Missing the SUV point and all that

[C M Smith <cmsmith@domain.elided>]

The SUV "debate" on the digest misses the point and also misses the very 
important connection to the enjoyment of Alfas.

The point is not that SUVs should be banned, nor that SUVs are unnecessary 
abominations. The point is that the majority of SUVs are manufactured, 
marketed and sold to consumers primarily for the transportation of 
passengers. That makes them passenger vehicles. It is criminally unethical 
to require some passenger vehicles to comply with strict safety, emission 
and fuel economy regulations and at the same time allow other passenger 
cars primarily used for the same purpose, by the same users, on the same 
roads and under the same driving conditions to be exempt from such regulations.

This is not about freedom, or being able to buy and use a suitable vehicle. 
It is about fair treatment for all. This is something that the US in 
particular prides itself upon. The SUV is quite simply inconsistent with 
America's declared political and social values.  Whether you agree or 
disagree with the regulations, the inconsistent application of the 
regulations is indefensible.

When you realize that the American automobile manufacturers deliberately 
exploited this huge loophole in the law, and that they were aided and 
abetted in this by the Federal Government purely for the profit of that 
industry and at the expense of the American consumer, the extent of this 
travesty should be obvious to all citizens of reasonable intelligence and 
without regard to your personal views on whether the SUV is a good or a bad 
thing, or neither.

In principle, the legislation could merely require warnings to prospective 
purchasers of SUV: something like "warning: this vehicle could easily maim 
or kill you, your loved ones, and your fellow citizens if you were 
incompetent enough to crash it" but stating the obvious reveals why this 
approach won't work. The consumer thinks: "I am a safe driver myself, and I 
can drive an SUV without injuring anyone. It's those other idiots out there 
who should be banned from buying one of these." Such warnings were actually 
proposed. Some manufacturers apparently more concerned about liability 
issues actually give purchasers a smarmy little video warning that you 
should be careful driving these vehicles as they are not like a passenger 
car. Understatement of the century.

Legislation is (or should be) a cooperative statement among us all to the 
effect that we will agree to a restriction of our liberty for the benefit 
of all of us. That is the social contract theory underpinning the US 
Constitution. Instead, we see legislation opposed on principle purely 
because it restricts our freedom. Well, of course it does. The tricky part 
is deciding what aspect of our freedom is really necessary to restrict for 
all of our benefit, and how.

My concern is that the SUV, like the passenger car before it was regulated, 
is inherently dangerous not just to consumers who make an informed choice 
about the purchase and know how to operate one safely i .e. people who 
should be entitled to accept the risk, but to all of us  because it is 
incompatible with the safe operation of our passenger vehicles. The 
passenger car is the SUV's airbag in a collision. Don't lets talk about 
bigger and heavier is safer as if that issue is relevant.

There are many solutions to the problem but the simplest one is to require 
all vehicles "primarily" designed for passengers to comply with passenger 
car standards, all of them. Consequently purely commercial "light trucks" 
may carry no more than two persons, or by operators with a commercial 
license. Crew cab trucks should be  as safe for passengers as a passenger 
vehicle. Period. Even normal cab trucks could easily be made safer (as they 
are when equipped with airbags) but a case can be made for preserving the 
body on frame construction etc provided the operation of the vehicle is 
modified by insisting on special training for the driver. One irony of SUVs 
is that a vehicle more prone to rollover due to its inherent design 
requirements is not required to have any rollover protection at all!

The problem is easy to identify. All opposing arguments  that I have seen 
attempting to justify the SUV status quo are illogical and unsupportable on 
a purely factual basis.

And these vehicles are absolutely a menace to every Alfa passenger car out 
there and to every occupant of an Alfa passenger car. The older your Alfa, 
the higher the risk. And your Federal Government created this danger with 
the assistance of the American auto industry both of which absolutely know 
of the dangers they have created.



Michael Smith
Calgary, Alberta,Canada
91 Alfa 164L

--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided