Your point about tampering with lights is eminantly sensible.
unthrottled seems to agree with me. Hell shall freeze.
I think common sense would say a bright pink Range Rover will stand out more than a grey VW Golf, i know you'll say "yes but if everybody had a bright pink...." ok true, but its not like roads and buildings around it will be bright pink so it'd still stand out even if everybody had one (which i hope they dont) but i do think the suit colours of cars (grey, silver, dark blue, black etc) does blend in so much in the concrete jungle now that if they were to do a study into it i wouldnt be surprised if it turns up interesting results, mind you most cars are plain neutral colours these days and as you say we have some of the safest roads in Europe so perhaps it isnt a big issue.
The point about CAFE and SUV's is very valid, i dont think anybody objects to any plans to make vehicles more efficient, or that any "socialist politician" as you put it who wants to impliment such policies to be a bad thing but that was an example of the US Government really not thinking something through. At the time fuel was cheap and a Lincoln Navigator was a viable purchase, upping the tax on normal cars led to SUV popularity, about a ten year boom i'd say but overall Americans have long been keen on Japanese and German cars anyway. If you take the Ford Mustang and the Ford F150 (classified as a light truck, not a car) out of the sales equation, Americans cars are not a magnificent seller in their native land anymore. Not classifying SUV's as cars was a mistake, in the same way classing the G-Wiz as a "quadracycle" to get around EU safety regulations was also a mistake, no "car" built like that would be legal to sell in Europe. SUV's were not subject to the emissions and safety laws which their cars are, you could also argue the fact people switched to SUV's which in turn became a fashion item has both provoked hostility and prejudice towards the vehicle and those who buy them and has enforced SUV manufacturers to make vehicles to appeal to such clients at the same time (such as your favourite car the Evoque, which maybe would never of gotten built 15 years ago). make no question SUV manufacturers in the US saw this coming and made their SUV's more "car-like" to hook in buyers put off by gas guzzling taxes, terrific sales figures and a bonus for them but it was unsustainable as the rising oil prices has done what CAFE never managed which is to cut its usage. I also feel its further demonstration that just taxing something to try and solve an issue doesnt work, to think people will stop driving a car due to tax when an SUV is not included in higher tax is flawed, where as European firms like VW, BMW, Merc, the French companies etc have been investing time and money in fuel saving technologies and efficient ways of building cars the likes of General Motors carried on churning out the same stone age engineering they were in the 80s and i feel really paying the price for it now as several sides of its division falls apart.
There are other things to take into account when comparing fuel economy averages of America to Europe such as the Americans generally use a lower octane fuel than us, the majority of cars have automatic transmission which will always dent average fuel economy figures, the fact diesel is still primarily used only in the haulage business there and not in civilian vehicles to the degree it is in Europe and as mentioned earlier American engineering has been far behind some of the Europeans in terms of both power outputs and fuel economy for some time. Ive found the Germans are able to screw out both much better bhp figures and better fuel economy than equivalent American models, but American cars have their own trump card of being cheaper.
Perhaps the Us shouldve been looking at those issues rather than just someone putting a tax on cars. Who knows, SUV's might never of become fashionable and the Evoque wouldnt of ever been made.
Edited by jamie745 on 08/07/2011 at 02:03
|