Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
If you mean me: I'm not trying to attack Americans. I'm trying to figure out a way to get Americans to act responsibly, despite the attacks I receive (from my fellow Americans) for attempting to do so.
|
I stand corrected; apologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Too true. I was convinced decades ago that the real strategy by Detroit upper management was to milk the industry and the public dry with gas-guzzling low-cost-high-profit SUVs, then just before the bottom fell out, take their nice big pensions and jet to their personal islands in the Caribbean for an early retirement. Even now, GM CEO Rick Wagoner is laughing all the way to the bank...
But in this case, sacking the upper management is better than they deserve: As they were all in collusion on the plot, they should all have been fined, and many of them should have been jailed, for openly operating against the best wishes and needs of the American public, the American government, and the Constitution (which they repeatedly bribed--ahem, lobbied--their way into manipulating to their own ends).
|
Agreed, but most of the people in the company, and those it subcontracts to, can (and I suspect want to) be part of the solution. Somehow they need to all be taken along. My hope was/is that the "grand challenge" approach is the easiest way to build the spirit and give the execs the get out of jail free card (yes, I know the execs are effectively holding the workforce to ransom). And if the country can be made to feel patrotic (I hope the US views that word better than I do; it is intended to be interpreted positively) about being involved in this, even if only by buying these "grand challenge" vehicles over other, less efficient alternatives, all to the good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
How 'bout this: Larger, heavier vehicles create more wear and tear on highways, requiring greater funds (and taxes) to keep repaired; their greater size lowers traffic visibility around them, making roads less safe for other drivers; and they take up more space on the roads, creating more traffic simply by virtue of their sheer bulk. So even a 1000mpg SUV is worse than a 1000mpg car.
|
I don't see why they
have to generate more wear and tear (which some people will view as good since it employs repair crews). Surely SUVs can be designed to be lighter or whatever to make them less damaging (extra axles; different tyres?). That's part of the challenge of the 1000mpg SUV. And as had been mentioned some people do need such vehicles, so why not make them are efficient as we can, accepting that some males need such a vehicle to offset their insecurities.
I agree they take up more bulk on the road, but given the separations needed between cars, the size difference is less ("only a fool breaks the two second rule" as I was taught). Or develop into them ability to drive closer more safely (e.g. chaining of breaking, etc.). The whole point is that it's a challenge....
As an aside, does the US have something like the
European Union Enery Label?