Glad to see that Grover is so concerned about the safety of the driving public. When is he scheduled to speak out for a national ban on cell phone use by drivers?

Remember that numbers, statistics, and facts can be presented in many different ways to emphasize pretty much ANY point of view. No matter what you believe, you will be able to find articles supporting your arguement. It is all just a big SPIN game. Big cars kill people. Little cars kill people. It doesn’t matter what kind of vehicles are on the road. As long as human beings are behind the controls, people will die. Vehicle size as an excuse to delay progress in fuel economy is a cop-out. “well we can build cars that get the required mileage but you won’t be safe in them” sounds suspiciously like “Play by MY rules or I’ll take my ball and go home.”—-a kindergartener’s persuassion tactic.
–
As for the comment that “the free market should dictate what companies create…” That’s all well and good in a society where every member is intelligent, competent, and responsible enough to make informed, well-guided decisions. Unfortunately we don’t live in such a perfect world. Dusty makes this arguement for me. Is it a socially, fiscally, and environmentally responsible decision to choose the 15 mpg SUV over the 80mpg car? No. Such decisions are made by ignorant and selfish people who care only about themselves, not about what is best for the world. I am not an advocate for bigger government and more regulations. I am, however, an advocate of regulations that make big business behave in a responsible manner. Car companies have the ability and the technology at their disposal to build more efficient, safer cars. They just don’t want to do it because it will cut into their profit margins. They are not concerned with consumer safety. They are only concerned about the bottom line. THAT is not a good reason to stave off development of alternatives in transportation fuel technologies.

Norquist’s sketchy claim also ignores the existence of hybrid cars, which achieve high mileage through advanced technology.

Determining a causation link between vehicle weight and vehicle safety in the real world is tenuous, and adding another layer of connection with fuel economy standards — which can be met by dozens of approaches — makes the claim even more absurd.

Dusty:
-
The free market dosen’t give a shit about the environment. We need someone to give a shit about the environment.
-
Thus, standards are needed.

I Notice these are not democrats. They’re aligned with big business. If it were up to them NOTHING WOULD CHANGE in a world where something really needs to change, in terms of oil consumption.
-
They offer skepticism, but they don’t offer solutions to get around the problem. They want things to stay just the way they are.
-
Why?
-
Money.
-
Power.
-
Greed.
-
Besides, their argument is INVALID anyway. The size of the car is each owner’s choice. Larger vehicles will be available no matter what, guaranteed. They just want the CAFE standard to go away to protect their investments, or the investments of who is pulling their strings.
-
It’s time, now that we have requirements in place (that could and should have been even more strict) to have some backbone. Necessity is the mother of Invention.
-
Too bad the Auto Industry isn’t in the mood to invent EV’s, and the Oil Industry will do anything to thwart real progress.
-
I’m tired of relying heavily on OPEC. It’s turning into a matter of national security (or the lack thereof).

Why should the government dictate what companies create? That’s what the free market is for.
.
Even if GM makes a car that gets 80 miles per gallon, if everybody wants to buy a 15-mile-per-gallon SUV, they’re going to buy the SUV instead. Should GM be punished for that?

Jen, your ignorance is stunning coming from someone who seems to know a lot about cars! Have you even looked at the statistics on this? Lighter cars are TWICE as deadly as SUVs. And not for the reasons you think…most of the fatalities come from hitting other small cars or hitting objects off the road. Read and learn: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-08-19-small-cars_N.htm

Another way that would surely light a fire under their butts is if dealerships were flooded with calls from consumers, asking about what electric or other alternatively-fueled cars they have… and refusing to consider hybrids.
-
The pessimist part of me thinks there would never be enough people that would do that, at least not enough to make a difference.

As I said in an earlier post on a related topic, the only way to change automakers’ agenda is to quit supporting their “status quo” offerings. Instead of buying that new 2008 model, make due with the car your driving now and let the new metal sit idle on dealer lots. Once the gas guzzlers stop selling, auto makers will be forced to stop building them.

I have an old t-shirt somewhere that is emblazoned with the saying “Where you spend your money is more important than who you vote for.” If you want to effect real change, then you need to think about what your money will support when you buy something.

Oh, and aside from also just sweeping things under the rug, GM and the Oil Industry did this exact thing to the EV1.
-
History repeats.
-
Is the public good enough to smell the bullshit?