Senate passes energy bill, hopes to up mileage standards

While we've seen everything from brilliant engineering to run-of-the-mill hacks enable vehicles to squeeze every last inch out of a tank of fuel, it looks like the Senate is taking larger strides in order to raise the MPG bar. The US Senate has reportedly passed an energy bill that would raise fuel efficiency standards to an average of 35 miles-per-gallon, create additional provisions that make it unlawful to charge "unconscionably excessive" prices for oil products, and establish new appliance and lighting efficiency standards to accelerate the use of more efficient lighting in public buildings. Lastly, there was purportedly verbiage that provided "grants, loan guarantees, and other assistance to promote research into fuel efficient vehicles." Of course, the bill still has quite a ways to go before it gets set in stone, and while upping the standard sure seems novel, a quick glance around existing lots will show that quite a few whips sold today aren't quite living up to the 22.7 mpg standard that's already in place.

[Via Digg, image courtesy of MPGStickers]

[jaysins @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:44PM]

If this gets passed it will be about time. We're really starting to fall behind, if not already far behind, many other countries.

[johnzilla @ Jun 22nd 2007 5:14PM]

Don't be silly.

The CAFE laws passed in the 80s had absolutely no effect on the consumption rate in America...in fact, oil consumption increased. Anyone who thinks that passing stricter CAFE laws now will have a different effect can't read a graph.

Americans don't want small, uber-efficient cars no matter what the hysterical green lobby (and media) tells you...just check the sales numbers for any auto manufacturer, foreign or domestic. Americans want more power and more style, period. If making economical vehicles was such a huge market niche to fill, Toyota wouldn't have just spent a billion dollars on an assembly plant to build huge, "gas guzzling" pickup trucks.

[Fred Thompson @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:44PM]

And just HOW do they propose there is be a magic increase of efficiency of about 32%?

Oh, I get it, they're going to make it illegal to have a car other than those little bitty Europeans models. Never mind the fact that distances in the U.S. are far greater than those in Europe or that people just might want to actually carry cargo in vehicles that will protect them in a crash.

And...just what are "excessive" profits on oil products? Could those be the TAXES which are many multiple times the profit EARNED by the oil companies? Does the U.S. Senate propose that it can command the world price of the most important commodity?

What tripe.

[Fatima @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:47PM]

Small european cars?
I like my BMW 335i tvym.
Take your hummer and shove it up your a$$.

[dpk @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:55PM]

The distances are greater? Sure, miles are longer than kilometers, but what does that have to do with anything?

Seriously though: If the average travel distance is greater, why shouldn't we be pushing to get more miles per gallon? In fact, why shouldn't we be pushing to have better fuel efficiency than places with shorter travel distances?

I'm responding to a troll.

[Matt @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:56PM]

Wow its been awhile since i heard someone try to put up a fight for over sized cars, I mean not only can you not win in that fight, you fighting to continue to use something that will run out, its pretty sad that the USA and the Aussies are the only countries that have pretty much said to the rest of the world "we don't care, our big businesses own our government and our country and we like it that way" the funny part is that ford and GM have no current models that can legally sell in some parts of the world and only one model that can sell anywhere other than the USA and Australia, its a very sad day when the people who walk their habitat stop caring about the ground they walk on and those who will walk after them, sadly it seems that day has come and no one really seems to care.

[paul34 @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:06PM]

Rather than listening to the propaganda of American auto makers in the 50's and 60's, it might be time to wake up and look at the modern world. Modern cars are extremely safe.

Did you see the crash test with a F-150 - your magic heavy, big American vehicle? Yea, very poor. Take the same test with the mini - you know, "one of them gosh dern yuuur-o gay go karts." Passes the same test with flying colors.

Besides, maneuverability is capable of preventing most accidents. If you want to drive a huge Expedition or Suburban barge, eating up gas and pushing prices even higher for no reason, taking up useless space on our roadways and parking spots, blocking views for other more socially responsible drivers, than go right on ahead.

I hope all that extra steel comes in handy when you can't maneuver 5,000+ lbs around a simple obstacle and can only slam right into it - which I can only assume is going to be another poor driver in a smaller vehicle who is only trying to get to work so he can afford the gas prices that this nation's ridiculous addiction to oil feeds.

Have you even LOOKED at what Europeans drive? Oh, I didn't think so. I don't know why distance really makes a difference... most European cars (yes, even the "tiny" ones) are perfectly capable of 100 km/h (which would be 60 MPH in our measurements). That's just fine for most highway travel. How many times do you go on a trip from Florida to California? Yea, didn't think so. And last time I checked, the speed limit for a long trip doesn't magically change to 180 MPH.

Also, are you saying that a Golf TDI, certainly no sluggard, is a slow piece of crap? It can easily get 40-60 MPG without a thought. Yea, fuel efficiency definitely equals crap!

Wait until manufacturers finally starting making small diesels in passenger cars for this country... and then come back and talk to me about fuel efficiency and crappiness somehow correlating.

[Fred Thompson @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:48PM]

Well, let's see...

I drive in Italy, Germany, France, Switzerland, Ireland and the UK between 4 and 5 months per year. I've already driven 4,300 miles in June of this year. I don't have a Hummer, truck or SUV.

Simple fact, Europe has a lot of small cars with virtually no real cargo capacity and very limited protection in accidents.

Simple fact, "high" gas prices primarily come from taxes and increased consumption with minimal expansion of production.

Simple fact, distances and cargo capacity affect all prices. Larger capacity = more efficiency in cargo hauling.

If you don't understand those things, learn basic economics.

[Eric Bandholz @ Jun 22nd 2007 4:11PM]

Fred is right on with his thoughts. Prices, standards, and designs should be determined by the free market not by a socialist government. What people don't realize is that these requirements the government puts in place will significantly raise the cost of your car. If people wanted to buy 35mpg cars they would, we don't need the government to force us to do it.

If you respond that you don't buy it because it's not available. The reason it's not available is that people would not pay the premium it costs to make a car/truck have 35mpg.

A similar analogy would be that the government forces all computers to have at least 4.5ghz processor even though not everyone wants/needs it.

[bb-king @ Jun 22nd 2007 4:37PM]

@ E Bandholz:

"A similar analogy would be that the government forces all computers to have at least 4.5ghz processor even though not everyone wants/needs it."

Yah, totally hear you on that one. The government has made PCP, Cocaine, Rape, and Murder illegal. Not everyone wants or agrees with those rules either, I suppose. And unleaded gas and paint. I should have the right to decide whether my kids suck in tons of crap.

[James @ Jun 22nd 2007 5:35PM]

@bb-king: Let's put it this way -- name one government regulation that mandated a change to a product, that made the product *cheaper*. Environmental regulations make it impossible to build another oil refinery. Result? Higher gas prices. State regulations require different gas blends for summer and winter, and differ from the state next door. Result? Higher gas prices.

The simple fact is, the best a regulation could hope for is to have no effect on prices. If something a regulation mandates made the product cheaper, companies would do it anyway -- that's the beauty of the profit motive.


Bottom line: there are already forces at work to control people's consumption, and they're called "prices". People who drive SUVs that get 10 miles to the gallon (for the record, I drive a 30mpg sedan and my wife has a 22mpg van) pay more for gas, and as demand goes up, so does the price. If the supply gets short because of e.g. wars in the middle east, they will pay still more, and you'd better believe that already plays a part in peoples' decisions which vehicle to buy.

[Fred Thompson @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:52PM]

Hey, OP, do you know anything about fuel standards? Fleet AVERAGE is the regulation. Do you have any idea how that is reached? Automobile makers create crappy underpowered cars that people won't buy in large numbers so they can sell cars which people actually want.

Keep it up Democrat-led Senate. Your approval rating is at about 12%. It's about time to sweep away the 60s hippies and their nanny state.

[Fred Thompson @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:54PM]

Fatima,

You're comment is stupid. Look at the majority of what's on the roads in Europe. Try driving a large BMW on pre-WWII roads.

Troll.

[mrz @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:01PM]

so your saying that because we produce everything we have more stuff to haul, because we are the largest producer in the world we have to carry things a long way....but we are not the largest producer we haven't been for a very long time, your want of a large automobile is about 40% actual need and roughly 60% inability to change.

I drive an SUV, not because i want to but because im 6'4 and don"t fit in the cars i wish i could buy, but its the best mpg suv on the market and in a few months i will be trading it in for the hybrid model, you probably drive a pickup, and go on long road trips with it because you need a place to put you ego.

[Fred Thompson @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:47PM]

@mrz, I said what I said, not what you projected into it.

Many roads in Europe, especially inside cities, won't fit large vehicles. Any cargo hauler, regardless of size, must first propel itself and THEN it has cargo capacity. A higher number of smaller transport vehicle to move the same cargo as a smaller number of larger transport vehicles will consume more fuel because they will have a great amount of inherent mass. Ergo, MORE fuel consumption to move the cargo and MORE COST for the goods.

At 64 years old, if you really are that age, you should be emotionally mature enough to separate disagreement from personal attacks.

[ray @ Jun 22nd 2007 4:24PM]

@Fred
You idiot, he said he was 6foot4 not 64yrs old, how did you not get the point he was trying to make?? He's was too tall to fit into a small car. This brings me to the conclusion that you really are retarded, like I had suspected after reading your other posts.
Btw your points are stupid and typical of an american redneck.If europe has such a hard time transporting goods around the place then why do our cities and businesses function so well?

[mccarron @ Jun 22nd 2007 4:53PM]

1: The mileages standards have nothing to do with large or small cargo haulers. We're not talking about commercial transport vehicles, we're talking about passenger vehicles (which I find ironic as the majority of Americans drive alone, even with their giant 8 passenger tanks).
2: Even if you DO want to talk about commercial transport vehicles, I have lived many years in both Europe and America and can say that the vehicles transporting goods in the urban areas of both are basically the SAME. Take a real look at some of the most efficient large trucks on the road and you'll see the word "Volvo" written on the grill. Yes, Volvos are European (even if the company is owned by GM).
3: You're 6'4" and can't fit into small cars? Have you tried to fit into small cars? I too am 6'4" and fit comfortably into my pint-sized '83 Mazda RX-7 2 seater. I have also fit comfortably into many a Jetta, Golf, Beetle (old and new) Civic, Yaris, Prius... and so on.

[lovarj2 @ Jun 22nd 2007 2:59PM]

All this will do is allow us to catch up to what Europe pays for gas. This study says that gas prices will double by 2016 as a result of this bill.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1512.cfm

[eh @ Jun 22nd 2007 4:39PM]

Prices are going to double in 2016 regardless. That site is just republican propaganda. They never looked at the other side or what their bogus "solution" would do. Making more effecient cars may increase prices but guess what? Lowering the price but not raising effeciency will cause people to spend just as much money and use just as much gas. How much somebody drives depends on how much they have to spend. Its either insane or extremely stupid to think that lowering gas prices wouldnt cause people to drive more but having cars that get better MPG would.

Cars that use gas are a no win situation no matter how you look at it, it is however much better to have cars that get high MPG since not everybody uses their car for senseless leisure. As the price for gas reaches a certain point most people will start only using their car when they have to. In the long run this will keep supply up and the prices down. If cars never improved their mpg then supply would remain low and price would continue to climb until people couldnt even afford to drive to work anymore. Lowering gas prices is a short term solution that will have devastating effects in the future.

[Mike @ Jun 22nd 2007 4:53PM]

For the record my gas prices doubled in the last year. So to say they will double by 2016 sounds GREAT to me. (9 years for a price double, compared to 1 year...)

[Sean O @ Jun 23rd 2007 1:08AM]

Grow a brain. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing "think" tank.

Look up the word credibility. Then use your newfound knowledge to post a link to something that isn't manufactured propaganda from a bunch of so-called libertarians.

You can fantasize about how government regulation will increase gas prices in the distant future. In the meantime, I'll tell you how your beloved unregulated market has ALREADY caused ultra-high gas prices.

Gas in the US is massively overpriced for one reason, and one reason alone. No government oversight on what is essentially a price-fixing monopoly. The oil companies keep refining capacity at a minimum in order to keep the prices much higher than cost. For 6 years they have had a government that not only looks the other way, it gave them tax breaks and incentives.

What did gas cost in 2001? You think natural supply and demand has changed that much in 6 years? Think again. This is a racket. And your friends at the Heritage Foundation are one of its instruments.

Welcome to planet Earth. In a REAL free market, there would be competition. Multiple companies would be refining oil as fast as they could and offer competitive prices in order to gain market share from the big dogs. If we followed your philosophy on economics (as the 2000-2006 US government did), there would eventually be only one energy company in the world and gas would cost $20 a gallon or more.

[Tony Elmquist @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:01PM]

In automotive fatalities, ranked lowest to highest, the US ranks 30th in fatalities per capita and 10th in fatalities per mile traveled - behind, yes, most EU countries.

So how are our monstrous big cars making us safer?

[Fred Thompson @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:47PM]

Can you provide links to methodology used to create these statements? Apples have to be compared to apples. There are similar claims made for infant mortality in the U.S. but the way the counts are made are very different. The U.S. includes cases which the majority of the world does not count. Your stated ranking smells of that kind of unequal accounting.

[bb-king @ Jun 22nd 2007 4:37PM]

wow, thats a terrific stat... I'm glad to see one of Fred Thompson's only good resons is actually wrong...

In all honestly, how can someone realistically complain about the gov. setting stricter fuel standards? Forget party ties and all that nonsense. Look at it strictly from a survival perspective. When considering the current state of the worlds oil supply, the current state of the envir., and the projected state of both, bigger IS NOT better. We need to increase our investment in alternative energy, and one of the best ways to jumpstart this is by FORCING people to search for alternatives. We are far too comfortable as is.

People like Fred Thompson need to put aside their 'need' for giant automobiles and think about the greater good. Yes, some people do actually require something larger than a smart car for business or personal reasons, but there are many more of us who can do just fine driving a small sedan.

The benefits of a bill like this passing are enormous. 1) Better fuel economy. Less fuel = more change in our pockets. Even with increased fuel prices due to taxes, we may be able to offset the inflation of oil producers by having a lower demand. 2) Increased Tech Productivity. Our country has been and continues to lose major ground in intellectual productivity. Scientists are fleeing to places with more opportunities, grants, resources. 3) Health. Maybe some of us obese Americans will be prompted to ride a bicycle to work or walk to the supermarket. Yes, not everyone lives close to where they need to be, but a hell of a lot of us do. 4) Decreased reliance on oil producing countries. I really don't think I need to even begin explaining why this would be a major plus.

Ok, thats it for me. Gotta get back to studying. Sorry for the lengthy post. I just get really irate knowing that there are real people out there like Fred Thompson who actually believe what they say is right....

PS - Fred, I'm praying you are sterile.

[Brian V @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:07PM]

It's true. The CAFE (combined average fuel economy) standard creates a dangerous situation on the road - as long as consumers keep demanding "Super Triton V8 MegaCab Hemi Professional Grade" trucks and SUVs. One 15mpg truck and five 40mpg cars might satisfy CAFE, but makes for bad physics on the highway.

[lovarj2 @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:11PM]

CAFE standards have caused more fatalities on the road.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1458.cfm

[mrz @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:30PM]

even though I agree that CAFE is a huge problem i believe that that article was written with no care for the enviorment, i do agree that the CAFE needs to go but not so that fools like this fred Thompson can ride around in giant heaps of steel, i think it needs to go because it is like every other piece of legislature enacted by the USA government when it comes to oil, it doesn't mean shit, little soccer moms want the most inefficient cars EVER MADE and they get them because the government and the auto makers refuse to step up to the plate and make some changes, every president and administration always say they will make a difference but it gets hard when those who you need to change have a larger say in your country that you do.

[Cell @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:48PM]

I'll take a Tesla or Lightning any day. :)

http://www.teslamotors.com/

(Don't ask me what "135mpg equivalent" means)

http://www.lightningcarcompany.com/

And there is a French company (Venturi) with "the worlds first commercial solar car" (AstroLab) although its not as cool. They also have the Fetish although they only made 20 something of them.

http://www.venturi.fr/-venturi-english-home-.html

[david @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:50PM]

My new VW Jetta TDI gets 50mpg running on bio-diesel. And my Mazda gets 33, so its totally possible to do this.

I'm tired of moms driving an Expedition while she talks on her phone about the last pool boy she abused on the way to the mail salon. Those vehicles need to go.

[jim @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:50PM]

These attempts to legislate away the laws of physics and economics would just be laughably embarrassing, if not for the tragic consequences in lost lives and economic destruction left in their wake.

Enviro laws are just the West's form of sharia -- yet another attempt to run the world according to some whack-job's sense of spiritual purity. The new Greens are no better than some Kansas creationist. Worse, since the humanity-hating, eco-culters are basically state-sanctioned at this point.

Ah well, who needs to learn science or economics? That's hard and boring. Much better to become an ideological Green crusader and revel in the sweet taste of blind faith, doom-mongering, and religious zealotry. To hell with the Enlightenment, let's go back to the Dark Ages.

[tekdroid @ Jun 22nd 2007 3:57PM]

meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of trips are short ones with one passenger spewing carcinogens in the air the kids are breathing, and nobody gives a second thought to taking a pushbike...

(or a segway, har)

[Steve Moseley @ Jun 22nd 2007 4:06PM]

You know what? I get pissed off at people that bitch about how the government is supposed to do this, or is supposed to do that. Wake up people. It is your responsibility. Do your part and buy a high effciency car.

Here is the flow: Government passes a law to appease people in their funding base, businesses affected by it pass on the cost of changing to the customer. So, we could have federally mandated electric vehicles right now if we wanted to, but who do you think will pay for that? Eventually, you and I will pay out of our pockets. Now, because businesses are greedy, if you can give them MORE incentives (i.e. less taxes) and less hoops to jump through to create new technology, then that technology will come out sooner. Legislation has its place too as companies won't just do the right thing, but this sort of legislation doesn't do anything. It creates more hoops and cost for the companies. I work for the federal government, and BELIEVE me you don't want anything haveing to go throught the federal government. It is slow at EVERYTHING and that adds cost to everything. We need to give lots of incentives to companies to spend their R&D money on new batteries (which we really need for electric cars) and other such technologies. Make it so that the companies would be stupid NOT to invest in these technologies. I have ZERO faith in congress and their ability to create change. Both sides are just pandering to their individual funders and they could give a shit about the environment or the affects of their legislation for you and me. If they pass a law and it creates more cost for car companies that make it more expensive for you and me, how does that help us. The government needs to get out of the way as much as possible in my mind.

[Mike Holzapfel @ Jun 22nd 2007 4:50PM]

Wow, it's like cats & dogs in here.

CAFE regulations are a joke in any form. Peak oil supply has come and gone. Americans AND Europeans need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Energy demand continues to grow at a very high rate (thx China/India), but fossil fuel supplies continue to dwindle.

Most all renewable/green energy resources require fossil fuel inputs to even get started. Read "The Long Emergency" for a clear view...

[rp @ Jun 22nd 2007 5:03PM]

1) The reason there are more fatalities on the road in the US than in the EU is because Americans are assholes, especially the conservative ones. See: Fred Thompson, who probably enjoys driving his F-150, drinking Bud Light, and listening to the Pres' latest incoherent ramblings. Of course, this means support for oil companies as well, hence the shortsighted comments.

2) By 2016 the price of gas will probably be double anyway, regardless of any bill that is passed. Remember what the price was in 1998? Quick, Google it! Here's one! http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html. Oh.. my.. god... It has more than doubled since then! It must take real genius to establish trends and blame it on something that for all intents and purposes would actually reduce the demand for gas.

I personally would like to see the option for SUVs still out there, because like mrz, I'm 6'4", and can't really fit into many other cars. Also like mrz, I plan on going hybrid ASAP. I don't think they really have to sacrifice that much to get to 35 mpg in over 10 years. Doesn't Bush constantly say that hydrogen is "just around the corner" anyway?

[matt blank @ Jun 22nd 2007 5:12PM]

Something to note about the accuracy of the story - Senate Republicans blocked all provisions of the bill except the 35mpg standard. Everything else was cut out in committee. So no additional efficiency standards, price gouging, etc language was passed.

[johnzilla @ Jun 22nd 2007 5:21PM]

@paul34: a F-150 failing a crash test? You are on crack. The F-150 is rated tops in safety. You are basing your opinion on data from 2001/2002. Why don't you join us in 2007?

F150: 5 stars.
Mini: 4 stars.

I know which one I'd rather be in, that's for sure.

[Numz @ Jun 22nd 2007 5:25PM]

These bills to raise fuel efficiency standards are not going to save energy..People are just going to drive more once they get more MPG. In europe they don't even have to worry about fule efficiency standards because their price of oils is so high that people don't drive as much...Therefore there is no need of all these standards. Of course getting more MPG is a great thing for the consumer but its not going to do anything for the environment or our dependancy on oil. One reason that people in congress don't push for a higher gas price, is because they know the people wont vote for them next time.

[Efrain Pacheco @ Jun 22nd 2007 6:20PM]

I still dont understand what the big deal is, Brazil already solved the problem.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817

Legislate the auto industry to offer all their cars with flexible fuel capability (Either ethanol, gasoline or combination). The technology already exists and was proven to work in Brazil, a country with MANY MANY cars (rush hour in Sao Paulo is a marathon). This thing about the fuel to be a combination of ethanol/gas E85, i think is a not started, let it be full flex just like in brazil, dont force the consume to have to consume gas

Let the market drive the price of gas down as ethanol go against it. Dont put restrictions in imports for ethanol, again let the market adjust itself (Just watch out for speculators), we can grow our fuel and outproduce ethanol.

Offer credits to gas stations to offer 100% ethanol fuel choice.

[dream_scape @ Jun 22nd 2007 6:48PM]

This is just another example of "Progressives" thinking that if they pass a law, it magically makes it happen. Automakers already KNOW people want fuel economy. It's a selling point on their cars. If they could make them more efficient without making them more expensive, they would DO it, because they'd sell more cars! This isn't that hard to understand! So the only thing this can accomplish is make cars even MORE expensive than they already are. Regulations can never, *ever* make things cheaper.

[Will @ Jun 22nd 2007 9:01PM]

Personally I have to own a heavy duty truck for my job, but then again mines is diesel fueled. You guys have to understand that some people has to drive fuel inefficient vehicles for their jobs. The electrician that works for me drives an F-150 and he complains about the gas prices all the time, but what can he do?
He can't just go out and spend a good chunck of money on a diesel vehicle, but he can't drive a Prius either. What? He's going to put 1/2 ton of equipment and materials in the back of a Prius?

Why not cheaper alternative fuel, rather than more fuel efficient vehicles?
E85 cost about the same as regular gasoline, but you can't get too far with one tank and ends up costing more than gasoline. Well...Why is E85 just as much as gasoline?

Another issue is not everyone can fit into a small vehicle. For example my head hits the top of a Prius, I can't fit into the backseat, and if I'm driving it no one can sit behind me.

Now here's my opinion on SUVs. Yes, I do own one. And yes, it gets terrible fuel economey for some. Do I find it much of a gas guzzler? No, I do not. I average about 20 mpg on the highway on a 5L V8. I have to work on the week days, and I only drive it on the weekends. Though I've driven it everyday for a week or so last month, I don't find that bad. I can have my friends, nephews, niece, cousins, etc in the back. I can get from one place to another comfortably and I'm sure thats what most people want in a car.

Now remember this bill is just for fuel efficiency not reducing emission.

Also mccarron, Volvo belongs to Ford not GM. Just though I let you know.

[JLD @ Jun 23rd 2007 6:14AM]

Comparing Europe and America is like apples and oranges, Europeans have a great transportation infrastructure where we here in the States have what? highways? Our country is so large that a transportation infrastructure (such as high speed rail) would be incredibly expensive to build, so we are stuck consuming our fuels until, like others have already pointed out, alternatives are found and available.

Also, my VW GTI has more leg room in the front and in the back than my uncle's GMC Envoy, sure it doesn't haul as much, but it's as some have said a little bitty european car yet amazingly it is not slow, versatile being a hatchback, I can fit into any parking space, and most importantly as safe as I can imagine. Size does not equal safety anymore so that argument is not valid.

[monkfishbandana @ Jun 23rd 2007 11:44AM]

There is no argument against this whatsoever. paul34 has already rightly pointed out that many American-built SUV's are dangerous, not just to other vehicles but even to the people inside. And 'mrz' is right, Fred; it seems that your ego is bigger than the car that you drive.

And don't go saying all that cargo rubbish. People should be allowed 4x4's if they are farmers, transporters or regularily engage in activities that require large holding spaces: not if they need a place to put their shopping once in a while.

And Fred, don't go having a go at Fatima. A large BMW (*cough* 50-mpg *cough) on pre-WWII roads? No problem. You know why? Because the Germans know how to build cars that drive; they don't build cars that insist on providing the equivalent of an airfield for each passenger...troll.

[Tom Follett @ Jun 23rd 2007 5:36PM]

jim, the fact that you blatantly have never tried to even understand the science behind global warming makes your comments all the more embarrassing for you. a simple google search tells you why the 'Green Crusaders' are actually concerned about our effect on the environment.