Raise the gas tax, and -- in between shouts of incoherent rage -- you'll reduce fuel consumption. If you use the revenue to reduce taxes on productive activities, you might even find grudging acceptance by a bare majority of the voters.

/which is about the best you can hope for.

The Honda Civic CRX HF (new window) used to get 41 mpg back in 1988.

Raise gas taxes.

If you care about the damage that cars do to human health and the environment, the only solution is to get people to burn less gasoline.

If someone tells you, "don't make gas more expensive, just make more efficient cars", then point them to this article. Higher fuel efficiency means more people and businesses use cars and trucks more often. Or they buy bigger cars. This wipes out most of the fuel efficiency gains.

Instead, raise the price of gas by, say, two dollars a gallon. Take all that revenue, divide it by the number of adults in the state, and send each one a check for that amount.

The average level of well-being is not really affected, but now everyone has a strong financial incentive to use less gasoline. In econ-speak: the income effect of the tax is neutralized but the substitution effect is not.

But like most truly intelligent policies, this probably cannot be explained to the average voter.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: The cars of yesterday were much lighter and smaller because they didn't have today's safety regulations to contend with.

President RON PAUL would do away with these pesky regulations so we can get back awesome fuel economy, just as the Founders intended.

Arthur Jumbles: The Honda Civic CRX HF (new window) used to get 41 mpg back in 1988.

1) Didn't we change the test since then?
2) Didn't we add a bunch of safety and comfort features since then?

and not directly related to this comparison:

3) Aren't US and UK gallons a different size so any "Car X over in Europe gets 70 MPG" comparisons are invalid without converting?

/Physically incapable of driving new Japanese cars. Love American cars because I fit.
//Seriously, I had more leg room in my Chevy Malibu than in my mother's Toyota Sienna Minivan. WTF?

lohphat: Snarfangel: Raise the gas tax, and -- in between shouts of incoherent rage -- you'll reduce fuel consumption. If you use the revenue to reduce taxes on productive activities, you might even find grudging acceptance by a bare majority of the voters.

/which is about the best you can hope for.

Political suicide.

ZOMG TAXEZ!!11!!

The gas tax in most surveys gets 50-70% support for raising it, if the money raised is dedicated to infrastructure improvements. I have a feeling we'll see it increased in the next few years.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: There's enough blame to go around. The cars of yesterday were much lighter and smaller because they didn't have today's safety regulations to contend with. Even the smallest cars today weigh well over a ton for that very reason. Never again will you see a car as small as the original Accord, and when it comes to economy weight is the big killer.

Also, there is massive size creep. The Accord started out as a small car, gave way to the Civic, which in turn gave way to the Fit. The Accord is now a monstrously big car.

This. Can't have a light car when modern cars have more safety features, more electronics, heavier interior panels, sound deadening material, etc etc. You want to know what a VW Bug was so efficient? Because they were also little death traps in an accident.

"Minivan, pickup, and SUV drivers, we're looking at you"

Just them? Maybe you should look at the guy in the 4000lb Camaro, Challenger, etc. After all, it's quite a feat to evolve from sheet metal and iron frames / engine blocks to plastics and aluminum, and still come up with a landbarge more bloated than it's 40 year old ancestor.

/but.. but safety!
//sorry, airbags don't weigh 800 lbs.

Pokey.Clyde: hitchking: Raise gas taxes.

..snip..

But like most truly intelligent policies, this probably cannot be explained to the average voter.

Your momma used to drop you on your head quite a bit, didn't she?

Indeed... Usually, when someone ends a statement with "I'm so smart, normal people can't understand me," chances are they're idiots that haven't thought things through, but they're too busy feeling smarter than everyone else to be open to rational criticism.

I miss the small trucks. I had a small size pick up and loved the thing. It great gas mileage and pretty tough. Great for hauling most things. With the fuel prices being so high I could never figure out why the Auto makers didn't bring them back. The only one who tried was Subrau who made the Baja. It might even be a decent vehicle but is pretty ugly.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: There's enough blame to go around. The cars of yesterday were much lighter and smaller because they didn't have today's safety regulations to contend with. Even the smallest cars today weigh well over a ton for that very reason. Never again will you see a car as small as the original Accord, and when it comes to economy weight is the big killer.

Also, there is massive size creep. The Accord started out as a small car, gave way to the Civic, which in turn gave way to the Fit. The Accord is now a monstrously big car.

This guy knows what's up. Buy a brand-new Honda Accord today, and you get six airbags, ABS, stability control, traction control, electronic brakeforce distribution, and emergency braking assist. You even get a sensor that can tell the weight of the person in the passenger seat and that will disable the airbag if that person's weight is below a certain threshold. A 1980 Honda Accord had exactly none of those things.

Thankfully, a few automakers have started to get wise to the fact that weight is the only thing left to cut. The new 2012 Camry actually weighs slightly less than the 2011. Toyota and Lotus also showed that you could reduce the weight of a Toyota Venza by 33% for only a 3% increase in cost- Link (new window)

Snarfangel: Raise the gas tax, and -- in between shouts of incoherent rage -- you'll reduce fuel consumption. If you use the revenue to reduce taxes on productive activities, you might even find grudging acceptance by a bare majority of the voters.

/which is about the best you can hope for.

Many of the features that raised the weight of cars are safety related.
so there isn't much blood left to squeez from the stone as things are.

Higher fuel costs means higher expenses for getting to work and prices being raised across the board for everything you buy. You damn well know that businesses won't eat those costs.
Which means there's less money to go around for buying revolutionary new fuel efficient cars.

What the public needs as better cars they can afford. Not more taxes to be spent by the government on everything but that.

The Accord started out as a small car, gave way to the Civic, which in turn gave way to the Fit. The Accord is now a monstrously big car.

The Chrysler minivan was originally only available with a four-cylinder engine. As it grew in weight and features, so did the engines. By 2000, the company would do away with the "short body" minivan that was the original, stretching the car by 18". I'd hate to compare the weight of the 1983 original version with the one that I drive today.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: The cars of yesterday were much lighter and smaller because they didn't have today's safety regulations to contend with.

That's demonstrable nonsense. There is nothing preventing them from building a small, safe car today. The Smart's passenger cage is nearly indestructible. Here's the result of a 70MPH impact into a concrete barrier:



Granted, you probably would have died from the shock, but at least they wouldn't be carrying you off in a bucket. (FYI the passenger side door still opens and closes normally)

Meanwhile, where's a pic of a Ford F150 after a crash test at 40MPH:




Amenities make up the majority of the additional weight of a vehicle, not safety features.
=Smidge=

hitchking: Raise gas taxes.

If you care about the damage that cars do to human health and the environment, the only solution is to get people to burn less gasoline.

If someone tells you, "don't make gas more expensive, just make more efficient cars", then point them to this article. Higher fuel efficiency means more people and businesses use cars and trucks more often. Or they buy bigger cars. This wipes out most of the fuel efficiency gains.

Instead, raise the price of gas by, say, two dollars a gallon. Take all that revenue, divide it by the number of adults in the state, and send each one a check for that amount.

The average level of well-being is not really affected, but now everyone has a strong financial incentive to use less gasoline. In econ-speak: the income effect of the tax is neutralized but the substitution effect is not.

But like most truly intelligent policies, this probably cannot be explained to the average voter.

Switch to alcohol fuel. It burns clean and it's renewable.

Was reading a car magazine earlier today and ran across an example of how cars have bigger and heavier with time.

A 1984 BMW 735i (E23 Hartge H7S tuner version), their top of the line and largest sedan of the era, weighs 3476 pounds.

A 2012 BMW 335i - Their second smallest sedan weighs 3582 pounds.

A 2012 BMW 760Li - their current top of the line sedan weighs 5026 pounds.

Never owned an HF, but my '91 CRX DX averaged right at 39 mpg no matter how it was driven. I drove it for seven years and never saw the MPG go below 35, and that was on a cross country drive through some mountains, middle of summer with the AC on and going ~85 mph. I miss being able to get 320 miles out of that 8.5 gallon tank. 92 horsepower didn't win me any races, but it did drag me all over the country while I was in the military. I saw a couple in the junkyard a time or two and yeah, they weren't built to survive accidents.

I too miss the small pickups. Had both an '82 and a '95 2WD Toyota reg cab pickup. 24-26 MPG and virtually indestructible save for the clutch (15 year old driver).

Can't make either of those cars today and keep the weight the same, without bringing in some exotic materials and manufacturing.

Smidge204: Granted, you probably would have died from the shock, but at least they wouldn't be carrying you off in a bucket

I don't know about that. Look at how much of the car is missing- the energy used to shear off those bits is energy that didn't go into the passenger cabin. You're probably not walking away from that accident, but I think the survival rate would be pretty high. They tend to be rated highly for passenger safety.

It's important to keep in mind that the total momentum of a collision is where the danger is. Smaller, lighter vehicles have less momentum and hence bring less potential for hurt to the crash. Well, that and the impulse, but both of those use mass as a key factor. There's a perception that larger vehicles are safer, but reality doesn't bear that out.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: There's enough blame to go around. The cars of yesterday were much lighter and smaller because they didn't have today's safety regulations to contend with. Even the smallest cars today weigh well over a ton for that very reason. Never again will you see a car as small as the original Accord, and when it comes to economy weight is the big killer.

Also, there is massive size creep. The Accord started out as a small car, gave way to the Civic, which in turn gave way to the Fit. The Accord is now a monstrously big car.

You need to specify the time period. There were a lot of large cars that emerged in the 50s and 60s. The 70s saw the small cars emerge.


The complaint about small cars being death traps never addresses the point that large cars like SUVs make it harder for small cars to be safe. A tank rolling at 70 mph is going to do more damage in a crash than a tin can on wheels. That has created an arms race of driver safety that pushes "safety" as another reason to by unreasonable large vehicles.

Go ahead and mock my 5.2 liter V-8 Grand Cherokee, but don't expect me to pull your smug ass and your Prius out of the ditch.

/actually, I would be glad to pull your stupid little car out of the ditch. I keep tow chains in the Jeep for added weight, but I love to use them to pull hippies out of the ditch.

Smidge204: Adolf Oliver Nipples: The cars of yesterday were much lighter and smaller because they didn't have today's safety regulations to contend with.

That's demonstrable nonsense. There is nothing preventing them from building a small, safe car today. The Smart's passenger cage is nearly indestructible. Here's the result of a 70MPH impact into a concrete barrier:

[www.smidgeindustriesltd.com image 420x305]

Granted, you probably would have died from the shock, but at least they wouldn't be carrying you off in a bucket. (FYI the passenger side door still opens and closes normally)

Meanwhile, where's a pic of a Ford F150 after a crash test at 40MPH:

[www.rallynews.lt image 413x310]


Amenities make up the majority of the additional weight of a vehicle, not safety features.
=Smidge=

This is great for all those times you drive straight on into a concrete wall at 70 MPH.

Show me what the car looks like when you get sideswiped by a teen driver in an Explorer because he was texting his way through a red light.

Safety was increased. It's a fair trade off, just not the one that tree-huggers wanted.

RedVentrue: hitchking: Raise gas taxes.

If you care about the damage that cars do to human health and the environment, the only solution is to get people to burn less gasoline.

If someone tells you, "don't make gas more expensive, just make more efficient cars", then point them to this article. Higher fuel efficiency means more people and businesses use cars and trucks more often. Or they buy bigger cars. This wipes out most of the fuel efficiency gains.

Instead, raise the price of gas by, say, two dollars a gallon. Take all that revenue, divide it by the number of adults in the state, and send each one a check for that amount.

The average level of well-being is not really affected, but now everyone has a strong financial incentive to use less gasoline. In econ-speak: the income effect of the tax is neutralized but the substitution effect is not.

But like most truly intelligent policies, this probably cannot be explained to the average voter.

Switch to alcohol fuel. It burns clean and it's renewable.

NGVs make a lot more sense than alcohol

meddleRPI: Smidge204: Adolf Oliver Nipples: The cars of yesterday were much lighter and smaller because they didn't have today's safety regulations to contend with.

That's demonstrable nonsense. There is nothing preventing them from building a small, safe car today. The Smart's passenger cage is nearly indestructible. Here's the result of a 70MPH impact into a concrete barrier:

[www.smidgeindustriesltd.com image 420x305]

Granted, you probably would have died from the shock, but at least they wouldn't be carrying you off in a bucket. (FYI the passenger side door still opens and closes normally)

Meanwhile, where's a pic of a Ford F150 after a crash test at 40MPH:

[www.rallynews.lt image 413x310]


Amenities make up the majority of the additional weight of a vehicle, not safety features.
=Smidge=

This is great for all those times you drive straight on into a concrete wall at 70 MPH.

Show me what the car looks like when you get sideswiped by a teen driver in an Explorer because he was texting his way through a red light.

Smart car does ok in single car accidents. However in multi car accidents it gets smashed like a tin can and the occupants likely die.

t3knomanser: I don't know about that. Look at how much of the car is missing- the energy used to shear off those bits is energy that didn't go into the passenger cabin. You're probably not walking away from that accident, but I think the survival rate would be pretty high. They tend to be rated highly for passenger safety.

It's important to keep in mind that the total momentum of a collision is where the danger is. Smaller, lighter vehicles have less momentum and hence bring less potential for hurt to the crash. Well, that and the impulse, but both of those use mass as a key factor. There's a perception that larger vehicles are safer, but reality doesn't bear that out.


If you hit a brick wall sure. If the F-150 hits the Smart (which is more likely to happen then running into a wall, especially considering every Smart I've seen on the interstate is struggling to maintain 65, let alone going 78 with traffic), the F-150 is going to get scratched and the Smart is going to be crushed along with the people inside.

I drive a mid-sized truck (98 Dakota) and even I'm terrified of all the new full size trucks. Their bumpers these days line up with my shoulder/neck region in my truck.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: There's enough blame to go around. The cars of yesterday were much lighter and smaller because they didn't have today's safety regulations to contend with. Even the smallest cars today weigh well over a ton for that very reason. Never again will you see a car as small as the original Accord, and when it comes to economy weight is the big killer.

Also, there is massive size creep. The Accord started out as a small car, gave way to the Civic, which in turn gave way to the Fit. The Accord is now a monstrously big car.

Bullshiat.

I drive a Honda Civic and get 40 miles to a gallon, while having a much better safety rating than most old cars, and a lot of current cars.

The biggest problem is car size creep and the weight soundproofing adds. Hell, the civic was panned from most review mags this year because while it did everything else well, "It was still loudest" on the road and suspension didn't make it drive like a floaty, comfortable boat.

Raise taxes on everything I object to.

/living my lifestyle is good for you because I say so, therefore, we should subtly modify everyone's behavior to become more like mine

Ecliptic: t3knomanser: I don't know about that. Look at how much of the car is missing- the energy used to shear off those bits is energy that didn't go into the passenger cabin. You're probably not walking away from that accident, but I think the survival rate would be pretty high. They tend to be rated highly for passenger safety.

It's important to keep in mind that the total momentum of a collision is where the danger is. Smaller, lighter vehicles have less momentum and hence bring less potential for hurt to the crash. Well, that and the impulse, but both of those use mass as a key factor. There's a perception that larger vehicles are safer, but reality doesn't bear that out.


If you hit a brick wall sure. If the F-150 hits the Smart (which is more likely to happen then running into a wall, especially considering every Smart I've seen on the interstate is struggling to maintain 65, let alone going 78 with traffic), the F-150 is going to get scratched and the Smart is going to be crushed along with the people inside.

I drive a mid-sized truck (98 Dakota) and even I'm terrified of all the new full size trucks. Their bumpers these days line up with my shoulder/neck region in my truck.

Physics, how does it work?

SUV's and Trucks, despite their size and mass, have long been known to be bigger deathtraps then small cars. Stats simply don't lie, but our human perceptions do!

People used to argue that that giant Lincoln was safer than X back in the day. They were wrong too, using what seems to be ration reasoning, that science has demonstrably shown is wrong in the real world.

meyerkev: /Physically incapable of driving new Japanese cars. Love American cars because I fit.

You sound fat. (Or tall)

Both. 6'5", 290. People ask who I play football for. The fat isn't a problem, the tall is. Especially when you're driving, and the geometry doesn't work. (If you push the seat back for sufficient leg room, you have to lean forwards to reach the steering wheel. But you can't because then your head pops up through the ceiling. If you lean back, push the seat up a bit, bend your legs to either side of the steering wheel, and drive with straight arms, then you can't see stop lights because your head is up and back, so you can't see up at all. So you end up crouching over the steering wheel, jamming your head into the visor, and your arms and legs bend out sideways and push against the door just so you can see).

/Or you get an American car, and just drive it like a normal person because they have head room.
//Of course, European cars are even worse. I can't even get into my Uncle's '70's BMW convertible unless the top is down, and my aunt's Mercedes is almost as bad. (And those are the only 2 data points I've got)

TyrantII: Adolf Oliver Nipples: There's enough blame to go around. The cars of yesterday were much lighter and smaller because they didn't have today's safety regulations to contend with. Even the smallest cars today weigh well over a ton for that very reason. Never again will you see a car as small as the original Accord, and when it comes to economy weight is the big killer.

Also, there is massive size creep. The Accord started out as a small car, gave way to the Civic, which in turn gave way to the Fit. The Accord is now a monstrously big car.

Bullshiat.

I drive a Honda Civic and get 40 miles to a gallon, while having a much better safety rating than most old cars, and a lot of current cars.

The biggest problem is car size creep and the weight soundproofing adds. Hell, the civic was panned from most review mags this year because while it did everything else well, "It was still loudest" on the road and suspension didn't make it drive like a floaty, comfortable boat.

The civic and to a lesser extent the corolla used to be far and away the best cars in their class, they just aren't anymore; their designs have stagnated, while their competition has improved massively...

Sorry, it's not a conspiracy, the civic is still a great car, but it's about as interesting as a baked potato on wheels.. and it's a little loud

The new Cruze, the Focus, and the new Elantra all offer similar milage and manage to not feel like bland tin boxes

Eddie Adams from Torrance:

And my last post was supposed to quote the above.

MontanaDave: Go ahead and mock my 5.2 liter V-8 Grand Cherokee, but don't expect me to pull your smug ass and your Prius out of the ditch.

/actually, I would be glad to pull your stupid little car out of the ditch. I keep tow chains in the Jeep for added weight, but I love to use them to pull hippies out of the ditch.

I love when Jeeps are used for what they were intended. I'm assuming you keep it off the highway unless it;s to rescue commuters?

:)

/Jeeps rule
//Not on a highway

dforkus: RedVentrue: hitchking: Raise gas taxes.

If you care about the damage that cars do to human health and the environment, the only solution is to get people to burn less gasoline.

If someone tells you, "don't make gas more expensive, just make more efficient cars", then point them to this article. Higher fuel efficiency means more people and businesses use cars and trucks more often. Or they buy bigger cars. This wipes out most of the fuel efficiency gains.

Instead, raise the price of gas by, say, two dollars a gallon. Take all that revenue, divide it by the number of adults in the state, and send each one a check for that amount.

The average level of well-being is not really affected, but now everyone has a strong financial incentive to use less gasoline. In econ-speak: the income effect of the tax is neutralized but the substitution effect is not.

But like most truly intelligent policies, this probably cannot be explained to the average voter.

Switch to alcohol fuel. It burns clean and it's renewable.

NGVs make a lot more sense than alcohol

A liquid fuel is easier to transport and store than a gaseous fuel. Also, natural gas is not renewable.

TyrantII:
People used to argue that that giant Lincoln was safer than X back in the day. They were wrong too, using what seems to be ration reasoning, that science has demonstrably shown is wrong in the real world.

Large traditional sedans and Minivans actually rate as safer than most SUVs. I guess that could be a function of how they are used as much as the design...

dforkus: TyrantII: Adolf Oliver Nipples: There's enough blame to go around. The cars of yesterday were much lighter and smaller because they didn't have today's safety regulations to contend with. Even the smallest cars today weigh well over a ton for that very reason. Never again will you see a car as small as the original Accord, and when it comes to economy weight is the big killer.

Also, there is massive size creep. The Accord started out as a small car, gave way to the Civic, which in turn gave way to the Fit. The Accord is now a monstrously big car.

Bullshiat.

I drive a Honda Civic and get 40 miles to a gallon, while having a much better safety rating than most old cars, and a lot of current cars.

The biggest problem is car size creep and the weight soundproofing adds. Hell, the civic was panned from most review mags this year because while it did everything else well, "It was still loudest" on the road and suspension didn't make it drive like a floaty, comfortable boat.

The civic and to a lesser extent the corolla used to be far and away the best cars in their class, they just aren't anymore; their designs have stagnated, while their competition has improved massively...

Sorry, it's not a conspiracy, the civic is still a great car, but it's about as interesting as a baked potato on wheels.. and it's a little loud

The new Cruze, the Focus, and the new Elantra all offer similar milage and manage to not feel like bland tin boxes

Might be bland, But I'm at 12 years and 120,000 miles in New England and the only thing I've ever spent money on is the scheduled maintenance and breaks / mufflers. Honda, at least in my case, does something right. It might not be sexy, and it might be a little loud (not much), but it's damn cost effective and reliable. Those other cars don't have the same history.

Hell, I'd never buy a Ford after seeing the trouble my parents have now had with two vehicles from them. One of their newer ones looks like a rust bucket already.

Seems simple enough. Stop driving like farking idiots while insisting that sitting behind the wheel be as quiet, comfy and roomy as thier living room couch.

I'm fine if people want to drive tanks. Just stfu about how much you have to pay for gas.

Ecliptic: If you hit a brick wall sure. If the F-150 hits the Smart (which is more likely to happen then running into a wall, especially considering every Smart I've seen on the interstate is struggling to maintain 65, let alone going 78 with traffic), the F-150 is going to get scratched and the Smart is going to be crushed along with the people inside.

No, the Smart is going to bounce off, because it doesn't carry enough momentum to carry it into the collision. The F-150 provides enough impulse that the car ricochets.

Ecliptic: Their bumpers these days line up with my shoulder/neck region in my truck.

Now, that's more of a problem. Cars are designed to take impacts along their center of mass, but wide differences in vehicle heights mean that in many cases, the center of mass of some vehicles is just about head-height relative to other vehicles.

RedVentrue:
A liquid fuel is easier to transport and store than a gaseous fuel. Also, natural gas is not renewable.
Funny, I have natural gas right to my house, but no alcohol line...
Also, natural gas is not renewable.
True, but we have tons of the stuff, especially if we got smart and stop using it to make electricity. More than enough to give us a few decades to work on battery and capacitor tech.

t3knomanser: I don't know about that. Look at how much of the car is missing- the energy used to shear off those bits is energy that didn't go into the passenger cabin.

Most of the car is still there... except for plastic and glass bits, everything got folded up in the crumple zone. Here's the video that shot was taken from. ^ - impact is at 2:19.

=Smidge=

Smidge204: everything got folded up in the crumple zone.

Well, yes, but the point is still the same- every joule of energy used to alter the shape of the car is a joule of energy that doesn't get transferred to the passengers.