Modern Autos Lack Efficacy/Efficiency

I claimed: (1) contrary to the resolution, there is nothing wrong with today's cars, Pro's complaints are about choices that people make in buying them; (2) there is no objective criteria for "best" in a car, so Pro's choice of "best" cannot be justified; and (3) people make reasonable choices overall based upon their needs. I pointed out that SUVs are safer by a factor of two than ordinary cars, and it's reasonable for people to make safety a priority concern. It's also reasonable for people to want a vehicle for hauling stuff and to value comfort. I think Pro failed to refute any of these points. He left most of them unaddressed.SafetyPro claimed that the relative safety of SUVs is a slippery slope that leads to larger and larger vehicles. That's not true because it assumes that safety mostly depends upon the relative size of colliding vehicles. Having all small cars does not help cars colliding with trees, utility poles, animals, road debris, or highway structures. http://en.wikipedia.org... Only a larger vehicle helps, because a larger vehicle has a greater "crush depth" -- more metal to fold up and absorb the shock. Moreover, having small cars des not reduce the number of trucks. In fact, because people cannot carry their own stuff, there would have to be many more delivery trucks. Having all small vehicles also does not help if two vehicles collide head on. The momentum of both is reduced to zero at the same rate as if one hit fixed object. Larger vehicles are better able to cope with poor road conditions. Higher ground clearance avoids more road debris and snow accumulation. Larger wheelbase provides better stability. Higher weight improves traction.The point of noting that lime yellow is the safest is that safety is not an absolute preference. It costs nothing extra to paint cars that obnoxious color, but people rarely do it and politicians don't have the nerve to mandate it. Safety is traded off against aesthetics.SUVs are safer, more comfortable, and can carry more stuff. That doesn't mean they are best for everyone. Small cars are more economical, easier to maneuver in tight spaces, and take less parking space. What is important to an individual all depends on the individuals circumstances. Consequently, the resolution that "Modern Autos Lack Efficacy/Efficiency" is false. The market provides a great variety of designs to well suit a variety of user needs. Pro claimed that user desires for SUVs and the like were frivolous extensions of ego, but I've shown that they provide practical safety, comfort, and utility.American cars are built in a very strong regulatory environment. including the "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and Regulations to which manufacturers of motor vehicle and equipment items must conform and certify compliance." http://www.nhtsa.gov... Pro argues that safety standards should be substantially reduced, He argues, " 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." His assertion is not supported by evidence. I don't doubt that if all other things ere equal that going a few miles per hour slower would be safer, however the question is whether the safety increase from going slower is as important as that from safety devices.The US had a period of government mandated 55 mph speed limits. Yes, it was 55 mph even on interstate highways. The law was enacted in 1974, eased in 1987, and ultimately repealed in 1995. http://en.wikipedia.org... It produced a 1% savings in fuel consumption. When the law was imposed, the traffic fatality rate indeed dropped, from 4.1 to 3.5 deaths per hundred million miles driven. http://www.saferoads.org... However, when the speed limit was raised to 65 in 1987, the fatality rate dropped slightly from 2.4 to 2.3, and when it was abolished in 1995 in dropped slightly again, from 1.73 to 1.69. Currently, the fatality rate is 1.13, the lowest in history. http://money.cnn.com... In 192. When cars were quite slow, the fatality rate was 24. The dramatic long term decline in fatalities cannot be due to decreased speed, it must be due to safety improvements in roads and vehicles.A study by the Highway Safety Institute concluded that from the mid 80s to mid-90s, improved driver awareness and seat belts compensated for vehicles being lighter, but ".. in the late 90′s actual driver fatalities continued to decline, and beginning in 1998 the actually number of fatalities dipped below what would have been expected if cars were built the same way they were in 1985. The authors suggest that the dip below expected levels signifies that vehicles are safer now than they were in the 1980′s and 90′s. They cite the fact that average vehicle weight has increased from 2,838 pounds in 1993 to 3,383 pounds in 2003. The authors also cited increased safety standards for SUVs and minivans, both still popular with American drivers but now less likely to roll over under certain crash conditions." http://tinyscience.wordpress.com...Pro's argument is akin to, "We should spend less money on fire protection, because if people were more safety conscious it wouldn't be needed." Well, people are not more safety conscious.NeedsPro asks, "Seriously - of all the SUVs you passed on the road today, how many of them actually needed them for their performance?" I think most people buy SUVs with some legitimate need in mind, but I don't doubt that some buyers could meet their needs more cheaply with a minivan. A 2005 comparison found an SUV cost about $7000 per year, versus $6000 for a minivan. http://www.nctr.usf.edu... That's a relatively small difference in return for a buyer getting what he wants. Moreover, the minivan is just as good for carrying people or cargo, but it's not as good for bad roads or towing trailers.Why do people buy expensive electric cars? A basic Tesla roadster costs $109,000, despite heavy government subsides. http://en.wikipedia.org... There is no economic or safety reason. It does nothing functionally that an ordinary car does not do more cheaply. Electric cars are fueled primarily by coal, since that's what generates half the electricity. It make no objective sense, but people do it for the prestige they associate with it.I don't blame Tesla buyers or SUV buyers for buying what they want. Even more remote is the idea that there is something wrong with the vehicles themselves, the subject of our resolution.CostPro argues that present vehicles are too large and expensive. This implies that the government standards responsible for the cost should be revoked. I think there is a good argument that if people want to increase their risk of death or injury in return for having a cheaper car they ought to be allowed to do so. There is good counter argument in terms of the public costs for emergency services and for very long traffic delays in investigating fatal accidents. However, that argument is resolved, it doesn't mean that today's cars are ineffective or inefficient. They function perfectly well give the design constraints for safety that are imposed. Removing those constraints is a separate debate. In that debate, the safety requirements must be acknowledged as being effective.New cars are always more expensive than we'd like. An eight year old Prius in excellent condition cost $7215 according the Kelly Blue Book. http://autos.aol.com... Pro makes many unsubstantiated assertions, all of which I deny. My contentions stand.