Modern Autos Lack Efficacy/Efficiency

Con is correct that cars from the past were lighter, and keeping our vehicles light is a big factor in keeping them safe and efficient. Airbags don't weigh very much (5 lb/per) so I'm not sure why they were brought up, but traction-control and anti-lock brakes probably do. Instead of loading our vehicles with more and more safety "devices," it makes a whole lot more sense simply to slow down a few mph and pay more attention to what you're doing. The biggest factor in accidents is speed and attentiveness, not whether or not the vehicle was souped up with traction-control, ABS, etc. Traction-control is a neat concept, but it would make sense to get rid of it if it meant giving the driver a more sober realization of the danger they are in every time they get behind the wheel. Car companies don't want you to drive slowly and safely, they want to convey the feeling that you don't need to because their vehicles can handle the crash (and you're irresponsible for not getting their brand). ABS simply simulates pumping the breaks, which is in reality useless to a good driver. Any driver that doesn't have a basic understanding of this concept should not have their license. Are the cars of today safer? Sure, if I was about to be rear-ended by an SUV I'd rather be driving a Ford Excursion than a Dodge Omni, but this sense of "safeness" merely reflects the size of the car. By creating cars that are big and heavy, we are creating a slippery-slope where people must continue to buy bigger in order not to get squashed like ants. Provided cars don't have obvious faults, like sending metal fragments into the cab during a crash, the biggest factor in safety are the drivers' actions, not the features in the vehicle. We are downplaying the drivers' actions however, because they are not profitable, while safety systems are. Prius: $30,000 is about three to ten times as much as one would like to pay for a car of this design. As "green" as I am, I won't be buying a Prius any time soon, because I'd have to take out a huge loan to buy it and I'd be paying it off for a decade or so. We could be offering the people very inexpensive brand-new vehicles that outperform the prius even without the hybrid component for a fraction of the cost. A car like the Omni which doesn't have all the electronic gadgets, touch-screen navigation, foot-massager, and the incredible overhead involved in designing and marketing a brand-new product every 36 months could be created using parts that don't change every few years to keep the cost down. It could be designed to be easy to work on and maintain using normal tools, without needing computer diagnostic equipment and special training for each brand. While Con presents the Prius as a practical alternative for cost-savvy consumers, I see it simply as another needlessly extravagant and expensive piece of junk that allows people to flaunt being green as opposed to flaunting the normal automobile traits (i.e., power, sleekness, options). Surely, someone like RoyLatham can appreciate the haughtiness of the left-wing university professor or EPA regulator that drives the Prius just to turn their nose up at the rest of us. Suffice to say, the Prius is not the sustainable alternative that the people need from the automobile industry. It is just the latest step they have taken to make a profit while not giving us any real alternatives for sustainability (either environmentally or economically). Lime yellow: an interesting point, but I don't see a car's color being as integral to safety as other factors like weight. Con's appeal to utility (the "U" in SUV) is called into question by the fact that most people don't live by mountains yet still buy SUVs anyway. Seriously - of all the SUVs you passed on the road today, how many of them actually needed them for their performance? Again, if cars were smaller, the whole safety issue wouldn't be half as bad. An Omni might spin out in the snow easier than an SUV, but if you are driving it at safe speeds then the impact won't be all that harmful to anyone you hit and your crash isn't likely to be a spectacular explosion like if you were in an SUV. A pile-up of Omnis on the highway isn't likely to kill as many people as it would if they were SUVs. As far as tall people are concerned, cars can be made to have increased leg-room without resorting to the SUV model. Omnis could be made without back seats so that there is a lot more room, for example. Your friend with the bad back represents a large group of people, those with disabilities of one sort or another, which also should be taken into account. I don't believe he should be forced to drive an Omni, but there could be slightly taller models of small vehicles that could accomidate him without the need for gas-guzzlers. Your friend should know that by getting a taller vehicle he is causing society a detriment; it will be harder to see around his larger vehicle, it will be larger and more awkward to control, it will be heavier and cause more damage in a crash, and the lights and grill will probably be higher as well. Logically, he should make an effort to minimize his time on the road, just like I should minimize my time on the road while I'm on these vicotins. I have no problem with people who haul lots of things using trucks. I do have a problem with every Tom, Dick and Harry owning a truck without actually taking advantage of its utility. Trucks shouldn't be used for every-day transportation. SUV roll-over may be minimized these days, but the picture of that beast on the top of Con's citation doesn't make me feel any better. I'm more concerned about the safety of those NOT in the SUV than I am about the individuals within the SUV. Could you imagine getting into a crash with that thing? If you weren't also protecting yourself by being within an aircraft-carrier sized truck yourself, then that big shiny grille would be right in your face as it crushed your puny car like a tomato. The driver of the SUV would be safe and sound ABOVE the action in the cock-pit, looking down at you in contempt for not having made the investment in a large-enough vehicle to protect yourself. But I suppose if you can't afford one of them then you aren't technically as productive and important as the SUV driver, so that meshes quite nicely with the right-wing/libertarian philosophy. Con then cites the death rates of SUVs versus cars - fitting. The obsolete article I cited was complaining about how you need to buy larger to protect yourself, and this only seems to cement that point. Con's figures regarding gasoline prices don't take into account externalities like pollution/global warming, energy usage/independence, or the continually rising price of gas. Of course this type of thinking is always different for the two of us, while I think collectively and he thinks individualistically.