) is no doubt the same or worse due to the lack of pollution controls on SUVs.

Blast! I helped dismantle the gas-guzzling argument, only to start people on a worse one!

The true solution to travel related environmental damage is to cut down on travel, which most of us could do easily. The problem is there are a lot of people like me who love to drive big gas guzzling cars just for fun, or to jump on a jet when we could as easily video conference or vacation nearer home. There may come a time when we (or more likely our grandchildren) have to be denied some basic rights in order to maintain our civilisations.

Rob

There may come a time when we (or more likely our grandchildren) have to be denied some basic rights in order to maintain our civilisations.

Not til they pull my big ol' gas-guzzler from my cold dead hand

You're right though, if we don't adjust our lifestyle mother earth will do it for us (a little chilling)

I take it from your first post above that you don't intend to give up your SUV anytime soon to help ol' Mother Earth out a bit?

Is force the alternative?

I still feel these commercials are aimed at inciting people who already hate SUVs rather than educating current owners.

-Biscuits

Who said you'd dismantled the Gas Guzzling argument?

As far as I can tell, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, SUVs get abominable mileage (MPG) - far below most regular cars, and even in some case as bad, or worse than the old gas guzzlers of the 60's and early 70's.

How is this dismantling the "Gas Guzzling" nature of SUVs from the arguments about SUVs?

The only thing that makes those things even half affordable to run is the very low gas prices you pay - probably due to lack of taxes on gas sales, but there are other factors in there as well [like current US energy policy and lack of concern about doing anything practical about tackling global warming by reducing US CO2 emissions].

Previous graphs showed in this thread that the US uses twice the level of oil per capita than the rest of the industrialised world does.

Most of that extra usage I'd bet comes from the booming market for SUVs.

Also, if SUV's are not gas guzzling, then how come the average MPG of the total US vehicle fleet is actually decreasing (getting worse) and has been doing that for the last 15-20 years (about the time the SUV craze took off), and is now nearly at the same point it was in the early 70's, when 30+ years of fuel efficient technology and millions of efficient cars and big trucks have been made and sold in that time - and all the old gas guzzlers from the 60's and 70's have mostly been retired or scrapped?

The only candiate vehicle to explain this downward trend, I can see is the (rise in) SUV.

Remember this figure is an *average* (the sum of the mileage driven divided by amount of gas used divided by the count of vehicles on the road gives an average MPG).

The only way this average can get worse over time is if new vehicles have worse mileage than the older vehicles they are replacing and thats true even if the old cars they replace are kept on the road.

And of course, the MPG is merely a scapegoat for the pollution that these things emit, which in some cases is not easy to find out what the levels of pollution SUVs emit - or get anyone to make them less polluting as SUVs are exempt from any clean air and pollution reduction requirements other cars have to meet.

Hehe, I was wondering how long before somebody picked up on that and challenged me.

My point was that gas mileage is largely irrelevant. We are not short of oil currently, nor will we be in the near future. The gas an SUV buyer comes out of his own pocket.

The only way gas mileage is important is in how much extra pollutions is caused by that gas burning.

-Biscuits

I've never seen the commcerials you refer to, but I've seen corporate sponsered "pro" campaigns for all sorts of things in the US in the past and I doubt that these commercials are any worse - if they were, then presumably someone would be suing them for saying misleading things right?


Maybe that they are preaching to the converted - but its certainly got a few people talking about it, which can't be a bad thing long term.

And if Detroit gets some idea of the anti-SUV feeling out there, they might modify their behaviour a little.

But the longer term change can only come from Politicians and lawmakers actually forcing Detroit to act - and by SUV buyers deciding not to replace their current 1,2 or 3 SUVs with newer more polluting models or hopefully convincing non-SUV owners not to buy one in the first place and these are things which a grass roots campaign like this might help bring about.

In reply to:

---

We are not short of oil currently, nor will we be in the near future

---

Well you might think that way, but I don't think your government, or other governments around the world think that way now.

In reply to:

---

The gas an SUV buyer comes out of his own pocket.

---

True, but as has been pointed out earlier - the true cost of allowing you [and your fellow SUV drivers] to burn that fuel inefficiently and as a consequence polluting the entire planet for your personal gratification is something we all have to bear.

Personally, I'd much rather that I don't have to bear those costs from your or any other SUV drivers activities - but I know full well that we all will, whether directly or indirectly, whether we want to or not.

We will all pay directly as our insurance premiums rise to cover the cost of damage caused to property from increased extreme natural events like more frequent hurricanes, tornados, snow storms etc around the planet due in part to global warming from burning fossil fuels.

This is in the same way that everyone around around the world will ultimately end up paying for the costs of 9/11 through increased insurance premiums on everything thats insured as insurance companies claw back the money they had to spend for 9/11 payouts, or through reduced cover for the same premium.

We will also pay long term as parts the planet become uninhabitable either due to sea levels rising by up to 5 metres over the next 100 years (as the Antarctic ice sheet melts into the sea and the oceans expand as they warm up) or due to permanent climate change rendering currently habitable zones on the planet, uninhabitable, requiring more people to be fitted into smaller areas, or through more intangible things, like the loss of biodiversity etc.

Eventually these activities are all hastening our own demise as individuals and as a species.

We have to all start somewhere, and getting most SUVs replaced with more efficient vehicles would be a good start, and short of preventing the 1.2 billion people in China from developing as an industrialised nation, it would be one of the biggest positive steps for the entire planet anyone can do,
and all it needs is 12.5 million people to not buy a current inefficient SUV next year, and the years after that until Detroit wises up and make fuel efficient models that pollute no more than the regular "big cars" do now.