[matmat]

mike777, on Dec 12 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

Many SUV's are built on a truck chassis not a car.

this is true. and yet I still don't see them following the posted rules on california freeways, such as : "trucks 2 right lanes only"

[mike777]

matmat, on Dec 12 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 12 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

Many SUV's are built on a truck chassis not a car.

this is true. and yet I still don't see them following the posted rules on california freeways, such as : "trucks 2 right lanes only"

I lived in Calif for many decades and agree. Calif is deep in debt, sounds like an opportunity to make some money with some tickets. Let the Lawyers sort it out!

[mike777]

Gerben42, on Dec 12 2008, 05:22 AM, said:

Today the US senate didn't approve the "rescue plan" for the US car industry. On the other hand, Opel (German daughter of GM) may get its own rescue plan here, as long as it can be assured that no penny of German money ends up in Detroit.

Since Opel is only in trouble because of the money GM ows it (and is still selling cars, in fact one of their cars is "car of the year" around here), it appears to me that the American manufacturers are not selling their cars very well.

I don't know much about the American situation, but how many car types from the "big 3" drive at least 30 miles on a gallon? (7.9 litres / 100 km)

Gerben I think another problem is that Congress makes it very very difficult, if not impossible, for Opel to sell that car of the year in the USA. I mean Opel is owned by GM.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on Dec 12 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

btw3 I would think if one goal is to make a profit, Detroit can simply move their plants to Canada, have Canada pick up the health care plan and transport the cars a few miles back to the USA.

And, in general, a national healthcare system in the US would help US companies to compete with companies located in nations that have such systems.

[mike777]

"Today the US senate didn't approve the "rescue plan" for the US car industry. On the other hand, Opel (German daughter of GM) may get its own rescue plan here, as long as it can be assured that no penny of German money ends up in Detroit."


I have no idea how Germany controls the money once it goes into the Opel bank account. I assume they can send the money anywhere or if they must keep the "German money in Germany" then they send all the "other money" wherever they prefer. Money is fungible.

As an example if GM gets 34 billion from taxpayers I assume they can pay off a loan they owe to a bank or company outside the USA.

[y66]

Quote

Can someone tell me why people thought they really needed these big trucks? I mean, they don't fit in parking spaces, don't get around small corners and are just unhandy. Now if I would live in mountainous areas with few solid roads, an SUV would be the right thing. But in London or Los Angeles they are just out of place!

My dream car is a 2009 Golf GTI (can't justify a BMW M3 where I live). So, I'm not qualified to comment. But I think the U.S. market for truck-like alternatives to cars grew out of a weird intersection between trade policy (10x higher tariff on imported trucks than on cars), American consumer psychology (bigger is better; bigger is safer; "off-road" is sexier than "station wagon"), the declining influence of engineers in auto industry decision making (build for profit margin, not for engineering excellence) and cheap fuel. And parking is not a problem at Walmart.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Dec 13 2008, 03:36 AM, said:

As an example if GM gets 34 billion from taxpayers I assume they can pay off a loan they owe to a bank or company outside the USA.

I would assume there would be some restrictions on how they can use those 34 bill. Maybe they won't be required to pay off domestic dept first, though.

[kenberg]

Gerben42, on Dec 12 2008, 06:07 PM, said:

Can someone tell me why people thought they really needed these big trucks? I mean, they don't fit in parking spaces, don't get around small corners and are just unhandy. Now if I would live in mountainous areas with few solid roads, an SUV would be the right thing. But in London or Los Angeles they are just out of place!

It's a challenge to explain why someone likes something that I have never had any desire for. Some of it no doubt comes from lifestyle. My older daughter has two soccer playing kids. Unlike when I was young, parents take their kids, and other kids, to play in soccer games. Also unlike when I was young, you are not allowed to just pack a bunch of kids in your car and go. My daughter and her husband have resisted, so far, buying a van but they think about it. So this explains some of it.

Still, I drive often in suburban traffic and see forty year old guys in suits driving some car that claims to be suitable for use in the jungle or at least in the Wild West. I look at him and figure he will enter the jungle the same day I take the field as running back for the Redskins (that's football, American style). Some sort of fantasy life is all I can figure.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Dec 15 2008, 12:11 AM, said:

Also unlike when I was young, you are not allowed to just pack a bunch of kids in your car and go.

Huh? Is there a law saying that kids must be carried in armored vehicles when taken through downtown, or something?

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Dec 14 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

kenberg, on Dec 15 2008, 12:11 AM, said:

Also unlike when I was young, you are not allowed to just pack a bunch of kids in your car and go.

Huh? Is there a law saying that kids must be carried in armored vehicles when taken through downtown, or something?

Only in South Chicago.

[blackshoe]

There are all kinds of restrictions on kids in cars that didn't exist 40 years ago. Seat belts for all. No riding in the open back of a pickup truck. Special seats for younger kids. Kids of a certain age must sit in the back seat. Technically, I think, you cannot have more people (kids or otherwise) in the car than the number for whom there are seat belts (five, in my case). Some of it is increased safety awareness, some of it is political correctness, some of it is just BS. It is there, though.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Dec 14 2008, 09:12 PM, said:

There are all kinds of restrictions on kids in cars that didn't exist 40 years ago. Seat belts for all. No riding in the open back of a pickup truck. Special seats for younger kids. Kids of a certain age must sit in the back seat. Technically, I think, you cannot have more people (kids or otherwise) in the car than the number for whom there are seat belts (five, in my case). Some of it is increased safety awareness, some of it is political correctness, some of it is just BS. It is there, though.

Which one is BS?

Now if they told us that dogs weren't allowed to hang their head out the window, THAT would be BS!

[TimG]

blackshoe, on Dec 14 2008, 09:12 PM, said:

No riding in the open back of a pickup truck.

I sure miss this one.

[jikl]

Are helmets compulsory for motorbikes over there yet? I know they weren't 10 years back and they are a serious drain on the economy. (More injuries and deaths etc)

Sean

[blackshoe]

Sean: If by "over there" you mean the US, each state makes its own rules. Most Eastern states require helmets, I think. Some Western states, notably California, did not in the past, but I haven't paid much attention lately. Things may have changed.

Josh: I'm not sure any of the specific examples I gave is BS. I was referring more to the general attitude towards "nanny" lawmaking, which seems to be an ongoing trend in the last couple of decades.

[PassedOut]

Back in the 1940s, there were four-door cars in which the rear doors opened toward the back of the car. No seat belts either. Some children opened doors when the car was moving, and fell out of the car when the air caught the door and pulled it completely open. (It happened to a relative of mine who was injured seriously that way when she was a young girl.)

Also, some cars had steering wheels with large points in the center aiming right at the driver's chest.

As one who has always been in business, I think its completely reasonable for the government to establish strict safety standards, polution standards, etc. that a business must follow. Those rules allow responsible business people to compete against those with no social conscience.

[blackshoe]

I agree there should be standards (and that they should make good practical sense). I don't agree that government should be in the business of legislating them.

Say you have an independent private standards organization. That organization says "doors should open towards the front of the car". A sensible car manufacturer, seeing the handwriting on the wall, is going to make sure his car doors comply with the standard. Why? Because in a sensible society, if something happens to someone, and the manufacturer violated the standard, the (civil) courts will cut out the company's wallet, and hand it to the victim. Within reason, of course. But the point is that this kind of thing is properly a civil matter. When the government starts legislating standards, it becomes a criminal matter. Not to mention that there's no guarantee that the "standards" the government legislates will bear any resemblance whatsoever to the good, sensible standards that independent engineers would have come up with - and which were probably what the legislature had to start with, before "political concerns" were added to the mix.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on Dec 14 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

kenberg, on Dec 15 2008, 12:11 AM, said:

Also unlike when I was young, you are not allowed to just pack a bunch of kids in your car and go.

Huh? Is there a law saying that kids must be carried in armored vehicles when taken through downtown, or something?

There is a continuum.

Suppose I am baby-sitting my younger grandchildren and suppose for some reason their mother calls and asks me to bring the kids somewhere. I cannot do this since I do not have car seats in my car. (Yes, the car does have seats. But car seats are special things for young kids.)

Compare with my childhood. My father would announce he was available to take kids to the ballgame Friday night. The number of kids that he would take was limited to the number of kids that could be stuffed into our 1940 Chevy. A couple in front, four or five in the back. He would be arrested for, well, for something today. Actually I was arrested once for something along these lines (perhaps properly so).

So now by law each child needs his own seat, properly approved. This changes the way society sees things. Armor starts to appear like a sensible idea.

I am not on any campaign to revoke safety laws. I was offering it as a partial explanation of how people end up with these tanks. No doubt all this metal offers some protection but, since I once drove a VW bug and once rode a BSA motorcycle, my current Honda seems very protective by comparison. Others are shocked that I do not feel the need for more armor.

[helene_t]

OK, in the sixties you would put a driver plus seven children in a 4-seat car. Today you need an 8-seat car. Got it

Actually, the only times I miss having a car is when I need to transport more stuff than I can take with me in the train or a taxi. So I guess my first car would be a van, too.

[Gerben42]

Quote

OK, in the sixties you would put a driver plus seven children in a 4-seat car. Today you need an 8-seat car. Got it

Not only an 8-seat car, but also 7 car seats if the children are too small to sit on the regular seats.

I've sat in the back of the car when I was small, and I mean really the back, not the back seats. I guess that's out too.