I am moving a Prior Thread- "New Cadillac" to a new thread at the request of d00df00d.
Continuing the discussion of the point *I* was trying to address, I'll start off with my initial post. This post has been slightly revised to remove low hanging fruit and to emphasize points previously ignored. I've even numbered and bolded my questions to make it clear which questions are being avoided in the future.
d00df00d-
What I find funny is the way you and others judge what people "need" and "don't need". By your same logic, I could suggest that people should move from minivans back to large station wagons because minivans are just bigger and taller versions of station wagons.
1. Do you agree with this analogy? Why or why not?
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The point is that those standards wouldn't have to be as strict if fewer people commuted in 2-3 ton vehicles with high bumpers.
Looking at IIHS Research seems to support this argument to some extent. Without data on what percentage of large/heavy/high vehicle drivers don't "need" these vehicles, it cannot be concluded one way or the other whether the safety considerations of crash compatibility would be less of a consideration even if everyone drove what they "needed" because we don't know how many people do need their vehicles for their work / other activities.
2. What is your response to this?
However, this is my key point:
My example about the E55 AMG is crucial to my point. You see, it is the very principle you stand on that I am questioning. You talk about people buying vehicles bigger and taller than they "need", when YOU BELIEVE they SHOULD be driving a "hatchback, wagon, or minivan". But who gets to decide what people "need"? It is this principle of need and want and your defining what people need that I am questioning. And, looking at this principle, I see no real difference between the E55 buyer and someone who buys a Nissan Pathfinder. The buyer of the E55 is likely looking for a luxury image, performance, safety, and the Mercedes brand. The buyer of a Pathfinder (tall, heavy) is probably looking for a vehicle with an offroad image / offroad capability, a decent amount of space, and they probably enjoy a higher seating position. Both vehicles are bigger and heavier than anyone really "needs", both use more fuel than people "need" to, and in both cases the buyers could've chosen something more practical.
3. So by the hypocritical way you seem to apply this principle of what YOU believe people NEED, why is it ok with you for someone to choose a large, heavy, gas-guzzling E55 AMG, but it's not ok for them to choose a large, heavy, gas-guzzling Pathfinder? The E55 has power and luxuries and perhaps even space that one may never use. The Pathfinder has offroad capability and space that one may never use.
4. I could write up a list of 50 vehicles people don't "need" and alternate vehicles they would be "better off" in. But who am I to determine what other people need and why should I have any say in what other people buy? Ever ask yourself that question? If so, I'd love to hear your answer.
Continuing the discussion of the point *I* was trying to address, I'll start off with my initial post. This post has been slightly revised to remove low hanging fruit and to emphasize points previously ignored. I've even numbered and bolded my questions to make it clear which questions are being avoided in the future.
d00df00d-
What I find funny is the way you and others judge what people "need" and "don't need". By your same logic, I could suggest that people should move from minivans back to large station wagons because minivans are just bigger and taller versions of station wagons.
1. Do you agree with this analogy? Why or why not?
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The point is that those standards wouldn't have to be as strict if fewer people commuted in 2-3 ton vehicles with high bumpers.
Looking at IIHS Research seems to support this argument to some extent. Without data on what percentage of large/heavy/high vehicle drivers don't "need" these vehicles, it cannot be concluded one way or the other whether the safety considerations of crash compatibility would be less of a consideration even if everyone drove what they "needed" because we don't know how many people do need their vehicles for their work / other activities.
2. What is your response to this?
However, this is my key point:
My example about the E55 AMG is crucial to my point. You see, it is the very principle you stand on that I am questioning. You talk about people buying vehicles bigger and taller than they "need", when YOU BELIEVE they SHOULD be driving a "hatchback, wagon, or minivan". But who gets to decide what people "need"? It is this principle of need and want and your defining what people need that I am questioning. And, looking at this principle, I see no real difference between the E55 buyer and someone who buys a Nissan Pathfinder. The buyer of the E55 is likely looking for a luxury image, performance, safety, and the Mercedes brand. The buyer of a Pathfinder (tall, heavy) is probably looking for a vehicle with an offroad image / offroad capability, a decent amount of space, and they probably enjoy a higher seating position. Both vehicles are bigger and heavier than anyone really "needs", both use more fuel than people "need" to, and in both cases the buyers could've chosen something more practical.
3. So by the hypocritical way you seem to apply this principle of what YOU believe people NEED, why is it ok with you for someone to choose a large, heavy, gas-guzzling E55 AMG, but it's not ok for them to choose a large, heavy, gas-guzzling Pathfinder? The E55 has power and luxuries and perhaps even space that one may never use. The Pathfinder has offroad capability and space that one may never use.
4. I could write up a list of 50 vehicles people don't "need" and alternate vehicles they would be "better off" in. But who am I to determine what other people need and why should I have any say in what other people buy? Ever ask yourself that question? If so, I'd love to hear your answer.
