Is it time for SUV restrictions?
Results so far:
| Yes | 50% | 235 votes | Total: 468 votes | |
| No | 50% | 233 votes |
Yes
by Bruce Allen
Created on: June 09, 2009
As Americans, we think it is our natural right to consume as much of everything as possible, even if that oil that we consume comes from one of the most environmentally destructive projects mankind has ever endeavored. I'm talking about the Alberta tar sands project, and you don't need to be a left wing environmentalist to agree. Our number two supplier of oil is Canada, and most of it comes from this project.
SUV's are the trademark of a society obsessed with material wealth, as evidenced by single passenger 150 lb female drivers talking on cell phones and not paying proper attention to the road whilst they tailgate people in corolla's. As a study of concrete proof, tommorow when you drive to work or wherever, note how many people you see driving hummers, suv's and other luxurious overpriced garbage, that consist of the only driver in the vehicle.This happens to be in complete contrary to the argument that people need them for their families.
The next question begs that we ask ourselves what kind of people spend twice as much money as they need to on a luxury SUV as opposed to a compact car, who don't have the money, pay extra interest on it, triple for keeping the gas tank full, increase pollution in the air, water (in the form of the Alberta tailing ponds) and lose half the value of the vehicle the minute they take it off the car lot? Perhaps, soon to be extinct people.
If it is our right, at all costs, to keep these things on the road, then what will the same argument be saying when there are no more resources left to run these disgusting inventions in a couple generations? Is this question ever answered?, and if it is, isn't it the same as implying that we don't care about that generation?, Meaning we don't care about our offspring. History has never before been full of humans that implied they don't care about generations of other humans that succeed them. The result of such a evil mutation of humanity leads one to wonder if the end of the world is at hand.
Is the argument to keep them ever backed up with tangible evidence?, Or is it always shying away from the only reason, after deductive reasoning, they would have to keep them. A wealth status symbol? A power trip?, being up higher than everyone else.
It is interesting to note here, that if I was to drive an m1 tank down the road, I would be immediately stopped by law enforcement, however If I was to drive a hummer down the same road, at the same speed, I would get a tax write-off of the whole vehicle. If I want to drive a semi, I need a special use license from the local DMV. Why would this same rule not apply to all vehicles weighing over 3500 lbs? They do add extra unnecessary load onto the highways, do they not? Why are semi drivers charged a fee per axle and hummer, yukon and tahoe drivers not?, Even though the curb weight is often the same.
Part of the problem of this debate is that you have the resistance argument for this coming from individuals not qualified in any form of knowledge on subjects relating to the matter. No politician, radio host, internet blogger has thus far shown any evidence that he or she knows anything on the subject of socialism. A very popular argument repeated over and over, even though nobody seems to know what the word means and that in reality a good number of socialist societies have existed throughout history with each and every one of them totally different.
It would be apparent to most thinking men here, that the time has come to leave the dark ages of SUV's behind or be dragged painfully into the next age of enlightenment, where humans exist that care about the future.
Learn more about this author, Bruce Allen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Patrick Sills
Created on: July 16, 2008 Last Updated: January 04, 2010
Sport Utility Vehicles; or SUV's for short, have been around for quite some time. Their popularity really took off sometime back in the 1990's. Gas was plentiful and it became a sort of status symbol to own one. Even the luxury carmakers who previously never gave thought to producing such a utilitarian vehicle jumped onto the bandwagon. All of a sudden, we had Lincoln, Cadillac, Lexus, Infiniti, and a slew of other brands that now had SUV offerings within their lineup. And why not? It became cool to be seen driving them and they were very profitable to their respective manufacturers' bottom lines. In fact, many people became so mesmerized by these vehicles that they have since vowed to never drive a "regular car" again. Fair enough. Different people have different tastes.
Gas prices in this day and age are quite volatile. Literally overnight, we have become accustomed to seeing as much as a 20 -cent increase in the price of a gallon. On occasion, we also see drops in fuel prices. Well, unless we're talking about the hybrids, most SUV's are quite thirsty at the pump.In addition, they pollute the atmosphere at a greater rate than their automotive cousins, and this doesn't set too well with those who are convinced that our planet is warming up . Either way you look at it, some say it's time to implement restrictions on these gas-guzzling behemoths. Well, just what kind of restrictions are we talking about here? Are we suggesting that SUV's should be banned, or are we simply implying that they should be more fuel-efficient?
As Americans, we are supposed to live in the Land of the Free and therefore pursue what we perceive as happiness in any way we see fit, provided the activity falls within legal boundaries. For nearly two decades, tobacco smokers have unfairly been denied these liberties, but that's another story. Let's concentrate on SUV owners.
If someone enjoys driving these vehicles and can afford the expense of doing so, then he or she should retain that personal right. This shouldn't matter if gas is $4.00 a gallon or $10.00, or whether the SUV gets 22 mpg or 12. Owners of these vehicles still have a right to travel our roads. There is nothing wrong with requiring these vehicles to be more fuel-efficient, provided it can be done in a feasible manner. If; for example, technology is developed that would enable a GMC Yukon to attain 35 mpg without taking 45 seconds to reach a speed of 60 mph, then we should applaud such engineering. Less fuel consumption equates to saving both money and damaging our air less. But the bottom line is as follows:
In the long run, the market would determine whether or not such regulations would prove to be successful. If a vehicle is made that nobody wants, it will simply fade into obsolescence. It is therefore prudent to think before you regulate.
Learn more about this author, Patrick Sills.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley