Gas prices and SUV's
Maraya
gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
cars.
Maraya
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
make them only work w/ high octane gas. :-)
Hyperion Systems
>It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
>gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
>suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
>cars.
I disagree. That's just setting up an artifical price based on nothing.
Pretty soon you'd have an SUV-Gas-Price lobby, and LESS would get done in
Washington, if that's possible.
With respect solely to gas prices, SUV's, with lower gas mileage, cost
more per mile to operate. The "free market" will dictate that the higher
the cost cost of gas goes, the more people will move away from SUV's to
something more economical. Let "nature" sort it out.
And no, I don't own an SUV, I own a nice 35-MPG Honda Civic.
- John
--
Free Email, Usenet, and $1000 Giveaway -- http://www.covix.com
Daniel Packman
Hyperion Systems <hype...@dimensional.com> wrote:
[...charge SUVs more per gallon..]
>With respect solely to gas prices, SUV's, with lower gas mileage, cost
>more per mile to operate. The "free market" will dictate that the higher
>the cost cost of gas goes, the more people will move away from SUV's to
>something more economical. Let "nature" sort it out.
That certainly makes sense. The problem is that gas, even at
current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
so demand for the product is inelastic.
The argument for charging more per gallon for increased use
follows that used now for water. The cost per gallon is not
tied to the user, but to the volume. That is, the first gallon
costs everyone the same as does the 20th. It's just that the
cost per gallon is not a linear function of consumption. This
seems to be a more equitable, if difficult to implement,
policy for automobiles.
Walter Pienciak
>It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
>gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
>suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
>cars.
>
It occurs to me that you must be trolling out of boredom. Personally,
I can't seriously entertain the proposition that global oil prices are
up because Coloradans like SUVs.
Walter
Maraya
>
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:05:15 -0700, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> >cars.
>
Not a bad idea!
Maraya
Maraya
>
> In article <38DFDB1B...@uswest.net>, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> >cars.
>
> Pretty soon you'd have an SUV-Gas-Price lobby, and LESS would get done in
> Washington, if that's possible.
I don't think so. Trucks try to do that, with little success, and they
have the teamsters behind them.
> With respect solely to gas prices, SUV's, with lower gas mileage, cost
> more per mile to operate. The "free market" will dictate that the higher
> the cost cost of gas goes, the more people will move away from SUV's to
> something more economical. Let "nature" sort it out.
Those trends are sloooow to take effect. Meanwhile, the guy with the small
car has to pay through the nose. Some can't afford to support the
gas-guzzlers. Why should we subsidize them?
> And no, I don't own an SUV, I own a nice 35-MPG Honda Civic.
35 city?
Maraya
Maraya
>
> In article <8bon07$h...@flatland.dimensional.com>,
> Hyperion Systems <hype...@dimensional.com> wrote:
> [...charge SUVs more per gallon..]
> >more per mile to operate. The "free market" will dictate that the higher
> >the cost cost of gas goes, the more people will move away from SUV's to
> >something more economical. Let "nature" sort it out.
>
> current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
> so demand for the product is inelastic.
Could you explain what you just said? I'm slow.
> The argument for charging more per gallon for increased use
> follows that used now for water. The cost per gallon is not
> tied to the user, but to the volume. That is, the first gallon
> costs everyone the same as does the 20th. It's just that the
> cost per gallon is not a linear function of consumption. This
> seems to be a more equitable, if difficult to implement,
> policy for automobiles.
How about installing a meter on gas tanks? After X number of fills, the
tank opening automatically gets smaller, and can only be filled at the more
expensive pump. Every year, the meter and tank get reset.
Maraya
Maraya
> It occurs to me that you must be trolling out of boredom. Personally,
> I can't seriously entertain the proposition that global oil prices are
> up because Coloradans like SUVs.
No, I'm not trolling, and I'm not bored. I'm sure there are other reasons,
as well, but the proliferation of SUV's has contributed. It's certainly
not just in Colorado, either. There are MANY more drivers, in general, and
a large percentage of them are choosing SUV's.
Maraya
Chuck Wright
Hyperion Systems wrote:
>
> In article <38DFDB1B...@uswest.net>, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> >cars.
>
> I disagree. That's just setting up an artifical price based on nothing.
> Pretty soon you'd have an SUV-Gas-Price lobby, and LESS would get done in
> Washington, if that's possible.
>
> more per mile to operate. The "free market" will dictate that the higher
> the cost cost of gas goes, the more people will move away from SUV's to
> something more economical. Let "nature" sort it out.
I agree. Have you noticed that our government has sprung into
action to try and force down the price of oil? While our
government is trying to "help" us they're actually hurting us.
Artificially low oil prices encourages people to drive more,
live further away from where they work, avoid alternative forms
of transportation, and to purchase vehicles that are less fuel
efficient. This causes more congestion and more pollution. Once
again government meddling is the source of the problem.
Chuck Wright
http://www.harrybrowne.org/
Tim Schreiner
news:38E01789...@uswest.net...
I think your contention may lie more with those who mostly drive solo in
SUVs ... however, when you are carrying several people it may be more fuel
efficient to take one SUV than making 3 trips using Honda Accords ...
But that isn't the real reason for hig fuel prices ... IMO
1) Greed
2) Politics and power
Tim
Maraya
Aren't you one of those people who is opposed to forced subsidies for the
poor? Why should the poor subsidize the rich? Doesn't it work both ways?
Don't you think those gas guzzlers should pay their own way?
And you're also opposed to releasing more oil supply. Aren't you also the
one who thinks supply and demand should operate freely? Why are you
opposed to freeing up supply? Do you like the artificially controlled
supply that also jacks up prices? Have you suddenly become an
environmentalist, who believes in controlling people?
Maraya
Maraya
> I think your contention may lie more with those who mostly drive solo in
> SUVs ... however, when you are carrying several people it may be more fuel
> efficient to take one SUV than making 3 trips using Honda Accords ...
That's like saying, "Do you walk to school or do you take your lunch?"
This is not relevant. It's more fuelefficient for several people to car
pool in a Honda Accord! I recall seeing a survey that concluded that most
SUV drivers are on the road alone. I can't cite it, though.
> But that isn't the real reason for hig fuel prices ... IMO
>
> 1) Greed
> 2) Politics and power
That, too.
Maraya
Chris
Maraya wrote:
> It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> cars.
>
> Maraya
Ah, a socialist at work.
And fat people should pay more for food than skinny folk as well?
Dang their cavernous gullets for driving up the price of Lays anyway!
Chris
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:05:15 -0700, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> >cars.
>
> make them only work w/ high octane gas. :-)
No, that would be German luxury barges.
Chris
Hyperion Systems wrote:
> In article <38DFDB1B...@uswest.net>, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> >cars.
>
> I disagree. That's just setting up an artifical price based on nothing.
> Pretty soon you'd have an SUV-Gas-Price lobby, and LESS would get done in
> Washington, if that's possible.
>
> With respect solely to gas prices, SUV's, with lower gas mileage, cost
> more per mile to operate. The "free market" will dictate that the higher
> the cost cost of gas goes, the more people will move away from SUV's to
> something more economical. Let "nature" sort it out.
>
> And no, I don't own an SUV, I own a nice 35-MPG Honda Civic.
Come now, we all know it's those damned 5mpg. truckers who are to blame - and
then they have the nerve to force their fuel costs increases across the shelves
to the poor consumers - why...they've manufactured this crisis - let's force 'em
to operate at a loss by golly!
Chuck Wright
Maraya wrote:
>
> Chuck Wright wrote:
> >
> > Hyperion Systems wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <38DFDB1B...@uswest.net>, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > > >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> > > >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> > > >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> > > >cars.
> > >
> > > I disagree. That's just setting up an artifical price based on nothing.
> > > Pretty soon you'd have an SUV-Gas-Price lobby, and LESS would get done in
> > > Washington, if that's possible.
> > >
> > > With respect solely to gas prices, SUV's, with lower gas mileage, cost
> > > more per mile to operate. The "free market" will dictate that the higher
> > > the cost cost of gas goes, the more people will move away from SUV's to
> > > something more economical. Let "nature" sort it out.
> >
> > action to try and force down the price of oil? While our
> > government is trying to "help" us they're actually hurting us.
> > Artificially low oil prices encourages people to drive more,
> > live further away from where they work, avoid alternative forms
> > of transportation, and to purchase vehicles that are less fuel
> > efficient. This causes more congestion and more pollution. Once
> > again government meddling is the source of the problem.
>
> Aren't you one of those people who is opposed to forced subsidies
> for the poor? Why should the poor subsidize the rich? Doesn't it
> work both ways?
I'm opposed to all government subsidies including subsidies for
the rich, the poor, the middle class, corporations, and politicians.
> Don't you think those gas guzzlers should pay their own way?
Of course. But they shouldn't be singled out for punishment
either.
> And you're also opposed to releasing more oil supply.
That depends. Who's releasing more oil supply? The government?
I'm in favor of the government getting out of the oil business
altogether. We should sell off the government's oil wells and
their enormous reserves as quickly as practical.
> Aren't you also the one who thinks supply and demand should
> operate freely?
Yes. However when the government is involved it's not
operating freely.
> Why are you opposed to freeing up supply?
Who is "freeing up supply"? The government? How are they
freeing up supply? By rattling sabers and threatening OPEC?
Or by cheating the taxpayers by selling oil at below market
prices on the open market?
> Do you like the artificially controlled supply that also jacks
> up prices?
No. Get government out of the oil business altogether and prices
cannot be artificially set too high or too low.
> Have you suddenly become an environmentalist, who believes
> in controlling people?
Libertarians by definition are environmentalists. On private
property, pollution is a property rights issue. On government
owned property, where most pollution occurs, pollution is a
result of the tragedy of the commons.
In so far as controlling people, that depends upon whether or
not they've committed a crime against a person or their
property. If they have, then I'm in favor of "controlling"
them by forcing them to first and foremost compensate their
victims and secondly punishing them.
Chuck Wright
http://www.harrybrowne.org/
Chris
Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article <8bon07$h...@flatland.dimensional.com>,
> Hyperion Systems <hype...@dimensional.com> wrote:
> [...charge SUVs more per gallon..]
> >With respect solely to gas prices, SUV's, with lower gas mileage, cost
> >more per mile to operate. The "free market" will dictate that the higher
> >the cost cost of gas goes, the more people will move away from SUV's to
> >something more economical. Let "nature" sort it out.
>
> That certainly makes sense. The problem is that gas, even at
> current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
> so demand for the product is inelastic.
What, are you factoring out a shift to mass transit or increased
jogging/cycling?
> The argument for charging more per gallon for increased use
> follows that used now for water. The cost per gallon is not
> tied to the user, but to the volume. That is, the first gallon
> costs everyone the same as does the 20th. It's just that the
> cost per gallon is not a linear function of consumption. This
> seems to be a more equitable, if difficult to implement,
> policy for automobiles.
So If I fill my tank for 5 gallons worth and drive across the street to the
other station...
Were you around for the last gas "crisis"?
Chris
Walter Pienciak wrote:
> In article <38DFDB1B...@uswest.net>, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> >cars.
> >
> >Maraya
>
> It occurs to me that you must be trolling out of boredom.
Bingo!
> Personally,
> I can't seriously entertain the proposition that global oil prices are
> up because Coloradans like SUVs.
You have a logical mind.
That will always meet with resistance here.
>
>
> Walter
Chris
Chris Pollard wrote:
> In boulder.general Walter Pienciak <wal...@frii.com> wrote:
> : It occurs to me that you must be trolling out of boredom. Personally,
> : I can't seriously entertain the proposition that global oil prices are
> : up because Coloradans like SUVs.
>
> : Walter
> SO there is an infinite supply of everything?
Only of stupidity - and hey...quit hogging that commodity - share a little,
Donald needs a bit more I think...
> We're never going to run out?
No one said that weird boy.
> Yeh righty.
Hallucinating again?
Chris
Maraya wrote:
> TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:05:15 -0700, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> > >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> > >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> > >cars.
> >
> > make them only work w/ high octane gas. :-)
>
> Not a bad idea!
>
> Maraya
No, for a socialist I'm sure it even *seems* logical...
Chris
Maraya wrote:
> Hyperion Systems wrote:
> >
> > In article <38DFDB1B...@uswest.net>, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> > >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> > >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> > >cars.
> >
> > I disagree. That's just setting up an artifical price based on nothing.
> > Pretty soon you'd have an SUV-Gas-Price lobby, and LESS would get done in
> > Washington, if that's possible.
>
> I don't think so. Trucks try to do that, with little success, and they
> have the teamsters behind them.
Those "trucks" put on the shelf what keeps you alive - think about who you're
slamming hypocrite!
> > With respect solely to gas prices, SUV's, with lower gas mileage, cost
> > more per mile to operate. The "free market" will dictate that the higher
> > the cost cost of gas goes, the more people will move away from SUV's to
> > something more economical. Let "nature" sort it out.
>
> Those trends are sloooow to take effect.
You ever notice how rapid shifts tend to be *more* painful than measured change?
> Meanwhile, the guy with the small
> car has to pay through the nose.
So what are you saying, that all small car owners have lower income?
I mean they already have a small and efficient car - the only onus on them would be
that they have a *small * income.
Is that your premise?
> Some can't afford to support the
> gas-guzzlers.
Then those people should not buy them.
If the difference between buying (assuming 10,000 miles per year mileage) 333
gallons of gas (30mpg average - a very small car) for say $600 and running an SUV
(15mpg average at 666 gallons) and spending $1,200 it would seem that one could
make an informed budgetary choice.
> Why should we subsidize them?
Don't.
Buy a Geo Metro, get 45 mpg and pocket the savings - the price of fuel is
controlled by a cartel. They're known as OPEC. They have traditionally manipulated
the supply/demand curve regardless of consumption.
It might just dawn on your flat and empty head, btw, that CAFE (corporate average
fuel economy) is up 50% since the 1980's.
You might also wish to note that today's $1.60 gallon of gas is an inflation
adjusted equivalent of .60c gas in the 1970's.
But please, don't let facts intrude on your crusade!~
> > And no, I don't own an SUV, I own a nice 35-MPG Honda Civic.
>
> 35 city?
Not likely with a new Civic - maybe 28.
> Maraya
Chris
Maraya wrote:
> Daniel Packman wrote:
> >
> > In article <8bon07$h...@flatland.dimensional.com>,
> > Hyperion Systems <hype...@dimensional.com> wrote:
> > [...charge SUVs more per gallon..]
> > >With respect solely to gas prices, SUV's, with lower gas mileage, cost
> > >more per mile to operate. The "free market" will dictate that the higher
> > >the cost cost of gas goes, the more people will move away from SUV's to
> > >something more economical. Let "nature" sort it out.
> >
> > That certainly makes sense. The problem is that gas, even at
> > current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
> > so demand for the product is inelastic.
>
> Could you explain what you just said? I'm slow.
Yeah, you've proven that quite handily.
> > The argument for charging more per gallon for increased use
> > follows that used now for water. The cost per gallon is not
> > tied to the user, but to the volume. That is, the first gallon
> > costs everyone the same as does the 20th. It's just that the
> > cost per gallon is not a linear function of consumption. This
> > seems to be a more equitable, if difficult to implement,
> > policy for automobiles.
>
> How about installing a meter on gas tanks? After X number of fills, the
> tank opening automatically gets smaller, and can only be filled at the more
> expensive pump. Every year, the meter and tank get reset.
Gee, what a groovy socialist solution - how are you at installing cams in public
rest rooms?
> Maraya
Chris
Maraya wrote:
> Walter Pienciak wrote:
>
> > It occurs to me that you must be trolling out of boredom. Personally,
> > I can't seriously entertain the proposition that global oil prices are
> > up because Coloradans like SUVs.
>
> No, I'm not trolling, and I'm not bored.
Bull - you're a liar *and* a socialist.
> I'm sure there are other reasons,
> as well, but the proliferation of SUV's has contributed.
Use your head, CAFE is up 50% since the 80's - and that includes the entire SUV
bulge!
> It's certainly
> not just in Colorado, either. There are MANY more drivers, in general, and
> a large percentage of them are choosing SUV's.
>
> Maraya
So how are you on confiscating Grampa's Caddy or Town Car - damn his fuelish
ways anyhow!
Socialist.
Chris
Maraya wrote:
> Tim Schreiner wrote:
>
> > I think your contention may lie more with those who mostly drive solo in
> > SUVs ... however, when you are carrying several people it may be more fuel
> > efficient to take one SUV than making 3 trips using Honda Accords ...
>
> That's like saying, "Do you walk to school or do you take your lunch?"
> This is not relevant.
Only because he trumped you.
> It's more fuelefficient for several people to car
> pool in a Honda Accord!
How many adults can you fit in Accord - 5?
Tightly packed at that.
In a Suburban - try 9 - in comfort.
That just about destroys your argument on a mpg/mpg basis.
> I recall seeing a survey that concluded that most
> SUV drivers are on the road alone. I can't cite it, though.
Of course not - that's why this is just another of your socialist rants.
> > But that isn't the real reason for hig fuel prices ... IMO
> >
> > 1) Greed
> > 2) Politics and power
>
> That, too.
>
> Maraya
You need to put that thinking cap on, you know less about eh oil industry that I
would have guessed possible.
Chris Pollard
: It occurs to me that you must be trolling out of boredom. Personally,
: I can't seriously entertain the proposition that global oil prices are
: up because Coloradans like SUVs.
: Walter
SO there is an infinite supply of everything?
We're never going to run out?
Yeh righty.
Alan Silverstein
Of course not, but let's not make the mistake of assuming we'll run out,
say, of petroleum, all at once, just because you we can divide the known
reserves by annual use to figure an end date. In fact it will be a very
prolonged process. Demand will increasingly exceed supply, prices will
rise, and we'll all adapt, though we'll piss'n'moan a lot. (I already
do. $1.65/gallon? Yikes!)
At some point the increased prices will make other forms of energy, now
economically infeasible, more attractive... A form of elasticity.
I have qualms about whether we are wasting the resource, and how if we
were smarter we'd ration ourselves until we have better replacement
technologies, and how we're dumping CO2 and other byproducts into the
ecosphere faster than is healthy, and how much we'll miss these good old
days someday... But I no longer worry about sudden upheavals, or
abruptly running out of gas.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not
represent those of my employer, who doesn't even know I'm posting this.
Doug Norris
>In boulder.general Walter Pienciak <wal...@frii.com> wrote:
>: It occurs to me that you must be trolling out of boredom. Personally,
>: I can't seriously entertain the proposition that global oil prices are
>: up because Coloradans like SUVs.
>SO there is an infinite supply of everything?
>We're never going to run out?
>Yeh righty.
Non-sequiter arguments. We're not talking about the gas supply running out.
Go back to your cave, Chris.
Doug
Daniel Packman
>
>Daniel Packman wrote:
>
>> ... The problem is that gas, even at
>> current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
>> so demand for the product is inelastic.
>
>jogging/cycling?
I don't have quantitative numbers but there are many people who
would have to do some serious juggling of time and location to be
able to use public transportation. There are also many who would
rather just pay more - even twice as much - and still drive. Sure,
some people will no doubt opt for alternative transportation.
Many others won't.
>> .... It's just that the
>> cost per gallon is not a linear function of consumption. This
>> seems to be a more equitable, if difficult to implement,
>> policy for automobiles.
>
>So If I fill my tank for 5 gallons worth and drive across the street to the
>other station...
I said it would be difficult to implement. The model works well for
water to the home. It seems impractical for cars.
>Were you around for the last gas "crisis"?
Yes. I recall stations limiting the number of gallons one could pump
and many people did drive about to different stations getting their
extra 5 gallons here and there. The system didn't work as planned.
Daniel Packman
>Daniel Packman wrote:
>>
>> That certainly makes sense. The problem is that gas, even at
>> current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
>> so demand for the product is inelastic.
>
The general rule of supply and demand suggests that with increasing
cost, people will buy less of a product. For products that people
can still afford in an absolute sense (it isn't so expensive that
they need to change their fundamental househod budget to buy it) and
have a great desire for, increases in cost have only a minimal effect
on consumption.
Ben Cantrick
>> That certainly makes sense. The problem is that gas, even at
>> current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
>> so demand for the product is inelastic.
>
>Could you explain what you just said? I'm slow.
"Inelastic" is an Economics term. Basically, it means that increasing the
price of something won't make people buy it less, and that decreasing the
price won't encourage people to buy it more. "Elastic" in Economic terms
means the opposite: Increase the price and you DO discourage people from
buying it, and vice versa.
Because gasoline is still relatively cheap at $2/gallon compared to the
average income, people will grumble, but they'll keep spending $80 a week
to fill up their SUVs. It won't be until the price of gasoline actually
becomes a real economic hardship that people will actually stop driving
their stupid SUVs.
-Ben
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Ben Cantrick
>>> And no, I don't own an SUV, I own a nice 35-MPG Honda Civic.
>> 35 city?
>Not likely with a new Civic - maybe 28.
Data point: My Civic gets 28 MPG consistently, in city driving.
-Ben
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
"I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. And then he vanished.
Todd Bradley
> In a Suburban - try 9 - in comfort.
>
> That just about destroys your argument on a mpg/mpg basis.
That's a great point. But the fact is that hardly anyone really puts 9
people in a Suburban. Go count the number of people riding in the average
Suburban and then count the number of people riding in the average Civic.
I'll bet you lunch that you'll find that
a) the numbers are close to the same for both vehicles
b) the numbers are much lower than the hypothetical maximum occupancy
Todd.
Todd Bradley
> economically infeasible, more attractive... A form of elasticity.
I can't resist mentioning that with all the bitching and moaning about
gasoline prices, I'm still paying just 90 cents a gallon for fuel and
driving the same distances as the rest of America.
Todd.
rick++
> It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the
demand for
> gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in
price. I
> suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> cars.
You are correct. Petreleum demand in the US fell through the 1980s
as 1970s mileage regulations kicked in. SUVs are under a much less
restrictive regulation, being considered trucks. As their popularity
grew in the 1990s, so did US petroleum demand. There are new
efficiency regulations in the works for trucks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
rick++
> It occurs to me that you must be trolling out of boredom. Personally,
> I can't seriously entertain the proposition that global oil prices are
> up because Coloradans like SUVs.
The main cassandra of high petroleum prices Colin Campbell
claims wher OPEC or any other cartel (e.g. , Rockefeller, Texas
Railroad Commission)
controls more than 30% of production, they can control prices.
OPEC was in this position in the 1970s and the late 1990s (38%
currently). Increased production in Alaska, the North Sea, and Mexico
among other places broke this in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Hyperion Systems
Daniel Packman <pack at ucar dot edu> wrote:
>The general rule of supply and demand suggests that with increasing
>cost, people will buy less of a product. For products that people
>can still afford in an absolute sense (it isn't so expensive that
>they need to change their fundamental househod budget to buy it) and
>have a great desire for, increases in cost have only a minimal effect
>on consumption.
If you're saying that gas prices are still so low, despite the recent
increases, that hardly anyone has trouble paying them, I would agree. So
then, why do we need to artificially inflate them only for some people?
I'm not totally against the idea, but I do think supply-and-demand will
handle it. I do think, however, that implementation (as per Maraya) would
be a showstopper.
Bob Himes
Maraya wrote:
> TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:05:15 -0700, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> > >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> > >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> > >cars.
> >
> > make them only work w/ high octane gas. :-)
>
> Not a bad idea!
Actually it is. High Octane is required by vehicles with higher combustion ratios and
the higher combustion ratios are higher polluters; i believe of NO's.
Hyperion Systems
>Those trends are sloooow to take effect. Meanwhile, the guy with the small
>car has to pay through the nose. Some can't afford to support the
>gas-guzzlers. Why should we subsidize them?
This makes no sense. The "guy" with the small, efficient car pays less
per mile. Latest numbers show SUV's to be roughly half of all new car
sales. If half of the vehicles use more than half of the gas, the
efficient car is not subsidizing them.
>> And no, I don't own an SUV, I own a nice 35-MPG Honda Civic.
>35 city?
Nah, overall. I have a 10.4 gallon tank with about a 350 mile range.
Daniel Packman
>...
>And fat people should pay more for food than skinny folk as well? ...
No, they should pay the same for the *first* bite of food but the
price should go up for each bite. Our system, unfortunately, tends to
the opposite with discounts for food in bulk and all-you-can-eat
restaurants. I don't think anyone would argue that the size of
people's throats should decrease as they eat so they have to go to
higher-cost, smaller diameter food.
But we need not go to such extremes. Those of us with higher
mpg gullets pay sufficiently less than the SUV gullets that
we can expect these large gorbles to go the way of the dinosaur.
Another 65 million years, tops.
Chris Pollard
: > That certainly makes sense. The problem is that gas, even at
: > current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
: > so demand for the product is inelastic.
: What, are you factoring out a shift to mass transit or increased
: jogging/cycling?
Yes because it won't be the SUV drivers. They're paying $3k a year in
insurance a few bucks for gas is BS to them. Their mortgage payment is
probably $2000 a month - gasoline is still cheaper than taking the family
to macdonalds.
Chris Pollard
: slamming hypocrite!
Mostly those "trucks" are full of useless Chinese knickknacks that you
don't need. You only have to look at how much people throw away to
realise how bullshit the system is. Our water is perfectly good but a
whole load of people down our street appear to be drinking only bottled
water that is "trucked" in.
: So what are you saying, that all small car owners have lower income?
They have less disposable income.
: I mean they already have a small and efficient car - the only onus on them would be
: that they have a *small * income.
: Buy a Geo Metro, get 45 mpg and pocket the savings - the price of fuel is
: controlled by a cartel. They're known as OPEC. They have traditionally manipulated
: the supply/demand curve regardless of consumption.
more oil to catch up with the stupid american dream and we might be
running out - naah. There's a infinite supply of everything - dream on.
: It might just dawn on your flat and empty head, btw, that CAFE (corporate average
: fuel economy) is up 50% since the 1980's.
But CAFE applies to cars and people don't buy cars.
Chris Pollard
: then they have the nerve to force their fuel costs increases across the shelves
: to the poor consumers - why...they've manufactured this crisis - let's force 'em
: to operate at a loss by golly!
When they stop adorning their trucks with chrome exhaust pipes, CB
antennas, lights, flat chrome bumpers that increase the aerodynamic drag
by a considerable amount I might listen.
You'll notice that the large trucking companies all use streamlined Volvos
or other clean trucks.
Chris Pollard
: I have qualms about whether we are wasting the resource, and how if we
: were smarter we'd ration ourselves until we have better replacement
: technologies, and how we're dumping CO2 and other byproducts into the
: ecosphere faster than is healthy, and how much we'll miss these good old
: days someday... But I no longer worry about sudden upheavals, or
: abruptly running out of gas.
Maraya
>
> In article <38E015CA...@uswest.net>, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >> That certainly makes sense. The problem is that gas, even at
> >> current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
> >> so demand for the product is inelastic.
> >
>
> "Inelastic" is an Economics term. Basically, it means that increasing the
> price of something won't make people buy it less, and that decreasing the
> price won't encourage people to buy it more. "Elastic" in Economic terms
> means the opposite: Increase the price and you DO discourage people from
> buying it, and vice versa.
Thanks, Dan and Ben.
> Because gasoline is still relatively cheap at $2/gallon compared to the
> average income, people will grumble, but they'll keep spending $80 a week
> to fill up their SUVs. It won't be until the price of gasoline actually
> becomes a real economic hardship that people will actually stop driving
> their stupid SUVs.
And what about the people with smaller cars, who are on a tight budget?
What will they have to give up in the meantime? Food?
Maraya
Maraya
>
> > It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the
> demand for
> > gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in
> price. I
> > suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> > cars.
>
> as 1970s mileage regulations kicked in. SUVs are under a much less
> restrictive regulation, being considered trucks. As their popularity
> grew in the 1990s, so did US petroleum demand. There are new
> efficiency regulations in the works for trucks.
That's some good news. Thanks. Now, if we could only get some effeciency
regulations for the way they drive...
Maraya
Maraya
>
> In article <38E024F7...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
> >...
> >And fat people should pay more for food than skinny folk as well? ...
>
> No, they should pay the same for the *first* bite of food but the
> price should go up for each bite. Our system, unfortunately, tends to
> the opposite with discounts for food in bulk and all-you-can-eat
> restaurants. I don't think anyone would argue that the size of
> people's throats should decrease as they eat so they have to go to
> higher-cost, smaller diameter food.
Very funny. However, you must admit that taller or larger frame people are
born, not made, and there are no alternatives available, like trading in
one's body for a smaller one or eating shared portions of "public" food.
> But we need not go to such extremes. Those of us with higher
> mpg gullets pay sufficiently less than the SUV gullets that
> we can expect these large gorbles to go the way of the dinosaur.
> Another 65 million years, tops.
At the rate we humans are going, we'll be lucky to survive another 650.
Maraya
Ben Cantrick
>What will they have to give up in the meantime? Food?
Hopefully, one of them will finally snap, get a gun, and go on a mad
rampage, working their way across town, killing all SUV drivers in sight.
;]
-Ben
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
xoxoxo
<mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised
>the demand for gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for
>the increase in price.
Poor thinking, OPEC matches their supply, which they control, to
demand, so if demand goes down, so will supply. This is price
fixing, learn some economics.
>I suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon
>than smaller cars.
I suggest that my 35" tires and 4wd work well on dirt, but
little pussmobiles don't, so the smaller cars should pay my
share of the tax on gas, its for them that we pave the roads,
after all.
36 as a dirt road, I like the idea.
>
>Maraya
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Chris
Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article <38E015CA...@uswest.net>, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >Daniel Packman wrote:
> >>
> >> That certainly makes sense. The problem is that gas, even at
> >> current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
> >> so demand for the product is inelastic.
> >
> >Could you explain what you just said? I'm slow.
>
> The general rule of supply and demand suggests that with increasing
> cost, people will buy less of a product. For products that people
> can still afford in an absolute sense (it isn't so expensive that
> they need to change their fundamental househod budget to buy it) and
> have a great desire for, increases in cost have only a minimal effect
> on consumption.
Except in this case we have a regulated market.
That changes the fundamentals.
Abe O.
>It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
>gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
>suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
>cars.
>
>Maraya
So, was this originally intended as a joke Maraya?
Because that's how I took it, and how my earlier
post was meant to be taken.
Abe
Chris
Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article <38E02682...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
> >
> >Daniel Packman wrote:
> >
> >> ... The problem is that gas, even at
> >> current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
> >> so demand for the product is inelastic.
> >
> >What, are you factoring out a shift to mass transit or increased
> >jogging/cycling?
>
> I don't have quantitative numbers but there are many people who
> would have to do some serious juggling of time and location to be
> able to use public transportation.
Yes that would be the case - very practical reply.
> There are also many who would
> rather just pay more - even twice as much - and still drive.
True again.
> Sure,
> some people will no doubt opt for alternative transportation.
> Many others won't.
Generally the majority - if history is any measure.
Didn't mean to use as a stalking horse on this, but those were the answers I was
looking for.
> >> .... It's just that the
> >> cost per gallon is not a linear function of consumption. This
> >> seems to be a more equitable, if difficult to implement,
> >> policy for automobiles.
> >
> >So If I fill my tank for 5 gallons worth and drive across the street to the
> >other station...
>
> I said it would be difficult to implement.
Indeed you did.
> The model works well for
> water to the home. It seems impractical for cars.
Agreed once more.
> >Were you around for the last gas "crisis"?
>
> Yes. I recall stations limiting the number of gallons one could pump
> and many people did drive about to different stations getting their
> extra 5 gallons here and there. The system didn't work as planned.
No it didn't. In addition I remember idiots sitting in extended lines idling
away at 0 mpg. Further the odd/even license plate scheme for rationing was
easily defeated by tag switching and multi car families.
This "price crisis" we're seeing, along with so much hand wringing about and
anti - SUV sentiment, is just a Trojan Horse to trick the domestic industry into
gearing up for a reasonable per barrel cost, then pull the rug out from under
them as happened in '98.
What OPEC really wants is a continued strong demand, and the inability for our
domestic industry to respond to their price manipulations.
What the transportation socialists want is "planet no-car", but they, like the
gun grabbers, will settle for "planet small-car" in the interim. The politically
correct fascists are running again (have they ever stopped) and the world won't
be to their liking until we're all clomping the eco-weenie 2 step in
Birkenstocks.
Chris
Ben Cantrick wrote:
> In article <38E015CA...@uswest.net>, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >> That certainly makes sense. The problem is that gas, even at
> >> current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
> >> so demand for the product is inelastic.
> >
> >Could you explain what you just said? I'm slow.
>
> "Inelastic" is an Economics term. Basically, it means that increasing the
> price of something won't make people buy it less, and that decreasing the
> price won't encourage people to buy it more. "Elastic" in Economic terms
> means the opposite: Increase the price and you DO discourage people from
> buying it, and vice versa.
>
> Because gasoline is still relatively cheap at $2/gallon compared to the
> average income, people will grumble, but they'll keep spending $80 a week
> to fill up their SUVs. It won't be until the price of gasoline actually
> becomes a real economic hardship that people will actually stop driving
> their stupid SUVs.
Hey - my SUV is very smart, it even has a nicely hidden rack of micro processors
that control air/fuel ratio, timing, and brake pulses.
But it's not as fun to drive as your Batmobile...
Chris
Ben Cantrick wrote:
> In article <38E02A33...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
> >>> And no, I don't own an SUV, I own a nice 35-MPG Honda Civic.
> >> 35 city?
> >Not likely with a new Civic - maybe 28.
>
> Data point: My Civic gets 28 MPG consistently, in city driving.
Yup, thanks for the confirmation. But I would wager as well that you can
nudge 45-47 at a consistent 55mph. Not sure where or how you'd manage that
given today's traffic though...
>
>
> -Ben
> --
> Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
> BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
> The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
Chris
Todd Bradley wrote:
> "Chris" <m...@here.now> wrote in message news:38E02CF7...@here.now...
> > In a Suburban - try 9 - in comfort.
> >
> > That just about destroys your argument on a mpg/mpg basis.
>
> That's a great point. But the fact is that hardly anyone really puts 9
> people in a Suburban.
I yield to that reality. Just as no one really consistently car pools 5 in a
Civic.
> Go count the number of people riding in the average
> Suburban and then count the number of people riding in the average Civic.
> I'll bet you lunch that you'll find that
> a) the numbers are close to the same for both vehicles
> b) the numbers are much lower than the hypothetical maximum occupancy
>
> Todd.
Real world observations suggest you are accurate - but this was a theoretical
model.
Maraya
Nope. I'm totally serious. Some people have written in about OPEC, as if
I wasn't aware of its existence or its machinations, but this much greater
demand has to exist for them to even consider tightening up the market and
raising the price. All the libertarians are always screaming about how
people should pay their own way, and not look for others to subsidize them,
so I'm saying the same thing - yet, interestingly, they're arguing with me
because "government" is involved, as if private industry wouldn't do
exactly the same thing, if not even worse.
What makes you think it's a joke?
Maraya
Chris
Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article <38E024F7...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
> >...
> >And fat people should pay more for food than skinny folk as well? ...
>
> No, they should pay the same for the *first* bite of food but the
> price should go up for each bite.
Ah...I see....
> Our system, unfortunately, tends to
> the opposite with discounts for food in bulk and all-you-can-eat
> restaurants. I don't think anyone would argue that the size of
> people's throats should decrease as they eat so they have to go to
> higher-cost, smaller diameter food.
Kind of a tracheal reverse Darwinism thing then...
> But we need not go to such extremes. Those of us with higher
> mpg gullets pay sufficiently less than the SUV gullets that
> we can expect these large gorbles to go the way of the dinosaur.
> Another 65 million years, tops.
Off to the tar pits we go then...race ya?
Chris
Chris Pollard wrote:
> In boulder.general Chris <m...@here.now> wrote:
> : > That certainly makes sense. The problem is that gas, even at
> : > current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
> : > so demand for the product is inelastic.
>
> : What, are you factoring out a shift to mass transit or increased
> : jogging/cycling?
> Yes because it won't be the SUV drivers. They're paying $3k a year in
> insurance a few bucks for gas is BS to them. Their mortgage payment is
> probably $2000 a month - gasoline is still cheaper than taking the family
> to macdonalds.
...another "trenchant" observation...
Chris
Chris Pollard wrote:
> In boulder.general Chris <m...@here.now> wrote:
> : Those "trucks" put on the shelf what keeps you alive - think about who you're
> : slamming hypocrite!
> Mostly those "trucks" are full of useless Chinese knickknacks that you
> don't need. You only have to look at how much people throw away to
> realise how bullshit the system is. Our water is perfectly good but a
> whole load of people down our street appear to be drinking only bottled
> water that is "trucked" in.
Earth to Chris - they stock the shelves with virtually *every* item you consume. If
you're into "Chinese knickknacks" that's your problem. I like rice, chicken, oranges, and
those groovy bags of pre-washed salad mix. And yes, a bottle of water is preferable to
chlorinated tap type any day. YMMV.
> : So what are you saying, that all small car owners have lower income?
> They have less disposable income.
Prove it!
> : I mean they already have a small and efficient car - the only onus on them would be
> : that they have a *small * income.
> But it costs a lot more proportionally to own a small car.
How so?
> : Buy a Geo Metro, get 45 mpg and pocket the savings - the price of fuel is
> : controlled by a cartel. They're known as OPEC. They have traditionally manipulated
> : the supply/demand curve regardless of consumption.
> Ever considered the fact that a lot of other countries are using a lot
> more oil to catch up with the stupid american dream and we might be
> running out - naah. There's a infinite supply of everything - dream on.
I never suggested that there was an *infinite supply* you clay head. And I can't be
bothered with the self determination of other peoples to choose their own form of
transportation.
> : It might just dawn on your flat and empty head, btw, that CAFE (corporate average
> : fuel economy) is up 50% since the 1980's.
> But CAFE applies to cars and people don't buy cars.
Of course they buy cars Chris - where did you get that ridiculous idea from?
Chris
Chris Pollard wrote:
> In boulder.general Chris <m...@here.now> wrote:
> : Come now, we all know it's those damned 5mpg. truckers who are to blame - and
> : then they have the nerve to force their fuel costs increases across the shelves
> : to the poor consumers - why...they've manufactured this crisis - let's force 'em
> : to operate at a loss by golly!
> When they stop adorning their trucks with chrome exhaust pipes, CB
> antennas, lights, flat chrome bumpers that increase the aerodynamic drag
> by a considerable amount I might listen.
You haven't see the new Volvos or Peterbuilts, have you. And you really don't think
that chrome has any greater drag than flat steel do you? As for the rest of your
rhetorical and juvenile pout down, Maybe you'll write back with how many gallons are
consumed by the wind load on a 1/4" diameter antenna, or how bullet running lights
waste fuel.
> You'll notice that the large trucking companies all use streamlined Volvos
> or other clean trucks.
Ever see a CF truck, how about JB HUnt, How about Roadway Express.
You haven't got a damned clue what you're spouting - as usual.
Chris
Maraya wrote:
> Ben Cantrick wrote:
> >
> > In article <38E015CA...@uswest.net>, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > >> That certainly makes sense. The problem is that gas, even at
> > >> current levels, is still a small part of many families' budget
> > >> so demand for the product is inelastic.
> > >
> > >Could you explain what you just said? I'm slow.
> >
> > "Inelastic" is an Economics term. Basically, it means that increasing the
> > price of something won't make people buy it less, and that decreasing the
> > price won't encourage people to buy it more. "Elastic" in Economic terms
> > means the opposite: Increase the price and you DO discourage people from
> > buying it, and vice versa.
>
> Thanks, Dan and Ben.
>
> > Because gasoline is still relatively cheap at $2/gallon compared to the
> > average income, people will grumble, but they'll keep spending $80 a week
> > to fill up their SUVs. It won't be until the price of gasoline actually
> > becomes a real economic hardship that people will actually stop driving
> > their stupid SUVs.
>
> And what about the people with smaller cars, who are on a tight budget?
What about them?
> What will they have to give up in the meantime? Food?
Quick solution - we invade the middle east and nationalize those assets!
Problem solved, and it'll do wonders for the beat up defense sector stocks in
addition.
> Maraya
Chris
"Abe O." wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:05:15 -0700, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> >cars.
> >
> >Maraya
> So, was this originally intended as a joke Maraya?
> Because that's how I took it, and how my earlier
> post was meant to be taken.
Aw geez...the lobbyist is trying some spin control...
>
>
> Abe
Chris
Maraya wrote:
> "Abe O." wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:05:15 -0700, Maraya <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >
> > >It occurred to me that the proliferation of SUV's has raised the demand for
> > >gasoline, and may be one of the main reasons for the increase in price. I
> > >suggest, therefore, that SUV's should pay more per gallon than smaller
> > >cars.
> > >
> > >Maraya
> > So, was this originally intended as a joke Maraya?
> > Because that's how I took it, and how my earlier
> > post was meant to be taken.
>
> Nope. I'm totally serious.
It's hard to tell of course because she's used the "humor" trap door a time or two
before when the kitchen got too hot...
> Some people have written in about OPEC, as if
> I wasn't aware of its existence or its machinations, but this much greater
> demand has to exist for them to even consider tightening up the market and
> raising the price.
No it doesn't - that's the beauty of a cartel. They can ramp the market up and
down at will.
> All the libertarians are always screaming about how
> people should pay their own way, and not look for others to subsidize them,
> so I'm saying the same thing - yet, interestingly, they're arguing with me
> because "government" is involved, as if private industry wouldn't do
> exactly the same thing, if not even worse.
Maybe they don't want your socialist "solution" to remove a useful and popular
vehicle class from the market.
> What makes you think it's a joke?
>
> Maraya
Now there's one to ponder....
xoxoxo
>
>Maraya
>
Let them sell the car and ride the bus, it 80% paid for by cars
anyway.
xoxoxo
Pollard <cpol...@teal.sni.net> wrote:
>When they stop adorning their trucks with chrome exhaust pipes,
>CB antennas, lights, flat chrome bumpers that increase the
>aerodynamic drag by a considerable amount I might listen.
>
Yea, when I put on my CB antenna, my mileage dropped from 15 to,
um, 15. When I put on my ARB bumper it further dropped, to 15.
Hmm, maybe your an idiot?
>You'll notice that the large trucking companies all use
>streamlined Volvos or other clean trucks.
Yep, and they put CB antenna's, chrome pipes, and flat bumpers
on them, or haven't you noticed?
xoxoxo
<mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Nope. I'm totally serious. Some people have written in about
>OPEC, as if I wasn't aware of its existence or its
>machinations, but this much greater demand has to exist for
>them to even consider tightening up the market and
>raising the price
Wrong, oh knee jerk queen. It's not the total demand, which
hasn't really changed much, it the amount that is imported from
the OPEC countries that allows them to control market prices.
There is no "much greater demand" for gasoline or crude oil. In
fact, although US totals have risen slightly (1988 was the
highest gas production on record, however) gasoline consumption
per pop is down in the US, and will continue to decrease.
In fact, my "cowboy cadillac" gets far better mileage than the
big block camero I drove in the '70's, and I suspect this is
true for most people.
SUV's are ideal for most families, they are large enough to
transport a family and major purchases, provide a better view of
the road, and have 4wd for snow and camping. They project a
certain social status, and are fun to drive as well.
Econoboxes are economical.
I guess if I was stuck in an econobox, I'd whine too.
Ben Cantrick
>Hey - my SUV is very smart, it even has a nicely hidden rack of micro
>processors that control air/fuel ratio, timing, and brake pulses.
Eh, big deal - almost every car manufactured after 1990 has a
microprocessor based engine control unit. Environmental regs have gotten
tighter, and electronic ECUs are excellent at reducing emissions. Plus
having electronic ECUs allows for cool stuff like VTEC.
Now, "microprocessor controlled brake pulses". Whoo-hoo! Sounds pretty
high tech... until you realize it's just a fancy name for anti-lock brakes. ;]
>But it's not as fun to drive as your Batmobile...
You're darn right! <G> Unfortunately the gothmobile also gets mileage
comparable to an SUV. Ouch. Which is why keeping my Civic, and using it
for commuting and the other everyday stuff, was absolutely essential. That
way I'm not a menace to society full time - just on the weekends. ;]
-Ben
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
Klein bottle for sale, inquire within.
Ben Cantrick
>> Data point: My Civic gets 28 MPG consistently, in city driving.
>Yup, thanks for the confirmation. But I would wager as well that you can
>nudge 45-47 at a consistent 55mph. Not sure where or how you'd manage that
>given today's traffic though...
I drove to Dallas and back two summers ago. Consistent 45 MPG. Only
cost me like $150 worth of gas each way. Damn I love Hondas.
-Ben
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
"I'd rather know Lara Croft than Betty Crocker." -Douglas Copeland
Maraya
>
> In article <38E0F350...@uswest.net>, Maraya
> <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >Nope. I'm totally serious. Some people have written in about
> >OPEC, as if I wasn't aware of its existence or its
> >machinations, but this much greater demand has to exist for
> >them to even consider tightening up the market and
> >raising the price
>
> Wrong, oh knee jerk queen. It's not the total demand, which
> hasn't really changed much, it the amount that is imported from
> the OPEC countries that allows them to control market prices.
>
> There is no "much greater demand" for gasoline or crude oil. In
> fact, although US totals have risen slightly (1988 was the
> highest gas production on record, however) gasoline consumption
> per pop is down in the US, and will continue to decrease.
What good is a "per pop" figure, when the pop(ulation) and the number of
vehicles they drive have increased so rapidly?
> In fact, my "cowboy cadillac" gets far better mileage than the
> big block camero I drove in the '70's, and I suspect this is
> true for most people.
Good thing. How many more vehicles are on the road than in the 70's? This
is the 90's. We have to be concerned about emissions, too, you know.
> SUV's are ideal for most families, they are large enough to
> transport a family and major purchases, provide a better view of
> the road, and have 4wd for snow and camping. They project a
> certain social status, and are fun to drive as well.
According to what I've read, most SUV's are NOT owned by families, are
usually driven by one person, and are rarely (in most cases never) off
road. Smaller vehicles have 4WD, too. I don't give a shit about your
social status, or your concept of "fun," especially when that "fun" is
irresponsible.
> Econoboxes are economical.
>
> I guess if I was stuck in an econobox, I'd whine too.
You DO whine.
Maraya
Daniel Packman
>Daniel Packman wrote:
>>
>> In article <38E024F7...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
>> >...
>> >And fat people should pay more for food than skinny folk as well? ...
>>
>> No, they should pay the same for the *first* bite of food but the
>
>Very funny. However, you must admit that taller or larger frame people are
>born, not made, and there are no alternatives available, like trading in
>one's body for a smaller one or eating shared portions of "public" food.
To increase the relevance to other parts of this thread, we see
that larger frame people in particular should be equipped with
true bumpers for lower repair costs.
>> But we need not go to such extremes. Those of us with higher
>> mpg gullets pay sufficiently less than the SUV gullets that
>> we can expect these large gorbles to go the way of the dinosaur.
>> Another 65 million years, tops.
>
>At the rate we humans are going, we'll be lucky to survive another 650.
650 in what units? If the food sources decrease sufficiently
(as they seem to be in some areas of suburbia that actually have
lost fast food establishments - perish the thought), then smaller
and more efficient humans will achieve a greater survival benefit.
One could argue that mammals were really at their ideal size about
20 million years ago - much cuter than the ugly louts reeling about
these days. Just imagine the fuel efficiency in 650 (?units) when
it will be possible to get several thousand humans in a Honda Civic.
Chuck Wright
Maraya wrote:
>
> And what about the people with smaller cars, who are on a tight budget?
> What will they have to give up in the meantime? Food?
Why not legalize alternative forms of transportation? Did you know that
it's illegal to compete against RTD. It's also illegal to car pool for
profit.
Chuck Wright
http://www.harrybrowne.org/
Maraya
>
> Maraya wrote:
> >
> > And what about the people with smaller cars, who are on a tight budget?
> > What will they have to give up in the meantime? Food?
>
> Why not legalize alternative forms of transportation? Did you know that
> it's illegal to compete against RTD. It's also illegal to car pool for
> profit.
Plenty of people MUST drive for their jobs, and/or to pick up their kids,
and/or to shop, and not every location has a feasible public route to it.
Maraya
Chuck Wright
Maraya wrote:
>
> Chuck Wright wrote:
> >
> > Maraya wrote:
> > >
> > > And what about the people with smaller cars, who are on a tight budget?
> > > What will they have to give up in the meantime? Food?
> >
> > Why not legalize alternative forms of transportation? Did you know that
> > profit.
>
> Plenty of people MUST drive for their jobs, and/or to pick up their kids,
> and/or to shop, and not every location has a feasible public route to it.
Even people who can't take advantage of alternative forms of transportation
would benefit by legalizing the alternative transportation market. If
more people car pooled because they could do it for profit it would lower
the demand for gasoline resulting in lower prices for gasoline, it would
reduce congestion for everyone, it would reduce the need to expand the
highway system (which saves $$), and it would reduce pollution. What's
the down side of legalizing these alternative forms of transportation?
Chuck Wright
http://www.harrybrowne.org/
Maraya
> >Very funny. However, you must admit that taller or larger frame people are
> >born, not made, and there are no alternatives available, like trading in
> >one's body for a smaller one or eating shared portions of "public" food.
>
> All are born, many are made. Some become maids.
But most cannot be borne.
> To increase the relevance to other parts of this thread, we see
> that larger frame people in particular should be equipped with
> true bumpers for lower repair costs.
And removable pates so they wouldn't obstruct your view all the time!
> >At the rate we humans are going, we'll be lucky to survive another 650.
>
> 650 in what units?
Sun units. I couldn't deal with 650 Moon Units.
> If the food sources decrease sufficiently
> (as they seem to be in some areas of suburbia that actually have
> lost fast food establishments - perish the thought), then smaller
> and more efficient humans will achieve a greater survival benefit.
Why? We just may all "dinosaur" out of here.
> One could argue that mammals were really at their ideal size about
> 20 million years ago - much cuter than the ugly louts reeling about
> these days. Just imagine the fuel efficiency in 650 (?units) when
> it will be possible to get several thousand humans in a Honda Civic.
It'll be cockroaches driving those Civics, which, of course, will surely
still be around. "Slow down!" "Stop bugging me!" "What's that smell???"
Maraya
Chris
xoxoxo wrote:
> In article <38E0F350...@uswest.net>, Maraya
> <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >Nope. I'm totally serious. Some people have written in about
> >OPEC, as if I wasn't aware of its existence or its
> >machinations, but this much greater demand has to exist for
> >them to even consider tightening up the market and
> >raising the price
>
> Wrong, oh knee jerk queen. It's not the total demand, which
> hasn't really changed much, it the amount that is imported from
> the OPEC countries that allows them to control market prices.
>
> There is no "much greater demand" for gasoline or crude oil. In
> fact, although US totals have risen slightly (1988 was the
> highest gas production on record, however) gasoline consumption
> per pop is down in the US, and will continue to decrease.
>
> In fact, my "cowboy cadillac" gets far better mileage than the
> big block camero I drove in the '70's, and I suspect this is
> true for most people.
>
> SUV's are ideal for most families, they are large enough to
> transport a family and major purchases, provide a better view of
> the road, and have 4wd for snow and camping. They project a
> certain social status, and are fun to drive as well.
>
> Econoboxes are economical.
>
> I guess if I was stuck in an econobox, I'd whine too.
Personally I think it's all those veggie wraps - increases mental flatulence 'ya
know...
Chris
Ben Cantrick wrote:
> In article <38E0ED8E...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
> >Hey - my SUV is very smart, it even has a nicely hidden rack of micro
> >processors that control air/fuel ratio, timing, and brake pulses.
>
> Eh, big deal - almost every car manufactured after 1990 has a
> microprocessor based engine control unit. Environmental regs have gotten
> tighter, and electronic ECUs are excellent at reducing emissions. Plus
> having electronic ECUs allows for cool stuff like VTEC.
Dude - this is all too true...
> Now, "microprocessor controlled brake pulses". Whoo-hoo! Sounds pretty
> high tech... until you realize it's just a fancy name for anti-lock brakes. ;]
Come on - let me dazzle 'em in the cheap seats!
> >But it's not as fun to drive as your Batmobile...
>
> You're darn right! <G> Unfortunately the gothmobile also gets mileage
> comparable to an SUV. Ouch.
Feh - small price to pay for the adrenal exercise...
> Which is why keeping my Civic, and using it
> for commuting and the other everyday stuff, was absolutely essential. That
> way I'm not a menace to society full time - just on the weekends. ;]
Lol - a weekday Clark Kent - weekend Ayrton Senna?
< it's a good thing to cover *all* the bases>
> -Ben
> --
> Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
> BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
> The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
Chris
Ben Cantrick wrote:
> In article <38E0EDDC...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
> >> Data point: My Civic gets 28 MPG consistently, in city driving.
> >Yup, thanks for the confirmation. But I would wager as well that you can
> >nudge 45-47 at a consistent 55mph. Not sure where or how you'd manage that
> >given today's traffic though...
>
> I drove to Dallas and back two summers ago. Consistent 45 MPG. Only
> cost me like $150 worth of gas each way. Damn I love Hondas.
Boy you're just the perfect corroborative witness - I go back to the days of
those first 600 cc chain drive sardine cans they imported - but even then they
were a kick to skate around in - and thrifty too!
>
>
> -Ben
> --
> Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
> BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
> The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
Chris
Maraya wrote:
> xoxoxo wrote:
> >
> > In article <38E0F350...@uswest.net>, Maraya
> > <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > >Nope. I'm totally serious. Some people have written in about
> > >OPEC, as if I wasn't aware of its existence or its
> > >machinations, but this much greater demand has to exist for
> > >them to even consider tightening up the market and
> > >raising the price
> >
> > Wrong, oh knee jerk queen. It's not the total demand, which
> > hasn't really changed much, it the amount that is imported from
> > the OPEC countries that allows them to control market prices.
> >
> > There is no "much greater demand" for gasoline or crude oil. In
> > fact, although US totals have risen slightly (1988 was the
> > highest gas production on record, however) gasoline consumption
> > per pop is down in the US, and will continue to decrease.
>
> What good is a "per pop" figure, when the pop(ulation) and the number of
> vehicles they drive have increased so rapidly?
>
> > In fact, my "cowboy cadillac" gets far better mileage than the
> > big block camero I drove in the '70's, and I suspect this is
> > true for most people.
>
> Good thing. How many more vehicles are on the road than in the 70's? This
> is the 90's.
How about more humans - try looking at root causes.
> We have to be concerned about emissions, too, you know.
Yes - and yours are out of whack on this one.
> > SUV's are ideal for most families, they are large enough to
> > transport a family and major purchases, provide a better view of
> > the road, and have 4wd for snow and camping. They project a
> > certain social status, and are fun to drive as well.
>
> According to what I've read, most SUV's are NOT owned by families, are
> usually driven by one person, and are rarely (in most cases never) off
> road.
Well, then why bother with free will or the right to the pursuit of happiness -
clamp down, run 'em all off - shameless solo hedonists!
> Smaller vehicles have 4WD, too.
Oh but...er...those are still SUV's - Grand Vitara, Rav-4, CRV, et al...
> I don't give a shit about your
> social status, or your concept of "fun," especially when that "fun" is
> irresponsible.
Frankly my dear I don't think we give a damn about your strident socialist
whining either - take that!
> > Econoboxes are economical.
> >
> > I guess if I was stuck in an econobox, I'd whine too.
>
> You DO whine.
And *you're* one to point fingers?
> Maraya
Catch a clue - fascism in defense of the environment is still fascism - all the
more so when what you're really doing is singling out certain people and
vehicles that piss your delicate sensibilities off.
Sell your Camry, buy a bike, walk, live by your dogma.
Chris
Heather Bean wrote:
> Ben Cantrick (mackys...@dim.com) wrote:
> : In article <38E02A33...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
> : >>> And no, I don't own an SUV, I own a nice 35-MPG Honda Civic.
> : >> 35 city?
> : >Not likely with a new Civic - maybe 28.
>
> : Data point: My Civic gets 28 MPG consistently, in city driving.
>
> Another data point: My Civic gets ~33-37 mpg in city driving, depending on
> season and how much gear I've got strapped to the rack. And no, it's not
> new. It's from 1984, has over 300,000 miles, and still runs like a top.
>
> My $0.02: I don't feel sorry in the least for folks who drive inefficient
> cars and thus feel a pinch from high gas prices. It's a personal choice, and
> if one makes the choice to buy a Ford Valdez^H^H^H^H^HExpedition, I think
> that the danger of increased gas prices is a risk that comes with the
> territory.
Of course - that's sound thinking.
> If you can only afford to drive a given vehicle if gas is under
> $3/gallon, maybe you should consider a different vehicle.
Too true...
> I do somewhat resent the fact that in order to drive a fuel efficient car on
> roads heavily populated by SUVs, one has to accept a higher risk of injury
> in an accident.
Same holds for dump trucks though.
> It becomes much more difficult to encourage people to 'do
> the right thing' environmentally when it may involve penalty of injury or death.
The roads are mixed use you know - how come we don't hear the same whine from the
motorcyclists - to them any car is a potentially lethal encounter.
> H.
>
> --
> Heather Bean,
> Geeky Engineer
> be...@frii.com
xoxoxo
<mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
>xoxoxo wrote:
>> per pop is down in the US, and will continue to decrease.
>
>What good is a "per pop" figure, when the pop(ulation) and the
>number of vehicles they drive have increased so rapidly?
Are you just confused by the use of statistics in general?
>
>> In fact, my "cowboy cadillac" gets far better mileage than the
>> big block camero I drove in the '70's, and I suspect this is
>> true for most people.
>
>Good thing. How many more vehicles are on the road than in the
>70's? This is the 90's.
This is the 90's? Have you checked a calendar since december
there sister?
> We have to be concerned about emissions, too, you know.
We are, thats what all those emission thingies are on cars and
SUV's these days.
>> SUV's are ideal for most families, they are large enough to
>> transport a family and major purchases, provide a better view
>> of the road, and have 4wd for snow and camping. They project a
>> certain social status, and are fun to drive as well.
>
>According to what I've read, most SUV's are NOT owned by
families,
So what (if it's true, which I suspect it's not, since most
people have a family, so cite what you read please)? They are
large enough to transport families, so, even if your single, and
want to take the swedish bikini team up to vail for a weekend,
you can. (Although in that case it might be more fun in a
civic)
>are usually driven by one person,
Funny, I've never seen a car with two people driving it. Say,
are you in one of those driver's ed cars with two steering
wheels and brakes?
> and are rarely (in most cases never) off
>road.
Even if that's true(see above and cite), the capability is
there. Most fire extinguishers are never used, should they pull
them out of schools?
> Smaller vehicles have 4WD, too.
So what? Small vehicles are not suitable for many tasks, they
lack the space.
>I don't give a shit about your
>social status,
So what, I don't give a shit about you, except to squelch your
lame brained knee jerk prattle. The fact is that social status
is important, as we are, for the most part, social animals.
>or your concept of "fun," especially when that "fun" is
>irresponsible.
Ah, by irresponsable you mean you don't like it? Tough. My
vehicles are legally and responsably liscensed, legal, and
insured.
>
>> Econoboxes are economical.
>>
>> I guess if I was stuck in an econobox, I'd whine too.
>
>You DO whine.
Ha, where? Your whole posting history is nothing but whining,
Whaa, SUV's are mean, hamburger is mean, whaaa.
Facts are that SUV's are not the cause of higher gas prices, and
it's pretty dense to think they are, whaaa whaa.
>
>Maraya
xoxoxo
>Plenty of people MUST drive for their jobs, and/or to pick up
>their kids, and/or to shop, and not every location has a
>feasible public route to it.
Bullshit. You can find an apartment, day care, grocery, and job
near a bus stop, if that is your chosen method of transport. Of
course you might have to walk a couple of blocks, so what?
Maraya
>
> In article <38E12FA6...@uswest.net>, Maraya
> <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >xoxoxo wrote:
>
> >> per pop is down in the US, and will continue to decrease.
> >
> >What good is a "per pop" figure, when the pop(ulation) and the
> >number of vehicles they drive have increased so rapidly?
>
> Are you just confused by the use of statistics in general?
Consumption is up, overall. You said so yourself. Is this personal attack
because you can't respond to my question?
> >> In fact, my "cowboy cadillac" gets far better mileage than the
> >> big block camero I drove in the '70's, and I suspect this is
> >> true for most people.
> >
> >Good thing. How many more vehicles are on the road than in the
> >70's? This is the 90's.
>
> This is the 90's? Have you checked a calendar since december
> there sister?
Heh! You got me there. Seems, too, you're longing to be a relative of
mine? No, thanks.
> > We have to be concerned about emissions, too, you know.
>
> We are, thats what all those emission thingies are on cars and
> SUV's these days.
I suppose that makes you feel very complacent about the air we're
breathing. But I did stray from the point. The point was equitable
distribution of cost. You're contending I have no basis. You are
incorrect.
> >> SUV's are ideal for most families, they are large enough to
> >> transport a family and major purchases, provide a better view
> >> of the road, and have 4wd for snow and camping. They project a
> >> certain social status, and are fun to drive as well.
> >
> >According to what I've read, most SUV's are NOT owned by
> families,
>
> So what (if it's true, which I suspect it's not, since most
> people have a family, so cite what you read please)?
In fact, less than 50% of homes in the US today contain children, and even
less contain "traditional" two-parent families (I believe the figure was
30%).
> They are
> large enough to transport families, so, even if your single, and
> want to take the swedish bikini team up to vail for a weekend,
> you can. (Although in that case it might be more fun in a
> civic)
I see your idea of what kind of car constitutes "fun" varies according to
the sexual attractiveness of the car's occupants. So, are you advocating
small cars for all single, attractive people, so they can have that kind of
"fun" when they take a group of the opposite sex for a ride?
> >are usually driven by one person,
>
> Funny, I've never seen a car with two people driving it. Say,
> are you in one of those driver's ed cars with two steering
> wheels and brakes?
I'm sure you knew what I meant - occupied by one person. But you couldn't
respond to that, could you.
> > and are rarely (in most cases never) off
> >road.
>
> Even if that's true(see above and cite), the capability is
> there. Most fire extinguishers are never used, should they pull
> them out of schools?
Oh, I see. The guy who commutes from Boulder to Denver every day, and
never goes off road on the weekend, but usually drives over to his
girlfriend's house, where they watch movies and eat pizza and drink vintage
wine - that guy - should own an SUV for the one or two times a year he MAY
decide to go into the mountains, though it is unlikely he will go off road
even then?
> > Smaller vehicles have 4WD, too.
>
> So what? Small vehicles are not suitable for many tasks, they
> lack the space.
To fool around with the Swedish bikini team? Few SUV owners need the
space, except for those rare occasions they don't want to have something
large delivered. Space for what? If it's a working vehicle, then a
regular truck is better.
> >I don't give a shit about your
> >social status,
>
> So what, I don't give a shit about you, except to squelch your
> lame brained knee jerk prattle. The fact is that social status
> is important, as we are, for the most part, social animals.
Yes, you *would* equate being social with social status. Status is not
important to some of us - we who have enough self-confidence and
self-assurance that we don't need artificial facades and trinkets to feel
important.
> >or your concept of "fun," especially when that "fun" is
> >irresponsible.
>
> Ah, by irresponsable you mean you don't like it? Tough. My
> vehicles are legally and responsably liscensed, legal, and
> insured.
Ecologically irresponsible (and "irresponsible" does happen to be the
correct spelling). Yes, all of your ilk walk around saying, "Tough." You
just don't care.
> >> Econoboxes are economical.
> >>
> >> I guess if I was stuck in an econobox, I'd whine too.
> >
> >You DO whine.
>
> Ha, where? Your whole posting history is nothing but whining,
> Whaa, SUV's are mean, hamburger is mean, whaaa.
Hmmm. I'm beginning to wonder if you're another incarnation of Chris. You
sure sound a lot like him. If your'e not, you two will find each other.
It happens every time. The snotty, nasty, irascible trolls duke it out or
pat each other on the back.
> Facts are that SUV's are not the cause of higher gas prices, and
> it's pretty dense to think they are, whaaa whaa.
What a jerk. No wonder you need to be propped up by "status symbols."
Maraya
Chris
Maraya wrote:
> xoxoxo wrote:
> >
> > In article <38E12FA6...@uswest.net>, Maraya
> > <mar...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > >xoxoxo wrote:
> >
> > >> per pop is down in the US, and will continue to decrease.
> > >
> > >What good is a "per pop" figure, when the pop(ulation) and the
> > >number of vehicles they drive have increased so rapidly?
> >
> > Are you just confused by the use of statistics in general?
>
> Consumption is up, overall.
And so is CAFE - corporate average fuel efficiency!
Fuel usage per capita is down.
> You said so yourself. Is this personal attack
> because you can't respond to my question?
Are you unable to reconcile the fact that as we have increased the total number
of vehicles since the 1970's we have also improved the fleet average for fuel
economy?
Seems you're the one who won't listen to the facts.
> > >> In fact, my "cowboy cadillac" gets far better mileage than the
> > >> big block camero I drove in the '70's, and I suspect this is
> > >> true for most people.
> > >
> > >Good thing. How many more vehicles are on the road than in the
> > >70's? This is the 90's.
> >
> > This is the 90's? Have you checked a calendar since december
> > there sister?
>
> Heh! You got me there. Seems, too, you're longing to be a relative of
> mine? No, thanks.
Ditto.
> > > We have to be concerned about emissions, too, you know.
> >
> > We are, thats what all those emission thingies are on cars and
> > SUV's these days.
>
> I suppose that makes you feel very complacent about the air we're
> breathing.
That would be a *supposition* and one made without any factual basis. Is that
all you have left - false accusations and hot air? Well, maybe we do have a
source for greenhouse gasses.
> But I did stray from the point.
Sure, you couldn't resist a cheap shot, could you?
> The point was equitable
> distribution of cost.
The point was socialism - what is "equitable distribution of cost" but Marxism?
You ever stop and play back those sound bites you're mouthing?
> You're contending I have no basis.
Hell, I'm contending you're flagrantly Marxist - put that in your commie pipe
and toke it!
> You are
> incorrect.
No - you are out of step with reality.
> > >> SUV's are ideal for most families, they are large enough to
> > >> transport a family and major purchases, provide a better view
> > >> of the road, and have 4wd for snow and camping. They project a
> > >> certain social status, and are fun to drive as well.
> > >
> > >According to what I've read, most SUV's are NOT owned by
> > families,
> >
> > So what (if it's true, which I suspect it's not, since most
> > people have a family, so cite what you read please)?
>
> In fact, less than 50% of homes in the US today contain children, and even
> less contain "traditional" two-parent families (I believe the figure was
> 30%).
And we'd love to see where that figure came from....or why it related to choice
of vehicle!
What - do I need 3.2 children to buy a mommy-van Maraya?
What's the politically correct socialist litmus number to get me a Suburban?
Come on - make me whole - make me liberally acceptable like the greenies who
pile into vans for their field trips.
> > They are
> > large enough to transport families, so, even if your single, and
> > want to take the swedish bikini team up to vail for a weekend,
> > you can. (Although in that case it might be more fun in a
> > civic)
>
> I see your idea of what kind of car constitutes "fun" varies according to
> the sexual attractiveness of the car's occupants.
And are you not the same one who was openly *flirting* with Dan and a few
others over the "triangle" thing last week?
When is it OK to be sexually humorous?
Only when you're trying to repave your own damaged persona?
> So, are you advocating
> small cars for all single, attractive people, so they can have that kind of
> "fun" when they take a group of the opposite sex for a ride?
Maybe you'd like to slip back into that hypotenuse kind of mode and explain
your geometric flirt scene last week too....
Hypocrite - of the first water.
> > >are usually driven by one person,
> >
> > Funny, I've never seen a car with two people driving it. Say,
> > are you in one of those driver's ed cars with two steering
> > wheels and brakes?
>
> I'm sure you knew what I meant - occupied by one person. But you couldn't
> respond to that, could you.
And while you like to claim "humor" where none was remotely evident (in an
effort to withdraw from some of your more radical positions) you now seem to
enjoy turning the tables on what was obviously a humorous post - you're really
flaming out Maraya.
And it's there for all to see - keep it up.
> > > and are rarely (in most cases never) off
> > >road.
> >
> > Even if that's true(see above and cite), the capability is
> > there. Most fire extinguishers are never used, should they pull
> > them out of schools?
>
> Oh, I see.
No, you're far past the point of ever wanting to "see" - you came in with one
whopper of a preconceived case - too bad it was still born.
> The guy who commutes from Boulder to Denver every day, and
> never goes off road on the weekend, but usually drives over to his
> girlfriend's house, where they watch movies and eat pizza and drink vintage
> wine - that guy - should own an SUV for the one or two times a year he MAY
> decide to go into the mountains, though it is unlikely he will go off road
> even then?
Ever hear of free will?
What happens in your fascist world - we take his SUV away and give it to a
regular granola fed rock climber?
What the Hell is wrong with you Maraya?!?
> > > Smaller vehicles have 4WD, too.
> >
> > So what? Small vehicles are not suitable for many tasks, they
> > lack the space.
>
> To fool around with the Swedish bikini team?
Oh, Ms. Flirt is now up in arms because he didn't choose a geometry idiom to
make a sexual reference.
You're transparent.
> Few SUV owners need the
> space,
Screw you - judgmental tripe - you haven't polled *all* SUV owners, have you?
> except for those rare occasions they don't want to have something
> large delivered.
Another of your preconceptions - you're literally brimming with negative
judgments and edicts.
> Space for what?
For your inconsistencies - I'd need at least a long bed to truck that load to
the dump!
> If it's a working vehicle, then a
> regular truck is better.
With the amount of s*** you're full of I'm guessing a 5 yd. dump bed wouldn't
do the job.
> > >I don't give a shit about your
> > >social status,
> >
> > So what, I don't give a shit about you, except to squelch your
> > lame brained knee jerk prattle. The fact is that social status
> > is important, as we are, for the most part, social animals.
>
> Yes, you *would* equate being social with social status.
Holy cow - you mean the society and the pecking order aren't connected?
Whoa - this is news!
When did you form this neo-existentialist theorem?
> Status is not
> important to some of us -
Really...who might this "us" be?
I mean you're already taking the high ground on Vegan ethical superiority, you
brag about having an old Camry, slobber over usurping free choice in vehicles
from the rest of us - I'd say your "status" is very clearly defined, and *very*
important to you Maraya.
> we who have enough self-confidence and
> self-assurance that we don't need artificial facades and trinkets to feel
> important.
Aw, and I'll bet you don't use makeup (even the non bunny tested stuff) don't
dress nicely for work, don't wash up, or dry your hair, couldn't give a rip for
sexual attraction (remembering last weeks triangle inconsistency) never brush
your teeth, suck a breath mint, or do one damned thing to appeal to the
opposite (or same ) sex.
Yeah...right...
No jewelry of any kind either - right?
And no lipstick, gloss, push up bras - a real latter day cave woman - that
right?
...pits and all...
> > >or your concept of "fun," especially when that "fun" is
> > >irresponsible.
> >
> > Ah, by irresponsable you mean you don't like it? Tough. My
> > vehicles are legally and responsably liscensed, legal, and
> > insured.
>
> Ecologically irresponsible (and "irresponsible" does happen to be the
> correct spelling). Yes, all of your ilk walk around saying, "Tough." You
> just don't care.
That's crap - there are plenty of SUV owners who try and buy the ones with
smaller engines or manual transmissions. They also purchase mini SUV's like
Sidekicks, CRV's and Rav-4's. But why let the facts intrude on your
inquisition...
Face it - you're running on fumes - and they ain't LEV!
> > >> Econoboxes are economical.
> > >>
> > >> I guess if I was stuck in an econobox, I'd whine too.
> > >
> > >You DO whine.
> >
> > Ha, where? Your whole posting history is nothing but whining,
> > Whaa, SUV's are mean, hamburger is mean, whaaa.
>
> Hmmm. I'm beginning to wonder if you're another incarnation of Chris.
Oh there we go - the accusations of multiple personas - odd that you once
backed me in that arena - but that was before I dared crossed the Vegan
curtain.
How things have changed since I pointed out to you the potential health hazards
in a purely Vegan dietary regime.
My bad.
You worse.
> You
> sure sound a lot like him.
And you sound a lot like Karl Marx - so?
> If your'e not, you two will find each other.
Well it is a ng - and there is such a thing as consecutive posts - hey, what a
concept - we may actually read something other than the "Gospel according to
Maraya"!
No telling what we or any 2 people might do with the facts you've tried so
assiduously to bury under your dogma.
> It happens every time.
Well I'll be danged - she's God - who else could know *every* thing?
> The snotty, nasty, irascible trolls duke it out or
> pat each other on the back.
Self fulfilling prophecies are trite - is everyone who's disagreed with you so
far my later ego, clone, or a "troll?
How long have you had these feelings of persecution?
You need to take a breather Maraya - your prejudices are showing all over the
place.
> > Facts are that SUV's are not the cause of higher gas prices, and
> > it's pretty dense to think they are, whaaa whaa.
>
> What a jerk.
Oh that eclipses your usual eloquence by a mere syllable.
> No wonder you need to be propped up by "status symbols."
>
> Maraya
Check your makeup - I think the base is lacking foundation.
Heather Bean
: In article <38E02A33...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
: >>> And no, I don't own an SUV, I own a nice 35-MPG Honda Civic.
: >> 35 city?
: >Not likely with a new Civic - maybe 28.
: Data point: My Civic gets 28 MPG consistently, in city driving.
Another data point: My Civic gets ~33-37 mpg in city driving, depending on
season and how much gear I've got strapped to the rack. And no, it's not
new. It's from 1984, has over 300,000 miles, and still runs like a top.
My $0.02: I don't feel sorry in the least for folks who drive inefficient
cars and thus feel a pinch from high gas prices. It's a personal choice, and
if one makes the choice to buy a Ford Valdez^H^H^H^H^HExpedition, I think
that the danger of increased gas prices is a risk that comes with the
territory. If you can only afford to drive a given vehicle if gas is under
$3/gallon, maybe you should consider a different vehicle.
I do somewhat resent the fact that in order to drive a fuel efficient car on
roads heavily populated by SUVs, one has to accept a higher risk of injury
in an accident. It becomes much more difficult to encourage people to 'do
the right thing' environmentally when it may involve penalty of injury or death.
H.
Jenny Farnham
>roads heavily populated by SUVs, one has to accept a higher risk of injury
>in an accident. It becomes much more difficult to encourage people to 'do
>the right thing' environmentally when it may involve penalty of injury or death.
>H.
>
>--
>Heather Bean,
>Geeky Engineer
>be...@frii.com
Funny, I bought a SUV after being T-boned in an accident at
96th and Dillon Road near StorageTek.
I was driving a Dodge Intrepid. The other
driver ran the stop sign and admitted it. This is when there
were still traffic stop signs at the 4 way stop there. She was
driving a Dodge Stealth. I was grateful she was not driving
a SUV that day. I came out of that accident with a
crushed Pelvis, bruised ribs, and a concussion.
She had bruises on her shins and walked away from the accident.
Nope, the air bag did not go off in this
side impact collison. She hit me on the driver's side.
The whole accident scared me of course, and when it came time
to get a new car, as the other was totaled, I wanted to be
higher off the ground and in a bigger car. If it were to happen
again, I wanted better odds of not being so 'broken up' body-wise.
Whether it is a tiny Dodge Stealth or a Dodge Durango, I want better
odds. Of course, a Mack Truck is a whole different story :-)
Ben Cantrick
>> It becomes much more difficult to encourage people to 'do the right
>>thing' environmentally when it may involve penalty of injury or death.
>
>from the motorcyclists - to them any car is a potentially lethal encounter.
As a motorcyclist, I hereby whine!
God damnit, will you @#$%* cagers quit bullying me on the road?? A
collision means a dented panel for you but a broken leg for me!
Seriously, though, on a motorcycle, at least you heavily out-accellerate,
out-break and usually out-manuver everything else around you. If you're in
an econobox and the other person is in an SUV, they probably out-accellerate
you, and the handling is probably almost comprable. You do at least have
better stopping distance.
p = mv. If you want to protect yourself, drive a heavier car, go faster
than usual, or both.
-Ben
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
"Be kind to the poor little script kiddies - run IIS." -Adam Jones
Howard Brazee
using SUVs, will they want specific detail allowing one to carry a team
to little league (It is OK as soon as you pick up the 4th kid)?
Or is it a general feeling that the government works much better than
the marketplace.
Or simply a power play. Let's DO SOMETHING, without knowing whether
what we do is better than what will happen naturally, or without caring
that others can DO SOMETHING about another want, using our tools, to
mess up things we care about?
Tim Schreiner
> In part, Howard Brazee wrote in <38E20304...@webaccess.net>:
>
> >..is it a general feeling that the government works much better than
> >the marketplace.
>
> Sure....if there was a truly free market.
> There is no truly free market in the production, distribution
> and sales of gasoline.
>
> From the oil producing cartels, through the few mega-corporations
> that are merging to form only a handful of world wide oil companies,
Don't the Feds approve or disapprove mergers of U.S. companies ?
If so, why aren't they doing their job instead of going after Microsoft over
an Internet browser ?
> to the area gasoline dealers associations that fix their prices in
> lock step with each other, your so-called free market is severely
> bound and gagged. By and large, these companies are going to
> determine the level of profit they make
> on their own- not the marketplace.
>
> Since 1912 and Teddy Roosevelt, I think we can thank government
> anti-trust laws for preventing this situation from being even worse
> than it already is, even as poorly as they are currently being enforced
> in our gung-ho post-Reagan America.
Those are the key words: "currently being enforced"
> BTW, say good-bye to Amoco, they've been bought out by BP
> and those familiar red, white and blue signs are soom coming
> down nationwide to be replaced by the green BP ones [WSJ]
>
> If the public choosed to ridiculously burn up its capital today
> by the use of ego satisfying Mad Max motor vehicles instead
> of investing or saving, they shoud be free to do so.
Maybe they believe the government is going to take care of them - after all,
that's what we've been told for years ... Every year they send the IRS a lot
of money, supposedly to FICA and Medicare etc ...
> The rest of us will be in that much of a better financial position
> ten or twenty years from now, enjoying mixed drinks with a little
> umbrella in the top on a beach somewhere with the tens of
> thousands we're saved and invested. And those resrts will be
> much less expensive than they would have otherwise been.
> Viva la Free Market!
>
> Just don't cry to gevernment that you're old and broke and to do
something.
> But, somehow, I know you will, hypocrites.
>
> -BK
> In the vicinity of Berthoud
What is hypocritical about wanting something in return for paying into the
Federal government for all of those years ?
Dennis Clark
: Maraya wrote wthout thinking:
:>Plenty of people MUST drive for their jobs, and/or to pick up
:>their kids, and/or to shop, and not every location has a
:>feasible public route to it.
: Bullshit. You can find an apartment, day care, grocery, and job
: near a bus stop, if that is your chosen method of transport. Of
: course you might have to walk a couple of blocks, so what?
I can see you've never had to do this. If you had you would EVEN
paint such a glowing picture. Maybe in NYC or LA you can do this, in
FTC it ain't so. Is Denver better? Their busses look pretty empty every
time I'm there...
DLC
--
============================================================================
* Dennis Clark Aristocrat at heart d...@verinet.com www.verinet.com/~dlc *
* Be well, do good work, and stay in touch -- Garrison Keillor *
============================================================================
Ron Miller
: I can see you've never had to do this. If you had you would EVEN
: paint such a glowing picture. Maybe in NYC or LA you can do this, in
: FTC it ain't so. Is Denver better? Their busses look pretty empty every
: time I'm there...
Dennis I can tell you that the Southside Shuttle runs Harmony Rd.
Harmony Rd has everything you claim doesn't exist here.
There are the Courtney Park Apartments next to the Safeway about
1 mile from the KinderCare a bit further west next to the 7-11.
(which has its own apt complex next door)
Across the road to the south are delis, restaurants, dry-cleaners and
yet another grocery store. Somewhat east of there is the new set of hotels.
Eastbound is HP, Celestica and Symbios for industrial employers if
you don't care to work at the Marriott Courtyard or ESAB or the magnetics
place or.... or.....
Do you actually live here or just drive in from somewhere else without
looking around?
Let's see.... the next objection will be the price of the apartments, right?
Ron Miller
Ft. Collins
(occasional bus rider, occasional bicyclist, occasional motorcyclist,
occasional SUV driver, occasional Unimogger , full-time skeptic)
Chris
Ben Cantrick wrote:
> In article <38E15648...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
> >> It becomes much more difficult to encourage people to 'do the right
> >>thing' environmentally when it may involve penalty of injury or death.
> >
> >The roads are mixed use you know - how come we don't hear the same whine
> >from the motorcyclists - to them any car is a potentially lethal encounter.
>
> As a motorcyclist, I hereby whine!
You must Ben - too many sleeping 4 wheelers sent me back to the dirt
permanently.
> God damnit, will you @#$%* cagers quit bullying me on the road?? A
> collision means a dented panel for you but a broken leg for me!
>
> Seriously, though, on a motorcycle, at least you heavily out-accellerate,
> out-break and usually out-manuver everything else around you.
I think I'll dispute the last - 4 is still better than 2 for contact patch, and
for rapid emergency maneuvers (say mid curve) a car still is better.
> If you're in
> an econobox and the other person is in an SUV, they probably out-accellerate
> you, and the handling is probably almost comprable. You do at least have
> better stopping distance.
>
> p = mv. If you want to protect yourself, drive a heavier car, go faster
> than usual, or both.
An intriguing combination. I'll take 2 from column p thanks...
Laszlo Nemeth
>
>> It becomes much more difficult to encourage people to 'do
>> the right thing' environmentally when it may involve penalty of injury or death.
>
>The roads are mixed use you know - how come we don't hear the same whine from the
>motorcyclists - to them any car is a potentially lethal encounter.
because i've accepted the fact that all cage drivers are idoits.
if people want safer roads get a real driving test, and a real vehical
inspection (assuming the inspection could be done without every shop
telling you you need new brake pads every year).
laz
Chris
Laszlo Nemeth wrote:
> In article <38E15648...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
> >
> >> It becomes much more difficult to encourage people to 'do
> >> the right thing' environmentally when it may involve penalty of injury or death.
> >
> >The roads are mixed use you know - how come we don't hear the same whine from the
> >motorcyclists - to them any car is a potentially lethal encounter.
>
> because i've accepted the fact that all cage drivers are idoits.
Ain't it the truth. 2 weeks on a motorcycle would do more to increase the driving
skills of the average 4 wheeler than 2 years of road time.
> if people want safer roads get a real driving test, and a real vehical
> inspection (assuming the inspection could be done without every shop
> telling you you need new brake pads every year).
>
> laz
Well said.
Ben Cantrick
>> As a motorcyclist, I hereby whine!
>You must Ben - too many sleeping 4 wheelers sent me back to the dirt
>permanently.
You're smarter than me, then. Because no matter how much I whine, people
aren't going to become better drivers.
>> Seriously, though, on a motorcycle, at least you heavily out-accellerate,
>> out-break and usually out-manuver everything else around you.
>
>I think I'll dispute the last - 4 is still better than 2 for contact patch, and
>for rapid emergency maneuvers (say mid curve) a car still is better.
I dunno, there's a lot of factors to consider. A car has more contact
patch, but may have less sticky tires than your average bike. The bike
has less contact patch, but also less weight so it doesn't need as much
friction. Bikes are also usually set up (suspension-wise) to be more
manuverable.
Pretty tough call. I've heard anecdotal evidence that a bike will almost
always beat a car in acceleration, (more horses per pound) but that an
average car can actually hold more speed around corners. (More weight
on tires = better grip?)
-Ben
--
Ben Cantrick (mac...@dim.com) | Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs: http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
A Discovery channel mind in an MTV world.
Heather Bean
: Heather Bean wrote:
: > I do somewhat resent the fact that in order to drive a fuel efficient car on
: > roads heavily populated by SUVs, one has to accept a higher risk of injury
: > in an accident.
: Same holds for dump trucks though.
: > It becomes much more difficult to encourage people to 'do
: > the right thing' environmentally when it may involve penalty of injury or death.
While it's true that dump trucks are indeed more potentially lethal to
my little beer can car than SUVs, I consider them to be somewhat of a
'constant' that I really can't influence since I don't have a better idea.
That is to say that I don't think anyone would consider a Honda Civic,
even a wagon, appropriate for the delivery of 10 yards of 3/4" river rock
or asphalt. Dump trucks are tools, not a style choice, and especially for
short-distance hauling, I can't think of a more appropriate tool.
Therefore they are necessary, and for the wont of 'civilized' trappings
like like roads, driveways, houses, and landscaping, we collectively
accept the risk of driving around with dump trucks on the road. I won't
complain that my Makita drill is dangerous either, unless I have a better
solution in mind for drilling holes.
SUVs, on the other hand, are often driven around not as tools, but as cars.
Big cars. Sexy cars. I won't contest that some people do indeed utilize
them fully for their jobs, or hobbies, or large families. However, I see a
tremendous number of them on the road transporting one or two people and two
or three empty couches in the back. I'm sure that we all understand the
statistics involved with more of these on the road leading to a higher
probability of hitting or being hit by one. If more people feel good about
driving econo-cars than SUVs, there will be a lower percentage of SUVs on
the road and it will be safer to drive an econo-car. If people don't
feel good about driving econo-cars, then the balance shifts the other way,
and it becomes even more dangerous to drive an econo-car as the percentage
of SUVs increases. I think it is a shame that the current situation seems
to be favoring the latter scenario. I'd be lying if I said that I haven't
been doing plenty of thinking about getting a newer, bigger, lower gas
mileage car, all in the interest of safety.
: The roads are mixed use you know - how come we don't hear the same whine from
the
: motorcyclists - to them any car is a potentially lethal encounter.
Probably because it's a whole 'nother situation on a whole 'nother scale.
I'm not a motorcyclist, but I am a road cyclist. To me, any car, motorcycle,
SUV, truck, dump truck, or sufficiently mean and fast dog is a potentially
lethal encounter. Therefore, I'd have to get basically everyone off the road
except me to be 'safe'. That's not a practical thing to do, clearly,
since my tax dollars alone wouldn't go far toward paving an interstate
highway system. Since a speeding Honda Civic will likely kill me just
as dead as a speeding SUV if I get hit, I don't have anything more
against one than the other in that situation. When I'm on a bicycle, the
main beef I have with drivers of any and all vehicles is reckless behavior
and poor manners that needlessly endanger. While bicycling, the difference
in scale between me and all motorized vehicles does not lead me to
distinguish between types of vehicles where safety is concerned. In my
car, however, I am now on the same scale as other passenger vehicles,
and it becomes useful to distinguish between the relative safety of
me vs. another econo-car and me vs. an SUV.
H.
--
Heather Bean
Geeky Engineer
be...@frii.com
Tim Schreiner
which makes it harder to play devil's advocate ...
"Heather Bean" <heat...@gr.hp.com> wrote in message
news:8btu0a$hik$1...@hpbs1500.boi.hp.com...
Heather Bean
before I post. :-)
H., aiming to please, as always.
Tim Schreiner (timsch...@businessweekmail.com) wrote:
: Sheez Heather ... what you say makes a lot of sense ... <g>
Chris
Ben Cantrick wrote:
> In article <38E24CC6...@here.now>, Chris <moi> wrote:
> >> As a motorcyclist, I hereby whine!
> >You must Ben - too many sleeping 4 wheelers sent me back to the dirt
> >permanently.
>
> You're smarter than me, then. Because no matter how much I whine, people
> aren't going to become better drivers.
Yeah it's really a quick erosion of common sense and basic manners out there -
shockingly quick.
> >> Seriously, though, on a motorcycle, at least you heavily out-accellerate,
> >> out-break and usually out-manuver everything else around you.
> >
> >I think I'll dispute the last - 4 is still better than 2 for contact patch, and
> >for rapid emergency maneuvers (say mid curve) a car still is better.
>
> I dunno, there's a lot of factors to consider. A car has more contact
> patch, but may have less sticky tires than your average bike. The bike
> has less contact patch, but also less weight so it doesn't need as much
> friction. Bikes are also usually set up (suspension-wise) to be more
> manuverable.
All true, but those pesky corners really even it out.
> Pretty tough call. I've heard anecdotal evidence that a bike will almost
> always beat a car in acceleration, (more horses per pound) but that an
> average car can actually hold more speed around corners. (More weight
> on tires = better grip?)
Same as I've read, and if you ever have to try and change lanes in a series of
sweepers, well..let's just say you better be real careful about dialing it on and
using every inch of lean available. I've had that happen before, and one becomes
nearly super-lucid as to the diminishing distance to oncoming traffic.
Urk.
Chris
Heather Bean wrote:
> Chris (m...@here.now) wrote:
> : Heather Bean wrote:
>
> : > I do somewhat resent the fact that in order to drive a fuel efficient car on
> : > roads heavily populated by SUVs, one has to accept a higher risk of injury
> : > in an accident.
>
> : Same holds for dump trucks though.
>
> : > It becomes much more difficult to encourage people to 'do
> : > the right thing' environmentally when it may involve penalty of injury or death.
>
> While it's true that dump trucks are indeed more potentially lethal to
> my little beer can car than SUVs, I consider them to be somewhat of a
> 'constant' that I really can't influence since I don't have a better idea.
How about legions of smaller dump trucks?
> That is to say that I don't think anyone would consider a Honda Civic,
> even a wagon, appropriate for the delivery of 10 yards of 3/4" river rock
> or asphalt. Dump trucks are tools, not a style choice, and especially for
> short-distance hauling, I can't think of a more appropriate tool.
> Therefore they are necessary, and for the wont of 'civilized' trappings
> like like roads, driveways, houses, and landscaping, we collectively
> accept the risk of driving around with dump trucks on the road. I won't
> complain that my Makita drill is dangerous either, unless I have a better
> solution in mind for drilling holes.
Well there you go, and thus my pickup is invaluable in hauling firewood, landscape
materials, and other essentials - not the type of load a Civic would swallow with ease.
> SUVs, on the other hand, are often driven around not as tools, but as cars.
> Big cars. Sexy cars.
But the same is true of a Lincoln Town car, or Bentley.
> I won't contest that some people do indeed utilize
> them fully for their jobs, or hobbies, or large families. However, I see a
> tremendous number of them on the road transporting one or two people and two
> or three empty couches in the back. I'm sure that we all understand the
> statistics involved with more of these on the road leading to a higher
> probability of hitting or being hit by one. If more people feel good about
> driving econo-cars than SUVs, there will be a lower percentage of SUVs on
> the road and it will be safer to drive an econo-car. If people don't
> feel good about driving econo-cars, then the balance shifts the other way,
> and it becomes even more dangerous to drive an econo-car as the percentage
> of SUVs increases. I think it is a shame that the current situation seems
> to be favoring the latter scenario. I'd be lying if I said that I haven't
> been doing plenty of thinking about getting a newer, bigger, lower gas
> mileage car, all in the interest of safety.
Hmmm...well you don't have to go all that *big* to get the safety taken care of -
midsize might just do the trick, and you'll likely be abel to opt for a thrifty six and
still average in the 20's - mixed cycle.
> : The roads are mixed use you know - how come we don't hear the same whine from
> the
> : motorcyclists - to them any car is a potentially lethal encounter.
>
> Probably because it's a whole 'nother situation on a whole 'nother scale.
Exactly - and when one considers that moving people is the idea, scooters, mopeds, and
under 125cc motorcycles would be the ideal means. In fact their mileage can easily nudge
the low 80's, and the ear to ear grin is hard to beat. So there we have it - climax
state for the politically correct transportation model is nothing over 125cc - and don't
scoff at poor weather, BMW has a quasi enclosed scooter for the more elegantly dressed.
> I'm not a motorcyclist, but I am a road cyclist. To me, any car, motorcycle,
> SUV, truck, dump truck, or sufficiently mean and fast dog is a potentially
> lethal encounter.
Well stated.
> Therefore, I'd have to get basically everyone off the road
> except me to be 'safe'. That's not a practical thing to do, clearly,
> since my tax dollars alone wouldn't go far toward paving an interstate
> highway system. Since a speeding Honda Civic will likely kill me just
> as dead as a speeding SUV if I get hit, I don't have anything more
> against one than the other in that situation. When I'm on a bicycle, the
> main beef I have with drivers of any and all vehicles is reckless behavior
> and poor manners that needlessly endanger. While bicycling, the difference
> in scale between me and all motorized vehicles does not lead me to
> distinguish between types of vehicles where safety is concerned. In my
> car, however, I am now on the same scale as other passenger vehicles,
> and it becomes useful to distinguish between the relative safety of
> me vs. another econo-car and me vs. an SUV.
That's a very thoughtful analysis. So really, it all comes down to perceptions then.
Your life is in danger by choice (yours) as a recreational pursuit. And your life is
also in danger commuting (some of the mass transit crowd would have us believe) by
choice (yours) and the choices of some others (SUV) and the given constants (trucks,
busses).
The way I unwind this thing is to note that choice is still the common thing we all
share. Reduction of such can cut many ways, but unless it is unilateral and widely
supported, it's going to be unfair.
Long term - let the market decide.
When the dino juice finally begins to reflect scarcity in its pricing, and not
artificial price manipulation, all manner of solutions will come out. I do wonder, at
some later date, whether a fuel cell vehicle standard which *does* allow vehicles of
*all* sizes and styles will bring this entire discussion full circle and remind us that
what is really at issue here are varying tastes and choices.
Chris
Heather Bean wrote:
> I do apologize. Maybe next time I can find a nice box of wine to drink
> before I post. :-)
Franzia Grenache - burp....ah....
>
>
> H., aiming to please, as always.
>
> Tim Schreiner (timsch...@businessweekmail.com) wrote:
> : Sheez Heather ... what you say makes a lot of sense ... <g>
> : which makes it harder to play devil's advocate ...
>
> : "Heather Bean" <heat...@gr.hp.com> wrote in message
> : news:8btu0a$hik$1...@hpbs1500.boi.hp.com...
> : > Chris (m...@here.now) wrote:
> : > : Heather Bean wrote:
> : >
> : > : > I do somewhat resent the fact that in order to drive a fuel efficient
> : car on
> : > : > roads heavily populated by SUVs, one has to accept a higher risk of
> : injury
> : > : > in an accident.
> : >
> : > : Same holds for dump trucks though.
> : >
> : > : > It becomes much more difficult to encourage people to 'do
> : > : > the right thing' environmentally when it may involve penalty of injury
> : or death.
> : >
> : > While it's true that dump trucks are indeed more potentially lethal to
> : > my little beer can car than SUVs, I consider them to be somewhat of a
> : > 'constant' that I really can't influence since I don't have a better idea.
> : > That is to say that I don't think anyone would consider a Honda Civic,
> : > even a wagon, appropriate for the delivery of 10 yards of 3/4" river rock
> : > or asphalt. Dump trucks are tools, not a style choice, and especially for
> : > short-distance hauling, I can't think of a more appropriate tool.
> : > Therefore they are necessary, and for the wont of 'civilized' trappings
> : > like like roads, driveways, houses, and landscaping, we collectively
> : > accept the risk of driving around with dump trucks on the road. I won't
> : > complain that my Makita drill is dangerous either, unless I have a better
> : > solution in mind for drilling holes.
> : >
> : > SUVs, on the other hand, are often driven around not as tools, but as
> : cars.
> : > Big cars. Sexy cars. I won't contest that some people do indeed utilize
> : > them fully for their jobs, or hobbies, or large families. However, I see
> : a
> : > tremendous number of them on the road transporting one or two people and
> : two
> : > or three empty couches in the back. I'm sure that we all understand the
> : > statistics involved with more of these on the road leading to a higher
> : > probability of hitting or being hit by one. If more people feel good
> : about
> : > driving econo-cars than SUVs, there will be a lower percentage of SUVs on
> : > the road and it will be safer to drive an econo-car. If people don't
> : > feel good about driving econo-cars, then the balance shifts the other way,
> : > and it becomes even more dangerous to drive an econo-car as the percentage
> : > of SUVs increases. I think it is a shame that the current situation seems
> : > to be favoring the latter scenario. I'd be lying if I said that I haven't
> : > been doing plenty of thinking about getting a newer, bigger, lower gas
> : > mileage car, all in the interest of safety.
> : >
> : > : The roads are mixed use you know - how come we don't hear the same whine
> : from
> : > the
> : > : motorcyclists - to them any car is a potentially lethal encounter.
> : >
> : > Probably because it's a whole 'nother situation on a whole 'nother scale.
> : > I'm not a motorcyclist, but I am a road cyclist. To me, any car,
> : motorcycle,
> : > SUV, truck, dump truck, or sufficiently mean and fast dog is a potentially
> : > lethal encounter. Therefore, I'd have to get basically everyone off the
> : road
> : > except me to be 'safe'. That's not a practical thing to do, clearly,
> : > since my tax dollars alone wouldn't go far toward paving an interstate
> : > highway system. Since a speeding Honda Civic will likely kill me just
> : > as dead as a speeding SUV if I get hit, I don't have anything more
> : > against one than the other in that situation. When I'm on a bicycle, the
> : > main beef I have with drivers of any and all vehicles is reckless behavior
> : > and poor manners that needlessly endanger. While bicycling, the
> : difference
> : > in scale between me and all motorized vehicles does not lead me to
> : > distinguish between types of vehicles where safety is concerned. In my
> : > car, however, I am now on the same scale as other passenger vehicles,
> : > and it becomes useful to distinguish between the relative safety of
> : > me vs. another econo-car and me vs. an SUV.
> : >
> : > H.