No more gas hogs in LaLa Land

Waco Tribune-Herald ^ | Rowland Nethaway

[dubyagee]

No gas hogs in LaLa Land
ROWLAND NETHAWAY Senior editor

Californians are strutting about congratulating themselves for their new state law requiring higher automobile fuel efficiency.

They believe that California's new state law will force car manufacturers to stop producing gas-guzzling vehicles responsible for global warming.

The logic behind the new law requiring greater fuel efficiency from car manufacturers is a faith-based belief that the automobile industry is involved in a giant conspiracy to deny the public fuel-efficient cars.

Ford, General Motors and the other car manufacturers, according to these anti-big business addicts, have the secret to 300-miles-per-gallon internal combustion engines locked away in a safe somewhere. The car industries make immoral profits by keeping this information from the public.

These urban-myth conspiracy theories have been around since the invention of automobiles.

Since I was a boy I've heard stories about the invention of new spark plugs, carburetors or fuel additives that could allow cars to run for hundreds of miles on a gallon of gas.

Generally, the stories included specific details about how the inventors of these miracles had been paid off and threatened to keep their mouths shut, if not simply murdered. Their supposed inventions were guarded more closely than the Coca-Cola recipe.

Same conspiracies, different era

Fifty years ago, these fanciful tales were voiced by run-of-the-mill drug store and pool hall conspiracy buffs.

In recent years, it has been the greenies, environmental groups, anti-globalists and Californians who think that government laws can force General Motors et al to finally release these secret fuel-efficient technologies.

It was cockamamie nonsense in 1952 and it remains just as harebrained today.

Car manufacturers wouldn't have to offer zero percent interest rates to sell cars if they could build cars with the size and power that buyers want and also get hundreds of miles per gallon.

Every car, SUV and truck owner in the nation would line up to buy such a vehicle.

The oil industry might not be pleased with 300-miles-per-gallon cars and trucks, but, hey, that's the breaks. There will always be uses for oil.

Since no knowledgeable person expects revolutionary efficiency breakthroughs on the venerable internal combustion engine, about the only way to increase fuel efficiency is to decrease safety by making cars and trucks smaller and lighter.

Anti-SUV acolytes may want to see everyone in scooter cars and public buses, but that's a hard sell to motorists who don't feel better about themselves driving around in lightweight, cramped, underpowered vehicles.

The last I heard, the car manufacturers said they would contest the new California fuel-efficiency law.

I suggest that the automobile industry simply ignore the California law.

Californians think their state law will force the car industry worldwide to build cars to California's standards.

Instead, car manufacturers should notify all the car dealers in California that they will be out of business on the day the state's new fuel efficiency standards go into effect.

If Californians want to own a new car, they will have to move to another state.

After a while, California would look like Havana, Cuba, where the cars are caught in a 1950s time warp.

Californians want the rest of the nation to pay to subsidize their lifestyles, which includes a gluttonous appetite for oil, electricity and water taken from other states.

There will be a lot less self-righteous strutting in LaLa Land if the auto industry simply ignores California's new fuel-efficiency law.

Rowland Nethaway's columns appear on Wednesdays and Fridays. E-mail: RNethaway@wacotrib.com

[hattend]

Uh, if you don't mind me asking, what state do you reside in?

I think he works in the California State Legislature. You know, the DNC western branch.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

I agree. Just ship econodeathtraps and small sedans to them. Everyone one painted white so they don't offend anyone out there or the color blind. Let the rest of us keep our SUVs (which we will) and let them drive the mini-death cars. And eat their tofu. And rename their state the "People's Republic of California". The hell with all of those commies out there. If there really was any true opposition to this kind of idiocy, the politicians would be voted out of office. It's quite apparent the sheeple out there are just content to bleet. Screw em.

Oh and not to mention, HELL would have to freeze over 5 times before I ever consider taking a vacation out there. Vegas is as close as I'll ever get to that land of nuts and fruits.

[Betty Jane]

Again, somebody using one of these things the way they're intended to be used, for business, hunting/camping trips etc. etc. causes me no problems; the guy who drives around in traffic in one of them, which appears to be 90% of their owners, should be taxed into tommorrow.

So, according to you, people should own a second car for when they're not hauling stuff, or camping, etc.

I think that all people who believe like you should have to buy SUV owners that extra car. I would like one of those slinky little BMW convertibles, in red please. Freepmail me to make the arangements on where you can send my new car.

And if for some reason, that is beyond your pocketbook you can just send a check for a motorcycle. I'll drive that when it's nice. Can't wait to hear from you.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

OINK here. It's my choice. Why should I ever give that up? Why should the government mandate what vehicle I drive. Next thing you know we'll all be ordered to drive white Geo-type econodeathcars. Screw that. I've been in one accident in a small car and two surgeries later and a lifetime of problems to go, hell would have to freeze before I drive another one. Sorry, I'll be a pig. A safe pig. And if you don't like it, relocate to N. Korea. That way you can have government protection and mandates over everything you do. Meanwhile, let capitalism work in our country. If the nation wants those crappy little death traps, then they'll buy them.

[jimkress]

Next step for California politicians will be to pass a law againt gravity so their girlfriend's breasts won't sag.

[medved]

There are all kinds of safe vehicles between the extremes of a Geo and an SUV. In my estimation, the idea of large numbers of people driving vans and SUVs in traffic is endangering MY life and the lives of others by reducing visual range on the highways, i.e. by preventing other drivers including themselves from ever seeing further than the SUV two cars in front of them.

Other than that, as I say, my sympathies are with the Bosnian Serbs and other innocent victims of this vast operation which sends oil here for SUVs, military aircraft to Riyhad and American bombers to bomb innocent Christians as part of the deal, and not with you.

In fact you might want to try imagining how far you'd have gotten trying to explain your fundamental right to own a pigmobile to anybody during WW-II...

[kidd]

Far more American Christians are killed in road accidents than Bosnian Christians in a couple of bombing raids. If you are interested in keeping Christians alive then it would be best to make safe cars cheaper, not more expensive.

A better way to save oil would be to have corporations voulntarily stagger their work hours in urban areas. An SUV driven at 6 am with no traffic gets better gas mileage than a Yugo stuck in stop-and-go traffic at 8 am.

[McLynnan]

Again, somebody using one of these things the way they're intended to be used, for business, hunting/camping trips etc. etc. causes me no problems

Can you give us a source for the "intended" use of SUV's? My dealership neglected to mention intended use when I purchased mine. I do use it for business -- MY business of running errands, hauling kids, transporting things that don't fit in a car trunk, etc. Does that make mine legal?

[07055]

There are all kinds of safe vehicles between the extremes of a Geo and an SUV. In my estimation, the idea of large numbers of people driving vans and SUVs in traffic is endangering MY life and the lives of others by reducing visual range on the highways,

I find that bicycles endanger *my* life because they go so slow and can't keep up with motorized traffic--does that mean I get to ban them?

[Nuke'm Glowing]

" Basically, you read these stories about innocent Christians being bombed in Bosnia three days after the Saudis ink some huge contract for American military aircraft, i.e. you begin to get the idea of how some of this money sent off to the islamic world for oil comes back to this country, and the conclusion you start to draw is that SUVs kill Christians."

And with twisted logic like that the extension is that because Commiefornia is a socialist state, that they will cause all of America to go communist because what they think and do is more important than what the other 90% of the nation believes.

" I mean, if the choice is between feeling sorry for you and your SUV or for those Bosnian Serbs, guess what? "

We screwed the Serbs by re-electing Clinton. They were just a convenient distraction and victim while Bubba had to burn all the evidence of his corruption and convince all the girls to shut up.

" That's aside from me no longer being able to ever see further than the stinking SUV or van one or two cars in front of me in traffic of course, or the fact that all SUV and van drivers appear to attend the same driving school, i.e. "tailgating isn't everything, it's the only thing", and their lights coming in straight on top of people in ordinary cars. "

With such profound statements you have made, I figured you to ride public transportation so you wouldn't kill the trees, or the caribou in Alaska, or pollute. But then again, I do sympathize with your plight. It is a royal pain to see over my SUV when people are riding a bicycle.

" Again, somebody using one of these things the way they're intended to be used, for business, hunting/camping trips etc. etc. causes me no problems; the guy who drives around in traffic in one of them, which appears to be 90% of their owners, should be taxed into tommorrow."

By extension of that logic, you should be taxed into tommorrrow also for breathing the federal mandated protected air and consuming our other valuable national resources.

"One delightful possibility for a happy ending to the American love affair with the SUV: the same insurance companies which got rid of the "muscle cars" of the mid and late 60s might finally get the message on vans and SUVs and get rid of them for us."

And that logic is errrrrrrrrr BZZZZZZZZZZT Wrongo. The insurance companies miss those vehicles. Why? Because the econodeathboxes you endorse are causing higher and more life lasting injuries from minor accidents. I should know as I'm an unhappy participant in that statistic. The problem the insurance industry has is not the cars, it's the 70% of drivers in most states that do not buy insurance. But then again, once we adopt your solutions, we can get this problem cured also. Anyone who disobeys the state can be taken out and shot or sent to the showers.

Now I can't play much longer. I have to go put $30 in gas into my 5.9L equipped SUV, buy some cigars and dead animal products to grill to go tailgate at the Monday night football game. If it will make you happy, after I get home, I'll hug a tree for you.

[07055]

" Again, somebody using one of these things the way they're intended to be used, for business, hunting/camping trips etc. etc. causes me no problems; the guy who drives around in traffic in one of them, which appears to be 90% of their owners, should be taxed into tommorrow."

Maybe you can fit this bumper sticker on your bicycle:

"Save the Planet. Kill Yourself."

[Betty Jane]

Medved, I get it now. You want us to drill in ANWR so we don't need Middle East oil. I agree with you on that. But why didn't you just say that. That would keep those Bosnian Serbs and innocent Christians alive. And you could own an SUV without feeling guilty. I applaud you. Yes, we should drill in ANWR.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"There are all kinds of safe vehicles between the extremes of a Geo and an SUV. In my estimation, the idea of large numbers of people driving vans and SUVs in traffic is endangering MY life and the lives of others by reducing visual range on the highways, i.e. by preventing other drivers including themselves from ever seeing further than the SUV two cars in front of them."

Don't blame me for your bad driving.

" Other than that, as I say, my sympathies are with the Bosnian Serbs and other innocent victims of this vast operation which sends oil here for SUVs, military aircraft to Riyhad and American bombers to bomb innocent Christians as part of the deal, and not with you."

Translation: It's the oil company's and Saudi's fault that Serbia got bombed, not the fact that there was a molesting bj receiving President.

" In fact you might want to try imagining how far you'd have gotten trying to explain your fundamental right to own a pigmobile to anybody during WW-II..."

All of the retirees in our state who can drive a large car or SUV and fought in WWII or Korea love them. Hell they are the top sellers down here in Florida. The only people driving the econodeathcars are the tree-hugging lunatics and the poor. Now run along junior, before everyone on this board rips you to shreds.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

The intended use is to click on your 4WD to crush bad drivers in the econodeathcars when they cut you off in traffic.

[Steve0113]

we had another car meets SUV incident on the road, SUV flipped over, killing the two occupants...

I'll bet they weren't wearing seat belts. A rollover should not be fatal if they were strapped in.

[reillyoburbank]

B.S. Who are you to tell me what kind of car I can drive? The point is government has no business telling anyone what they can drive, eat, say, do (within the law of course) or where they can travel. Last time I looked this was still a "free" country. I am a Californian and proud of it! I don't care what kind of car the people in the lane next to me drive as long as they don't try to tell me what I can drive. You need a shot of reality here medved.

[Gumlegs]

He's working on adapting his Spifford the Bat post to SUV use.

He's also changing "God Hates Idiots" to "God Hates Oldsmobiles"

[TMD]

My pet peeve is the Transit buses and light rail cars that I see nearly empty at any hour of the day or night everywhere in Santa Clara county. Ever since the light rail cars started interupting my commute each morning, I have made a point of observing the light rail cars and every transit bus that goes by and there is never more than a handful of people on them. We took the light rail once and it turned a 15 minute trip to downtown San Jose into 1 hour and 20 minutes (Not to mention the 5 miles we had to drive to the nearest light rail station.) If the Valley Transit Authority were an airline, it would have been bankrupt years ago......

I like my SUV, it gets me to work and nicely (and safely-I'm inclined to believe) hauls around my kids, their friends, our dog and all their junk. The only problem with it is that the kids sit close enough to be constantly bickering and fighting on every car trip. Now if they invented one with a "dome of silence" for each kid, I'd be first in line to buy it and those "evil" car manufacturers would make a fortune off the backs of harried moms everywhere......

If we take it camping and up to the snow, does that count as legitimate use?? How about getting our Christmas tree each year up in the mountains? How about when we work in our yard and haul bags of potting soil and plants from Home Depot? How about when my husband coaches little league and we haul all the equipment for every game and practice? How about when we haul our bikes to various parks for a family bike ride? How about when we go to the beach and haul the dog, boogie boards and wet suits? How about when I do spring/fall cleaning and haul a ton of stuff to the local homeless shelter? How about when my kids are in local theater productions and we help hauling sets back and forth? How many times a year do we have to use our SUV "legitimately" so that we can be counted amongst the "legitimate" SUV owners??

[been_lurking]

In my estimation, the idea of large numbers of people driving vans and SUVs in traffic is endangering MY life and the lives of others by reducing visual range on the highways, i.e. by preventing other drivers including themselves from ever seeing further than the SUV two cars in front of them.

You should just drive a bigger SUV. You will see right over them.

[Grampa Dave]

More kind rationale from an Car Nazi!

What do you drive Mr Pure?