So, where are the popular protests against old cars?
-
Older cars have horrible emissions. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen some ‘save the earth’ type drive by me in a 1974 Volvo blowing clouds of blue smoke out the back. Even in proper tune, they emit orders of magnitude more crap into the air than new cars.
-
Older cars are nowhere NEAR as safe as new ones. Not even compared to new SUVs. If you put a typical 70’s era car through modern crash tests, it would come out on the bottom of the list. By about a mile.
-
Older cars get terrible fuel economy. They’re typically out of tune, worn, and use ancient technology.
-
Older cars often have huge doors, and their condition means the owner probably doesn’t care about scratches. In my experience they are responsible for a significant amount of the door dings I get in parking lots. I avoid parking beside these old boats.
-
Some of these older cars are behemoths that make even the larger cars of today look puny.
And yet, I see no popular backlash against people who drive older cars. Why not pass laws mandating that old cars must meet modern emissions and safety standards, or be destroyed?
When you think about it from this perspective, a possible answer jumps out at you:
Older cars and driven by poor people.
SUV’s are typically driven by people with more money.
This would also explain why the same people who hate SUVs don’t seem to mind minivans. They associate minivans with middle class families with children, and therefore cut them plenty of slack. If Minivans cost $50,000 and were trendy among the jet-setters, then I think you’d see the same complaints about minivans as you do about SUVs.
In short, the SUV complaint is just class warfare in a new dress.
Now, as for the ‘need’ argument. I’m hesitant to go down this road, because I hate even partially conceding the notion that in a free country people have to prove that they ‘need’ what they buy. If that were the gold standard to judge people by, we’d all be living in 500 sq ft apartments and would ride the bus. Those that had cars would have Toyota Echos. If you don’t fit into the category of living only by your ‘needs’, then may I respectfully suggest that you shut your gaping pie-hole when you don’t agree with other people’s choices?
That said… I have a small SUV (Ford Escape). I actually didn’t want to buy an SUV. I wanted a sporty car. I don’t particularly like SUVs. However, I added up these needs:
-
Drive my child around, along with all the stuff she needs for long trips.
-
Luggage capacity for family for 2 week vacations.
-
A rack to tie down skis in the winter and bikes in the summer.
-
The ability to carry around computer equipment, including bulky gear like 19" monitors.
-
In the spring, I have to carry plants for my wife’s flowers.
-
I own a house. So having a utility vehicle is a must, even if I don’t have a fixed, regular need for transporting large items. But sometimes stuff happens. You buy a new TV. Or a toilet has to be replaced. Or you pick up some new patio chairs. The lawnmower breaks and has to go in for service. Whatever. I’d say at least half a dozen times a year I have to haul something that won’t fit in a car.
Notice I haven’t mentioned any of the ‘traditional’ uses for an SUV (rough terrain, 4WD). Those are also a benefit for me, but I didn’t list them because just the six items above CLEARLY pushed me into the ‘SUV’ market. Perhaps a station wagon could do it, but not as comfortably, and I just don’t like most wagons. And the ones that I like were about $10,000 more than my Escape.
Most people who drive SUVs have valid reasons, just like mine. Perhaps you’re an amateur astronomer, or a painter, or a soccer coach. You have to lug a lot of junk around. Perhaps you like to ski in the winter, and AWD makes a winter trip into the mountains much safer.
The typical sneering liberal attitude is that, taken as a group people are stupid and need to be controlled, protected, and forced to do things for their own good. But in reality, it’s the other way around. As individuals, we make stupid choices on occasion. But when looked at in the aggregate, people usually tend to make rational choices. The whole field of economics depends on that assumption, for example. YOU may not like their tradeoffs, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have good reason for making them.
In fact, it’s usually the lawmakers that make stupid choices. Especially the do-gooders who pass laws based on emotion. Like mandating airbags without any thought to what effect that will have on auto sales, which by definition means that older, more dangerous cars stay on the road longer. SUVs themselves are partially a response to the increase in CAFE standards for cars that were pushed through in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The law of unintended consequences coming to bite the regulators in the ass.
Nice to see you.