Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Ron Thigpen <rthigpen AT nc.rr.com>]

dan charlson wrote:

> Oh, goody. More legislation.

Yeah, the same type of legislation that finally mandated seatbelts, 
airbags, and bumper heights.  Forgive my leanings, but I believe there 
are times when the free market needs a little encouragement in the right 
direction.

> One of the reasons that there are so many of the "hated SUVs" on the road 
> is due to the first go-round of CAFE laws. Those helped eliminate the 
> larger station-wagons and autos 

Actually, the misalignment between the Car and Light Truck categories is 
one of the ills that this new legislation is targeting.  The Light Truck 
category would still be subject to different (lower) CAFE standards, but 
the standards would be brought closer together, and each would be higher 
than they are presently.  This realignment is being considered at least 
partly in recognition of the fact that roughly 50% of US personal-use 
vehicles sales are currently in the Light Truck category.  Personally, I 
see this action as closing an unfortunate loophole in the original law.

> Besides that, bigger vehicles ARE safer for their occupants. That's just 
> good ol' basic physics, and there were plenty of Safety Weenies who were 
> concerned about the death-toll impact that the CAFE laws would have:

For some types of accidents, heavier vehicles can be safer for the 
occupants.  Then again, these vehicles are overrepresented in accidents 
involving rollovers and loss of control.   Additionally, they make the 
roads arguably less safe for occupants of smaller vehicles.  And so, in 
making a choice to drive a heavier vehicle, you have decided that your 
are willing to marginally improve your safety while reducing that of 
others.  Am I the only one who sees moral implications in this decision?

It's true that you only control your decisions.  The idea behind CAFE is 
to affect the decisions of the many, and to do so fairly.

It is my hope that CAFE standards and fuel prices that more accurately 
represent the total costs of their use will result in an overall set of 
market decisions that reduce use of fossil fuels and also the variation 
in vehicle weights and sizes,  making the air and the roads safer for 
everyone.

> Estimates run from 1,300 to 2,600 
> avoidable deaths a year -- or even higher, according to one study by the 
> center-left Brookings Institution of Washington."

This looks at the result over a range of values for single variable in a 
complex equation.   Factor in the lives saved from lowered air pollution 
and the production and distribution of fuel and I'd expect a very 
different result.  Never mind the war costs that energy dependency seem 
to keep foisting on us.

There is also an assumption here that higher fuel efficiency requires  a 
very low vehicle weight.  Your source compares a 2,000 lb car with a 
4,000 lb car.  There just aren't many 2,000 lb cars on the road, that 
number is a serious outlier.  Cars simply wouldn't have to get that 
light to meet a CAFE standard of 35 mpg.  Most compacts and midsize cars 
fall into the 2,800 to 3,500 lb range.  Many cars of this size, even 
with performance engines, are already getting something like 25-32 mpg 
EPA highway.

Models engineered specifically for mileage are already doing much better 
than this.  Identical VW models with the TDI engine are getting about 
80% greater fuel economy than the same models with their 1.8T engine. 
No weight given away, no safety lost.  (Thanks to the low-sulfur diesel 
legislation for making these cars cleaner as well as efficient.  Look 
forward to reduced particulate emissions as VW works to satisfy EU 
legislation.)  Honda is a leader in this area, using gasoline engines. 
No doubt Detroit would be also, if doing so were aligned with their 
financial interests.

> Whatever. I'll just go out and buy an older, non-CAFE vehicle

That's your choice.  I only ask that you drive it responsibly, and that 
you share in the societal costs of burning the fuel required to haul its 
mass around.   My hope is that eventually you would have the opportunity 
to buy a modern, CAFE compliant vehicle that was every bit as capable 
and safe.

My choice is to drive an efficient vehicle that meets my cargo and 
people hauling needs 360 days a year, and rent or borrow on those other 
days.  Frankly I like the way a smaller, lighter car accelerates, stops 
and handles.  That too is simple physics.  As a Miata owner, I know you 
understand.  And if my hauling needs increased, I'd probably be looking 
for an older pickup.  I just wouldn't use it for the commute.

--rt