Slashdot Mirror
Americans Drove Less in 2005
antifoidulus writes "CNN is reporting on a study that shows that not only did Americans buy more fuel efficient vehicles in 2005 (although sadly this trend reversed itself in the later half of 2006) but they also drove slightly less on average, according to the article, 'The drop in driving was small — the average American drove 13,657 miles (21,978.8 km) per year in 2005, down from 13,711 miles in 2004.' This is the first drop since the energy crisis of the late 70's. However, although SUV and mini-van sales have been falling, they still represent over half of the private vehicle sales in the United States."
That's a common Europe speed limit sign (80 kph?), big long yellow rear plates are found on Dutch cars for one, and the orange lorry has three country stickers on the left-hand side.
SUV bashing isn't even all that accurate. Sports cars trade mileage for performance. For example, the Audi A6 sedan gets 22mpg (combined)--the same as the Toyota Highlander SUV. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
Learn to browser?
Firefox
Opera
Make sure you check out the add-ons for Firefox, such as NoScript and AdBlock.
Ignorance is an expensive habit to maintain.
The wide plate looks very French to me. The truck has three speed limit signs stickers (NOT country stickers), which is quite common in Western Europe (I think they show the max speed for this truck on small-, medium- and large-sized road, or something like this).
Ceci n'est pas une signature
It is amazing that how news reporter are so illiterate when it comes to math and science. The figures they report indicates no conclusive reduction (change) in driving habits at all. When we measure a quantity there is always some error in that measurement. Driving habit is pretty much a random event when average over millions of people. Thus, a good approximation (I don't claim it to be the most accurate) of its associated error is 1/sqrt(x), and thus x +- x/sqrt(x) is a proper way for indicating the average x. In this specific case, it is 13600 +- ~110. Thus the change (~50) is smaller then a sigma away from the average. The proper way to report this would be: Americans don't care about the environment, and they have the money to burn the same amount of fossil fuel as they did last year.
Because it's about Americans? It'd be like if their story about a blizzard in say Boston depicted some Norwegian standing in front of their city hall during a snowstorm. Yes, it's a city. And it's a city in a snowstorm. But it's not /boston/ in a snowstorm.
:P
Or, if you like, the next rowing competition depicts a replica trireme rowing out of a harbor... Not really what the article is about
Even if minivans get marginally better mileage than SUVs, they still both have very poor (passenger*miles)/gallon, because they are both usually driven with few passengers. An acura, on the other hand, gets better mileage than either of them, and is also lighter and more meuverable...
Oh, Really?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Americans are wasting a billion gallons of fuel per year by being so fat.
Lose some weight. It's good for you and it's good for the environment.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I don't think your analysis stacks up. It's an awful long time since I've done any statistics but to state that 13657 is 0.3% different to 13711 therefore this is insignificant is complete moohash, isn't it? Surely you would have to perform a related t-test or something? The size of the sample is the most important thing to consider, not the diference in the mean distance travelled.
Three people in my familty bought new cars this year, all three were interested in checking out hybrids. Each waited months just to test drive a Prius; the dealer said they couldn't keep them on the lot for even a day, while the same SUVs stood there week after week. My parents and sister ended up actually FIGHTING over the only hybrid Camry they could get ahold of (both are Bush repubs by the way, they just thought Hybrids would be "cool" and cheaper in gas). It makes me wonder how many more people would be buying hybrids if the supply wasn't so tight, and how many people go for the SUV because the salesman can make them one heck of a deal on that Ford Behomoth that is so overstocked.
I won't debate you as I can't win on mpg. However on safty... that depends on whose safty you're talking about. Minivans (and most SUVs) are pretty darn safe to the occupents of the vehicle as long as they are driven properly. But I suspect you mean the safty of the people the large vehicle creams. Which serves as a nice physics lecture. So, what's your solution?
People in (modern) standard cars are at least as safe - if not safer - in those than they are in an SUV, *unless they hit an SUV*.
In other words, if the majority of people are driving around in regular cars, the net safety level is higher.
SUVs are popular because they're relatively cheap, despite being the worst at just about everything. Take away the massive tax concessions that make these vehicles economical and their usage would disappear nearly overnight.
I always enjoying watching those (Sydney) north-shorers spending $100+ filling up their X5s. It's nearly as entertaining as watching them gets the kids out of the car to guide them into the parking space.
This can't possibly be right. Try looking up "traffic evaporation" some time. Driving has an illusion of being "free" -- the roads aren't toll roads, gas prices are kept cheap -- yes, even now, no one thinks much about the per-trip risk of crashes: so most of the costs seem like sunk, fixed costs -- so people do a lot more of it than they might if they had to pay the actual costs of a trip on every trip.
If gas prices suddenly tripled, people would compensate (to some extent) by making fewer trips to the supermarket, go out to dinner less, order DVDs instead of drive to the google plex, and so on.
Yes, it would take some time for them to try to find work closer to home (or vice-versa), to bug their local government to fix public transport, to put in better bicycling facilities, and so on... but that's not the only ways to compensate.
Huh? My minivan gets better mileage than SUVs with equivalent capacity. It also has a lower center of gravity and bumper height. It does weigh a lot, though.
And driven with few passengers? Do you think people buy minivans for the looks? Our minivan rarely goes anywhere with less than four people. That's why we got a minivan.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
The only way you'll make a difference is if people stop driving generally.
Wrong. It is a proven fact that people will drive less if the cost to drive is higher. The demand is inelastic but it is not perfectly inelastic. Raising the price, or perhaps forcing the entire cost of driving (roads, pollution, etc) onto drivers through taxation will get them off the roads.
Naturally the results will be greater if this is combined with smart urban planning and public transit options. But saying that more fuel efficient cars and higher driving costs (e.g. gasoline) will have no effect is false.
One reason people go for diesel over here in Europe is that it is far cheaper then regular gasoline. Here is Germany you save close to $1.00 US for each gallon.
Strange, in England, deisel is more expensive by about 2-3 pence per litre
What countries are you talking about? Riding on the sidewalk is far more dangerous.
Stats
The road with traffic is actually the safest place to ride, contrary to your intuition. This is consistent with my riding experience.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants