Should SUVs be banned?

Question

Should SUVs be banned? A lot of people are afraid to drive small, fuel efficient cars because they're afraid of getting hurt in a wreck against a larger car. Banning SUVs would pretty much force everyone to use smaller cars, which would make us all safer and save a lot of fuel. Is there any good reason (besides for the sake of freedom itself) not to ban them?

Answer 1

It would not save fuel. Take a hyrbrid for instance which has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.

Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses    

So how about everyone drive big cars and be safe!!

Answer 2

Good luck with that.  Half the cars out there are SUVs.

Answer 3

No, this is a free country. And auto makers and petroleum companies are trying to make them more efficent, and an 18 wheeler would smash anything in a wreck every time. Let people make their own decisions, you just do your part.

Answer 4

Modified maybe.

Look at almost any new Petrol Powered car,

Cars and light trucks are considered separately for CAFE and are held to different standards. As of early 2004, the average for cars must exceed 27.5 mpg and the light truck average must exceed 20.7 mpg. Trucks under 8500 lb must average 22.5 mpg in 2008, 23.1 mpg in 2009, and 23.5 mpg in 2010. After this, new rules set varying targets based on truck size "footprint".

Overall fuel economy for both cars and light trucks in the U.S. market reached its highest level in 1987, when manufacturers managed 26.2 mpg (8.98 L/100 km). The average in 2004 was 24.6 mpg.[13] In that time, vehicles increased in size from an average of 3,220 pounds to 4,066 lb (1,461 kg to 1,844 kg), in part due to an increase in truck ownership during that time from 28% to 53%.

A number of manufacturers choose to pay CAFE penalties rather than attempt to comply with the regulations. As of model year 2002, BMW, DaimlerChrysler (import fleet only), Ferrari, Lotus and Porsche failed the automobile CAFE requirement, while BMW and Volkswagen failed to meet the light truck requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_A...

In that example MPG went from 26.8 MPG 1987 to 24.6 MPG 2004.

SUVs and minivans created due to original mandate

The definitions for cars and trucks are not the same for fuel economy and emission standards. For example, a PT Cruiser is defined as a car for emission purposes and a truck for fuel economy purposes. [4] Under the current light truck fuel economy rules, the PT Cruiser will have a higher fuel economy target (28.05 mpg beginning in 2011) than it would if it were classified as a passenger car.[35] CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long station wagon, but Chrysler's Lee Iacocca developed the idea of the minivan, which would fit into the separate truck category and allow automakers to comply with emissions standards. Eventually, this same idea led to the development of the SUV.[36][37]

The states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and California disagreed with the NHTSA statement in the 2008-2011 Light Truck standard which claimed preemption of the state greenhouse gas regulations on the basis that fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions are one and the same thing. The EPA[38] claims, contrary to NHTSA, that the use of alternative fuels allows greenhouse gas emissions to be controlled somewhat independent of fuel efficiency.

it is goofy

Billions and Billions of Bio Diesel have been placed in landfills since 1904. Still are.

Stop making autos that go from 0-90 in 6.8 seconds or have a top speed that is way above any posted speed limit in the world and it would make some sense.

People will buy what others will sell, that is the way the people are trained from birth.

Answer 5

No.  Let the market decide.  Anythig else is just the thin end of the wedge that will eventually lead to a complete loss of freedom.  Besides, who died and put you in charge of what I or anyone else drives.

Answer 6

There is a much better solution.

Convert all of our energy usage to electricity generated in nuclear power plants.

In the United States we would need to build about 2,000 nuclear power plants to accomplish that.

Then start converting all of the automobiles, incluing SUVs to run on electricity generated by nuclear power plants.

Also convert the heating of homes, offices and factories to electric heating.

That is what you need to do if we are going to get enough of a reduction in carbon dioxide out put in the United States to make a difference.

Answer 7

Yes because SUVs are the reason why the

the galaxy is going to end! Global warming

is gonna destroy the whole galaxy.

ITS THE SUVs FAULT AND ITS ALSO

GEORGE BUSH s FAULT!!!!!!!!

WATS HAPPENING TO ME?!?!?!?!!

IM MELTING .... IM MELTING ..... IM MELTING.....

IM Meltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnggg........... dam you

george bus..............

Answer 8

no they shouldn't because some people really need a car like that. On the other hand it is possible to take some action in order to make people choose other types of cars. There are cities that don't allow them into certain areas and higher road taxes for these cars could also work.

Personally I'm in favor of these types of regulations because most people with a SUV don't really need them and they are very bad for the environment and dangerous for others.

Answer 9

I don't think we should ban them, but if the man made Global Warming theory turns out to be valid, they should contribute more to subsidizing little fuel efficient cars. Could be an environmental impact tax. We also need this for large homes. After all, we tax smokers because they add cost to health care. Same thing isn't it?

In Mexico, they have a good disincentive for big homes. The electricity costs more the more you use. It is dirt cheap for a little house.

Answer 10

In a way no. Some people have huge families and need bigger cars. Or if they go camping they need a lot of space. But i suggest get a hybird to save the fuel and only use a suv for a big family, a trip, ect. But singles drive alone to work in a suv that wastes gas.

Answer 11

If people begin to think that they are undesirable, they will stop buying them and soon SUVs will no longer be made.

Answer 12

You obviously do not live in a place the gets SNOW or bad weather of any kind.  There are still places in the country that do not have paved roads.  SUV's, Trucks, and other vehicles with 4x4 capability are sometimes the only mode of transportation.  There is a REAL need for these vehicles in some places.  

Granted all of those soccer-moms in the suburbs don't need to be driving hummers out in California,  but that is more of an excessive lifestyle issue.  Perhaps counties that do not NEED those types of vehicles could place more taxes on said vehicles unless you get a specific licence for commerical use, etc...   But an all out Ban is out of the question.

Answer 13

No.  Think about that, is it really right to take away someone's freedom to drive what they want?

Answer 14

Not all SUVs are gas hogs. The Ford Escape Hybrid can get 40 mpg on the highway. My Jeep Compass gets 28 mpg. Sports cars like Mustangs get less mileage than either of those. Some of the top end sports cars get as little 8-10 mpg, as bad as any Hummer. Plus some people need SUVs and trucks for the environment they live in or for their job.

Some of the larger SUVs are annoying though, like that Excursion monstrosity, the favorite of soccer moms who can't drive. Did you know that thing is built on the same platform as the heavy duty F-Series?

Answer 15

How would Al Gore get to his concerts? I like your mention of freedom in parenthesis. Does that mean you favor freedom? You don't ban things in a free country.

Answer 16

What other rights of ours would you take away while your at it? Maybe we should construct a giant conveyor belt network and ban vehicles all together. Perhaps you would have us all dress in white suits so that everyone will ''feel equal''. Maybe you would have us all assigned a number for identification to lessen the chances of ethnic complications?

You don't like SUV's? Don't drive one.

''(besides for the sake of freedom itself)''

Do you realize you said that out loud?

Answer 17

I drive a tiny Mini Cooper, and right off the bat realized I had to develop an "attitude" to fend off SUV's and other large vehicles.  They seem to behave better as a result, overall.

There should be a tax or surcharge on any vehicle getting under 30 mph.  The surcharge would go toward incentives for the development of green/alternative technologies, which would in some part compensate for the added pollution the SUVs, etc. contribute.  

I'm not sure what percentage of drivers/families actually use SUVs for the purpose for which they were designed -- to haul large numbers of people with lots of gear through rugged terrain -- but that legitimate usage is enough for me to say no, they shouldn't be banned.

Answer 18

Lets all take public transportation.  I think not.  I think we should be able to drive whatever we want.

Answer 19

I know sometimes people have to get to work during snow emergencies, like nurses, doctors, policemen, etc.  SUVs offer higher ground clearance than cars with AWD.  The other issue is people who have a super tall family.  They are helpful if you go on family outings and you have 2 huge teens to stuff into the backseat.  

It would be nice if their were some sort of a guideline about who could have them and who could not.  But, then, this is a free country, and I don't think that would fly.  

I totally agree that there are too many SUVs on the road, especially those that are really big, like the Excursion.

Answer 20

People on bicycles are afraid of cars. we should ban all cars. But wait, my three year old on his trike is afraid of bicycles so let's go a little further.

Answer 21

Is this Russia now?