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."
What state has a wide yellow license plate with no graphics? And what's the circular road sign with a red border?
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 - therefore much safer to everyone on the road. I really don't see a difference between SUVs and minivans when you consider safety and mpg together.
'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 what passes for a slashdot story these days? OMFG.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Based on the Edmunds 2006 buying guide for minivans, the average gas mileage they get is around 20/26. This is only slightly less than the 22/30 gas mileage that 4 door sedans get (the Civic throws this off, otherwise it'd be around 28). Obviously there are better vehicles for getting better gas mileage, but for people that want a little more space, have a family, or need to move larger objects once in a while, minivans aren't a bad option.
I personally drive a V8 crew cab pickup truck and even got a comment from a guy I used to work with about ruining the environment. Thing is, I work from home every day and as a result drive less than 4000 miles per year. I burn far less fuel than most hybrid owners, but still have to put up with their comments about what I choose to drive. You don't know people's driving habits, so it's really not fair to make generalizations about them.
Incidentally, while we didn't NEED a pickup truck, it did make sense for us since we're remodeling our house and landscaping during the summer. We tend to haul something at least a few times a month. Our only other options would be to rent a truck or borrow someone else's truck. It's also nice having a heavier vehicle during our Wisconsin winters.
Whenever vehicle stories come up on Slashdot, I read comments about how buying an SUV is all about showing off how much money you have, and that 99% of people don't need a truck. The fact is, anyone who owns a house and puts a decent amount of work into it or has a family with at least 2 kids will make use of the space in their vehicle. Hybrid SUV's are good alternatives, but the extra cost (initial + repairs) just turns people off to them right now.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
The difference is so small that it's almost totally explained by 2004 being a leap year.
I agree wholeheartedly
I did the math and the difference is 0.3%. There's a word for that: statistical noise. It's a shame there's no one over at CNN with enough of a mathematical / scientific background to pick up on that and nix this story.
What's more is I don't trust the numbers themselves. Numbers like "13,657" and "13,711" imply a degree of precision, whereas "14 kilo-miles" (you guys should really switch to metric) does not. Given that there's no measurement error analysis I'm inclined to think these numbers are essentially the same.
In short, this is bullshit.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
I did the math and the difference between the two figures are 0.3%.
I'm inclined also to say that's "Not a big difference" because I doubt their measurements have that kind of resolution. From that standpoint, "13,657" and "13,711" are essentially the same number. To the layman it might look like, "Hey, that means people are driving 54 fewer miles per year!" but anyone with a science background will look at that and say, "Pfft. That's statistical noise. Where's your error analysis?"
In short, these figures are no indication that people are actually driving less.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Parent:
Yeah, well, it's easy to drive less when you don't have a job to go to. (With link to bureau of labor and statistics)
Umm... Did you even read the site you linked to? Here are the latest numbers right on the front page. Spectacular numbers, all of them. People most certainly have jobs to go to. Probably just that more are working from home and driving less when on vacation.
Unemployment Rate:
History 4.4% in Oct 2006
Change in Unemployment Level:
History -238,000 in Oct 2006
Change in Employment Level:
History +437,000 in Oct 2006
Change in Civilian Labor Force Level:
History +199,000 in Oct 2006
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
Yes, it is true that there is little difference between full-sized sports/luxury sedan and moderately sized suvs. In fact, if you do a statistical comparison between the the smallest SUVs and the largest sedans, these large sedans are worse (at least when I did that over a year ago). SUV bashing, however, is still valid. These small suvs make up only a fraction of SUV sales, and the largest are worse than anything other than something like a Ferrari.
This year, I drove more than any year before. Mostly because I am sick of the potemkin security at the airports. Although I had to go through the ID song-and-dance to get my driver's license, that was a mostly one-time thing. So when I drive I am not on anyone's list. I buy my gas with cash and pay for the motel rooms with cash too. The only thing that gets me are the plate cameras at the tollbooths, and the cell towers when I leave my phone on.
I'm not paranoid. I don't think anyone is out to get me. But driving is the closest thing we have to feasible anonymous travel nowadays -- you need id to board a plane, you even need id to buy a train-ticket - even though the people who 'check' the id wouldn't know a forgery unless it had "FAKE" stamped across it in big red letters. And don't even think about walking a couple of thousand miles, that just isn't going to happen.
Osama bin Laden has turned this country into a nation of cowards. There is not much I can do about it, but at least I still have the luxury of opting out of the herd of sheeple.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
2004 was a leap year, so it had more days, which makes the difference even less meaningful. Someone else caught it before I did, though.
Here are some direct links to back it up:
Chart 1-2. The unemployment rate is down from its most recent peak in June 2003 (PDF)
Chart 1-6. The percentage of the population that is employed has trended up since September 2003 (PDF)
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
Hmmmm, your response is to show two acuras that are SUVs? Be a bit more fair to the bloke. Perhaps you meant to link the TL and RL? Both of which get ok MPG, but get considerably (10% or more) less fuel economy then the most popular car, third most popular vehicle, in the US (the toyota camry)?
Or maybe you could make fun of the price difference between "an acura" and something that's actually affordable to most of the people in the US, and how much that extra money (not to mention the extra money from cost of ownership) would help the rest of the world if it were donated to various research funds...
As a general comment, the arguably stupid part of the fixation on SUVs is that if everyone stopped driving them tomorrow and drove a Prius instead, it would have a negligible impact on oil consumption in the US. That fixation is fundamentally misplaced.
The only way you'll make a difference is if people stop driving generally. Which means more telecommuting and smaller suburbs, something I am okay with on both accounts. Whining about SUVs is pissing in the ocean because it ignores the major causes of fuel consumption.
As something of a tangent, the reason that gas taxes are a non-solution is that the demand is inelastic because the basic infrastructure of the country forces the existing level of consumption. In most parts of the US, driving your own vehicle is actually economical, and there is no alternative in any case. You cannot automagically build a public transport infrastructure in cities with millions of people that were never designed for ubiquitous public transport. That is the real chicken-and-egg problem; for the most part it is not possible to live in the US without burning a lot of fuel even if you wanted to, and it would cost trillions of dollars to make that not the case. In that cost-benefit analysis, slow and gradual migration is a good thing.
My question to the american public would be:
Why the need for those big engine?
The average sedan in the US seems to be a V6 or V8 engine car with a capacity of +4L. While the average european sedan would be a -2.4L car (in belgium for example taxes go way up for +2.4L cars). So if the average american would deside to set his pride and ego aside and buy a car that has a somewhat lighter engine fuel consumption would be reduced by a significant amount in contrast to the absurd numbers in the article.
And don't start with arguments like: I need my big engine SUV to haul around my home redecoration material. If you need that big a car for it, half of europe wouldn't be able to redecorate his/her home or garden. All excuses to drive a big car with a big engine. Granted, some people need it but certainly not the majority of the US public.
It's time to set aside your pride and think about the money you save and above all the environment and squashed pedestrians. Bigger is not always better.
You are right, today's SUV manufacturers have felt some of the pressure due to excessive mileage and there are already mid-size SUV's that have around 30mpg. I also wonder if the people who buy hybrids end up driving more, knowing that their car is so fuel efficient. In other words, an SUV owner knows how much gas his "tank" sucks and might not decide to go shopping to a mall on the other side of town, because he will have to get another a $30 tank of gas on the way back, and Prius owner instead would choose to go.
What do you think of the idea of tracking the amount of driving and increasing the tax accordingly? Would that be feasible? Such that someone who drives 30mi to work everyday might start to consider moving closer to his workplace or finding a job close to their home. This will seriously piss off a lot of people. But when New York starts to sink perhaps nobody would mind moving close to the city. This would seriously reshape the distribution of population long term and would probably create giant metropolitan areas isolated by desert and farmland. The extra money generated could go into development of greener fuels and the building of better transportation networks.
My SUV gets better mileage than most sedans. A lot of the near luxury sport sedans and coupes average BELOW 20mpg and yet hardly anyone points them out.
People harp about SUV driving people forget the big picture. At least for most of us one car is going to be a SUV or VAN. Someone has to have the "family" car - the hauler. Sure it would be nice to have an extra "commuter" vehicle but with prices today and insurance that isn't practical. So someone gets the SUV/MV etc. Your bound to see us solo in it, thats going to happen.
Outside of Civics and similar vehicles (hybrids don't count - I think they are a joke) that get 35+ easily on small gasoline engines I only see diesels as a viable alternative. I have seen Euro 300s with diesels that average 27mpg, not the 20 or so the gas versions get.
So next time you see that SUV plowing down the road and get your eco-fits going, realize that many of the near luxury sedans that are so very popular today are getting as bad if not worse mileage.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Actually, you're pretty much wrong... People who buy SUVs tend to say one of the reasons is "safety", but that doesn't show up on the stats. SUVs are really badly designed in a lot of ways (apparently the syndrome is something like: in order to keep SUVs from tending to flip over, they need wide wheel bases that push the wheels out sideways so that they tend to snag on the posts of guardrails, and hence flip over more easily....).
Minivans, on the other hand, may very well be "safer", I don't know what the stats show, but I've at least heard that they're better than SUVs.
(I'm politely ignoring your hedge "as long as they're driven properly". No one plans on "having an accident". Arguably, part of the problem with SUVs is psychological: people think they're invulnerable inside them, so they drive worse.)
"or has a family with at least 2 kids will make use of the space in their vehicle"
:-)
You need an SUV is you're going to have two kids? OMG! how did humanity survive up till now? How did my parents fit three of us in the back of a saloon car in the 70s? does that mean I was an abused child?
Sure if you've got an SUV then "you will make use of the space in the vehicle" but it doesn't mean you *need* it, it's still a luxury. On that stance if you bought a school bus you'd argue that you'd make use of the space in the bus to transport your kids. Doesn't mean you need every family needs a school bus. I agree with you though generalisations are bad. However my experience is people tend to really over-spec the vehicle they need, and sometimes for flimsy reasons. Just look at the kind of work Model T Fords got put to 80 years ago, check their technical specification, poorer than a modern micro-hatchback on most counts I'd guess.
I think this report indicates pretty much exactly the opposite of what the original article is implying. Gas prices went up by about 25%, on average, and people still drove exactly as much as they did the year before (within the margin of error). This proves that, for most Americans, gasoline prices do not significantly affect driving habits and gasoline costs are relatively insignificant.
The following isn't an attempt to flame you, it's simply my own point of view. I don't regard a house in suburbia as a birth right, more as a necessity. Much as I would like to live relatively close to where I work, I would have to pay extortionate housing prices if I realized that ambition. I therefore bought an apartment that isn't even in the city suburbs but in a nearby township and I bought it because it had a low price-tag due to the distance it is from the city center and from the nearest mass transit access node. I ride an old mountain bike (which I fixed up and is in good nick but looks so ugly nobody has bothered to steal it so far) to the nearest station and ride a train to work. I do this as much to get a good dayly workout as I do it to save myself the not incosiderably costs of owning a car. I do agree with you that a family in Europe or N-America, living in the suburbs, needs at least one car. However, from my point of view, if I have to buy a car, the choice will be governed by fuel economy and low operating costs as much as anything else. If I ever get married I will buy some sort of fuel efficient 5 door hatchback for the wife and kids but I'll be damned if I buy a gas guzzling Mini-van and an SUV for myself to commute to work I'll stick with my bike. If I absolutely have to buy a second car for myself to commute to work I will buy some small fuel efficient car or a hybrid when they become affordable. I simply have a score of other things I'd like to spend my money on rather than automobile fuel bills.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
No, because that would be basically impossible without massive and expensive privacy invasion by the government (mandatory GPS tracking, anyone?) And besides, what's the advantage, emissions-wise? With regard to road maintenance, etc. well that is called a toll road.
Comparitively, tax on gas is simple and as an added benefit encourages the development of vehicles with better fuel economy. Compare the sort of vehicles generally driven in Europe (with high gas tax) to those in the US. Your average car in Europe will have far better MPG figures. Throw in some sort of tax break at the point of purchase linked to low emissions and that's not a bad system.
In the US, only Mercedes is trying to get educate the crowds in the advantages of Diesel fuel. In Europe, Diesel is actually popular, but in the US there is a stereotype that Diesel means slow and sluggish. I've recently visited the autos.yahoo.com website and I was completely baffled by the comments over there. Everyone seems to be surprised by the great fuel economy that the Mercedes-Benz 320 CDI offers and also the incredible acceleration on a highway. In Europe this would be taken for granted.
Let's take another car right now: the Honda Accord. In Europe it also has a Diesel option with the following fuel economy values: Hwy-53 mpg, City-33 mpg. It delivers 140 bhp with an immense torque of 340nm and a maximum speed (in the manual) of 136 mph. Should be taken into consideration that the values for Hwy in Europe are generally taken at a speed of 80mph, which is the recommended or imposed maximum speed on highways in most of Europe. Considering that in the US it ranges between 65 and 75, the values could be better for highway. The same applies for city values. European cities tend to be a lot more crowded and the traffic to be a lot worst than that of a US city (San Francisco does resemble an European city somewhat due to it's smaller streets and it's hills).
Our car is a Renault Megane (Renault is the "other half" of the Renault-Nissan corp.). It has a *1.5*L diesel Engine (3 year old engine) that delivers 110 bhp with an imense torque. It's mpg at 100mph on a hwy is 42 as reported by the on-board computer. That gives-it a 600+ miles range on one diesel fuel fill (15 gallons) at a higher than legal speed. If you only drive legally on hwy (less than 80mph), you could actually cross Europe on one or two fills.
Even more surprising is that the engines that are found in the US have worst performance in any given aspect than the European ones for the same volume. In Europe, for a 2L Gas Engine you can get 200 bhp at some manufacturers.
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
I live in Harrogate, UK now and judging by the traffic, these people are just as, if not more, dependent on their cars (albeit tiny little cartoon cars) as Americans are.
Ummmm... gas prices DID suddenly triple!
Mind your own damn business.
By disproportionately contributing to climate change, they make it everybody's business.
Or perhaps I could have pointed out that his contention that mini-vans are usually driven with few passengers is pretty bogus. People don't buy mini-vans to feel safer, nor to feel sexy. They buy them because they need them to haul kids around, full stop. Sure mom will use them alone during the day to do errands, but then she often ends up making use of the large cargo space for groceries and other homestuffs, in which case the passenger capacity is not really wasted either.
But I thought it was just simpler to point out that "Acuras" are not a type of car but merely a brand and thus by implication anyone making comparisons with them doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I (together with my wife) bought a Dodge Caravan last year. I wasn't happy about going the minivan route - I'm a sports car person myself. However, the minivan has turned out to be a supremely versatile vehicle. Going skiing? Throw the skis in and drive to the mountain. Going cycling? Take out the third row of seats and throw in the bikes. Building a deck? Take out all the seats and buy a pile of lumber. Going out to dinner with 2 other couples? Offer to drive them all.
I have done all these things and more.
Minivans are not only for mothers to drive their kids around. You should expand your horizons.
Self awareness - try it!
I figured it was because we were stuck in traffic longer and so we had less time to drive.
Wouldn't hours driven be a more important figure than miles driven? Especially when you take into account major urban areas with severe traffic problems.
What?
People move away from the city to raise a family. Most people can't afford to raise children in or just outside the city while ensuring they grow up in a safe environment. Until you can make American cities child friendly (good luck), it's not going to work.
In the 1970s, car seats were small and compact. In the 1970s, pre FMLA, there was no generally accepted 3 month maternity leave, so normally really small kids had their mother at home.
In the 1970s, airbags didn't make it dangeous for kids under a certain age/weight to right in the front seat.
In the 1970s, carseats could ride in the front OR back... now it is back only, and facing backwards with little kids.
In the 1970s, putting a carseat in the back-middle didn't block the two seats on the side, now it will.
The fact is, the car manufacturers and child safety manufacturers have adapted to A) a change in the legal requirements, B) more litigation, causing car seats to be slightly safer, but 85% of them are installed incorrectly, so they are on average less safe for the kids, but safer from law suits, C) adapt to a decrease in family size.
In the 1970s, 3 kids was normal. In the 1980s and 1990s, 2 kids was normal. Although family sizes are inching back up, anyone with 3 or 4 children will struggle with current cars unless getting a mini-van.
Alex
The following post has little real direction. More my random thoughts than anything organized.
:)
/not/ a luxury item here. Before you ask, no, front wheel drive is not sufficient to meet all conditions. Having traction on that second axle has helped me out more times than I can count, and I spend 95+% of my time in commuter traffic.
:) )
:) For another, I love to spend time in the woods, hiking, hunting, and fishing. Having an old 4x4 1/2 ton pickup means that I can get back into the brush a ways while towing a trailer or boat without worrying about it getting scratched up, also knowing that I can get myself back out again. This truck also acts as the family hauler for everything from trips to Goodwill to moving my sisters to you name it.
;)
:( Anyone know of something something like my dream vehicle in the works from anyone?
People here on Slashdot slam SUVs and minivans out of hand, which I find unfortunate. I'll grant you that there are plenty of people who buy these larger vehicles who really don't need one. There are places and times when they are absolutely an appropriate choice, though. For example, ever see a soccer mom trying to jam 5 or 6 kids into a Honda Civic after practice?
Someone else also commented that people with varied and complex lifestyles may choose these vehicles in order to meet all of their needs with a single vehicle. Many families (like mine, for example) might have one smaller and one larger vehicle.
I don't pretend to speak for everyone in the US, but I think I can shed some light on why SUVs are popular in my neck of the woods. I live in Minnesota, where we have rotten driving conditions seven months a year. 4x4s are most definitely
Personally, I don't own an SUV. I own a ten year old 4x4 Ford 1/2 ton extended cab pickup with the small gasoline V8 and 5 speed manual transmission. I bought it used back in '96. It had been on the road for 6 months and already had 12,000 miles on it. The original owner couldn't keep up the payments for some reason.
It now has nearly 235,000 miles on it. I've gone through one transmission replacement, but I'm still on the original engine and clutch. (What can I say? Dad taught me how to shift by paraphrasing that old TV show, _Kung_Fu_: "You must drive as if shifting on rice paper. You have learned how to do it well when the paper is not torn."
Why do I drive it? Well, for one it's been paid off for nearly 7 years.
Granted, with the number of miles that are on it I'll need to think about getting it replaced in a couple of years. About that time it'll have close to 300,000 miles on the engine, after all. I think I'll have gotten my money's worth out of it.
My dream replacement vehicle would be another 1/2 ton extended cab pickup or 1/2 ton SUV with a manual transmission. My engine choice would either be diesel or a hybrid for the improved mileage. Unfortunately, hardly anyone seems to know how to drive stick shifts any longer so none of the big 3 even offer a manual in a 1/2 ton anymore. Also, in this country diesels aren't being offered in anything smaller than a 3/4 ton pickup and hybrids are only now being offered in 1/4 ton SUVs.
While I don't agree with everything you said, I think your point about people in SUVs having a false sense of invincibility is true. And when it snows, I seem to see a lot more SUVs on the side of the road then anything else. It seems like a lot of people get them around here because "they're good in the snow." They offer an advantage because of their weight and 4WD but some people seem to buy them thinking that they can now do 70 on the interstate in a blizzard. And then they can't.
Out of curiosity, how do you deal with riding in summer when it's 90F and humid as hell out? Do you just wear very light clothes, take it slow, and change upon getting to work? Does your workplace have showers?
-b.
Bzzzt! Wrong again!
Resources are NOT Finite in an expanding economy with advancing technology.
Cars from 20 years ago were at least twice an innefficient as cars today. Cars 20 years from now will be at least twice as efficient as cars today. This isn't even taking into account alternative fuels, such as Bio-Diesel, which rely on GROWN fuel-stock, which is an eternally renewable resource. Resources aren't finite because Capitalism drives us to:
A) find new resources and
B) improve and extend our use of existing resources.
We won't ever run out of resources to fuel our economies and vehicles because we will never stop looking for new and innovative (and profitable) ways to continue our lives as they are now.
The reason our cities are laid out in the manner they are is due to HUMAN NATURE AND DESIRES. This is what drives our economy. People WANT to drive big, comfortable SUV's and Minivans. If they didn't, they wouldn't. People WANT to live in suburbs with wide open areas instead of little boxes in cites with mass transit. If they didn't, they wouldn't. Businesses respond to the human-nature driven demands of consumers by using the applied sciences to advance technology and sell people what they want to buy. This is how Capitalism works. Those who think that changes in natural resources will change that don't understand economics or human nature.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
A) find new resources and
B) improve and extend our use of existing resources.
and C) defy the laws of physics
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
My truck gets 40mpg highway. I can show you the logs. Or you can google for other people who have the nissan 720 with sd22 engine. You're right about the Datsun name - in 1981 it was branded Datsun by Nissan, in 82 it became simply Nissan. I refer to it as Nissan because that's how spare parts are listed.
Anyway, my point was using 1981 technology you can build a pickup that gets 40mpg. I can't buy a new truck because the mileage is much lower than what I have now. I WANT a new truck but I can't HAVE one because our 2006 tech is INFERIOR to 1981 regarding fuel efficency in light trucks!!! I'm very sensitive about this!!!
It doesn't matter what is typical, I was talking about potential fuel efficiency. Your point that cars are twice as efficient as 20 years ago is simply wrong.
If you want to talk about fleet efficiency, the chart here shows that cars now get worse mileage than 1987, and are heavier than any time since 1975 (when the chart begins)
So you're double super wrong. Cars are LESS efficient, HEAVIER, and you are WRONG about fuel efficiency. I'll grant that cars now pollute less than cars from 20 years ago, and safety features have come a long way. I'd just like to see some actual progress regarding efficiency instead of going backward. Attitudes like yours hinder this, in addition to being factually incorrect.
Man, you really need that seminar!