The only problem I have with SUV's is the tax credits that were given to purchase these gas hogs. Personally, I prefer not to own a vehicle with less than a V8 engine, and it has nothing to do with the environment. It has to do with the safety of being able to accelerate quickly enough to avoid that idiot on the freeway who will run me down if I don't get up to speed quickly enough, and having a vehicle of reasonable carrying capacity to accomplish many of the tasks I need to accomplish.

The thing about semis is that they drive for a living, and with few exceptions I think they're better drivers than anyone on the road.

Sadly, that's not true. While legislation has limited the number of hours they can drive, I can assure you most drivers are driving to beat a deadline, and often on the kinds of substances that you wouldn't want to know about. It's all about the carriers trying to squeeze as much production as they can out of the drivers, with profit margins the primary concern, and the drivers trying to make a living.

But I digress.

Unless Couric is a practicing automotive journalist I suggest she refrain from making gross assumptions. Driving style plays a role too.

My response to Couric is to drive what makes her happy and then apply that same motto to everyone else.

The best advice to her is to drive something that meets your needs. Experience has shown me the only thing better than this year's econo car is next year's econo car. Don't buy cars to make political statements. Don't buy cars and flip them every three years when the warranty expires. Buy cars as transportation. Buy something that has enough ground clearance to meet the winter conditions. Winter cancels out quite a few modern cars, so don't be peeved if you see alot of trucks in the winter.

1) If you have 4wd use it. But if you only use it less than a half dozen times a year do you need it?
2) There is more to a car than just fuel economy. There is good design and bad design. The prius is not a good design. It reminds of the first shoddy attempts at fuel injection - ala '86 chev era stuff.

Her intrepretation of fuel economy is open ended. Relative to what lady?? Personally I wouldn't drive a vehicle under 4000 lbs because I hate choppy ride. To me anything over 14mpg is steller.

I think what bothers me most is that there are uninformed and uneducated people making decisions that only the fda and automotive engineers can make. Everyone is an expert , except the field specific expert these days.

BTW Dr. Guy, I used to own a Toyota 4 x 4 (precursor to the Tacomas) and you're right--its turning radius was crap. Nothing like a 7-point U turn in heavy traffic

Actually, no.  They still have the 4x4.  The tacoma is the light truck.  But at least now i know it is not me and just the truck.  I love it, just not the turns!

Have you ever been in a *SERIOUS* accident? I'll bet not. If you ever had been your choice of vehicles would show it rather quickly! You neglected to mention that SUV *drivers* tend to suffer fewer injuries due to the larger vehicle sustaining less damage

I've been in 2, both in SUV's.  The first one, we rolled a Blazer.  Had we not been riding in a Blazer with a higher center of gravity, we probably wouldn't have rolled.

The second one....I slammed head-on into a semi in my Jeep.  I was doing 50-ish, he was doing 65.  Had I not been driving an SUV with an airbag, I'd have been killed.

I see both sides of the coin.  Yes, in some aspects, they are safer.  In others, they aren't. 

As for people having 'rights' as taxpayers....I just hope you're prepared for the taxation and penalties that will surely ensue to protect what little environment our kids will have left after all of our excesses have destroyed it (when I say excesses, read people driving gas-guzzling SUV's all the time when a car would suffice)

By the way, both of my accidents happened in poor weather conditions, the very time driving SUV's with all wheel drives are supposed to be safer. 

So Doc, how do you know your neighbor would have faired better in an SUV? SUVs get wrecked too - I've seen pictures. And I must add that we absolutely must have dictates, or some of us would simply do whatever we wanted. I personally don't believe we should have laws regulating our own safety like seatbelt or helmet laws. I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt in a car, and don't ride a cycle, but I don't want to be told to do it. However, when it comes to things that are potentially harmful to others, there are too many people who go through life with blinders on to leave it to us to regulate ourselves. Many SUVs are getting smaller and safer to other drivers, but some are also getting bigger, and those are the ones that worry me. When you drive them, you have an air of invincibility about you, and are less inclined to drive safely. I say this from my own experience driving an SUV (Chevy Trailblazer), and there's no doubt in my mind that such an attitude on the road contributes to carelessness. Am I saying that every SUV driver is more careless than non-SUV drivers, or that they have no place on the road? Absolutely not. But if you can prove to me that people buy them more for utility than image, I'll eat my Taurus.

You tell me, which would you prefer. Increased mileage standards, or higher taxes, or sea levels rising and terrorism increasing?

All conjecture and hardly proveable.  HOw about stop flying on Jets as they consume a lot of fuel?  Wouldn't that be better?  And just as stupid.

Detroit will increase gas mileage when the populace demands it, and not before.  Why?  Because it is in their best business sense to do so.  Arbitrarily raising fule standards ala cafe is what created SUVs to begin with, so try it again and you are going to get another unwanted side effect.  You can not cheat the law of supply and demand no matter how noble your intentions are.

My apologies Doc. I interpreted your remark to mean he would not have wrecked had he been in an SUV (which may or may not be true). Nonetheless, this brings us back to the other point regarding overall road safety. Had the collision involved another vehicle, the SUV may have caused more damage to it then a "regular" car. Also, if I recall correctly from the last Consumer Reports Auto Issue, SUVs sustain as much or more damage from a cost standpoint when involved in minor fender benders as many other vehicles, so I believe there may be a perception out there that they are more durable than they really are, but I'll have to check my figures on that one. I'm also curious now about what the crash tests reveal. I'll check that as well.

As for the fuel issue, we've always had gas-guzzlers, SUV and otherwise, and if someone wants to fund using a Ford Expedition or the like as their everyday vehicle, well, I wish they'd just send me some of that extra money they've got floating around.

Worst exploitation of Land of the Free I've heard in a long time. It's that kind of attitude that creates so many problems. Thank God we have the power to make laws to limit the "rights" of people like you in your expanding universes of egocentrism

And thank God that we also have the right not to make stupid idiotic laws that do more harm than good.  Those precoius Hydrogen cars that are so dear to the left?  They cause more polution than they eliminate in the making of the gas.  AN SUV is more evironmentally friendly than those POS.

Doctor, I am an expert in the automotive field. You are not.

On another note, Hydrogen requires electrical energy, which can be obtained from alt. fuel sources (granted such sources need to be developed more). The hydrogen is just a way of storing the energy created using alt. energy sources (or regular energy sources). There is an inherent difference between Gas and electical energy.

Reply #45 By: sandy2 - 2/4/2005 3:03:17 PM Doctor, I am an expert in the automotive field. You are not. On another note, Hydrogen requires electrical energy, which can be obtained from alt. fuel sources (granted such sources need to be developed more). The hydrogen is just a way of storing the energy created using alt. energy sources (or regular energy sources). There is an inherent difference between Gas and electical energy.

You may very well be an automotive expert. I will not question that. But if you talking about electric power being generated I will. To create hydrogen electrical energy has to be generated. And unless you are using electric created at a hydro-electric plant then you WILL be using some sort of non-renewable fuel source and generating tons of emissions in the process.

On another note, Hydrogen requires electrical energy, which can be obtained from alt. fuel sources (granted such sources need to be developed more). The hydrogen is just a way of storing the energy created using alt. energy sources (or regular energy sources). There is an inherent difference between Gas and electical energy.

Not much of an expert if you dont understand that the the energy to create hydrogen does more damage than the gas it replaces.

Read and learn:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145166,00.html

in time it will be a good idea.  Now is not it.

I dunno...There's plenty of untapped potential for WIND energy (I'm trying to research the possibilities for our little community). And Solar, and actually nuclear (but that is a no no to the enviro whackos). Actually, I have seen windmill farms east of LA. Thousands of them! But they dont generate that much energy. And are ugly (in a weird kind of way, I am fascinated by them). IN time, solar energy will be viable. But it is not yet. Sandy, instead of making cars, why dont you figure out how to harness the sun. You sound like a green, and that would be more suited to your ideals.

I am actually not a green; I just feel that there is a major problem in our use of oil. First, it will cause undesirable effects on our environment (nobody will deny it causes some undesirable effects, the amount is what is up for debate), and second, oil is what causes things such as terrorism, and the war on Iraq.

Let me explain the second part. I am not saying that the "reason" for the war in Iraq was oil, but it played a part of the problem. We are very active in the Middle East (and besides in Israel, it is with rouge nations). The only reason why we are on friendly terms with such countries as Saudi Arabia is because they control the price of oil. If we had no need for oil anymore, or could support ourselves through US oil only, then we would have no reason to be in the Middle East anymore. Actually, t his is not entirely true, we would still have Israel, but it would be a significantly lessened presence in the Middle East, and I am still holding out for Israeli peace in the next few years.

I am aware that Hydrogen is not viable yet. Let us look at the most obvious reason: there is no info structure. Before Hydrogen becomes viable, alternative energy sources do need to be developed. There is promising technology in space solar harnessing, and a few other technologies (Nuclear Fusion would be perfect, but who knows how far off this is, if it ever becomes possible). In the meantime, we need to spend the required money to develop these technologies, to better hydrogen technology (right now it is cost prohibitive), and to take a moderate step towards reducing our oil consumption. The easiest way to do this would be to tax Oil; however this would probably not be very popular (the automakers, by the way, are in favor of this move). Another possibility would be to raise fuel economy standards. The auto companies would not be happy with this, but it can be accomplished (while not reducing the size of the cars too terribly much). Hybrid technology seems to be on the right track for the near future, so large tax credits for hybrid engines, making them economically better than standard cars, would probably increase their popularity.