By Edward Niedermeyer
June 13, 2008 -
Hybrid cars have had one of the biggest impacts on the automotive paradigm since front wheel-drive became popular. Sadly, not everyone can accept change gracefully. Exhibit one: Hawaii-based auto-journo Bill Maloney. In last months autowriters.com newsletter, Maloney's "The Hmmm About Hybrids," purports to show (in one non-stop "sic") that "market researchers and their soothsayers have been busy blowing holes in the rationale (and high pricing) for (sic) many popular hybrid cars… they even provide stats." And with claims like that, they probably should, right? "Would you believe a big Chevy Tahoe SUV has a lower energy cost-per-mile than a small import hybrid [question mark]," wonders Maloney. Yes, it's the infamous CNW Research "Dust to Dust" study, thoroughly debunked here and here and elsewhere. Never mind. Maloney doesn't want to analyze hybrids– he wants to demonize their buyers. "A car is no longer a car when it's a hybrid. It's a statement. There are high visibility dudes who like to drive statements. Cameron Diaz, Ed Begley, Jar (sic? It's so hard to tell), and the two guys who own Google, who (sic) the CNW study says quote 'don't know "dick" about the environment.' These are people of the conspicuous consumption class who are into whole foods, wild oats/sprouts and keep Trader Joes extremely profitable. They don't drink Jim Beam and prefer Grey Goose and of course their home away from home is Starbucks and its designer coffee. Researchers say these folks are willing to pay to display their moral superiority and virtue." As opposed to Maloney, who needs only one deeply-flawed study, a few hundred words (and by the looks of things, a few tumblers of Jim Beam) to display his own self-satisfied derision for anyone who buys a Prius. Well played, sir.
Subscribe to New Content Alerts
Back to Top
End of Comments
June 13th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I thought they were a statement? the most environmentally friendly car is the one you’ve got right now.
/dons flame proof pants
June 13th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I agree. Pass me those flame proof duds.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
You know what, I’m getting really tired of the “Starbucks” slur as some sort of anti-intellectual criticism. Like getting your coffee at McDonalds or Dunkin’ Donuts is some kind of badge of honour. Please.
It’s a sad comment on society when one of the most common slurs thrown is to be a member of the “intelligensia”. When did it become a detriment to be smart, well-spoken or cause-concerned? Worse, when did conspicuous overconsumption and stupidity-and-ignorance masking as down-home-forthrightness become a _virtue_?
Look, I drive a Saab used; can’t afford a new Prius). I vote left-wing. I buy coffee at Starbucks (largest buyer of ethical coffee in the world; ne of the few companies that doesn’t screw it’s part-time staff, etc, etc) when I can’t get it at a good independent, I have a university education, recycle and compost, wear turtlenecks and birkenstocks, support gay marriage and try to be green and humanitarian when I can…
…but according to this prevailing attitude, I’m somehow worse, morally, than, well, there’s a litany of stereotypes I could throw out there, but I’ll leave it at “Good Ol’ Boy/Bloke” and let you fill in the rest. It doesn’t help that this sort of attitude is usually just an excuse for consumption, and that hacks like Maloney (Bob Lutz is another notable puveyor of this kind of schlock) are using the “Good Ol’ Boy” image to hawk their wares.
Sorry, but this ticks me off. Personal pet peeve. I’ll calm down now.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
If dude had been making the argument that Priora are bought mainly for their image, that would be one thing. I’d even agree to the extent that most car-buying decisions take image into account. But his recycling of that horrendous “Dust to Dust” report to make it look like Prius ownership is somehow “worse for the environment” than say, Tahoe ownership is just flat wrong. Taken with his grotesque stereotyping of hybrid owners (couldn’t squeeze “latte-sipping” in there?), it shows an ugly, knee-jerk response to inevitable (sorry) change.
Besides, I hardly see the difference between someone today upgrading their Camry to a hybrid and, say, someone in 1968 ordering their Charger in R/T trim. Strictly speaking, neither makes “economic sense,” but they both speak to the priorities/values of their times. Why judge one choice, while mythologizing the other?
June 13th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
People choose cars for the styling, the color, the size of the tires, etc. They even pay more money for some of these attributes, which are also not cost-effective. As the previous posters have noted, a new car is typically not cost-effective at all.
So here’s the thing: choosing a hybrid is as valid as paying more for speed, handling, big-@ss tires, or a navigation system. Deal with it. The fact is, if you are going to buy a new car, then, for most people, a hybrid offers them the chance to spend your money on engineering rather than sending it into the oil market (and maybe, if they drive for long enough, saving money). That has value to many people (obviously). Get over it.
Jokers like this auto-writer who turn the hybrid issue into fodder for the culture wars need to get their panties out of a bunch and move on. The market is speaking, if you are willing to listen.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I guess this fellow is proud of the fact that he shaves with a sharpened stone.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“the most environmentally friendly car is the one you’ve got right now.” - DrBrian
I’m getting kind of tired of this… It’s more or less true but it’s also irrelevant. We will all eventually replace the one we have right now. When we’re comparing what’s offered for sale NEW, this presupposes a decision to buy NEW.
“So buy used…” eventually we run out of used cars. Someone must buy a new one. When they do, I’d like them to decide to pull a new energy-efficient car into the marketplace. When I do buy a new car, I will pull a new energy-efficient car into the marketplace and that will encourage the production of additional energy-efficient cars.
By the way, I shop at Starbucks. They offer excellent benefits to their workers and buy fair trade coffee. And their coffee is excellent. I buy my beans there. When guests come over, they remark on how good my coffee is.
As for any Starbucks-Leftists-Prius connection… I’ve seen an Insight parked in front of the one I frequent, once, and, routinely, Priora but bumper stickers are pretty rare on them. Quite a few Republicans pull their “W-04″-emblazoned Yukaburbahobelades or Explorigators up in front of it, too. And often leave the engines running while they’re inside.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Why does this guy remind me of Bagdad Bob? I guess some people will have a crude awakening when they finally wake up…
June 13th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
It all boils down to how long products that do not match buyers needs can survive. Other countries have cars that provide much higher fuel economy for those customers’ lifestyles require that. The corporate overlords here in the US have fought this tooth and nail since the Oil Embargo of the 70’s. We are now saddled with huge vehicles that we can’t afford to fuel up, or small vehicles that cannot accommodate over a family of 4.US made TV sets went the way of the dinosaur years ago. The only viable part of the US TV industry are some venerable brand names (Magnavox, Zenith, Sylvania). Maybe in 5 years when the US auto industry has gone down the same path, TATA motors will re-introduce us to Belvedere’s, Fairlanes, Biscaynes, etc. Hybrids are at best a temporary fix for our woefully low CAFE standards, which will come full circle when these “green” vehicles need battery packs replaced and the recycling infrastructure will miraculously be non-existent.
A more realistic fix would be to import the more fuel efficient traditional vehicles available in other markets.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I could have not said it better myself psarhjinian. Great post.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
When I pay nearly $5 for a triple venti hazelnut cappucino once a week, it is because it is the best triple venti hazelnut cappucino. Maybe if I bought a hybrid, I could afford more good caffiene, stay awake at work, and be a more productive member of society. Then again, I will probably stick with my 12yr-old Miata(summer) and 11yr-old S-10(winter), eat the $120/week for gas(120 mile round trip commute), drink 25-cent black coffee from the pot in the lab downstairs(I think they may add something special), and get in a good nap at my desk in the afternoon.
BTW: I am a conservative (not Republican, there is a difference) WASP. True conservatives like to hoard their money and will let other’s hoard their own money as well.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Hm, I never found the hybrids particular good at the gas mileage/$ ratio.
Pretty much anything human powered is better. Scooters/mopeds/motorcycles (usually) are better.
Prius is good “for a car”, and that is only compared to “typical” cars. It still sucks compared to an Honda Insight (I almost bought one but couldn’t find stock & then they stopped being produced shortly after I started looking)and some diesels (although diesel emissions are worse for people to breathe.) and isn’t that much more fuel efficient than something like a Yaris, esp on the highway.
I really don’t get the whole hybrid thing. If they were $15k out the door or cheaper…..I’d say ok, maybe. But for $25k & a waiting list???
I know they are significantly better than a yaris waiting in city traffic or maybe rush hour, but in that case a bicycle or public transport is better anyhow. For way less than the monthly payment of a hybrid, you can get a gym membership that you use JUST to shower for after you finish your 5/10/20 mile bicycle commute.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“You’re drinking it now.”
June 13th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
The whole problem with the attitude displayed, besides the points made by psarhjinian, is that it’s so broad brush. What idiot is going to make the statement that all possible hybrids are worse for the environment than regular IC vehicles? No, they don’t say that, they say all hybrids. Then they don’t even really try to prove that either.
Every car is it’s own class. Tech changes daily. One is best served by tempering their statements with admissions of intuition over knowledge lest one prove oneself to be an ass.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
A car that was supposed to sell just 3000 units a month to a few tree-huggers turned out to be so good, that a million of them have been sold.
What do these guys hate so much? That Toyota built such an amazing vehicle when billions of PNGV dollars couldnt produce squat in the US? That a car should be bold enough in design that it should actually make a statement? Or that if we’re all a bunch of smug, commie tree-huggers, that there are a million of us (and counting) that also happen to have enough money to not have to ride around on 30 year old bicycles in our Birks? Thats gotta be scary!!
If I didnt get my daily does of Prius bashing on at least one site a day (I can usually count on Autob**g), I would think I was in an alternate universe.
What are these people going to do when the next gen comes out with more power, better mpg in an even more practical package? How much ridicule will you be able to hurl at a car that will be the size of a Camry (with a practical hatch), go 0-60 in 9 seconds, and get a real world 55-60mpg? And how smug, self-righteous, or commie sympathizing will the buyer of that car be demonized as?
I cant wait.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
In marketing and PR, when you have the best thing going you tout that. When you don’t, you try to undercut the leader.
I’m good and tired of the various efforts designed to demonstrate what a bad choice buying Prius is, they’re all very transparent and usually on behalf of carmakers who are stuck with clunkers in comparison.
Basically, using the same argument, we should all be pleased with driving a Civic or elemental Skoda/VW — and everything deviating from that is an irrational choice, whether it’s an Acura or a Phaeton (well, the Phaeton is pretty irrational). And buying any BMW above the 1-series would be likewise dimwitted.
People make purchasing decisions partly from rational positions and chiefly from irrational ones. Those two umlaut dots above the a in Häagen Dazs do sell a lot of ice cream.
Buying a Prius gives a lot of people the Mastercard priceless feeling, and that’s that. A large number of car buyers are finding the silent start of HSD quite attractive, and something they’re willing to pay more for than for other cars.
Mr Maloney, give it a rest - you’re spouting GM designed propaganda, and you probably know it.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
It’s highly entertaining to read how people “automatically” equate hybrids with left wing politics. Perhaps because so much of the main stream “press” is left-centric, and also swallow the Al Gore global warming crap therefore think Prius is the way to go, etc.
First, I have done a lot of studying about the hybrid phenomenon over the past 4 years. Did you know that fully 40% of Prius owners are NOT left wing folk?
I am on #2 Prius. I’m not left-wing. I believe, due to studying various contrarian (compared to “general belief” aka propaganda) that global warming is totally bogus, and that quite the opposite is happening, due to nature and celestial mechanics. In short, cycles of climate are way bigger than a VERY minor increase in an inert gas which is proven to be a VERY VERY tiny player in “global warming.”
I do get tired of the left-wing folk attitude of intellectual superiority, however. It’s almost a given, that in conversations or blogs, you’ll see leftists commenting derisively about righies, and you’ll see comments about how dumb and backward, how easily they follow the(ir) crowd, and often see commentary about those ignorant religion believing folks living in trailers or driving trucks. Some of these folks driving truck and living in trailers may not have gotten past 10th grade, 12th grade or 2 years of college, but if they all went on strike, we’d all starve to death. Wouldn’t we? Look at the rest of the world RIGHT NOW with the truckers going on strike, over high taxation and oil prices. Oh yeah, sorry, we live in America - we don’t see international news, unless we search it out online, do we?
Know what? Honestly, when it comes to many liberal folks, I can say that I think it largely is a case of “when you point one finger at others (in derision), you’re pointing THREE back at yourself.”
Look how the lefties blindly follow the “cause dejure” and how you think so highly of yourselves and how you always claim to take the high road of being “tolerant.”
Right. Tolerant as long as folk agree with you. I see it every day. It’s getting worse day by day.
It’s the “tolerant” left which seeks to shut Christians up because we don’t agree with everything the popular culture does, and passes laws in Canada and Colorado to do just exactly that. Tolerant, my ass.
Grow up!
I’d best now get my asbestos suit out.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Robstar, unless you’re brand-new to this issue, what you’ve posted is simply lies.
The Insight did a LITTLE better than the Prius. No diesel has met it in EPA testing (no, not even the smaller ones made by VW). And the Prius gives a couple MPG to the Insight while being a mid-sized car.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
marc,
The mudslinging on the issue went both ways, and in fact, the anti priora round started with a big load of HATE coming from the anti-SUV crowd.
All of it is crap, because you really should not try to label anyone based on their car choice, but the “anti-car yet car still a bunch of car owners crowd” started this fight.
Live by the sword die by the sword. It’s wrong all around.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Funny thing is, it was the beloved (not by me…) David E. Davis who played a large role many years ago in the anti-intellectualism follies. Remember when he used to sneer that Saab buyers (and the like) were “dirndl-clad, Birkenstock-wearing Vermont academics”, etc.? Used to inflame the muscle-car guys, although at least David E. wasn’t allowed to use the word “faggots.”
June 13th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I think a lot of the right vs. left arguments in America are due to the fact that there are only two viable political parties.
In Canada we have the Conservatives (which were the Reform party and Progressive Conservatives up until a few years ago), the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green party (they are gaining popularity).
We suffer from the opposite problem as in America, we have too many political parties.
From left to right, the parties tend to go from:
Green, NDP, Liberals, Conservatives
The Bloc only run in Quebec and are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to federal politics.
Anyway, my point is that we tend to be a lot less divisive in Canada regarding the left vs. right dichotomy.
And if you’re wondering, I’m a left leaning conservative.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
menno,
You’re tarring the left with some very broad strokes, there. What you really want to criticize is fanaticism, not a particular part of the spectrum.
And let’s be honest about what you’re calling “bias” and “propaganda”: it’s because you don’t agree with it that you’ve pigeonholed it as such, and you’re automatically on the defensive about it. I’m of the opinion that the media bias is right-of-centre, and that pro-business interests have far more sway, but that’s from my perspective.
Blogs make the matter worse: you’ll only see the worst percentile of ideologues posting; the moderates were long since scared away. For left-wingers, this runs the gamut from GreenPeace/PETA hardcores, old Stalinists, angry (fill in minority here) to people who collect undergrad degrees and never leave school. For right-wingers, this is Ronulans, religious (any religion, take your pick) fundamentalists, all-hat-no-cattle types and Angry Daily Mail/Washington Times/Toronto Sun Readers.
It’s like mentioning Al Gore; I feel the same way about Ronald Reagan. Speak the name of either to anyone too entrenched in ideology from either side of the spectrum and you can pretty much predict how the conversation is going to go, which is a shame, because it really closes people down.
You’ve given this stuff some thought and I think you’ve made a valid point about not pidgeonholing people’s car choice, but you’ve belittled your argument by pulling pushbutton phrases like “Liberal Media”, “Propaganda” or “Al Gore”.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Guys, I think you’re all missing the point here - to get respect from the good ol’ boys club, as we’ve learned in other discussions this week, Toyota would have to offer a V8 variant on the Prius. 0-60 in under 6, and a quarter time within 2.5 seconds of a track-tuned M3. And it would be able to towa motor home. And there would be a Hybrid Full-Size pickup at the other end of the lot, just to make the person buying the Prius feel good that they are purchasing from a full-line auto maker.
Then, and only then, will the Prius be taken seriously and respected by the Auto Industry. Until that point, it’s just a niche. Really, we aren’t all actually men unless we’re bumping chests at the pumps and congratulating each other on our second $100 top offs that week…
June 13th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I would say: NDP, Green, Liberal, PC. The NDP definitely comes across as more traditionally left; the greens are really very akin to the liberals, or even the more pink Tories, but with a green streak.
But yes, your point is a good one. The US suffers for not having a way to split the fringe aspects of the left and right off from their respective parties. I’d like to see the US go as follows:
* Libertarian/Pro-Business Right
* Christian Heritage/Social Conservative Right
* Neomarxist/Labour/Classic Left
* Green Left
Right now, in the US, you have to hold your nose and pick a side, and that’s unfortunate. It also means that the extremists (and granted, this happens more often in the Republican party) get more a voice than they really deserve or (and this is a Democratic thing) the party has no real unifying message.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
if your worried about what people are saying about you when your drive your car…or if you worry about how other people look when they drive their car….get a life. your not that important. your opinion is no more important then the next guy.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Being “Hawaii-based” and complaining about “Starbucks and its designer coffee” is a little ironic. According to Wikipedia, Kona coffee is “one of the most expensive and sought-after coffees in the world”.
I drink at Starbucks (though I prefer to use more local businesses) but what gets me is when someone sipping a $2 16oz cup of flavored city water complains about paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline that has been extracted from miles underground, transported half way around the world and processed in billion dollar refineries.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
psarhjinian:
Yeah, I was debating as to whether put the Greens or the NDP more to the left. But your point is well taken. Very few people are pure left or right.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I love the tactic of painting Ronald Reagan as an extremist of the level of Al Gore. Sorry, but they are not nearly the same distance from center.
Reagan was not that far off from center by any measure that puts the center where it really is. We are talking about the former governor of California after all.
As for the Canadians, the number of parties is not the problem.
The problem is that once you vote for a person to represent your area, they don’t get to vote on your behalf. They vote their party. Or, they switch parties. If you only had two parties it wouldn’t work.
Combine that with an interventionist, large government mentality and you get - Canada. Constantly spending tons of money to buy votes with the majority having little expertise in ANY of the areas of investment.
I have a decent idea about a few industries and their issues from life experience. I am constantly amazed at how wrong the press, the populace in general, and the government are about how those industries work. So much so, that I now question whether any of them are ever right about anything that I don’t already know to be true.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I would say: NDP, Green, Liberal, PC. The NDP definitely comes across as more traditionally left; the greens are really very akin to the liberals, or even the more pink Tories, but with a green streak.
I would take it further: NDP, Lib, Green, Conservative. Check out the Green platform, it is fairly conservative (small c), with an environmental lean.
But I do think the Greens have an public perception problem, as shown in this thread alone.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
@Landcrusher
The problem is that once you vote for a person to represent your area, they don’t get to vote on your behalf. They vote their party. Or, they switch parties. If you only had two parties it wouldn’t work.
Actually, only the Conservative party is hard handed in this regard. Although there may be pressure to vote with your party, it is not enforced in other parties to the degree that the Conservatives do.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Landcrusher, while your point about Canadian politicians toe-ing the party line is (generally) correct, how is that all that different than in the U.S. Congress? Obviously representatives often vote with the other party, but it sure doesn’t seem to be for the sake of their constituents. Although I suppose a little pork goes down well in most juridictions.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Dean,
Actually, it often IS on behalf of their constituents. One of the most common reasons to cross the line is industry regulation. There are oil company supporting democrats as well as farm subsidy republicans. There are actually very few truly party line votes. There seem to always be a few dissenters, and even more conspicuously not present. I think that’s a good sign.
rev0lver,
That sounds suspiciously partisan without being backed up with a non-partisan study. My direct knowledge is pretty limited, but when I learned about this and asked around in Canada no one brought that up, and most thought is was a bit of a problem. Unless you are a conservative, you may be falling for a common misperception that makes both sides think the other is worse.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
@Landcrusher.
There is a difference between a Prius driver having something negative to say about an SUV (and its driver) and someone spouting off about Prius drivers. The Prius driver has made a purchasing decision that not only helps themselves but also helps (or at least does less damage) to others. The Prius driver is using less imported oil and spewing less toxic emissions. And if you believe (as most scientists do) in AGW, then the Prius driver is helping there as well. So yeah, I think I can be a little self righteous about the ridiculous choice too many people have made for the past 15 years buying their sport utility behemoths. What RATIONAL reason does one of them have to be upset with me or my car????
June 13th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Let me expand my point. I’m not against honest debate. If someone wants to debate the merits of a vehicle, bring it on. Tell me my Prius does not handle as well as a BMW. I can take it, really. Because it is true.
Well here are some SUV truths,
They are unreasonably large compared to other cars on the road.
They are unnecessary for most families.
They are not NEEDED for towing. Because the need presumes that a family needs to tow a 30 foot trailer to go camping. When did this become a NEED?
They use too much gas.
They spew too many toxic emissions.
They have too large of a carbon footbprint.
They take up too much space on city streets.
I could go on.
Now what invectives are hurled at the Prius?
Smug drivers…someone has watched too much South Park.
Ugly styling…purely subjective.
Slow…by what standard?
Not as high gas mileage as the EPA originally estimated…Still the best in the US.
So really, if anyone says that the insults are hurled both ways, I say, well there is a lot more for the Prius side to say about the SUV side than the other way around.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
C’mon, you gotta admit that South Park was hilarious. My friends and I still say “Good For You!” when we see a Prius…and one of them owns one. It’s all in good fun.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Well, I don’t like hybrids, personally, and I would probably pay a small premium to keep driving straight ICE. But as a matter of policy, bring on anything that will make automotive transportation more efficient.
Maloney is obviously preaching to people with a specific point of view who will feel validated reading that drivel.
Uh, KixStart, I agree that Starbucks treats their workers well, but I can’t stand their espresso, and I’m a connoisseur of espresso, can tell you where to get the best in Boston, Western Mass, Cape Cod, Princeton NJ, NYC, and DC.
EN: great blog item. TX
June 13th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
marc,
There is no difference between the Prius driver commenting about the other drivers based on their car choices and the revers. NONE. It’s just wrong.
In fact, that is exactly what many people making fun of the Prius drivers are aiming at, the sanctimonious factor.
Let’s drop the AGW debate now, I don’t think a majority vote among scientists was ever the measure of truth. Besides, if the Prius driver really wants to help, let him stay home, or walk.
Here is the thing - the whole choice of vehicle cannot be drawn down and qualified well enough based on nothing other than efficiency. If it were, then the Prius would get a bad grade as well. Hell, the Prius is a luxury vehicle, and is way to large for most people’s “needs”.
The bottom line is that no one elses “needs” are any of your business. When people spew their opinion about others needs they are just being self centered, self righteous, and foolish.
Certainly there are many people who choose cars that are inappropriate. IMO, most cars are chosen inappropriately because the people buying them can’t afford them and half to borrow money. How responsible is that? Well, that’s my opinion. It’s not right or wrong, it’s just my opinion.
99% of us waste resources and energy on luxuries. The only way to stop that is to destroy capitalism. If you do that, we will all suffer. And there it is. We drive SUV’s because we can. There is nothing wrong about it.
If we are all honest about our own choices we will have to admit that we should leave the SUV owners alone. If you really think there is a need to conserve gasoline, then vote for a gas tax or rationing. The rest is just dishonest whining about how everyone doesn’t live the way you think they should.
I don’t know what your vocation or avocation(s) is/are, but just think about how they might come after yours next.
Edit: Also, what is this whole thing about them taking up too much space? I still don’t get this.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Well said, marc.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
The journo is relying on stereotypes, which reveals his ignorance. But I don’t read him, and I don’t know anybody who does, so he’s a non-issue to me.
I drive a Prius. I did not buy it to make a statement. Here are some of the reasons why:
1. I wanted to conserve gas. I’m not operating under a self-important presumption, though. I know that me alone saving gas won’t make a global difference, and I’m not about to go getting all activist on this matter. I just don’t want ME to waste it. I can afford gas, I just wanted to burn less of it. Everybody else is free to do what they want, but to me, it’s the height of stupid wastefulness to drive a car that burns gas while at a stoplight or in stop/go traffic when cars are available that don’t do this.
2. I wanted a car bigger than my then-current two-seater; but not a people-or-cargo-hauling urban assault vehicle.
3. Toyota had appeared to have done their homework. Four years and 65,000 miles later, I still believe this.
4. I liked the shape, and I still do!
The other generalizations about hybrid owners also don’t apply to me, but nobody on the road would know that, because I don’t advertise my lifestyle or voting choices with cutsey bumper stickers. When I’m on the road, I want people to pay attention to their DRIVING. I don’t think I have the right to distract other drivers’ attention with my statements of opinion.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Landcrusher:
Let’s drop the AGW debate now, I don’t think a majority vote among scientists was ever the measure of truth. Besides, if the Prius driver really wants to help, let him stay home, or walk.
I think I missed the memo…does AGW stand for “something-Global Warming”? If so, then I’ll add that I don’t think “most scientists” have enough knowledge or have any business thinking that global warming is here. It’s simply not their area of expertise, and/or they haven’t seen the evidence (much of which is questionable anyhow).
…Hell, the Prius is a luxury vehicle, and is way to large for most people’s “needs”.
I agree! I often drive the gang to lunch, but that’s only about once every other week. Most of my driving…it’s just me and on occasion a few bags of “Kow” manure…
I actually wanted to buy both a Prius and an Insight, because I wanted to get 60+ MPG for 90% of my driving. But I could only afford one car, so I had to make a choice. And the Prius met “most of my needs”. (Correction: It met my “most important” needs, which was more capacity and a hatchback)
Now the Insight is not being made anymore. Unfortunate for me, I would have loved to have the chance to drive the red or blue one!
June 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
[quote]For way less than the monthly payment of a hybrid, you can get a gym membership that you use JUST to shower for after you finish your 5/10/20 mile bicycle commute.[/quote]
Sadly, the infrastructure in most places is such that a lone cyclist can cause others to burn far less fuel than s/he is saving.
Even almost 20 years ago, I was regularly reduced to a start/stop crawl by a co-worker blocking a two-lane road in the winter morning darkness. While his intentions were good, the results were terrible.
June 13th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I suppose that back in the nursing home where that old bugger lives, they don’t look fondly on anything but Caddies.
Seriously, this guy is so old he could be John McCain’s son!
June 13th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Landcrusher…
This is the last I will say on this, because my intention is not to get into any personal arguments on these sites. And you certainly have a point that anyone on either side can get into self-righteous, holier than thou shouting matches. Cars, due to their economic, artistic, environmental, practical qualities brings out the worst in plenty of us.
That being said…
“We drive SUV’s because we can. There is nothing wrong about it.”
That is where you are wrong.
Did you read the TTAC post about Sharon today? She already has three SUVs and is looking to purchase another for her 2 sons to go off to college. 4 SUVs. 4 vehicles sucking up too much gas, spewing too many emissions, and yes, taking up too much space (probably not an issue for her, but it is in urban centers.) That is not just her concern, but it adversely affects others around her. We all end up paying higher gas prices, breathing dirtier air, and sending troops off to Iraq. Hey, it’s all related.
Now Im not gonna preach to the contractor who needs his truck for business. Im not gonna lecture the family who has to haul their brood around in some mini (maxi) van (altho dont get me started on ZPG). And i dont begrudge a little conspicuous consumption. If I had the cash Id have an Aston for my weekend jaunts down the coast.
But this proliferation of trucks and SUVs over the past 15 years has cost us all, and is just inexcusable. Those of us who have not taken the path to the dark side have a right to criticize that, as long as the arguments remain rational and thoughtful. I think I have laid out some real logical, rational reasons why SUVs and their owners can be criticized. Criticism in this world is needed more, not less. What is needed is less is hurling of insults like smug, self-righteous, pious (my favorite).
And BTW, the Prius is pretty near perfect sized. If you really need something smaller, get a Yaris. You probably dont need a hybrid at all. I sure would not look down on someone spending just 12K for a practical little runabout that gets mileage close to a hybrid. But if you ever have a couple passengers and stuff, the Prius can take it all in a pinch.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“Look, I drive a Saab used; can’t afford a new Prius). I vote left-wing. I buy coffee at Starbucks (largest buyer of ethical coffee in the world; ne of the few companies that doesn’t screw it’s part-time staff, etc, etc) when I can’t get it at a good independent, I have a university education, recycle and compost, wear turtlenecks and birkenstocks, support gay marriage and try to be green and humanitarian when I can…”
Well, I drive an Olds 4cyl stick. I can’t afford a Prius either. I vote right-wing. I don’t buy coffee at Starbucks. (I feel the co. exploits the Third World.) I have a university education (waste of 7 yrs in my opinion). I recycle everything. I compost nothing. Turtlenecks make me sweaty. Don’t know what birkenstocks are. No comment on gay marriage. I try to be green but hate Greenies. Not sure what “humanitarian” means; I try to be moral instead.
I am a Prius convert. It’s the better mousetrap. Its drivers, however, are verminous mice, so to speak. Arrogant, self-important, and always speeding.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
limmin :
I am a Prius convert. It’s the better mousetrap. Its drivers, however, are verminous mice, so to speak. Arrogant, self-important, and always speeding.
Huh? Generalizations such as that…oh wait a minute, I feel the same way about Saturn drivers. Nevermind!
Just Kidding! :D
You can’t legislate against arrogance and self-importance, so maybe it would be good to just let that go…
But speeders…you can support judges who support the law, and who are not lenient. It’s a start!
I say that the roads will be safer if we get rid of the 5% worst drivers. Each year. Take them off the road, and put them on the bus.
Many will be the speeders you speak of. Many will also be the extremely slow left-lane drivers that make me bonkers, so we’ll both be happy!
June 13th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
This is quite the entertaining and even informative set of comments. Especially those from psarhjinian.
I’m more than a little sick of the Prius bashing. They’re not all being bought by celebs or their fans. And I don’t feel that even their more extreme owners are any worse than modders who brag about their timeslips. In both cases, people are celebrating a form of technical excellence. Better than people who select a car mindlessly.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Long time reader. first time poster.
Since I began reading this site about 2 years ago, everytime I read something about the Prius’. I always ask myself the same question. Is Puerto Rico the only place where people buy a Prius only because gas is getting expensive and they want to save gas?
For the record I dont own a Prius, but know many persons that do, including my best friend. None of the persons that I know purchased one because they want to save the rain forrest or because they are against global warming.
They purchased one because, using my best friend as an example, he likes the fact that he can run his car for around two weeks using only 20 dollars of gas. He also likes the fact of been able to do that in a car that came with all the bells and whistles that he wanted, and with very good interior room. He is not a car enthusiast so he doesn’t care about 0 to 60 times or canyon carving abilities. He cares about saving his money.
Gas over here is still cheaper than in the states, about $0.98 to $1.03 dollars per liter, but still is expensive for most of the people. Compact cars have always been great sellers here in the island, but still is interesting seing all the SUVs and pick up trucks being traded up for Yaris, Civics, Corollas and the likes.
But anyway, what people over here know. People here voted for Hillary Clinton even tough everyone knew that Obama was going to win the election anyway. Also not counting the fact that we cannot vote in the presidential elections in november. But again… what do we know.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
There is no justice when outstanding journalists like Tim Russert die early and bozos like Bill Maloney keep on cranking out the nonsense.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Anti-intellectualism is one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian society.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Marc,
The lady wanting another SUV has done nothing wrong. We almost all in this country have things we don’t “need” and “waste” excessively compared to many other countries. Yet we have one of the cleanest, nicest countries in the world, with some of the cleanest air and pollution standards. We have plenty of everything.
If I knew more about you, I could write a book about your waste and unnecessary use of resources. Why do you want to pick on the SUV crowd?
If you are worried about running out of gas, then go buy a bunch and store it. Better yet, buy an oilwell and a refinery.
If you are worried about pollution, then get a law past.
If you can’t do those things, then get the message - You are not to make automotive decisions for others. You only have choices you do have because of the freedom given everyone in this country to make potentially bad choices. Taking advantage of your freedoms to disparage the choices of others is simply bad form. By definition - YOU DON’T KNOW ANY BETTER.
If you don’t like the anti-Prius crowd, look in the mirror. You, and others who share your opinions created them.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
You certainly don’t need a 30+ foot camper and the big SUV to tow it but it sure is nice, and having nice things is important. And who’s saying you have to use the big SUV all the time anyhow? Growing up my family always had Suburbans. They got used less than 4 times a month when we weren’t on vacation.
Buying a Prius for your regular car is a decent idea because it’s a good car. Though I’d like to see a more driver’s oriented hybrid (Hybrid MINI? hybrid Miata?) in the future
June 13th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Landcrusher,
There’s a big difference between calling a bad choice a bad choice, and saying it shouldn’t have been allowed. Marc did the former, not the latter.
It’s also worth mentioning that individual choices like this one affect more than the individual. How many large SUVs were bought because people feared getting into an accident with someone driving a large SUV–or at least being unable to see over others’ large SUVs in traffic?
The main reason small cars are relatively unsafe is because there are many much larger vehicles on the road.
June 14th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Michael,
I agree that Marc did not say it shouldn’t be a choice, and thanks for helping me clarify.
Saying something shouldn’t be a choice is honest. And, I don’t mean to insult Marc, or slight him when I say this, but in my mind, calling someones car choice bad because of the reasons you and he state are much worse an offense. That is my point.
If there is some externality that makes SUV’s choices unfair to the rest of people, then you should seek out a fair resolution within the law. Instead, many people would rather simply call names. I know Marc doesn’t mean anything by it, but to me, this is a social convention that desperately needs changing.
This idea that of insult, insinuation, sanctimony, and punditry on the choices of others is mostly more harmful to society than ANY of the things being poo pood by the “I know better than you crowd”. I rarely hear anyone talking sensibly about the pros and cons of SUV ownership vis a vis the cost. Nope. And heaing the Prius crowd now get upset about the backlash is just too much. For decades there those who did not smoke were spoke ill of. Then those who did smoke were spoke ill of. It is only in the past few years that we seem to have come to a reasonable truce on the matter. In the meantime, lot’s of harsh words were spoken foolishly by folks on both sides. Still, the only time anything were done helpful was when laws were past.
Lastly, this not seeing over the SUVs idea is just plain wrong. Stop tailgating, and you will quickly find that seeing past the large truck in front of you is neither tough (90 plus percent of the time), nor necessary except when you have been stuck for a while and don’t know what’s ahead (because that happens so often). Whenever I get tailgated, I pull to the right of my lane so the person behind me can see. When they continue to tailgate, I increase the distance between me and the car in front of me to give the idiot behind me a cushion. Meanwhile, he/she is back there bitching about how SUV’s should be illegal (unless they are likewise in a truck, then I don’t know if they actually are thinking).
Tailgating is a behavior with a social cost. Many of our other behaviors are as well. I will be happy to trade in my SUV for a 500 pound car when that is the largest legal vehicle available. Until then, don’t be telling me what I ought not be doing with my money because it’s not fair to everyone else. There are lots more unfair things in the world, and there will likely always be bigger and smaller cars on the road. Vive la difference.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Like it our not, our choices have effects on those around us. For some reason this simple truth is one which some people insist on ignoring, and even get angry and defensive about when it is pointed out.
Prius drivers are reducing demand for gasoline and in aggregate thus moderate the price of fuel for everyone else. Escalades (and other gas guzzlers, be they cars or SUVs) conversely increase the demand for fuel and thus push up costs for everyone. Assuming, of course, that the laws and supply and demand drive pricing.
Tall vehicles obstruct site lines for shorter vehicles around them. Period. Tail gaiting is dangerous and foolish behavior. Period. However, the second fact has little to do with the first.
Many SUV and truck buyers have said that they liked the taller vehicles because they could see over traffic in them. Of course that was only true as long as most other people were in short vehicles. This has been well documented in marketing studies. Yes, the person in the tall vehicle can see over the little cars in front of them, but the driver in the car behind them cannot see through the tall vehicle. Large vehicles are also far more often involved in backing up accidents, including the running over of children, because the tall vehicle driver has horrible visibility to the rear. The statistics are all out there.
Asking people to be mindful of the effect their choices have on others is, believe it or not, neither socialist nor fascist.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Landcrusher,
Can’t say I see your logic, much less agree with it.
First off, Marc didn’t engage in name calling. He said he felt many SUV buyers have been making bad choices, and gave his reasons for saying this. Name-calling is negatively labelling someone in lieu of a well-reasoned argument–perhaps because the person engaging in name-calling has no well-reasoned argument, only an emotional response.
Second, how is explaining why you think someone else’s choice was the wrong one–for them, or for society–worse than saying they should not have been allowed to make the choice? There is such a thing as wrong choices. Freedom of choice is ultimately based on faith that people will, overall, make choices that improve the lives of people in general. And input from others helps people make better choices more often than it leads them to make worse choices.
It’s less honest to criticize someone’s choice than to say they shouldn’t be allowed to have a choice? Not if you believe that people can positively respond to constructive criticism, and that within such a context will make better choices for themselves than someone else could make for them.
Saying that commenting on others’ choices is worse than denying them the right to choice suggests that freedom of choice isn’t really your top priority. Instead, you want freedom from criticism, even constructive criticism. In case you haven’t noticed, this isn’t exactly a “if you can’t say something good, then say nothing at all” kind of site. This site rightfully bans personal attacks. But reasoned criticism? That’s what it’s all about. Why? Because criticism done right makes the world a better place.
As for tailgating, I can think of at least two situations where people might feel their visibility is harmed by large SUVs, and where they can do nothing about it. First, in heavy traffic, you simply cannot drop far enough behind a large SUV to see around it. If you try, someone else will cut in front of you.
Second, and the situation I personally cannot stand, if you’re trying to make a turn from a dead stop, and a large SUV pulls into the lane next to you to also make a turn, and pulls up at least as far as you do (even thought they can easily see over you in a car), you cannot safely make your turn until after they do, because you can no longer see oncoming cars in their direction.
But the visibility issue pales next to the collision issue. You say you want the largest legal vehicle available. Why? Safety? If everyone wanted a heavier vehicle than everyone else, so that the other guy would be more likely to die in a crash, where would we end up?
June 14th, 2008 at 2:26 am
I believe Bill Maloney (Mr. More) was the auto review columnist used by the Arizona Republic Newspaper and he is the final reason I stopped subscribing to the AZ Republic. Maloney loved MORE, he praised the vehicles that were bigger than previous models, that made more noise, could tow more, beat previous 0 to 60 times, and used more fuel. He was as ridiculous as Motor Trend Magazine.
The AZ Republic had little business news, almost never any car business news, and with Bill (Mr. More) Maloney they had no reliable car reviews.
Next week or next year perhaps something will come out that is simpler and more efficient than a Hybrid Prius and we should welcome it. Why are some of you so afraid of new ideas? Especially an idea that leaves more fuel for your MORE vehicle.
June 14th, 2008 at 6:51 am
# M1EK :
June 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Robstar, unless you’re brand-new to this issue, what you’ve posted is simply lies.
The Insight did a LITTLE better than the Prius. No diesel has met it in EPA testing (no, not even the smaller ones made by VW). And the Prius gives a couple MPG to the Insight while being a mid-sized car.
We own both a Prius and an Insight. The difference in fuel consumption long term is about 24mpg in the Insight’s favour.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am
ghillie> Thanks for the support.
The fact of the matter is using human power (walking, biking, roller blading, etc….) or shared (bus, train) is much better for everyone.
The problem is, how much will you put up with?
How much is your personal freedom to drive in a 4 wheeled vehicle anywhere you want, wherever you want, worth?
Can you put up with the loonies/drunks on public transport AND be constrained to someone elses schedule?
Can you put up with the time it takes to walk somewhere?
Can you put up with the safety problems of riding in the street with a bicycle and/or motorcycle/roller blades?
If you answer “NO” to all these, THEN MAYBE you have a reason to buy a 4 wheeled car.
Now you don’t want to spend gas on your to-be-purchased car (lets assume you don’t have a car)…
What makes a NORMAL non-battery powered vehicle “better” than a standard used/new/reliable subcompact?
Is it the extra space? Emotional feeling ? some other reason?
These are the questions I ask myself when looking at a PRIUS.
I walk to work. The 20-25 minutes in the sun is good for me (I work in a cubicle). I believe riding a motorcycle with full gear is a good compromise between fuel efficiency (last trip 46mpg average with speeds between a few mph up to 80′ish…) and TCO. Many people don’t.
I actually do grocery shopping (family of 2) on my motorcycle as well as other mundane tasks (tech support for the extended family, etc).
The “better-than-you” attitude with PRIUS drivers I see pisses me off because we have 3 different train systems with 100 or so bus routes to use in the large urban area I live in, yet they have the “better-than-you” attitude when sneering at other drivers when they themselves are “not as green” as they could be.
They made a compromise to drive a Prius. Other people made a compromise to drive an SUV, sports car, motorcycle, etc. What makes them “better” ?
I also think it’s silly to see one person drive around in an SUV, but that is their choice. I respect prius drivers in the fact that by buying a prius & supporting technology R&D they are encouraging the automakers and related industries to further develop “green” technologies. I think supporting technology and showing the manufacturers that there IS a market for “green tech” is a GOOD reason to buy a prius. Paying less for fuel buy investing $20k+ in a car is a silly reason.
Disclaimers: I own a sports car (gas guzzler) that has put on 2k miles this year. My bike has about 700 miles and the wifes econobox has the other ~5-8k miles.
M1EK> I have only test driven a prius (didn’t like it) and have driven a diesel passat (very nice!) and my real mpg on a highway only trip in the passat was in the 50’s…..
Then again, on my wife’s neon we regularly see 36-39mpg in highway while the car is rated 31. Going by fuel economy numbers on the sticker is rule of thumb, but not realistic in real life. My sports car gets 24 on the highway and I have _NEVER_ seen 24, even driving conservatively.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:02 am
robstar, my current tank (combined) is running 50 mpg.
The point is that every real head-to-head comparison where the highway driving isn’t excessively fast ends up with the Prius beating even the smaller diesels we have here in this country, yet people like you still make this claim. If you don’t know better, it’s just being misinformed, but now you do know better, so next time you can’t use that excuse.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am
nice conversation all around…
unfortunately, what makes the ‘free world’ so nice (individual choice) also leads to many ‘good decisions’ for an individual that collectively lead to ‘bad consequences’ for society…
overall, it’s probably a better system than having your vehicle ‘rationed’ to you by the government:
single - moped
married no kids - yaris sized vehicle - 2 door
married small kids - prius sized vehicle - 4 door
married more kids - generic minivan
really, you only need 3,4,5 options for 99% of the population…
June 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am
What burns me up is all of the gas wasted commuting to the TTAC offices each day…
June 14th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Did I say name calling? I didn’t think so.
Second, it’s worse because it’s insidious. Look at the cigarette example. There was a long time that non smokers were made fun of. No one wanted to force them to smoke, they just wanted to insult their choice. The whole time, it’s really just an implied insult anyway, even if one was not so boorish as to call them weak or infantile to choose against smoking (which was good for you by the way).
SUV’s use up to much gas - glutton.
SUV’s take up too much of the road - inconsiderate hog.
etc.
So, you don’t have to be so rude as to call names. If you can be sly enough about your wordsmithing, you can make the same point without being rude. Not that most of the SUV haters are worried about that.
There is more than one issue going on here. One is why do people make fun of Prius owners. My point about that is that anti-SUV crowd started the fight, and now the Prius owners are catching the backlash.
Another point is that all cars use gas and take up space. Call me when the no gas generation of cars is ready. In the meantime, we are all polluting and using gas in our cars, so who gets to decide how much gas is appropriate for one person to burn? Careful, fascism is sneaking up on you.
When it comes to my argument, you are making a leap on the choice thing. I am trying to say that if you want to use the rhetoric that the anti-suv crowd uses, you should be honest enough to propose it in an honest format. Be outright and make a good argument on banning them. Of course that would be wrong, and a loser. So why not figure that out, accept it, and stop the whining? I doubt there is not some way in which everyone on this site is somehow using more than they need of some commodity or resource. I don’t care what it is, even if it’s needlepoint yarn. There is no difference really.
I wish I could come up with a clear and succinct argument that would express my thoughts on this, but I really can’t seem to. There is a lot wrong with the idea of a bunch of people taking the positions they do about other people’s choices. If there is no other thing that is wrong about it, then there is at least the fact that if it gets much further out of hand we will all get to be a VERY boring bunch.
Tailgating.
It seems to me that you want to blame the SUV for rude drivers. It sounds like you are tailgating, to avoid people getting in front of you, and you are aggravated with the SUV because the height of his vehicle is making your tailgating marginally more dangerous. Nice.
As for people blocking your sight at intersections, this is not just an SUV issue. Vans and even mini vans will do the same. Should we avoid those unless we “need” them as well? Also, I have the same problem with even slightly larger cars when driving a car. Seriously, do you want to mandate a car hood height limit? The governments are trying to make them taller btw.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:58 am
improvement_needed,
You forgot to point out that the folks running the government need a nicer car, or at least the same car at a better price from a special store.
Also, your post makes me wonder if all the complaints the small car people have against the SUV would not be equally valid for a scooter driver to us against the Prius?
June 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Why do you want to pick on the SUV crowd?
Landcrusher, I believe that there is something that you miss and that the anti’s are talking around, so I’ll cut to the quick.
It can be summarized as follows: Many SUV drivers are pricks. The anti’s dislike the personality characteristics that are common to a large proportion of the owners. This has a lot more to do with the people than with the products.
As is the case with every other vehicle on the road, the automakers have designed SUV’s to appeal to a particular demographic. The auto companies took demand for people haulers and divided them into two basic camps: minivan buyers and SUV buyers.
The minivan buyers tend to be family people who like to be identified as such. Essentially, the station wagon buyers of yesteryear became minivan buyers.
SUV buyers are segmented differently, as being those who are ambivalent or in denial of their family status. It may carry the same number of people as a minivan, but it’s meant to tell the world that they haven’t lost their spirit, cool or whatever.
They also tend to find the road to be either intimidating or else something to be dominated, so they buy vehicles that will defend them from outside threats and allow them to “control” it (which often means being aggressive.) The styling flourishes are often meant to convey that feeling both to the owner and to those driving around them. My defense, at your expense.
This is the basic problem: You have one segment of the population that bought a vehicle with the attitude that it is a weapon of the highways, a rolling intimidation tactic. You have others who read this message loud and clear, and who respond by getting irritated by the effort to bully them. Is it really surprising that the first group pisses off the second group, particularly when the second group is getting the message?
Now, obviously, there are people who buy SUV’s for other reasons, and who aren’t bad people. But when there is a class of vehicle that is meant to attract jerks, it isn’t surprising that a disproportionate share of owners would, in fact, be jerks, when the vehicle was designed to lure them in. So unfortunately, the SUV buyers who aren’t so deficient in the personality department end up getting labeled unfairly.
This is also why minivan owners can suck down the same amount of fuel and not get anyone upset. The minivan driver didn’t buy a vehicle with design cues meant to intimidate other people, and the design cues would tend to attract a more socially conservative and polite group of drivers with whom we can share the road more pleasantly, anyway. Since they’re nicer to us, we’re nicer to them and we cut them slack about their fuel burning habits which are probably no better than their SUV cousins.
What you are seeing here are the byproducts of the culture wars, when people who have a four-wheeled urban warrior swagger box get their comeuppance from those who never liked them. A lot of the world is cheering for them to go down in the same way that they cheer against the bad guys at the movies. People tend to like it when karma ends up going where it should.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Landcrusher,
Here’s what you said:
“If there is some externality that makes SUV’s choices unfair to the rest of people, then you should seek out a fair resolution within the law. Instead, many people would rather simply call names. I know Marc doesn’t mean anything by it, but to me, this is a social convention that desperately needs changing.”
For what it’s worth, critiquing others’ behavior is within the law.
One further SUV issue I didn’t mention, but others have: two weeks after I bought my current car, an SUV driver backed up into it because she couldn’t see it. Good thing there weren’t kids behind her rather than my car.
Pch101:
I don’t know if SUV drivers, on average, are any less considerate of others than the average person. SUVs simply amplify the impact of what might be common behavior.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I don’t know if SUV drivers, on average, are any less considerate of others than the average person.
Studies undertaken by the auto industry determined that SUV drivers tend to be more self-centered, and they designed the vehicles in order to appeal to that mentality. Aggressive vehicles for aggressive people.
It would be impossible to know this, but I have to wonder whether the higher statistics for SUV rollovers are exacerbated by driver behavior as much as they are by vehicle design. Place a high center of gravity into the hands of someone with an attitude problem and who lacks confidence in their driving skills, and accidents seem inevitable.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
For the record, I come down on the ‘freedom of choice’ side of this argument. I have an Acadia and a boat. I don’t wave the green flag. And I sure as hell don’t want someone else telling me that my vehicle choices are inappropriate.
That said, I heard an interview with Alanis Morissette this week on XM Radio. She talked about a Prius she owned and the importance of being green. She also rides motorcycles and obviously had some fun with internal combustion. but she was comfortable with her transportation choices and didn’t hurl any insulting comments toward the opposition. She had a classy way of getting her point across. I respected her for that.
I don’t have any ill will toward Greens/Prius drivers/etc. There is a way of making a point without offending others or telling them they are wrong. But please understand that when criticism is hurled at someone, for whatever reason, it will come back at you. No one should be surprised by this.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Little if any good ever follows from insults. And generalizations tend to be inaccurate.
But critiques are not necessarily insulting, and they can be made without engaging in generalizations. Hopefully also without directly telling someone they are wrong.
June 14th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Landcrusher
Be outright and make a good argument on banning them [SUVs]. Of course that would be wrong, and a loser.
Well, instead of banning them, what about taxing them, regulating them, or encouraging people to voluntarily desist from their use? A discussion of the merits of such proposals will necessarily require a discussion of if or how SUVs are imposing external costs on the rest of society. If we are going to pass a law, we have to discuss this. And there is very little distance between identifying externalities caused by SUVs and noting that their existence was caused by the person who bought the vehicle. If you can’t deal with the fact that something you’ve done might turn out to harm others, or the fact that this might be pointed out in some place and in some form, especially in a discussion of how we can reduce harm in the future, you need to grow a thicker skin. If some SUV critic’s conclusion is “you SUV drivers are evil, so there!” you can complain of his childish behavior. If an SUV critic’s conclusion is “SUVs cause harm, and that should be curbed,” you can try to dispute his conclusions, but I don’t see how you can be angry with his behavior.
Here’s one argument for imposing on SUV drivers to some extent: SUVs are bigger and higher, and tend to cause more damage to cars in accidents. Some of this may be captured in higher liability insurance premiums, but some of this may not be. To the extent higher insurance premiums fail to price in the full social cost, extra taxes and regulations should be imposed on SUVs.
Here’s another argument for imposing on SUV drivers: SUVs (along with minivans) tend to be longer and wider than other cars. This requires parking authorities in cities to mark out larger parking spaces. Similarly, in the suburbs, shopping centers have to mark out bigger spaces in their lots for all cars. These spots are larger than what a car needs. Some private garages charge different rates depending on if your ride is a car or SUV, but to the extent that other parking manages cannot or do not differentiate, car drivers are forced to rent larger than necessary parking spaces, which effectively subsidizes large-vehicle drivers. A tax could be imposed on SUVs to make up for this.
These arguments, and others, are not made for the hidden purpose of calling someone a pig or glutton or jerk, in order to demonize him. They’re made as part of a discussion that seeks to identify possible problems, and speculate on solutions. If this hurts you a little on the inside, perhaps you should look in the mirror first, before urging the rest of us to shut up.
June 14th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
PCH,
If people want to blame SUV’s for some of the jerks that drive them, then they are just as bad as anyone else guilty of the similar generalizations. I won’t start a list, even though I am tempted.
I don’t believe SUV’s were designed for what you think they were. If some folks got carried away with customizations from seeing too many monster truck rallies that’s not to be blamed on the designers of the Suburban or anyone from Jeep.
If some folks in marketing did some research, and started trying to appeal to some Freudian theory in their designs, it happened pretty late in the game IMO. Besides that, I don’t think they did very well. I would be very curious about what specific aspects of different vehicles were designed specifically to grab the aggressive buyer crowd. Sounds like a stretch to me. Most of the SUV’s around here are driven by some pretty tame Mom’s.
I am old enough to remember when this fight was going on about large cars even if it was a bit more subdued, it was essentially the same fight.
For whatever reason, people are bothered about something, and they just take it too far.
At any rate, I suppose I will go back to defeating each and every anti-SUV complaint on it’s own COMPLETE lack of merit.
I think if folks by a Prius that’s cool. What I don’t appreciate is the whole thing about how inconsiderate it is for others to “waste” gas with an SUV. I just know that not every Prius driver has that attitude so I don’t go for the whole name calling thing.
Once again, the SUV is just ONE way of using resources in a whole slew of them but it gets picked on because anything that even slightly bothers people is some wonderful reason for hate.
Michael,
I think it’s pretty clear that I wasn’t accusing Marc of name calling when I said that. So, yes I said name calling, no I didn’t accuse him.
I simply disagree that when people start the regular “critique” of SUV’s that they are doing anything positive. Once someone opens the door by talking about how bad SUV’s are, they are opening the door to be corrected.
SUV’s are bad. Translation: To buy one is wrong.
June 14th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
NBK,
I am happy to have a rational discussion on the externalities of SUV’s. It’s what I think all the haters should be up for, but it’s too much trouble for most of them.
I will warn you that the ultimate out I can always use is that there are plenty of other areas where we allow externalities to exist, so you would really need to be willing to address those as well. After all, if we are going to be a fair society, we should start with our tax code.
However, off we go:
Extra damage. I don’t believe this is true. I think the extra insurance pretty well covers it. You would need to come up with some hard evidence to justify this theory that there are other costs not being covered that are specific to SUV’s. For instance, Michael Karesh seems to think that only SUV’s back over kids, but he is just mad about a specific incident. Plenty of cars have bad rear views as well.
Taxing for extra parking space. I could go for a per square foot rate, but only if it really is fair. If all the spots really are big enough, then some method of collecting a higher fee based on the square footage would be fine. That is not anti-SUV at all. It’s about square footage.
June 14th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I don’t believe SUV’s were designed for what you think they were.
There’s no reason not to reason to believe it. Automakers routinely conduct demographic studies, and develop vehicles with the idea of selling them to specific market profiles. If you are going to spend several hundred million dollars creating a product, the hope is to be able to sell it.
Keith Bradsher’s book High and Mighty deals with this subject rather scathingly, including comments from Detroit executives who openly mock the buyer demographic. JD Power identified two primary categories of buyers, including “Domestic Indulgents” who buy SUV’s for size and status.
While it can be difficult to typecast the personality characteristics of buyers of generic mainstream cars, it is much easier to accurately profile buyers of specialized products. People seek out certain products for certain reasons.
Of course, those stereotypes aren’t always accurate, but they aren’t arbitrary, either. These markets are studied intently, so the demography is no secret.
June 14th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Landcrusher,
How’d you gather that I was mad? That’s you jumping to conclusions. At any rate, I’ll grant that rearview monitors can largely fix the rear visibility problem.
PCH,
I’ve studied psychographic (not demographic) research pretty intensively in the past, even doing fieldwork inside GM. The bottom line is that it’s extremely difficult to create a successful product along this path. Generalizations fail even when informed by survey research. I think such research is interesting, and really wanted to figure out a way to use it to create more interesting, more precisely targeted products. But it just doesn’t work well in practice. Never has, probably never will.
Why not? Because people are tremendously unpredictable and multifaceted, and often make decisions based on idiosyncratic perceptions, desired rather than actual personalities, whims, and what have you. There are far more variables to be measures, they’re dynamic, and the decision process often isn’t a rational one–making it highly unpredictable.
Chrysler got into an extreme variant of this research around 2000. They found that what many people really wanted was a feeling of security. So they gave the inside of the Pacifica much of the feel of a bunker, with a high beltline. It was designed to be the un-minivan. And it failed.
Of course, a similar tactic worked (for a while) for Hummer, and for the 300 sedan. But it’s very much hit and miss. And it’s quite possible that even these successes were based on exterior styling and image, not the feel from inside the vehicle.
All of this said, many Prius buying decisions are based on one thing these days: the car has a rep for extreme fuel economy, much like Volvo used to have one for extreme safety. When people think fuel economy, they think Prius. (Or Hummer, for the opposite.) And right now many people are thinking fuel economy. How it got this rep, that was the tricky part. But now that it has the rep, Toyota could coast for quite a while, if they wanted to.
June 14th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Forgot to mention: Bradsher’s book was largely BS.
Muckraking journalists have long loved psychographic studies, buying the claims of those who conduct them (and make money doing so) 110 percent. Vance Packard built a career on this back in the 1950s. But buying these claims is much like using advertising copy as scientific proof of something.
June 14th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Around me the worst drivers are in Subaru WRXs or Hondas in various states of “import tuner/rice”
SUV drivers are OK.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
# Robstar :
June 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am
ghillie> Thanks for the support.
Don’t mention it.
The “better-than-you” attitude with PRIUS drivers I see pisses me off because we have 3 different train systems with 100 or so bus routes to use in the large urban area I live in, yet they have the “better-than-you” attitude when sneering at other drivers when they themselves are “not as green” as they could be.
The pious Prius owner is often referred to and sneered at - but I’ve yet to see one in captivity. No doubt they exist as such people exist in all walks of life, but I think that the pPo is a rare creature and really just a straw man in most arguments.
The only place I can remember reading that you can buy a Prius and save the planet is in advertising copy. The marketing of motor vehicles is uniformly moronic so I don’t place any store by it.
Prius owners I know have a concern for the environment but are pretty quiet about it. They focus more on the way they live rather than about how other people do. The’re not really interested in parading supposed green credentials, because they know that our western lifestyles have a heavy environmental impact in a myriad of ways. The’re thinking about it and trying to act on it (as no doubt you are) but having a “who is greenest” pissing contest is not the sort of people they are.
FWIW, in my opinion, the main reason Prius owners cop so much flak is that their choice in motor vehicle implies a voluntary restraint in consumption which they could, in fact, afford. In our society consuming at a rate up to (and sometimes beyond) what we can afford is widely promoted and practiced. It is a fundamental “good” of a consumer society. In a consumer driven society, any voluntary self-denial is sensless and only rationally explained as an attempt at being morally superior - or pious.
M1EK> I have only test driven a prius (didn’t like it) and have driven a diesel passat (very nice!) and my real mpg on a highway only trip in the passat was in the 50’s…..
I’m very happy with our Prius. I haven’t driven a diesel car (trucks yes) but I wouldn’t buy one. 90% of what I’ve read in the motoring press in my country (certainly not pro hybrid vs. diesel) indicates that in general driving I get substantially better fuel economy than I could expect from a similarly sized diesel. I am also put off by (as I understand it) continuing high levels of diesel particulate emissions and reports (from both media and friends) of poor reliability of some European cars (VW, Citroen, Puegeot). Some people are concerned with the complexity of a hybrid system. I’m concerned about the complexity of a modern diesel - especially the emissions control equipment.
I have no problem with the way my Prius drives - its a family car and has no need to carve up the corners. (Mine came standard with Michelin - Energy lrr tyres which are not “fabulous” but may be better than the tyres fitted in other places.) I don’t need the Prius to be a sports car - I have a Honda Insight for that purpose!
June 15th, 2008 at 12:21 am
The pious Prius owner is often referred to and sneered at - but I’ve yet to see one in captivity. No doubt they exist as such people exist in all walks of life, but I think that the pPo is a rare creature and really just a straw man in most arguments.
Have you ever been to priuschat.com?
June 15th, 2008 at 1:38 am
M1EK> Actually the mpg read on the passat trip computer @ 55mpg or so on my 20 mile “test drive”….YMMV.
ghille> I agree 100% with your view on advertising. Unfortunately alot of people actually BUY INTO advertising spiel.
The funniest thing is my wife likes SUV’s & Minivans because of the high seating position….yet she will ride on the back of a cruiser (very low seating position) but is scared to death of say a 650cc dual sport due to seat height…….?
I’m the reverse. I HATE the high seating position of suv’s & minivan’s but don’t mind the high seating position of (driving) a dual sport. It really doesn’t bother me. I guess we all have our quirks.
davey49> The thing that I actually hate are the guys with $2000 cars with $8000 in rims & a $5000 stereo system (always blasting) um…what?
Having a “rice rocket” (bike) and “rice” car (STi) I laugh at the little civis that go by me with fart cans or the old falling apart taurus’s that have 3′ wings on the back. I just don’t get it….I didn’t even like it when I was a teenager.
Extra taxing of SUV’s…> Isn’t this already done in fuel cost & insurance? Can we tax cars extra because I can fit 5-6 motorcycles in the space of a mid-size car? How about taxing motorcycles extra since they take up more space than scooters? Or taxing scooters because I could tie up several pairs of rollerblades in the same space as a scooter…..it really is an arbitrary line to draw. SUV’s owners are paying out the butt already because of gas, insurance, and black-hole depreciation.
June 15th, 2008 at 1:55 am
I believe that the SUV predates all the market rubbish this guy supposedly studied.
The suburban is one of the oldest designs, has not changed much at all over several decades, and you would be hard pressed to tell me that it was designed to appeal to the personality quirks you describe.
Of course, your description has gone from something Freudian, to just being about status. Sure, I will believe that people buy them for the size and status. We don’t call them Texas Cadillacs for nothing. But that doesn’t sound like the base individuals you first described who see them as weapons of the highway.
I also think that it is likely that this attitude about SUV’s didn’t come around until they started to replace the luxury vehicles as the status car of choice. That’s a relatively new thing in the life of the SUV which dates back to at least the sixties.
What is wrong with people buying a car for it’s size and status? It’s their money. Maybe that’s where the hate comes from, class envy? That would fit well with the stereotype of the sanctimonious Prius owner would it not?
Also, the argument about my defence at your expense is actually self defeating. First, there is the expense of buying the vehicle which is the first persons expense. Second, people don’t assume they will be causing dangerous accidents, they assume they will be the victim. It is prefectly rational to then choose the more crash proof car (at least the one perceived to be) if you can afford it. If the attitude was as bad as you say, would we not have even heavier SUV’s around already? It is not unjust to desire that when someone hits you that you are not injured. Is it somehow more virtuous to choose a less crash proof car to protect one’s family?
Lastly, where is this utopia where everyone has the same crashworthiness in their cars? Where all the vehicles are virtually the same weight and crashworthiness? Is it a safer place on the road there than here? I doubt it. Equal outcomes almost always means a much worse average outcome. That’s only something desired by the bottom rung and the perpetually guilty liberal.
Also, are the real world results all that different? Do victims of crashes do that much worse when hit by a Tahoe rather than a big Mercedes? Do the people in the SUV really do all that better when they are the victims?
June 15th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Michael,
“One further SUV issue I didn’t mention, but others have: two weeks after I bought my current car, an SUV driver backed up into it because she couldn’t see it. Good thing there weren’t kids behind her rather than my car.”
This sounds a lot like someone who is mad. I have never heard anyone who wasn’t mad throw out the whole “what if there were children there” line.
At any rate, you are too smart to think that this is just about SUV’s, so I am assuming it’s your frustration over the incident that is making you overlook the fact that your anecdotal story is nothing about SUV’s at all. Plenty of kids have been the victims of being backed over by all sorts of vehicles. It’s not an SUV thing.
June 15th, 2008 at 2:28 am
# quasimondo :
June 15th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Have you ever been to priuschat.com?
No. But I think there are about 1 million Prius owners out there now. I doubt that more than a handful post on priuschat.
June 15th, 2008 at 2:53 am
I haven’t been to any in over a year, but several years ago on the various Prius and hybrid-related forums, the meanest people were the ones who would come on to make fun of the Prius, Insight, or hybrids in general, and/or purposely antagonize hybrid owners and drivers.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Landcrusher,
My concern with rear visibility in SUVs isn’t simply anecdotal, and I didn’t lightly throw out the “good thing there weren’t kids there.” I many cases children have been run over in such situations, for the reason I noted.
It’s a simple fact that the base of t