Gregg Easterbrook is bent out of shape because people like more horsepower in their cards. As he explains in this article about the North American Automotive Show:
The big “more” of the auto show is more horsepower. Eighteen models on display at the show boasted 500 horsepower or more. And these aren’t race cars, but rather models intended for the street. Five-hundred horsepower is not only obscene but antisocial: Such power is useful only for drag-racing, cutting off other drivers, and speeds well beyond 100 miles per hour. The other day I was motoring down the wonderfully named Democracy Boulevard in Montgomery County, Maryland, doing 50 miles per hour in a 35 zone. A middle-aged woman yakking on her cell phone blew past me at perhaps 75 miles per hour in a shiny new BMW 545i, which has 330 horsepower. Driving 75 miles per hour on a suburban street with pedestrian crosswalks and bus stops is socially irresponsible. But in a high-horsepower car, all you need to do is tap the throttle pedal for an instant and you’re at 75. The more horsepower, the easier it is to drive like a maniac.
I agree that 75 in a 35 is irresponsible. But that doesn’t mean that more horsepower is bad just because it makes it easier to be irresponsible. Following Easterbrook’s logic we should reduce the horsepower in cars because that would be more socially responsible. I don’t agree. People should be ticketed for bad driving behavior, we shouldn’t follow Easterbrook’s argument and lower horsepower just because some people break the law.
I drive a car with 255 horses. It is much more fun to drive than my previous car, which had 180 horses. I don’t drive recklessly, but I have to admit that some of that is a function of being 30 and not 18. I’m shocked at the good gas mileage my car gets. I took a road trip over the weekend to eat barbecue in North Carolina, and my car got 32.6 miles to the gallon. It is impressive for a car that has 255 horses to to get that kind of gas mileage.
I wonder what Easterbrook would do to make us all be more “socially responsible”. Would he start a public campaign to try to get people to purchase more guttless cars? I think it is more likely that he would like to get the government to mandate less horsepower since he spent so many words carping on the government for not mandating other features in his article.
It seems to me that the whole point of his whine is that people shouldn’t be able to decide they want a more powerful vehicle instead of a vehicle with higher MPG. This is another example of the left thinking they know better than consumers on yet another topic and that for the good of everyone choice should be taken away. Stinking nannies.
Oh by the way…240 Horses on the car and the van with 24-28 mpg on the car and 18-22 on the van. I don’t think I could drive a guttless car again. I know I wouldn’t want to anyway.