Motorists tend to get exploited by the government. We are an excellent source of revenue in the form of taxes and fines, and we rarely–if ever–band together to fight for our rights.

There is only one organization I know of that represents us, the National Motorist Association; for decades their founder Jim Baxter has fought the good fight, up against the huge insurance company/trial lawyer/government axis of evil. They’re worth supporting, especially now that certain silly congressmen are proposing a reimposition of the 55mph NMSL (National Maximum Speed Limit), a boondoggle that does little to save fuel, nothing to save lives, yet contributes greatly to state and federal coffers.

What else can you and I do, in the face of monied and massively funded lobbying efforts by those intent on reaching into your pocketbook since they’re too timid to raise revenue in legitimate ways? Write your representatives–especially now, as we near election time–and let them know what you think.

Here are a couple of letters I’ve sent to my Congresswoman and our Senators; the first one seems a bit dated in the context of $4/gal gasoline (but I think it still relevant if we’re truly serious about CO2 reduction), the second more recent.

LETTER #1

November 22, 2007

Congresswoman Diana Degette
600 Grant Street, Ste 202
Denver, CO 80203

Congresswoman,

For almost seventeen years now I have been an automotive broker, and have assisted people with the purchase and leasing of literally thousands of new and used cars and trucks. This has provided a unique insight into the buying needs, desires, and habits of the motorists in our state.

I bring this up because of the legislation in CAFE standards, carbon emissions, and the like you will be working on over the next twelve months. You are no doubt trying to figure out the best way to create effective new laws that will help limit climate change without unduly affecting the daily lives of your constituents. I don’t envy you that task!

Yet I do feel I have something to contribute to the discussion. The vast majority my three hundred-odd clients are middle to upper-middle class. Oh, there are some who get their Ferraris and the like from me, but by and large we’re talking Fords and Toyotas, sedans, pickups and SUVs.

Based on their statements, and the way the spend their earnings, I believe we all want the same things: safe vehicles that we will be affordable to purchase and maintain, yet at the same time will be more frugal with the Earth’s resources while still offering enough performance to meet our daily needs. No one wants a return to the gutless wonders of the late 70’s and early 80’s.

The challenges you face are two-fold: first, anything done now to the standards for brand new vehicles will take a decade or two to propagate, as there are 300 million vehicles on the roads of the U.S. now, and we sell about 16 million new ones a year.

Therefore, anything increase in CAFE standards will not have much affect on the nation’s fleet economy average for ten to twenty years. By then it will be much harder to counteract any damage done by global warming, and the avowed goal of reducing our dependence on petroleum from terrorist-supporting regimes may have changed dramatically.

Adding to this is the problem of a mishmash of state and federal regulations (including our governor’s proposal to adopt California emission regulations), and new greenhouse gas judicial rulings, which only make it that much harder for the manufacturers to construct a coherent plan in their vehicle development programs—which start 5-8 years before the on-sale date anyway.

It is rules like these that have, in large part, made it much harder to bring to market the European-style turbodiesels that could immediately and dramatically increase the fuel efficiency of the types of vehicles—midsize cars and SUVs—that people buy now, without waiting for a amazing new ‘silver bullet’ technology that may never make it of the drawing board.

Secondly, a market drive is needed to foster change. People like size and speed, as witnessed by the fact that over 50% of new vehicles sales are of trucks, and the correlation between more horsepower and increased sales. Another frustrating fact is that as fuel efficiency increases (or the price of fuel decreases), people drive more miles, which hardly reduces our overall petroleum usage.

What does make a difference is the pump cost of gas and diesel. In the aftermath of Katrina, those in my profession witnessed the most absurd market reactions, with large SUV prices spirally down into freefall, and the wholesale auction prices of small economy cars shooting above their retail blue book value.

If we really want people to move away from gas swilling behemoths and into more environmentally friendly modes of transport, the most expeditious solution is a progressive fuel tax—not a ‘gas guzzler tax’ as California proposed, which would only affect new vehicles, not the 300 million out there now. This creates the market incentive for people to seek other means of transport, and to choose future automotive purchases in light of their efficiency.

To prevent political suicide for those who propose such measures, and so as not to create another post-Katrina false market, this would have to start very small, perhaps at 10 or 15 cents a gallon, and increase year by year. It is critical from a P.R. standpoint that funds from such a tax not be mixed into the general coffers, but instead goes to transportation infrastructure and/or programs for alternative energy.

Otherwise it will come across as more tax and spend politics, and we all know were the publics’ trust of legislators is these days.

A progressive implementation minimizes the burden on all income levels, and moves the potential political risk downstream. It allows for a gradual shift over the 3-5 year single-owner lifecycle without penalizing current owners overmuch.

As a final point, I have done extensive research on the whole issue of carbon emissions from autos, and the numbers from scientists (not employed by the car manufacturers!) indicate that only 10-12% of the total output is from light cars and trucks. Therefore, they should not be unduly pressured or penalized, which I see happening in current proposals.

Any energy legislation must also encompass air and rail transport, industrial emissions, and home size and energy consumption (and let us not forget that the number one source of greenhouse gas is, according to P.E.T.A., the breeding and consumption of beef).

The Hollywood glitterati and people like John Edwards do no good for the cause driving Prius’ while unapologetically living in 6000 square foot mansions; they just come off as hypocrites. And Hillary Clinton’s absurd theatrics don’t help either.

Here is a woman who has never had to own a car or commute—as do most Americans—calling for a return to the 55mph speed limit (which just leads to a criminalization of drivers as local and state law enforcement uses them as a source of revenue) and somehow convincing herself that we can magically create vehicles that average 55mpg without any downside. Singling out hybrids for tax brakes when other powertrain options create greater real-world fuel savings needs to be addressed as well.

I hope that someone from our state will have the foresight and intestinal fortitude to join with Representative John Dingell in standing for more fast-acting, rational, and inclusive energy policies.

Sincerely,

S. Isaac Bouchard

LETTER #2

July 10, 2008

US Senator Wayne Allard
7340 E. Caley, Ste 215
Englewood, CO 80111

Senator,

For almost seventeen years now I have been an automotive buyer’s agent, and have assisted people with the purchase and leasing of literally thousands of new and used cars and trucks. This has provided a unique insight into the buying needs, desires, and habits of the motorists in our state.

There are several issues coming up for discussion and votes in the near term that affect not only people planning to buy cars in the near future, but all of us who drive as well. Please consider these thoughts as coming from a concerned citizen who spends his working life in the automotive industry.

Knee-jerk reactions to high gasoline prices would be poorly considered. Though painful to us average folk, in the long run market forces will get people into more efficient vehicles and reduce our fuel usage; the current CAFE regulations are sufficient. Any speeding up of the implementation timetable would be disastrous for the auto manufacturers—domestic and foreign. The design of new cars and trucks starts five or six years before they go on sale. The number of things that can be feasibly done to make them more efficient quickly is limited.

Along these same lines, any state-by-state automotive carbon limits (as opposed to the federal standards already agreed upon) would increase the complexity and cost of new vehicles to consumers. I urge you to resist the temptation to allow this, and support the EPA. As it is, independent research show that best case, we will all pay an average of $2000 more per vehicle to cover the cost of R&D and the more expensive materials like carbon fiber and aluminum that will allow for the efficiency gains required now by law.

Also, any legislation that allows for tax credits for other efficient vehicles like the new diesels coming to market would make sense, as they have not only a lower carbon footprint than hybrids (especially as you don’t need a new battery at 100,000 miles or more landfill space for the old one), but get better fuel economy as well. I just pre-ordered two of the new, 50-state clean, VW Jetta turbodiesels for clients, and averaged over 40mpg on the test drives! Any new climate bill should also allow credits for the manufacturers to help offset the expense of these new technologies, and limit its eventual pass-through to consumers.

A related issue is rollover and roof crush strength. As discussion has been left open to October 1, consider this carefully. Yes: people die in single vehicle rollover accidents. But the ideas being bandied about work against the goal to reduce vehicle mass and increase fuel economy. The sad equation here is that people will die in cars, but that the number of the these accidents will be reduced by the introduction of stability control systems anyway; making cars and trucks heavier may not even be necessary. Besides, the real answer is to improve driver training. I spent two years as a head instructor at the nation’s leading school, MasterDrive (based here in Colorado), and realized that if you teach people how to really drive, the need for all these passive safety systems is dramatically reduced.

Another upcoming piece of legislation regards vehicle titles. I don’t understand why there is resistance to a nationwide database of such. It would help dealers and consumers avoid vehicles that have had floor or salvage titles ‘washed’ through certain states.

Finally: John Warner’s silly suggestion that we re-impose a 55mpg National Maximum Speed Limit. If people want to drive slower to save fuel, they will. The only thing that will be accomplished by a new NMSL will be an increase in local and state revenues from speeding tickets. Tied to that of course, is the criminalization of the motorist, and a concomitant increase in disgust at, and distrust of, our law enforcement officers, many of whom I am proud to call my clients. This measure is a cynical and poorly disguised attempt to fleece those of us who spend time in a car every day. Traffic engineers are the ones who should determine speed limits, not politicians. Sorry to be so brass, but the history of the NMSL was one of rampant abuse in the name of revenue generation.

I know that you have many pressing issues such as housing, the economy, and Iraq to deal with. These automotive issues may seem trivial, but as we all spend so much of our money and time in relation to the automobile, they are not. Thank you for considering these thoughts in your legislation.

Sincerely,

S. Isaac Bouchard

Send article as PDF to