"Et Tu, Toyota?"

roar,
 
YES! I agree wholeheartedly with your entire post. As Bob has stated, a simple solution to a complex problem never works. If Friedman wants to think that eliminating trucks is going to help our energy woes, then he is detached from the issue at hand. People that make a simple, blanket statement like Friedman did have no regard for rationality or logic.
 
This reminds me of that scientist a year or so ago that said internal combustion engines should be outlawed so that electric cars can be widely used.

If you can afford a $42,000 Toyota Tundra Crew Max then gas prices simply aren't a concern to you. Even $4 gas wouldn't sway most people, not in that price range.
 
I see most big pickups being used by contractors, i.e. they way they were intended.
 
The bottom line is consumers will choose what they want, and Toyota is merely offering them options. They don't force you to choose a Tundra over a Prius, you make that choice.
 
I bet Friedman lives in NYC and doesn't even drive a vehicle daily, so he doesn't even understand what he writes about.

Choice you say? Do I have a choice to drive what I like -- a small car -- when everyone around me drives a huge, heavy, poor handling POS pickup, SUV, crossover or minivan?!! Why of course I do. If I have a death wish. Of course people buy large vehicles -- it is a catch-22 situation. They see 5000 lbs monstrosities around them and are FORCED to buy increasingly larger vehicles because they are concerned for the safety of their loved ones. I could go on and on. There is a good book on this subject called "SUVs: High and Mighty". Read it. Think about it. It is unfair to everyone except to oil companies who rip huge profits and to car companies who need every sale of cheap to make pickups and SUVs because they make 10k - 15k of profit on them.
 
I had to give up my beloved little Subaru in early 90s because I was afraid to drive on roads clogged by increasingly large trucks, vans and SUVs. I will never forgive that. I am with Mr. Friedman on this one!

I wat to put it simply-
This man is an IDIOT. There will never be a day when trucks and SUVs don't exist- at least he'll never see it.
I bet he didn't ride a bike to the press conference where he made this statement.
I'm not saying I hate "greenies", but no one is that naive.

We've got three "beloved Subarus" in the family, and have no problem dealing with larger vehicles on the highway.

rsholland, do you? You are in the minority. Most people realize what will happen if their 3000 lb Impreza gets hit by a Dodge RAM or some other oversized monstrosity. For a demonstration, watch this video:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_86RuYXoJA
 
And Montero(?) is nowhere near as high off the ground or as heavy as American full size pickups that is SO popular with modern office workers who drive them to feel safer on their commute.

I think picking on trucks is the wrong argument. However, I think asking why do automakers make trucks and cars that seem to be getting larger and heavier is a valid question and criticism.

Another small cars aren't safe idiot. I wonder if he's lives in a state with no semi-trucks on the road. Does he feel safe next to a cement truck in his highlander?
 
Anyway, despite my desire for more Americans to drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles we already have too many of our civil liberties being taken away. The last thing we need are stricter regulations on the vehicles we purchase. For many people the car they drive is a big part of who they are (stupid or not). Increasing gas taxes would be my preferred solution, but that won't win much support from anywhere.

"I think asking why do automakers make trucks and cars that seem to be getting larger and heavier is a valid question and criticism."
 
I agree. ...But again, the car makers are responding to consumer desires. If there was no desire for larger vehicles, they wouldn't be building them.
 
Look at the latest Accord and Camry, and then look back at what size those vehicles were back in the mid '70s. It's amazing how much they've grown since then. Why? That's what the pubic has asked for; larger versions of what they owned in the past.

I do agree that the only way to fix the situation is to drastically raise gasoline taxes. See my 3/28/07 post on Karl's blog:
 
http://66.160.188.111/karl/467

I think it's a travesty that in a free country like this used to be I can't mount an armored prow on my rocket-propelled truck to get those 75mph slowpokes out of my way on the freeway. What next? Are they going to tell me I can't use floodlights to see in front of me at night? What about my children's safety??

Bob,
I don't quite understand your journalism here.
 
You make a post about Friedman's article, and fail to provide a link to it. Here it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html
 
More importantly, if you read the article itself, you will also see that your quote:
""No one should be making a huge ... to drive them," Friedman wrote."
 
does not even come from this article.
 
If your point is to blast all of Friedman's writings, then do so. However, this seems to be a post about a specific article. As such, you should address the article directly, and not bring up earlier grudges.
 
The point of the article is fairly simple: Now that Toyota has overtaken GM as the top selling manufacturer, it's time for the spotlight to shine on it. Many people criticized GM for not doing enough on the hybrid front, and so now, he's criticizing Toyota for trying to water down gas mileage efficiency requirements. He implies that the reason Toyota is doing this is to enable them to sell more of their big trucks like the Tundra.
 
There's plenty there worthy of criticism, without bringing up some earlier, unattributed quote.
 

My quote came from the Inside Line link I provided, near the end; but you're right, the original NY Times article should have been linked.

The problem with bringing up an earlier quote, is that when you do so, I would suggest that you face the task of checking out his other articles.
  
Here's your suggestion:
"If Friedman is so intent on changing the automakers, here's what he should lobby for: Triple the gas tax."
  
Well, since you brought up an earlier article, why not check a few of his other articles, such as "Who's Afraid of a Gas Tax?"
  
Here's a few quotes I pulled up in about 10 minutes of research.
  
From Who's Afraid of a Gas Tax? The New York Times March 1, 2006:
"The only real solution is raising our gasoline tax, which is a paltry 18.4 cents a gallon and has not been increased since 1993. Only if the total price of gasoline is brought into the $3.50-to-$4-per-gallon range -- and kept there -- will large numbers of Americans demand plug-in hybrid cars that run on biofuels like ethanol."
  
From Gas Pump Geopolitics The New York Times April 28, 2006:
"Toward that end, we need a tax on gasoline at the pump that will keep prices around $4 a gallon (still roughly $1 less than most Europeans pay), or we need a tax on vehicles that will make gas guzzlers prohibitively costly and hybrids and smaller cars enormously attractive. The sooner and the more we take the price of gasoline up -- and keep it there -- the sooner we can bring it down forever. If we want to make wind, solar and biomass more competitive, gasoline has to cost more, not less."
  
From The Capitol Energy Crisis The New York Times June 24, 2007:
"And the Senate, thanks again to the Republicans, also squashed a Democratic proposal to boost taxes on oil and gas companies that would have raised some $32 billion for alternative fuel projects.
Despite all the new research on climate change, the Senate didn't even touch the idea of either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax to limit carbon dioxide emissions. ..."
  
  
From No More Mr. Tough Guy The New York Times February 8, 2006
"Listen to Mr. Cheney's answer when the conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham asked him how he reacted to my urgings for a gasoline tax to push all Americans to drive energy-saving vehicles and make us energy-independent -- now."
  
From State Of The Union The New York Times January 27, 2006:
"With all of this in mind, I am sending Congress the Bush Energy Freedom Act. It is based on ideas first offered by the energy expert Philip Verleger and it argues the following:
Transportation accounts for most of our oil consumption. And many Americans have purchased big cars and S.U.V.'s, expecting gasoline to remain cheap. That is no longer the case. Therefore, I propose creating a government agency that will buy up any gas-guzzling car or truck in America at the original new or used price, and crush it. This national buy-back program will be financed by a $2-a-gallon gasoline tax that will be phased in by 10 cents a month beginning in 2008 -- so people know what is coming and start buying fuel-efficient cars right now."
 
I'll settle down now :)

His point is is that the automakers need to innovate and create better mileage vehicles, a noble idea and one that has been slowly progressing. But gosh darn us consumers, we just don't behave! We buy overpowered, huge, thirsty vehicles instead of small fuel efficient ones because we want them and are willing to pay considerably more that the cost of building them to have one. but to Thomas, we're the VICTIMS, and the car companies must pay. The only way to force them to innovate is to force fuel economy requirements sky high so the car companies will stop offering these behemoths. He suggests distorting the supply because the demand is so "wrong"

Okay, whoa, hold up two seconds here.
 
1) Gas taxes would probably do a whole lot to "encourage" consumers to go into cheaper cars. The problem with gas taxes isn't their purported effectiveness, but instead finding someone willing to go out on the very weak & shaky limb that is called "convincing Americans to pay more taxes." That's just an ugly, ugly road for any politician to start on. Net effect? Gas taxes probably aren't ever going to rise to where they need to be for this to mean much.
 
2) At the same time, I'm not convinced that automakers are increasing size, weight, and power because people want those three things, one notable exception being the minivan segment. Really, do people want a 1/2-ton, gas-powered Tundra that can tow 10,000lbs? Did someone ask for a 4-cylinder Accord with 200-horsepower? Do we need a 600-lb heavier Scion xB? I know that some of the gains in these three areas (power, weight, size) are attributable to improvements in safety and increased demands for technology. But some of it I think is just automakers showing off. THAT needs to stop.

Gas tax is not the way to go. You need to look beyond just Joe Shmoe in his Hummer H2. Every facet of American life runs on fuel. If we start skyrocketing fuel taxes (even just gas), then you'll have much higher energy costs across the board. You'll also have higher transportation costs. Every item in Walmart will cost more. Gasoline will cost more not only because of the tax, but because, guess what, it just got more expensive to deliver to the gas station. When you attack Mr Middle Class with an across the board price hike, you really hurt the ones that can't take it. And guess what? Mr Middle Class can still afford his Hummer.
 
Any artificial increase in cost causes a recession and it takes many years for the economy to catch up.

As to the gas tax, I'm not the only one mentioning it—and I'm not sure I support it either.
 
My point was very simple: If you make gas soooo expensive—as per the way it is in Europe—people will change their ways. That's what happened over there; most people simply can't afford to drive gas guzzlers.
 
BTW, anyone who has followed my posting over the years knows that I've long been a supported of economical Euro-style trucks (Dodge Sprinter, etc.). If Ford replaced their F-Super Duties with Ford Transits (and GM and Dodge Ram did likewise), it would make a significant difference.
 
Do I think it will happen? Only if fuel went up to $8.00 per gallon.

what an idiot . a world without trucks for consumer???
the same kind of idiot I saw at a dealer trading in a venture for a Versa hatch with a roof rack and a trailor hitch that had a bike rack......
Sure! incredible gas saving ! don't worry might aswell put a side hitch .... sorry 2 for a better ride handling. so you can keep the same gas mileage...
I bet by next year that car will be burning oil faster than fuel.
 So long for saving emissions.....
 
I know there are still soccer moms trying to paralell park that same truck to go to at wal-mart
well peolple have been minded into making sure that what ever is around them should naver be their limit
that there is non need to rent a truck for the 2 weeks you're going on vacation a year... BUY ONE!!!
and i'd still buy that 100 patty burger in case I'm really hungry during the long week end
http://www.shawnhogan.com/2006/01/100-patty-burger.html