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."

16 of 569 comments (clear)

  1. Too bad by ryanov · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it's disgusting that price is the only thing that people seem to think about when deciding whether to burn fuel.

    Incidentally, I wouldn't put minivans in the same category as SUV's. Many SUV's get less than 20 mpg -- most minivans get above 25 mpg.

    1. Re:Too bad by thedeviluknow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hehe... Mercedes 240D dudes...$20CAD to fill the tank and that's good for a month for my fairly light driving needs. Hybrids rule i admit but a nice vintage diesel is still my preference. No hybrid premium (in fact the thing only cost me $500) and cheap fuel. Plus I can fix the thing myself. As for safety the damn thing weighs 3300lb; and my parts car after having a collision with an SUV at highway speeds had some frame damage but nothing came into the cabin and the thing was still drivable:)

    2. Re:Too bad by Eivind · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You're out of your fucking mind.

      You are *seriously* of the opinion that any family that wants to have children should be under *obligation* to have a minimum of two cars, or else they're guilty of not prioritizing the children enough ?

      Here's some news for you: Children do not run on petrol. There are stuff more important to a child than spending the maximum possible time in a car.

      For example, we paid extra to live close to childcare, school, work. Which means we have an extra hour every day for spending with the kids, compared to those who live in suburbia half an hours drive from work. It also means the children have more time for play, schoolwork, sports whatever rather than spending the same time strapped-in in a car. If you seriously think the latter is the better choice, then I guess that's your problem.

      Education is another example, I consider it much more important than having 2 cars. Oh, and your "USA-is-all-I-know" bias is showing, I live in Norway -- education (all levels) is free. At the most popular universities where there's more applicants than places, who gets in is determined by which student has the best grades, not who has the richest daddy.

      So, money ain't what's needed to give my children a good education. Learning is. And guess what, the extra hour every day just *may* be more beneficial for learning than a second car would be, don't you think ?

      I think only an American could ever consider that not having *two* cars is indicative of a family which does not prioritize children. If you honestly think "more cars" is what children these days need the most, then I can only pity you.

  2. you don't drive when you don't have anywhere to go by macadamia_harold · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    Yeah, well, it's easy to drive less when you don't have a job to go to.

  3. Re:Minivans? by osmodion · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's nice to see someone actually pointing out the very obvious fact that not everybody with a truck drives a significantly larger vehicle than needed. I know from experience just how expensive it is to rent cars, and it makes sense for people like you to own larger vehicles. People also seem to forget just how much more expensive it is to buy/lease a hybrid over the non-hybrid model, and not everyone can afford one. Then there are families with multiple children; trying to smush them all in a smaller, more fuel-efficient hybrid or sedan would result epic disasters. Yes, there are many people driving gigantic suvs without any idea of how drive them or any use for all the space, but there are legitimate needs for larger trucks and suvs.

  4. Pretty predictable, but still low by cliffski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why are people suprised? higher prices means less car use. I even modelled this here.
    But US prices are still relatively low. To fill up a 50 litre car with gas in the UK costs around £50, translating to about $90.
    I think you need to hit £1.50 a litre ($145 to fill up) before you get mass behaviour changes though.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  5. Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less by Inexile2002 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The vast majority of cities in North America (I'm including Canada here) are designed around driving. If we did a poll of /. users, I bet that the majority don't have a store within reasonable walking distance of their house that carries more than the basic essentials. (Sure you CAN walk to your local grocery store, but could you really do it all the time?) When you have to drive to buy bread and milk, you can't really not drive all the time.

    More over, a house in suburbia is seen by enough people as sort of a birthright and enough people are just generally hostile to the idea of living in higher urban density areas even though it's really the only way to really reduce dependency on cars. People talk about transit which doesn't work well in suburbia because the spread out population means lots of buses that are mostly empty or else living too far from the bus routes for the bus to be useful. Metros and street cars are even less viable in spread out suburbs. Home delivery solves the problem to some degree, but you really can't organize cities around the idea of home delivery.

    So basically, people HAVE to drive. Sure they can drive less, even much less, but there's sort of a basic minimum amount of driving that will always have to exist in a city that is designed around driving. Either the culture needs to change, and in some places that seems to be starting, or automobile efficiency needs to be greatly improved.

    Or else we can just accept that at some point we're screwed.

    1. Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less by LeezardLvr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In Florida our metro areas are either super-posh ocean view high rises or economically depressed areas with very little in between. These areas are small and the rest of the cities are but sprawling suburbs. Add to that that our public transportation (and, yes, I know, I rode these buses), is unreliable at best and dangerous at worst. We can't not drive here. In our house we make compromises and choices. We selected an apartment that is less than 5 miles from our offices, even though we looked at dozens of complexes and it took close to 4 months to find it. We have an SUV, but it is our only vehicle, and we've promised ourselves that if we ever did get two vehicles (or our next one vehicle), that they would be hybrids now that they are affordable and more readily available. And I can tell you that our SUV has better mileage than my employer's much smaller Maserati. We recycle, hand wash our dishes, try to select items packaged in renewable resource packaging, don't use anti-bacterial soaps and try to make responsible decisions about how we treat the environment. We enjoy the safety (or perceived safety) and comfort of our large vehicle. The road can be a dangerous place, especially in South Florida and I feel comfortable with our decisions. Not everyone who owns large vehicles are blind, irresponsible consumers. We could have two sedans, but chose one Durango instead (without the Hemi upgrade). It's easy to tell everyone they should ride the buses when you live in NY or San Francisco, but that is only part of America. And you can picture this green fairy utopia from your timely and frequent subway cars, but public transportation and walking urban areas are not a reality or remote possibility for most of the country.

  6. Re:As a different post pointed out... by Sique · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... And incidentally a leap year is 1/365 longer than a normal year, which is about ~0,0027. Additionally the relation between weekends and workdays shifts a little each year. Some years have one weekend day more than others and one workday less, because the length of a normal year is 52 weeks plus one day, which in turn can either be a workday or a weekend. Holidays, which are bound to a fixed date (like Independence Day) may also fall on a weekend or a regular workday, and again we have a different driving pattern, because many people don't drive to work on weekends. For some countries (like Germany) the economic growth can be about 0.5% more or less, depending on the actual number of workdays in a year.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  7. It's my fault by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Um, I think I may be responsible for these new statistics. About 18 months ago, my daughter made some remark about the extra few pounds I've put on in the last couple of years and I pulled out my beautiful old road bike and started riding the 25km to work every day.

    I live in Chicago, and the weather here can sometimes be inhospitable to cycling, but I decided I was going to ride every day if possible. I didn't realize the enormous benefits I'd reap. Yeah, I lost the few pounds and got into better shape, and my health has improved. I smoke a lot less (I don't smoke in the house, so my car was an ashtray). I tried smoking and cycling for a while, but I caught my reflection in a store window and realized I looked stupider than usual with a cigarette hanging out of my mouth, pedaling along.

    And yeah, I've saved a ton of cash. We have another vehicle my wife uses, so I went ahead and sold my car. I've bought a new Core 2 Duo based Digital Audio Workstation and midi keyboard with just a little of what I saved from the car, gas, maintenance and insurance.

    But the real benefit was the 90 minutes (45 each way) that I spend on the bike instead of in traffic every day. For that hour and a half every day I'm like a child, blasting Stooges or Buzzcocks or Muddy Waters or whatever in my earbuds and checking out what's actually going on in my city. Dodging SUVs and not thinking about much of anything.

    I spent a few hundred on really warm and dry clothes and stuff, and the weather really doesn't bother me at all any more. Today it's 26 degrees F and freezing rain, and in a few minutes (it's 6:30am here) I'll be on the road, comfortable under my North Face shell, rocking out to some Clash or whatever, singing at the top of my lungs.

    It's been a revelation. I'm probably a little less than at the middle of my lifespan (unless I get hit by a bus on Ashland Avenue this morning) and giving up the car for the bike has been one of the greatest things that has ever happened to me.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Correct me if I am wrong.... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..(I am sure you will correct me even if I am right, but anyway)..

    Isn't the fact that the milage went down an indication of a real decrease, despite the sceptics, since prior to this, milage has been steadily climbing.

    Like a business, wherein even 0% growth is a bad thing, so negative growth is truely terrible; except in this case the fact the growth was negative is a 'good thing'.

  9. Re:Ever heard of an odometer? by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There isn't one.

    The only "advantage" of the Mileage tax is that it fills the emotional need of those who don't understand the basic economics of the situation to "punish" the perceived wrongdoers, those who drive SUV's and drive alot. It's an emotional thing, grounded in no logic and even less practical economics, like most wacky Liberal ideas.

    Yeah, yeah, that was kind of a trollish comment to make. I admit it. That doesn't make it amy less true though.

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  10. got your cause and effect backwards by r00t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Asshole drivers like to buy huge intimidating vehicles, so the accident stats for those vehicles look bad.

    If asshole drivers took a liking for minivans, for sure the minivan would be most dangerous.

    The "safe" vehicles are: priced out of range of most young drivers, uncool, practical... like a luxury minivan.

  11. Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I wish I could mod this up. The parent obviously pulled the guardrail assumption out of his ass. I have a Ford Bronco that I take on the beach during summer months, or in the snow during the winter (I have a Nissan that I use as a daily driver). During the summer months, I would rather camp out on the beach on the north side of the island (a state park accessible only with 4wd) instead of being cramped up in a motel room on the south side. During the snow season, I drive the Bronco because with the added weight, 4wd, and mud-terrain tires (tires are the most important thing in driving in the snow; most people don't realize this because the only experience they have in an SUV is driving improperly inflated stock tires, hence all the 4wd vehicles you see in the ditch).

    Now, here's a case where my SUV was safer than driving in a car. On the way back from the beach last summer, I was driving down a long, dark two lane highway, enclosed by the swamp and woods, when I hit a deer. When I hit the deer, it actually went underneath the front bumper, and I ran over it. Quite shaken, I pulled to the side of the road and called the police. When the officer arrived, he told me that I was lucky that I was driving something that sat high enough where the deer wouldn't hit the hood. In small cars, he said, the deer go through the windshield, and told me that there had been two fatalities in the past month on that stretch of highway due to deer. Now whenever my wife goes on a long trip to see her family, I make her take the Bronco, just out of safety concerns.

    This is obviously a rare case event, but even the rarest events have to happen to someone; luckily for me, I didn't get hurt. Even if you don't believe this story (and I'm not expecting you to after all, this is Slashdot), at least admit that it carries more weight than the "SUV flipping over because they are too wide and trip on guardrails" claim.

  12. Re:Too bad the pro drivers are so good. by blugu64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "I wouldn't mind seeing a few asshole SUV drivers crushed by a big rig."

    I have....wish I hadn't. A semi ran a red light going 65-ish and t-boned (if you can call it that) an Ford. Dead on impact IIRC.

    "Quite a few men and women have tried to push my Focus arround while driving their SUVs, whether due to sheer ignorance or impotent rage, I cannot say."

    I drive a little ford as well! (hi there fellow small ford driver!) And I know exactly what your talking about. Then I realize hey my car is worth $2000, they're in a shiny new $30,000 SUV that they owe money on. If they hit me I'm pretty much getting a new car, on their tab. Do what they like, as long as I don't think they're being reckless enough to kill me, I just ignore their aggressiveness.

    --
    "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
  13. Re:Americans CAN'T bicycle Much Less by yarbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Then ride a unicycle. It's a little harder for commuting (it's rare to find one with gears), but your hands are free.