Oh, come on: columnist compares driving efficiency with teaching religion
We've disagreed with Detroit News columnist Manny Lopez in the past, but his most recent column is absurd. At issue is a bill in the Michigan State legislature that would require adding an environmental component to driver education programs. Lopez is against this. OK, fine. But his reasons are illogical. How many wrong points does Lopez make? Let's count, shall we?.
Lopez says that making young student drivers learn about fuel-efficient vehicles, carpooling and public transpiration is "environmental activism." He also believes teaching students these facts won't help them to make better decisions. Uhhh, say what? Is he really arguing that people can make smarter, more informed decisions with less information? We can only assume he employs the same logic when he pens a new opinion column.
Lopez also writes, "Since these courses aren't in the schools and parents have to pay for them out of their own pockets, they shouldn't have to pay for someone else's religion -- and trust me, environmental activism is a religion." BS. Avoiding jackrabbit starts and stops saves fuel. It's also safer to accelerate and decelerate in a responsible manner. Science, not faith, can prove this. Does anyone at the News even read what Lopez writes before it's published?
And then, finally, this: "Most young people don't have the resources to choose what they get to drive, never mind shop around for one that has the 'attributes of a fuel-efficient vehicle.' They're just happy to get behind the wheel of a car, any car. And they're certainly not going to pay much, if any attention, to someone telling them to take the bus when their only goal in life at that moment is driving." No one is forcing young people to go buy a hybrid, no matter what bogeyman Lopez tries to conjure here. Driver training is exactly when we should be teaching young people about the ways that driving style affects fuel economy -- of any vehicle. Do it right and everyone benefits: the new driver saves money over his or her entire driving life, the U.S. imports less fuel. As we move to gasoline alternatives, having a smart right foot is going to be even more important to maximize the electric-only range of plug-in vehicles.
We can only assume that, sometime soon, Lopez will say he believes that green-minded politicians "hate the American auto industry." Oh, wait.
[Source: Detroit News via Green Car Reports]
Photo by Robert Couse-Baker. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
wincros 12:19PM (11/13/2009)
Not surprising. Local newspapers always toady up to local industries whether it is the LA Times and the film industry or the Detroit News and GM/Ford/Chrysler. If you are aware of anything you don't buy trucks for transportation and that hurts your local economy if you are in Detroit. People like to lampoon the car culture in Southern California, but I have never heard anyone here talk about being completely defined by your car like a couple of transplanted Detroit acquaintances, one of which is a mature man who has every car on the road divided into mommy cars, chick cars and man cars(mostly large pick up trucks).
Reply
UH2L 12:38PM (11/13/2009)
I think the writer of the article is stupid. Knowledge of efficient driving practices can only help and it is more important with less efficient vehicles.
Careful with all those stereotypes though. I'm a car fanatic who lived in Detroit for 13 years, worked for GM for 8 1/2 years and am green. Many green types are against Detroit, but not me. The Detroit 3 have always offered amongst the most fuel efficient mid-sized cars and reasonably efficient small cars, (although the small ones were not best in segment). I am green and I support the Detroit 3 because they are American companies that keep money and technical expertise, and professional jobs with decent pay and benefits in our country. I don't consider trucks to be manly, just stupid and inefficient when they're not truly needed. I feel the same about 4WD.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 12:42PM (11/13/2009)
NASCAR drivers often use fuel saving techniques. Those guys are not a bunch of tree hugging, hippie environmentalists. They want to win races.
Reply
paulwesterberg 1:33PM (11/13/2009)
NASCAR drivers try to minimize fuel consumption because running out means losing, but frankly Im supprised at how little innovation there is in terms of vehicle engineering to improve fuel efficiency.
For instance BMW & GM have looked at using exhaust heat to make electricity. Do that then lose the alternator and electrify all other parasitic mechanical engine components. A restrictor plate can reduce horsepower by as much as half, from about 800 hp normally, down to 400 hp with the plate installed. They could easily allow greater choice in engine design such as turbo v6/v4s or TDI diesels by restricting the amount of fuel used but not the amount of air. There are many other things they could do to increase efficiency without impacting performance.
paul34 6:07AM (11/16/2009)
>> but frankly Im supprised at how little innovation there is in terms of vehicle engineering to improve fuel efficiency.
Wait, are you serious? I truly hope you are not.
Look at how what a huge V8 would get you in the 70s, in terms of HP, torque, fuel mileage, reliability, and emissions.
Now look at something like an LS7 and look at how much power, torque, fuel efficiency, reliability, and low emissions you get.
Are you seriously going to sit there and pretend like there's been zero progress?
There's been INCREDIBLE progress of the front of engine efficiency. However, it hasn't been for "green" progress per se. It was the free market at work, something that many who wish to accelerate the so called "green revolution" do not seem to understand. People wanted more power, but didn't want bigger motors, nor get worse mileage. Fuel crises in various years also forced their hand. So manufacturers looked at squeezing more and more power out of the same displacement and fuel mileage.
People look and all they see are MPGs. what you SHOULD be looking at is how much power per MPG (or something, if there is such a figure available) has advanced. The focus has been on power. As a result, we have more efficient engines that do not just use less fuel, but also much lower in emissions. Both as a consequence of feeding people's desire for more power, not to help the environment per se.
So please do some logical thinking before jumping on the "bash the automakers" bandwagon. If you want greener cars, then buy them. Then automakers will make more "green" cars. It's called the market.
Nozferat 6:40PM (11/16/2009)
@RPM:
I suggest you contact NASA and tell them that YOU think (with the data they have accumulated and unanimously come to the conclusion that human development and industrialization has had a very large impact on the environment) they are wrong.
Your stupidity astounds me.
Nozferat 6:43PM (11/16/2009)
PAUL34:
Perhaps you and RPM can sign a petition and send it off to NASA and JPL as well and tell they how wrong they are.
I'm sure you two can bang out a letter that doesn't make you look too stupid. After all, RPM has data that contradicts what all the sophisticated satellite data NASA has been using to gather bogus evidence regarding climate change and pollution levels.
We also didn't land on the moon.
paulwesterberg 12:44PM (11/13/2009)
When you reduce fuel consumption and oil company profits then the terrorists have won.
Slowing down because the light at the next intersection just turned red is like backing over baby Jesus.
Reply
Snoopy 1:08PM (11/13/2009)
Holy crap that last bit is hilarious.
Snoopy 1:07PM (11/13/2009)
As a young driver, well, relatively young, I don't know what I would have given to get environmental info with my driver training. This guy needs to get his head straightened.
Reply
jake 1:12PM (11/13/2009)
Driving efficiently is the easiest and cheapest (free) way to reduce oil/energy consumption and pollution. This makes sense whether you care more about those issues or if you just want to save some money on gas. There isn't really any negative to it, so I don't know what he's complaining about.
Reply
Nozferat 3:07AM (11/14/2009)
Because he's an ignorant douche.
cfhanes 2:49PM (11/13/2009)
I read the original column, and it made perfect sense to me.
The primary purpose of a driver education course is to produce safe drivers. There is only so much time in a course, and it should be focused on traffic laws, safety, and proper vehicle operation. Anything extra about saving fuel is a bonus.
In my experience, young drivers only become smooth and efficient with experience. Spending extra time talking about fuel efficiency when they are still struggling with basic operation is out of place.
And I agree: environmental activism is indeed a religion. It has the key attribute -- belief in an ideology in the absence of facts. Smooth driving can indeed save fuel, but the rest of it about saving the planet is an unproven ideology. Anyone who thinks the contrary has not understood the history of our planet.
Reply
Chris M 2:04AM (11/14/2009)
But efficient driving IS safe driving! Jackrabbit starts, excess speed and unnecessarily abrupt stops not only waste fuel, they can also cause loss of control and skids and accidents.
Besides, a good drivers education program should be long enough to cover all aspects of operating a vehicle, a one week course isn't enough.
Nozferat 3:04AM (11/14/2009)
@CFHANES:
Oh really? So that brown crap hanging over LA is all natural right?
And I guess the folks at NASA and JPL are a bunch of idiots that are on a religious ideological rampage about the health and well-being of our planet right?
Educate yourself about the history of this planet and then let us know at which point in the history of this planet has plastic trash floated in the oceans? And an what point in our planet's climate history has CO2 levels risen about 300ppm? And at what point in our planet's climate history has the rate of change of temperature and CO2 been so rapid and so quick to increase?
I can't believe in this day and age there are people out there that actually think we don't have an impact on our environment...how blind do you have to be? It's scary.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
RPM 10:55PM (11/14/2009)
cfhanes..I read the whole article too...and your dead on!!
And Randy S you right .. Nozferat is a fine example if a "Religious Nut" ..no better example to prove how all this man made global warming is a bunch of crap...and has absolutely nothing to do with learning driver safety!!!
If i'm spending $ for my child to learn how to drive I do not want propaganda shoved down her throat because of some environmental agenda..i want her to learn to drive safely..jacvkrabbit starts not safe because of poor control NOT because of emitting more CO2 or whatever.
Nozferat 3:42AM (11/15/2009)
Man you are an idiot. People should really be afraid of people like you. It's mentality like yours that'll drive the rest of us into the ground.
No matter what facts are presented to people like yourself, you're so deaf, dumb, and blind to it that you'll never see it coming. If only we could isolate people like you for the rest of us...that would help.
RPM 7:46PM (11/15/2009)
Its always funny how most leftists resort to name calling when backed into a corner..never fails..thanks for reaffirming this Nozferat.
As for facts..I can pull up just as many "facts" disproving man-made global warming for every one you can find to "prove" it. The only fact I know of is there are to many special interests on both sides for anyone to truly know what is real or a twist to fit someones political agenda. Find me one study that is totally non-biased and is not receiving any funds from outside interests groups...just one...and I'd be willing to listen.
But back on track and my point (something that seems to have gone completely over your head)..as for all the environmental education and eco driving tips..they are fine..i have no problem if they want to teach them...but NOT in a drivers ed class where i'm paying for my kids to learn the basics of how to drive safely. Offer this in some other class..if its so popular call it for what it is and stop trying to slip it in on the sly to kids.
Jon 4:22AM (11/16/2009)
I agree, completely.
Teaching kids about fuel efficiency while they're learning how to drive is completely out of place. I was somewhat surprised to see this post show up on autobloggreen to begin with.
Environmentalism and greenism is certainly a religion. It has all of the symptoms of it.
Driver's education should focus on safety and traffic laws and how to operate a car. Not having jerky starts and stops has always been part of the curriculum. Messing with the kid's head telling them to focus on fuel economy is a bad thing because they should learn right off the bat that their focus should be on one thing: safety. Nothing else.
paul34 6:09AM (11/16/2009)
Ahh, Nozferat. Very typical. When someone opposes you, you wish there was some way to censor and socially isolate them. I suppose freedom of expression is great, so long as no one uses it to oppose you, right?