Great read - thanks for sharing!

The refutation has holes in it big enough to drive an SUV through - and that's big.

My objections to the SUV have to do with air pollution, fuel consumption and poor driving. Regarding fuel and pollution, my objections are not confined to SUV's alone, but extend to all vehicles that render high emissions and poor efficiency.

The fact is that the SUV is dangerous to anything on the road smaller than it is, yet the people who drive them often don't account for that fact. They tailgate, cut off other cars and threaten other drivers in traffic. Put these same fools in a VW bug and they would never attempt any of these little displays of arrogance, and even if they did they would be much less of a danger to the other drivers around them.

I’m not suggesting that SUV’s or pick up trucks be banned, which is a ridiculous idea. I recommend that an economical, pollution free alternative to the internal combustion engine be developed and marketed, and I’m willing to spend tax dollars to do it. I also want far more stringent requirements for a drivers’ license, something that includes an extensive comprehensive examination of driving skills and habits, and provides jail time for those of you who get caught driving without a valid license.

Driver behavior and driving habits are already regulated.

I agree that we could go a long way in requiring better training. Especially to those hot-roding 16 year olds whose daddy gives them a new camaro to drive to school. I saw that a lot when I lived in Atlanta.

Bill,

"The refutation has holes in it big enough to drive an SUV through - and that's big. My objections to the SUV have to do with air pollution, fuel consumption and poor driving."

Poor driving is irrelevant. That's the driver, not the vehicle. People in sports cars and small Japanese imports often drive badly too, but that shouldn't reflect on the vehicle class. It has nothing to do with it.

As for the other points you make, I refuted issues of fuel consumption and air pollution in my argument -- the effect of SUVs is factually minimal. If you don't believe it, tough. I've shown otherwise.

"I recommend that an economical, pollution free alternative to the internal combustion engine be developed and marketed, and I’m willing to spend tax dollars to do it."

I'm not. You also assume that it's just a matter of spending the money. We want flying cars? Invest tax dollars. Want replicators like on Star Trek? Invest tax dollars. If technology was just a matter of throwing government money at any problem, we'd be living in Tommorrowland already. Alas, it doesn't work that way.

Owen,

True, you refuted the issues of economy and pollution. You just didn’t do it successfully.

Poor driving is extremely relevant. Incompetent drivers tend to have more numerous accidents, and more severe accidents. A heavier vehicle causes more damage when it runs into a lighter vehicle, and so poses more of a threat.

Your preferences for tax expenditures does not appear at the top of my list of priorities today, and tomorrow doesn’t look good either. In one sense you’re quite right. It isn’t just a matter of having the government spend the money. Legislation such as the clean air act must be passed as well, which will provide the impetus to the auto manufacturers for serious R&D on pollution and fuel economy.

Bill,

I disagree that forcing people to buy and drive cars that you deem appropriate is a moral act. I don't come over to your house with a gun and tell you what to drive, so don't send the government over to my house to do the same thing.

If enough people want to drive hybrid cars, or fuel cell vehicles, than automakers will meet the demand. Hell, they already are. Feel free to stimulate that demand in the private sector with private funds, but leave the government out of it. If I want to drive a gas guzzler, I can. If I want to drive 100,000 miles a year as opposed to 12,000 miles a year, I can.

Rate of consumption should be left up to the consumer, not busy-body government regulators.

Bill,

"True, you refuted the issues of economy and pollution. You just didn’t do it successfully."

How so? Saying it isn't enough, you know.

"Poor driving is extremely relevant. Incompetent drivers tend to have more numerous accidents, and more severe accidents. A heavier vehicle causes more damage when it runs into a lighter vehicle, and so poses more of a threat."

No, it isn't relevant because the SUV doesn't drive itself. We're talking about cars, not drivers. You don't see to understand that, and would rather raise the old canard that all or most SUV drivers drive like lunatics (I don't buy it, and you can't prove it), and behave as it that's germane to the debate over whether or not people should buy SUVs. It ain't.

"Your preferences for tax expenditures does not appear at the top of my list of priorities today, and tomorrow doesn’t look good either. In one sense you’re quite right. It isn’t just a matter of having the government spend the money. Legislation such as the clean air act must be passed as well, which will provide the impetus to the auto manufacturers for serious R&D on pollution and fuel economy."

If you do all that, you'll have three effects:

1) You'll kill our domestic auto industry, and get no more private R&D.

2) You'll force everyone to drive economy cars because you'll effectively legislate anything larger out of existence.

3) You'll get mixed results from government investment, and likely no new technology whatsoever.

Those aren't good outcomes.