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."

Comments

Too bad

[ryanov]

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.

Re:Too bad

[seanadams.com]

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.

Re:Too bad

[JCondon]

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/

Re:Too bad

[DrKyle]

Plus, while SUV's are largely luxury & never taken off-road vehicles many families with more than 2 kids would consider the minivan an essential vehicle for sane travel. They really should not be considered together.

Re:Too bad

[kaufmanmoore]

They're both driven by the same soccer moms trying to put on makeup, talk on the cell phone and discipline the kids while making a double lane switch without using a turn signal.

Re:Too bad

[seriv]

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.

Re:Too bad

[Sique]

As a man who drives a minivan, never talks on the mobile while driving, doesn't put up makeup and always uses the turn signal whenever he changes lanes or directions, I strongly resent! :)
And I would never consider replacing the minivan with a SUV... they just come with lots of things I don't need, it's plainly wasted money to buy one to me. I rather have the additional space the more carlike minivan axles provide than buy the next bigger SUV (with worse mileage, more complicated handling and more noise).

Re:Too bad

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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?

Re:Too bad

[holysin]

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?

Outlaw suvs? Tax the hell out of gas? Whine?

America faces a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Unless there is an outside influence (higher gas prices either due to higher expenses for the oil cart... erm, companies or more taxes) people will not buy smaller cars if there are a (perceived, or real) large number of SUVs on the street, and as that mentality hasn't changed for the past, what, 14 years there is an accumulating effect on the number of SUVs, so more people think they need SUVs in order to see the road in front of them, protect their loved ones, whatever. It's bloody annoying to those of us who like small cars. But unless we get a govt that has a clue, nothing will be done until the problem is too big to turn back. My money's on nothing happening for awhile (unless the price of crude oil rises) as sitting on our hands is kinda how we seem to do things that matter to the rest of the world these days.

- Must sleep.

Re:Too bad

[holysin]

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...

Re:Too bad

[tedric]

Same here. My minivan gets 42 MPG. The main reason for us to buy it (we don't have kids yet) was to use it as an SUV (_Sports_ _Utility_ vehicle), because I have enough room inside for 2-3 mountainbikes, camping gear etc. Putting your bikes on top of your car or mount it on the back gets up your gas usage by 50%-100%. Plus, we don't have to worry if everything fits into the trunk. Ok, it might have more space than we actually need, but the van doesn't need more gas than a sedan would, so it's a good compromise for us.

Re:Too bad

[j. andrew rogers]

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.

Re:Too bad

[thedeviluknow]

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:)

Re:Too bad

[Sique]

Hey, I bought my minivan also years before I had kids, for exactly the same reason: Going camping with lots of stuff (and even sleeping inside). Later on I was moving several times, and having a car where the new cupboard actually fits in saves a lot of trouble. I had a station wagon before (a VW Quantum), which was not too bad, but still, the higher roof allows for more bulky stuff.

Re:Too bad

[gd23ka]

I think its disgusting that people fall for the environmentalist spiel without thinking.

Re:Too bad

[drsmithy]

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.

Re:Too bad

[QuickFox]

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. Will cost.

Re:Too bad

[smittyoneeach]

What sets me off about SUVs is

• Their size is unreasonable WRT road visibility and parking.
• They too frequently appear to give their drivers a sense of invulnerability, particularly the teenage twits on the cel phones. "Oh, look what dahdy gave me for my senior year!"
• Bigger, heavier cars aren't helping the road maintenance situation.

Of course, the US as a whole needs to divorce itself from its auto fetish. Increased public transportation seems a no-brainer. Who out there really likes the Great Wall of Traffic?

Re:Too bad

[muukalainen]

Too bad that you consider 25 mpg a low fuel consumption. In Europe, any vehicle going less than 30 mpg is considered to drink a lot of gas.

Current family sedans and minivans can do from 40 to 50 mpg with diesel fuel (something between 5l/100km and 6l/100km). And if you were to put them driving at 55mph, it would certainly improve this value...

Re:Too bad

[Professor_UNIX]

I think you just need to take people's word for it. If there wasn't a need for a minivan then people wouldn't buy a minivan. They're not exactly a status symbol like an SUV so I don't see why they're being singled out. When's the last time you saw the homies cruising down in the ghetto with their pimped out Dodge Caravan with chrome spinners, lowered chassis, and blacked out windows with some horrible window-rattling bass being emitted from what is probably a 5000 watt stereo system that costs more than the vehicle itself? I *have* seen SUVs outfitted like that, but never a minivan.

Re:Too bad

[Eivind]

But some of that is still justified.

For example, the car we drive. (we as in me and my wife)

We're a 5 person family. Current child-safety-seats are rather large. We *need* to be able to fit the 3 kids side-by-side in the backseat. A compact Fabia just could not do that. It plainly does not fit. The seat-width needs to be 150cm or more, and on a Fabia, it's not. (lacks 10cm or so)

We're 5 people probably 10% of the time, so 90% of the time the size of the vehicle is overkill. But we can't aford to have 2 cars, so the single one we do have *has* to cover all our needs. A car that covers 90% of our needs is simply not an option.

In other words: The fact that our car 90% of the time could be smaller is no indication that the car is to large. Having *2* cars would certianly not be the more environmental-friendly option.

That said, we don't have a SUV or a van, and the car is still smallish, by US standards. For the rare occasions when the cargo-capacity is too small (vacation for example) there's a box to strap on the roof. Somewhat less practical, but come on, it's like 3 times a year, who cares.

Re:Too bad

[bumptehjambox]

Which means more telecommuting and smaller suburbs

All right for you, Comrade, but you're not rearranging my neighborhood. I'd say you should stick to whining about SUVs and not bank on turning everything into a condo lot. HOW GROSS!!! Get used to the phrase "get off my land!"

As for the telecommuting, I can't argue with it, that's a good idea.

Re:Too bad

[Aceticon]

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.

The demand for travel is somewhat inelastic (though as one can see from the OP, it does change: for example, people can choose to walk the 500m to their mailbox at the end of the street instead of driving there and those livingf in the inner city often do have access to public transportation)

The demand for fuel, however is much more elastic. Simply put, when different cars consumed different amounts of fuel to travel the same distance AND the difference in fuel consumption represents a significant amount of money, people will give more weight to the fuel consumption factor when choosing a new car.

Hence gas taxes should contribute to reduced fuel consumption (and cleaner fuels if they're setup correctly) by giving incentives to people to choose cars that consume less fuel per mile traveled.

The really elegant things about gas taxes are:
- It taxes a very close proxy to polution. In a sense consumers pay for what they polute.
- It does not "fixate" in any type of car - a low consumption SUV model will still be cheaper to drive than a high-consumption saloon.
- It does not impose choices or remove choices - people are still free to drive around in a monster truck with wheels as tall as a small building and a fuel consumption of 0,5 miles per galon: they'll just pay extra for the priviledge.

Re:Too bad

[syphax]

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.

Re:Too bad

[ran-o-matic]

My minivan gets 42 MPG.

You have a minivan that gets 42 MPG? You must live somewhere with big gallons or small miles!

Re:Too bad

[Mad Dog Manley]

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.

Re:Too bad

[Just Some Guy]

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.

Although I wish my family was rich enough to afford special-purpose vehicles, we had to buy one that worked for all the situations we're likely to find ourselves in. This includes:

• Carpooling to school with our neighbor's kids (there's no legal way to put 5 kids in a 5-passenger sedan and still have a driver).
• Out-of-state trips with two adults, three kids, and luggage.
• Transporting large items (we just moved a chest freezer).
• And yes, driving to work.

When my wife needed a new vehicle, we bought a Toyota minivan because it actually did everything we needed it to. As others have pointed out, we didn't exactly get it because it's a sexy performance model.

Re:Too bad

[Professor_UNIX]

Which means more telecommuting and smaller suburbs, something I am okay with on both accounts.

I realize a lot of Slashdot readers are city folks and love the hustle and bustle of overcrowded city life, but many of us prefer the quiet, safe, suburban life. I don't mind driving 5 minutes away to go to the local grocery store or 20 minutes away to get to the massive super-grocery-mart place that has everything else. I don't WANT to live in a 600 square foot box paying $3000 a month in rent with crack whores for neighbors. Why hold so much animosity towards suburbanites? If you choose to live in the city, fine, gas prices shouldn't even really effect you since you're all mindless sheep and take mass transit everywhere, but for the rest of us we deal quite well with supply and demand dictating fuel prices. Leave your socialist agenda at home.

Re:Too bad

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:Too bad

[stewbacca]

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

I burn the same amount of fuel, whether it is $3.00/gallon, or $2.00/gallon, because I'm not deterred by the additional $15 per tank (350 miles). If gas were more in line with the UK prices I'm used to now, I would still drive the same amount of miles, but I'd buy a small 1.3L economy car (probably diesel) instead.

Re:Too bad

[hb253]

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.

Re:Too bad

[kannibal_klown]

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.

I believe what the grandparent was saying was that when you see a minivan you usually just see a 1-2 people in it; like the parent driving to work or a stay-at-home parent getting some groceries during school hours.

Sure, they probably have a family that travels together a lot (particularly on weekends). But logic dictates that unless it's used to carpool neighbors to work every day or the kids are home-schooled, it gets driven a LOT with just 1-2 people in the car.

• going to work
• going to the grocery store
• runnig various errands.
• etc

However the same goes with SUVs, I can't even begin to count how many times I've seen a large SUV driving around with just the driver (highway and street).

Re:Too bad

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I (together with my wife) bought a Dodge Caravan last year.

You do not have kids?

Re:Too bad

[HairyCanary]

I think it's pretty hard to argue against a minivan -- cars just don't cut it for any family bigger than four. My brother is getting married in a few months, and his fiance already has a child from a previous marriage. He has two of his own. Unless they want to take two cars everywhere (do the gas mileage math on that one) they will need to get a big minivan or SUV. And 25 mpg for a minivan seems pretty good to me. I drive a four cylinder compact car that gets ~21 mpg on average. And usually it's just carrying myself, not a family of four+.

Re:Too bad

[bumptehjambox]

"I don't WANT to live in a 600 square foot box paying $3000 a month in rent with crack whores for neighbors"

I did it once, oh it's worse than just crack whores. The smell, around 5pm, of so many different cultural foods cooking, and this is a nice place mind you, but it's unbearable. The smell of curry mixing with fish, cabbage mixing with fried everything, and a few others that could only be described as 'doo-doo' One person on my floor would leave his garbage bags in the hallway for hours, overnight even, because he was too lazy to take it out, but didn't want it stinking up HIS place. Ugh, the horror stories go on forever. Noise, oh man, every night my above floor neighbor would get home at 3am and watch sportscenter, sans hearing-aid. It was good to wake up 4 hours before I had to work though, doesn't everyone?

One thing good about my apartment was I could steal wireless internet from the nearby school's T1, but even that wasn't enough to keep me there.

Leave your socialist agenda at home.
In socialist cities, your agenda leaves YOU home.

Re:Too bad

[TheRaven64]

One imperial gallon is approximately 1.2 US gallons. This means that 25 miles per US gallon is about 30 miles per imperial gallon. A car getting 33 miles per gallon in the USA gets 40 miles per gallon in the UK, and while I was in the US I saw quite a few advertised that had this kind of performance.

As a side note, it always amuses me that people in the USA describe imperial units as 'British,' when they are actually different sizes to the ones used in Britain. Mind you, they call their language 'English' too...

Re:Too bad

[10Ghz]

Yes, it is true that there is little difference between full-sized sports/luxury sedan and moderately sized suvs. Why should it be a "full-sized luxury sedan"? VW Golf (for example) is big enough to house 4 adults comfortably. And lets face, usually there is just the driver in the car. Maybe there is someone else there besides him. 4 adults would be quite rare, but it would still be doable with a Golf-sized car. So where's the need for large sedans? Safety? Small cars are plenty safe these days. In fact, even Golf might be overkill for some uses. For the family grocery-getter, how about something like VW Polo?

For some reason, Americans seem to insist on big cars with big engines. And then they complain when they are stuck in traffic and can't find a parking-spot.

Re:Too bad

[Ucklak]

SUV's were never safe. They may be big but have the worst damage to the passengers in the event of an accident.
They have the worst roll overs and in that case, the top almost always crushes due to the weight of the chassis.
http://www.suvrollovernews.com/

Head on collisions fare better with an SUV and if your SUV wants to overtake a smaller vehicle from behind, thats a good one too. Other than that, SUVs are not `safer`.

Re:Too bad

[Lumpy]

No it means cities and states getting off their asses and building mass transit systems. the Town I live in is 35 miles from a larger city of 1,000,000. the town is a small 250,000 An express train from the town to the city would be very useful. Most of the jobs are in the city, most people that live in my town drive to the city every day.

Running an elevated rain down the median of the divided highway that runs between the two would bew cost effective (no land to buy) and welcome by many people.

They flat out refuse to even think about it.

Re:Too bad

[SpecTheIntro]

Head on collisions fare better with an SUV and if your SUV wants to overtake a smaller vehicle from behind, thats a good one too.

It's worth noting the only reason that the SUV fares "better" in these scenarios has to do with its height off of the ground. In a head-on or rear-end collision, the car that is higher off of the ground sustains less damage to the chassis, as full-contact isn't always made. (Especially in a head-on collision--I've seen some accidents where the hood of the smaller car went completely under the SUV.)

Let them buy them, though. As long as people are willing to pay the financial consequences of moronic purchasing decisions, I don't really care. Maybe they'll get so tired of spending $100 a tank that they'll pressure the government more for alternative energies.

Re:Too bad

[roystgnr]

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

Price is the only thing that people can be expected to think about when deciding to consume something, and usually capitalism makes price a pretty good sum total of all the costs involved in that consumption.

Combustion is an exception to that rule thanks to the externalities involved, but the solution to that is to try to use taxes to include those externalities in the price, not to demand that everyone who drive develop morality contrary to their own best interests. Not everybody is ready to change their whole life in order to slow global warming by a millionth of a percent. The Prisoner's Dilemma is rough enough with only two players; imagine how futile it can be with two billion.

Re:Too bad

[bmajik]

The reason to be mad at SUVs is that they're so good at killing people while providing no benefits whatsoever.

I'm not "progressive" enough to want to legislate them away (controlling people is for more "enlightened" political ideologies), but they piss me off. I wouldn't argue on the fuel aspects because I happen to like high-horsepower cars. Of course, the # of fatalities involving speeding porsches is quite low.

Everyone should visit http://iihs.org/ and look at the "technical data" Section for the car(s) in question. One of the tests they do is a 31mph side-impact collision with an SUV-sized deformable barrier (it simulates getting t-boned by a Ford Eliminator or whatever they're called now). One of the standard measures is the # of centimeters BEYOND the vertical centerline of the drivers front seat the B pillar (the peice of metal that stretches from floor to roof that makes up the back edge of the drivers front door, and the front edge of drivers side rear door on a 4 door car) comes to rest inside the vehicle cabin. As in, more than half of the drivers body had better not be where it was at the start of the collision, because there is a lot of crushed car there afterwards... Some of the best cars have _negative_ values, i.e. you don't have a complete displacement/crushing of the left half of the drivers body.

cars have gotten better at offset frontal collisions, so the # of fatal 2 car accidents has swayed increasingly towawrds SUVS or trucks t-boning other cars. If you have a small framed wife or teenage child, this is especially onerous, as those body sizes get especially torn up - lots of brain in the grill of the oncoming Dodge Ram (lovely name).

A significant improvement to safety from getting your shit ruined by some inattentive truck/SUV driver is side-curtain airbags.. which primarily do 3 things

- prevent your head from doing part of the job of slowing down the truck
- prevent your head from doing the work of slowing down all that broken glass
- prevent your head from hitting the roof / A pillar of your own car.

Crashes with no head hit are apparently much more survivable. If i were shopping for a newish car I wouldn't consider one with no side curtain airbags.. and I am anti-safety nazis and generally not a fan of exploding balloons in my car. The data suggests too strongly hwoever, that side curtain bags make a real difference in side impacts, which are now more often fatal than frontal offsets.

Re:Too bad

[d3ac0n]

Will cost.

Nope, WOULD cost. "Will cost" assumes that it's going to be done. Truth is, it's NOT going to be done.

As one of the earlier posters mentioned, the reason people live in sprawling suburbs that require single-person vehicles is because they want to raise a family in a safe environment where the kids can have lots of room to run and play. Unless you can change basic human nature and the innate desires of most people, you aren't going to get the pie-in-the-sky mass transit system that every eco-nut loves to rave about.

In other words, it ain't EVER gonna happen, get over it.

Re:Too bad

[garcia]

No, instead you pay $1750/month for a 2700 square foot box that you spend entirely too much time in with meth-heads for neighbors.

I live in the suburbs but would *much* prefer to live closer to the city. Mass transit, things to do, and variety rather than the fucking same restaurants, stores, and people as every other single suburb in the nation.

Re:Too bad

[QuickFox]

If we had infinite resources it would never happen. But the resources aren't infinite. Of course it would be nice if they were, but that's just wishful thinking.

The question is when, not if.

Resources are finite, get over it.

Re:Too bad

[odujosh]

25% increase in milages is hardly marginal. Look up marginal before using it next time:)

Re:Too bad

[afidel]

I might live in the city except it is a crime ridden hellhole with a horrible school system, and that description fits the majority of large American cities. NY, Boston, Chicago are the big exceptions I am aware of. I personally hated living in an apartment in the suburbs, it was almost the worst of both worlds, the noise, smells, and headache of living close to other people, and the commute of the suburbs. When I went to purchase a home I decided on a 1200sq ft ranch on 1 acre. The mortgage payment is less than 25% of my takehome pay and the cost to heat and cool it after I put in a modern furnace is cheaper than my 900sq ft apartment with mostly interior walls. Btw I have all of the ethnic food I could want within a reasonable drive. I have Indian, Thai, Vietnamese, Italian, Hungarian, Mexican (both authentic and Tex-Mex), etc within about a 10 minutes drive. Unless gas hits $30/gallon (which I don't expect within my grandkids lifetime thanks to oil sands and other technologies) my expenses are still less than someone living in one of the big cities.

Re:Too bad

[myth24601]

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.

First off, the bunk about it a minivan may be driven a lot with no passengers but they are driven a some with others in the car too. I am not going to get a tiny car that will fullfill 90% of my by myself driving but leave me screwed when I have to haul kids/carpools and their stuff.

Things to keep in mind about children is they can't sit in the front seat(illegal in most states), have to be in a booster seat 'till they are eight(used to be 5 but now its 8 in NC and try packing three of those in the back seat of a smaller car) and at younger ages they have to ride in larger carseats.

Back in the 70s people didn't worry about safety as much so you could toss 3-4 kids in the backseat or even the cargo area of the station wagon allong with having a child or two in the front seat.

Re:Too bad

[d3ac0n]

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.

Re:Too bad

[LWATCDR]

Your Acura gets pretty poor miles per person compared to a Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, or Nissan Versa. It isn't a fuel efficient car for it's size.
But you like the power and handling as well as the styling....
No different of a choice than people that like SUVs because the feel safe in them
Sorry but most people I know with mini vans have kids and are often hauling them and their friends. I don't know of a single person that owns a minivan that doesn't need one.
I also know a few people that own SUV that need them. They are few and for between to be honest. I do think way too many buy SUVs that don't really need them. The car companies are trying to help that by bringing out crossovers. Ford makes a very good on called the Freestyle. It can haul lot of people and gets 29 mpg on highway. Too bad it isn't selling well. The latest Consumer Reports even gave it very good marks for safety and reliability. Again if you need to haul a lot of stuff and or people it is a fine choice.
I myself car pool to work in my new Mazda3. Nice fun car with pretty good gas mileage. I made my choice based on my wants, needs, and amount I could spend.
I could have gotten a car with better mileage but I didn't find one that I liked as much.

Re:Too bad

[laffer1]

Yes, and in the case of minivans they often don't fare that well as they are low to the ground. I was rear-ended in 2005 as some jackass father decided to turn around to yell at his kids instead of stopping at the red light coming up. He was doing around 55 and it turned into a 5 car accident. Only two people didn't end up in the hospital.. me and him. His kids and all the other occupants went to the hospital. His van leaked antifreeze all over and took most of the damage. My car was just barely totaled and it was only due to the air bag deployment. (1998 saturn sl1) My car still ran fine.

Similarly my wife was hit in her late teens by a drunk driver driving a minivan. His wouldn't start and his wife was rushed to the ER (granted she had been drinking a lot...) but my wife only had scratches. He was traveling at 60 mph and side impacted with a 1996 saturn sl2. So no, minivans are not safer. In fact, they had a lot of trouble getting that drunks wife out of the car. She was trapped since there isn't a lot of area in the front of a minivan to squish so it ends up locking your legs in.

As for SUVs, everyone in my family that has one has flipped theirs at least one time. I've never done that in a car.

Re:Too bad

[Gospodin]

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

How do you know it is? Maybe people drove less because of An Inconvenient Truth.

Re:Too bad

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

You can't afford 2 cars but you thought you could afford 3 kids? Obviously it's too late, but living within your means also involves determining how many children you can afford.

Re:Too bad

[CodeArtisan]

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. Cool. Now if you could just stop giving people cancer with all those particulates you are emitting...

Re:Too bad

[PingSpike]

Especially since there are so few station wagons available these days. (Although its looking like they're starting to make a bit of a comeback)

Re:Too bad

[CohibaVancouver]

Even if minivans get marginally better mileage than SUVs, they still both have very poor (passenger*miles)/gallon

What puzzles me is why north america doesn't see more 'compact' minivans like you see in europe / asia. These are basically minivans built on a small pickup chassis. They take a while go zero to sixty, but get great gas mileage.

(Something like this, but without the 'flare':)

http://www.japanoid.com/img/japanoid_every_cover_k eicar.jpg

Re:Too bad

[SpecTheIntro]

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.

What mathematics are you relying on to come to this conclusion? Or is your definition of "negligible" much more broad than mine? Let's run with what the article gives us: over half of the purchases made today are SUVs or minivans (53% as of this year). A quick run to the government's fuel economy website shows the breakdown of all 2006 SUV fuel mileage. Eyeballing it, let's say the average highway fuel economy is 21 mpg. A quick peek at the minivan class shows them to be around 24 mpg, but I want to stick with SUVs for the time being. Now let's do the same thing for small sedans. (Your example used a Prius, but I don't want to include hybrids.) The average highway fuel economy here is easily well over 30 mpg highway, but let's just say it's 31 mpg for the sake of argument. The article then goes on to tell us that each car saw an average of 11,856 miles last year. Breaking it down, this comes to 564.9 gallons for the SUVs, and 382.5 gallons for the small cars.

So some proportion of 53% of new cars purchased consume 564.9 gallons a year. Looking at the road, I think we can safely say that more SUVs are sold than minivans, so let's say 2/3rds of 53% of new cars are SUVs, or approximately 36%. According to the study, the ratio of vehicles-to-people in the US is 1.178 to 1, and considering that the population of the US is around 270 million, we're looking at roughly 318 million vehicles. Clearly not all of these are personal vehicles, but let's assume 75% of them are, so now we're at 238.5 million vehicles. Considering that the rate of SUV purchase has decreased over the past five years, I think it's safe to say that our ratio (36%) is a fair one to apply to the entire population, rather than just new cars purchased. So we can say that 85.88 million vehicles in the US consume 564.9 gallons of gasoline per year, on average. This equates to 48,511,465,380 gallons of fuel a year. (Keep in mind that total US consumption of gasoline per year is around 146 billion gallons.) If ALL of them, tomorrow, were to start driving small sedans, that number would become 32,847,646,500. That switch would effectively curtail fuel consumption in the US by 15 billion gallons of gasoline per year. A 42-gallon barrel of oil only produces 19.5 gallons of gasoline, so some quick math shows us that this would cut our oil barrel consumption by 769,230,769 barrels a year. According to recent statistics, total US oil consumption is around 22 million barrels of oil per day, so over a year that's 8,030,000,000 barrels. In essence we're talking about a 10% drop of total oil consumption. That is by no means "negligible." And this is without considering hybrid vehicles or truly fuel efficient small sedans (which easily average 35 mpg highway).

Admittedly I make quite a few assumptions in my statistics, but I don't think what I have proposed and the actual reality are too divided here. Improving fuel efficiency will make a dramatic and immediate impact on our fuel consumption. Whether or not this will be countered by increased amounts of driving has yet to be seen, but it's untrue to say that fuel efficiency is a negligible part of the equation.

Re:Too bad

[ErroneousBee]

Resources aren't finite because Capitalism drives us to:
A) find new resources and
B) improve and extend our use of existing resources.

and C) defy the laws of physics

Re:Too bad

[LunaticTippy]

We just had a big snowstorm and saw a fresh crop of upside-down SUVs in ditches. Always nice to see after getting bullied by them (in a car and on foot) all summer long. Incidentally, you and your family have rotten luck in vehicles. Perhaps you should consider public transportation?

On second thought, please stay in your cars. I don't want to see horrific train crashes.

Re:Too bad

[Yartrebo]

Enough groceries for a month will easily fit into even a subcompact. You can also fit about 4 kids + 1 driver into that same subcompact fairly easily. I doubt many families rich enough to afford a minivan have 5 or more kids.

Re:Too bad

[LunaticTippy]

You're so wrong I don't even know where to start.

First, I have a 1981 nissan diesel pickup that gets 40 mpg. So You're wrong about that. Mileage is stagnant, has been since just after the gas crisis in the 70s.

Second, the cars people drive and the way cities are laid out are dictated by numerous tax laws, development tax breaks, and plenty of governmental interference. If developers had to pay for all the new infastructure required for a sprawling exurb they wouldn't be built. If roads weren't subsidized so much people wouldn't drive as much. Government created this mess, it had very little to do with capitalism.

Re:Too bad

[Yartrebo]

Skiing - Skis do fit into a compact or subcompact car, though it is a fairly tight fit and might not be technically legal (obstructing the view). Since it's a pretty rare thing to do, not a big deal.
Cycling - Install a bike rack.
Build a deck - Have the lumber yard deliver or rent a truck (I was able to do so for only about $25 last time I needed lumber).
Going to dinner - If they don't have cars of their own (unlikely), you can always hire a limo service.

Re:Too bad

[Ardipithecus]

There are people who need trucks, because of their trade, and people who need minivans, because they have five kids. That is not the case for more than 80% of the people that have trucks or minivans. These folks would do as well in a Camry or a Civic.

Being large and slower (no, we don't need faster versions!) they block traffic. In traffic engineering trucks count as multiple cars, and these things are trucks (minivans are classified as light trucks, helpful to skip a number of regulations). The effect is that of using more vehicles to transport the same number of people.

Three ideas from fantasy world (or was it traffic hell):

1. Raise gas taxes. Not a shocker, say a penny a month, 12:01am on the first of each month. With inflation this can continue indefinitely (yes, 10yrs = $1.20) At some point even the slower thinkers will catch on.

2. Enforce existing traffic laws. Trucks go on the right lane, except for passing. Instead of everyone going 8mph, cars will be able to go 20 and trucks will be at 4.

Here's my favorite, although unfortunately unconstitutional:

3. Stop trucks and minivans at random checkpoints, inspect them for evidence of construction or landscaping materials (trucks) or kid car seats and the like (vans). If found, go, else the vehicle goes into the traveling shredder.

Re:Too bad

[Yartrebo]

I disagree. They are a status symbol in their own way. Perhaps not a status symbol for males or one you show off in front of others, but one nonetheless. Funny how you almost never see them in the area I live in (Queens, NYC), despite a pretty young population.

Re:Too bad

[Yartrebo]

Hmm ... perhaps you could find some old child seats that are a little smaller, or shave 2 cm off the side of each seat.

Re:Too bad

[Don853]

And Subaru went and slapped an unnecessary turbocharger on one of the only good ones on the market, so now it gets pretty lousy mileage too.

Re:Too bad

[blugu64]

You Sir, Are a real Man.

Re:Too bad

[Melfina]

My first car was a mini van, I had it in HS while the rest of the kids drove new sports cars, and hot rods...

Best fucking thing ever to happen to me. Went to prom in it (with several others), drove all my friends around, made some cash being a taxi/utility vehicle, it was great for camping, and I beat the thing up so much but it kept going. Awesome gas mileage too 3

Re:Too bad

[Technician]

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.

In many families, a minivan is required to get everyone to church on Sunday. My daily commute is now in a carpool and I drive a Prius. On days I'm home with the kids, the wife takes the Prius for shopping and errands due to the cost of filling the van.

The number of cars and the reduced number of miles driven is only part of the data. Show me the data where the van or SUV is left home more and the small car is now used for the commute and errands.

Re:Too bad

[Don853]

Putting your bikes on top of your car or mount it on the back gets up your gas usage by 50%-100%

I think you pulled this out of your ass. In my experience, it's ~10%. Maybe as much as 20% for kayaks and canoes, but that's tough to judge, because the roads around where I take boats tend to be hilly and windy.

Re:Too bad

[sobachatina]

Good point!

Obviously it was unwise of him to choose to have three kids because now he can't have two cars. His post didn't say he couldn't afford his kids- he said he couldn't afford another car. I'd wager that his family might be a bit higher on his priority list than the vehicles they use.

Re:Too bad

[Technician]

It's nearly as entertaining as watching them gets the kids out of the car to guide them into the parking space.

I second that one. I drive a Prius. My wife drives a Dodge Caravan. One fits into compact spaces, the other does not. One turns sharp, the other one almost hits the next row of cars backing out of a space trying to turn. I hate parking the van in small parking lots. It doesn't turn sharp enough. It requires a jog or two to line up with a space to get in or out. The Prius on the other hand can do a u-turn into the space on the the other side of the isle and pull right in.

Re:Too bad

[Technician]

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.

I fail to see the logic. I fill my Prius for $20 and drive 400 miles. I hear people talk about $60 to fill the tank. Cutting consumption by almost half is arguably stupid how? Using half the oil consumption for personal transportation would have a negligible impact on oil consumption how? Please explain. Ya I know that trucks, buses, trains, etc would not be a factor, or could they?

I saw an article in the local paper where the local train switchyard just got a hybrid yard engine with impressive results. Japan has Hybrid buses. It's on the way folks.

http://www.dieselforum.org/technology-spotlight/di esel-hybrid-corner/
http://www.dieselforum.org/technology-spotlight/di esel-hybrid-corner/bnsf-green-goat-release/

Re:Too bad

[otis wildflower]

Raising the price, or perhaps forcing the entire cost of driving (roads, pollution, etc) onto drivers through taxation will get them off the roads.

I still think the cost of mandatory minimum liability insurance should be priced into every gallon of gas. Not only does it make gas more expensive, it guarantees that every car is insured, and you pay for insurance only when you drive. Of course, that would only apply to fossil-based gas, ethanol/butanol from renewable sources wouldn't be taxed, at least until a majority of the fuel delivered was renewable.

And the retail market for comprehensive and other forms of insurance would still be around for financed vehicles, antique/restored, etc.

Re:Too bad

[otis wildflower]

Of course, the US as a whole needs to divorce itself from its auto fetish. Increased public transportation seems a no-brainer. Who out there really likes the Great Wall of Traffic?

I'll take sitting in traffic in my furniture-quality MB-Tex seat with my fresh-ground Contra Cafe and custom burn CD over smelling the lumpenproletariat gabbing at the top of their lungs on their bloody cellphones anyday.

Besides, my commute by car is 3x faster than any bus in my neighborhood, given the walk to the bus station, the mandatory transfer, and the fact that both buses are local.

No, there's no way that mass transit will work on a large scale in general with the sort of population densities there are in the US. Unless people are forced into it, which doesn't work too well in a democracy.

Re:Too bad

[Serengeti]

"Do you think people buy minivans for the looks? Our minivan rarely goes anywhere with less than four people."

You take your family to work?!? Or are you among the generally few responsible drivers who make the effort to carpool?

I don't have any stats toss in here, so discard at your leisure, but the city of Toronto recently opened an "HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) Lane" on one of it's busiest highways. It did so to encourage carpooling, and worked to a degree. But it also illuminated just how many drivers go to work every single day, driving _any_ sort of vehicle, alone. I worked at a television station at the time, and I can tell you that we collected tons of viz of people driving trucks, SUV's & minivans with no one but themselves in the vehicle.

There were even people who were caught with DUMMIES in the passenger seats trying to trick police into think they had more than 1 passenger, so they could use the HOV Lane!!

Re:Too bad

[Serengeti]

Wow... I don't post very often, but I'm going to use preview next time... Apparently English and I don't get along very well...

Re:Too bad

[Archimonde]

Weight doesn't have much to do with safety. Modern cars weight much less and they are much more safer because they have crumple zones and at the same time much better brakes, airbags etc. If you ever had a high(way) speed collision with that mercedes I doubt you would have been here to write it. Few weeks ago, my friend had a front-on diagonal collision (they crashed with their car corners) with another car. They were going about 65, 80km/h. So that is like 145km/h total. There was no braking. Friend was driving a 1-year old vw polo, and the other guy (who was guilty of the collision) was driving a vw golf mk2 (old car). Friend escaped with no major injuries, but the other guy was killed. Polo was totaled, but the cabin wasn't deformed (much). Golf lost all engine space, cabin acted as a crumple zone, and of course, there were no airbags to cushion the body. Believe me, it wasn't a pretty sight. Dunno what kind of roads you got in canada but some parts of europe have very dangerous roads so people generally prefer to drive as safe as possible cars.

Re:Too bad

[cascadingstylesheet]

>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.

Uh oh ... you're talking reason. That won't go over well here ;)

Yep, we get minivans for a reason. Of course, most of the
enviro crowd doesn't *like* that reason - the model of vehicle you
drive isn't all that they want to control, rest assured. Family
size is also something that they feel like they should be in
charge of.

Re:Too bad

[operagost]

Skiing: Dangerous and often illegal, as you indicated. BUSTED
Cycling: OK
Build a deck: OK for a deck, but what about the deck chairs and the table? They won't fit either. $25+$25+$25...
Going to dinner: You just took two cars! You mean two small vehicles use less fuel than one large one? Someone needs to tell cities to dump the buses and start carting people around in taxis! Oh wait, you said to use a limo. LOL! Not only are you elitist, but you picked a supremely wasteful 9 MPG vehicle!

Re:Too bad

[electroniceric]

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.

There's merit to this claim, but you're taking it too far. The key problems with trying to run buses to suburbs are low density and lack of ways for people to easily get to transit stops. Nearly all communities can be refitted with sidewalks, and if there were real money available for transit infrastructure, things could be made a lot better. Or the community could run on-demand transit to link with fixed-route transit (this kind of multimodal idea is all the rage in transit wonk circles these days). If you "arterial" transit routes are fast and effective, you can solve the last mile problem in a lot of ways (e.g. cabs/jitneys, walking, biking, carpoolins, on-demand service, etc).

An even more far-out idea I've kicked around is that there's nearly never a shortage of empty seats driving to our near your origin and destination, so a service like a real-time craigs list for transit may become a real possibility. It won't be that long before there's GPS of some sort in most cars, as well as a live connection to the Internet. With that in place, the hard parts become the economics and the trust issues. That would allow for the same kind of point-to-point convenience with without as many car trips.

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.

Well, somewhat. In many places, transit, along with other transportation is funded party from gas taxes. I live in Pennsylvania, and our urban transit is right on the brink of devastiting insolvency. The recommended solution from the governor's reform comission? Raise gas taxes. You're right that transit does face a chicken-and-egg problem that unless you make substantial investments in it, it's far less convenient than driving. But the picture would change very quickly wit a combination of:
a. (first and foremost) land use laws requiring coordinated planning that consider transportation implications
b. gas and carbon taxes internalizing all the costs of oil use
c. user fees for driving (e.g. tolls)

Land use laws are absolutely critical, because without them you can't really change the (profoundly lucrative) incentive for developers to develop subdivisions on greenfields and leave the transportation and other infrastructure costs to the state. User fees are driving are also important because the current structure of paying for roads encourages overuse. You pay the same taxes for roads no matter how much you drive, so you're getting the most out of those tax dollars when you drive the most.

If you changed those parts of the equation, you'd see people change their habits pretty quickly.

Re:Too bad

[Suidae]

Enough groceries for a month will easily fit into even a subcompact.

That depends on how many of those 4 kids + 1 driver are going with you to the store and how many of the kids are in car seats. Of course, many couples can have the spouse watch the kids in the evening and go to the store without kids. A vehicle with larger capacity provides more flexibility.

You can also fit about 4 kids + 1 driver into that same subcompact fairly easily.

Again, that depends on the ages. You'd have a hard time fitting more than two kids in car seats into the back seat of a compact car, and that third one would not be safe (in a wreck he'd be crammed up between the sharp bits of the seats). With bigger kids, while you might be able to fit them, that doesn't necessarily mean you'd want to fit them for more than a short drive. They'd be more comfortable in a large vehicle.

I doubt many families rich enough to afford a minivan have 5 or more kids.

Minivans are quite cheap. Their popularity over the past decade means that the used market is flush with them. I picked up a '96 Town-n-Country in great shape for $6000. There were plenty of other choices ranging from $2000 to $10,000 on the lots where I looked.

It has been the most versitile vehicle I've owned, I'd hate to be without one now. Previously I had a Geo Prizm and a '71 Impala (still have them both, both were given to me free of charge). I installed 4 seat belts in the rear seat of the Impala, but even a rolling living room like that can only reasonably carry 6 passengers for any duration (Although you can fit a full sized spare, subwoofer and two large grocery carts worth of stuff into the trunk all at the same time as well). You can put a child seat in the middle of the front to fit in all 7 people, but it's not comfortable and certainly not safe.

Primary drawback of the minivan is its gas mileage. It typically gets 17 MPG which is significantly better than the Impala (which hovers around 10, plus a half quart of oil per 1000 miles). This is lower than most minivans but typical of the TnC. Sometimes it'll spike up to 23 for awhile before dropping back to 17. I think its some kind of design flaw in that model.

Anyway, yes, you can 'get by' with a large family and one or two small cars, but minivan is inexpensive and vastly more practical.

Re:Too bad

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Enough groceries for a month will easily fit into even a subcompact.

Spoken like someone who has no kids.

Re:Too bad

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Having only 1 car between 2 adults is a huge hindrance and will impact the lives of those children in many ways. Do you not see how only 1 vehicle is affecting those children?

"Oh sorry Timmy, you can't go to school today because daddy has the car out of town."

Your rebuttal?

Re:Too bad

[operagost]

I didn't realize your pickup was representative of the average vehicle in 1981. Guess what: it's not. First of all, that company was known as Datsun in 1981 so unless you're in some country other than the USA (that apparently uses MPG instead of km/l) I call BS. Second, the gas version got about 25-30 highway so I doubt you got an entire 10 MPG more on the diesel. Third, your pickup is simply not represenative of the average ca. 1981 vehicle. CAFE restrictions have been ramped up since then. Most vehicles were still struggling to balance emissions, power, and fuel efficiency requirements. V8 engines were still very common, and only the newest vehicles had technology like EFI. Cars now are lighter, more efficient, have a tiny fraction of the emissions, and can actually get out their own way.

Re:Too bad

[crotherm]

Not sure if you are a Euro or not, but out here in the New World, we have loads of untamed land. If you like visiting said land, your little car will not suffice. Sure, SUVs don't make very good commuter cars, but then again, for driving the back roads of the desert, hitting the mountains for snowboarding, and the rest of the outdoor stuff, I'll take my SUV.

Re:Too bad

[ryanov]

Skiing is not a rare thing for some people.

The last one is the point, though... "if they don't have cars of their own." If you are not using other cars, you are taking cars off the road (not to mention the fact that parking one van is usually easier than parking 3 cars).

Re:Too bad

[ryanov]

Me too. My parents had one, so I never fell for the FUCKTARDED idea that SUV's are somehow cooler. I had one and used it for a LOT of things. Now I have a 2000 Sport model that my parents traded up to. I hardly drive it, so I'm not really contributing to the pollution any more than anyone with a subcompact does, and when I do drive it, I'm likely taking a couple cars off the road because I take everyone.

Re:Too bad

[trjonescp]

In most parts of the US, driving your own vehicle is actually economical, and there is no alternative in any case.

Exactly. A gas tax makes driving your own vehicle uneconomical and produces revenue that can be used to create alternatives (e.g. better public transportation, alternative fuel technology, etc...)

Re:Too bad

[ryanov]

Many SUV's are not suited for back roads of the desert anyway. I'm willing to bet you're not going off road, and if you are, you have one of the VERY few SUV's that have large enough ground clearance to do so (look underneath the Ford Explorer and you'll see that most minivans have better ground clearance).

Sounds like you've fallen for the advertising. Besides, why are you driving on untamed land? Why not hike and get some excercise?

Re:Too bad

[ryanov]

Time in the car is time wasted. Time on transit gives you time to read or do work. In addition, the walking and transferring is good for you -- excercise. Where's the downside, other than the fact that it takes 3x as long (which in this case could be 30 mins vs. 10 mins -- you don't say).

Re:Too bad

[operagost]

No, instead you pay $1750/month for a 2700 square foot box that you spend entirely too much time in with meth-heads for neighbors.

Still an improvement, isn't it? At least the meth-heads aren't likely to break into your place unless they're looking for more Sudafed.

Re:Too bad

[ryanov]

Coming from someone with a website of "landoverbaptist.org". Who needs an environment when we can be SAVED?

Tell me what I've bought without thinking, sir?

Re:Too bad

[crotherm]

We take dirt roads some with good and not so good conditions, not off road since the National Parks we go to don't like that, and the Exploder works just fine. And we hike too. But we also go with some young ones who are not able to hike very far. We usually have a caravan of vehicles doing this so as to not get stranded by a single break down.

Re:Too bad

[ryanov]

Gotta work with what is actually for sale. 25 isn't great, but look at the Expedition... what's that get, 11 or something?

Re:Too bad

[ryanov]

I've been a big fan of 1 and 2 for awhile.

Incidentally, I do not believe you are correct that minivans are classified as light trucks, though I know SUV's are. They were required to add the third taillight, for example, sometime in the early 90's. I think this is as a result of a reclassification.

Re:Too bad

[smittyoneeach]

Oh, my remarks are targeted at the paraded of stilted station wagons (SUVs) cluttering the DC Beltway.
I daresay these foppish twits aren't letting the precious Escalade anywhere near sport vehicle territory.
These Murano drivers are teh best. Their new bizzare habit is letting off the break so their *cough*automatic*cough* transmission creeps them forward prior to stoplight going green. This is so that they can spend more time blocking the intersections, apparently.
I love my country and my countrymen, modulo the time we spend together on the road.

Re:Too bad

[Blkdeath]

Enough groceries for a month will easily fit into even a subcompact. You can also fit about 4 kids + 1 driver into that same subcompact fairly easily. I doubt many families rich enough to afford a minivan have 5 or more kids.

Spoken like somebody with no experience with kids.

BTW; the minivan market is so saturated right now you can easily buy one for below CDN$20k at finance rates as low as 0%. If you can afford a Honda Civic, you can afford a minivan and then some.

Two child seats will fill the rear seat of a (sub)compact or even a wagon, relegating the third seat in the middle to "storage". In Ontario, Canada it's illegal to have a child less than 12 years old weighing less than ~70lbs in the front seat of a car, not to mention it's just plain unsafe anywhere. Generally the spouse would sit in the front seat anyways, making this generally useless for a child regardless of safety concerns.

There goes your compact car idea.

Now, when said children grow older and acheive heights of 6 feet and then some, shoe sizes in excess of 11, or even just a pair of 5'9" children will again fill out the back seat of most cars.

Now comes the fun part. Travelling as a family. Take a family of two parents and three children, enough equipment to manage for a day or possibly an overnight trip (say diapers, formula, blankets, changes of clothing, etc.), factor in a minimum of one child seat, the likelyhood of a stroller and/or playpen plus items needed/wanted by the older children. Throw some bags/bundles of food into the mix and perhaps some gifts (think holidays). Where does it all go? The wagon's too cramped, the (sub)compact is completely out of the question so what's left? You guessed it; minivan or SUV.

Don't tell me about "back in the day" either. Back in the day people drove Chevy Vans or Ford E-150s with the 8-, 12-, or 15- seat options for larger families (yes, there are people out there with 10+ children).

It's great if your family/household situation is able to get by with a (sub)compact car but you should really consider losing the elitist attitude. Not everybody's situation is identical to yours.

Re:Too bad

[mwpierce]

My wife and I own a minivan and she drives it mostly. We have 4 kids, 1 more on the way, and we specifically bought a minivan to hold all of us. When I'm at work it's typically my wife and her youngest daughter in the van, but after work we do run errands where there are 4+ in the car and a couple of times per week there's all 6 of us in the van (church, sporting events, etc). An acura wouldn't cut it, and I don't like SUV's, especially the one's big enough to hold us all, get very poor gas mileage. My minivan is a 1993 plymouth GV and I think it is just wonderful (extremely reliable, gets ~22mpg around town, low maintenance). When our #5 child comes around we're going to purchase another one with two sliders so we can get our infant and toddler in/out easily plus we're so impressed with the utility, reliability, and mileage. If someone came out with a hybrid minivan we would definitly be interested (Toyota supposedly has one in Japan, but it's not here yet).

Re:Too bad

[LunaticTippy]

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.

Re:Too bad

[thedeviluknow]

Ok I perhaps i should also mention though i believe it was implied that passesngers and driver all walked away, it's a bloody safe car and i have to tell you that a comparrison to a completely diferent car is not particularly conclusive.

Re:Too bad

[thedeviluknow]

Yeah yeah paticulates are bad... so are CO2 and CO which gas engines generate in larger ammounts... unless you drive a bicycle exclusively you should stop talking.

Re:Too bad

[sobachatina]

I can see that for many lifestyles one car would be inconvenient. We have two vehicles for this reason.

I agree with you that it could be a problem.

I disagree that it is a problem severe enough to prevent having children. I think the example you give of a child not able to go to school is unrealistic. School buses exist for this reason.

It comes down to a matter of priorities. If parents make raising children their highest priority they can alter their lifestyle to accommodate that decision. It concerns me to see parents criticized for having unpopular priorities.

Re:Too bad

[sobachatina]

Oh sorry- I forgot something else.

The above poster's home page is in Norway and the assumptions we make from the perspective of US culture are likely incorrect. In my limited experience, in many countries even a single car is often unnecessary because public transportation is better.

Re:Too bad

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"School buses exist for this reason."

Sure, for public schools. Most private schools I am aware of don't run bus service so I don't think you can dismiss that out of hand as unrealistic.

"It comes down to a matter of priorities. If parents make raising children their highest priority they can alter their lifestyle to accommodate that decision. It concerns me to see parents criticized for having unpopular priorities."

I was not criticizing the person for having an unpopular priority. I was criticizing him for not making his children his number one priority, by having a number that he could afford and provide for in a proper manner. If a couple can have 3 children where they can only afford to send 2 of them to college, wouldn't it be wiser to plan for this and only have 2 children?

Re:Too bad

[crotherm]

true true.... I have a buddy who owns the VW SUV and was appaled when I suggested if he was going to take it to the desert/mountains.

Re:Too bad

[Blkdeath]

Hmm ... perhaps you could find some old child seats that are a little smaller, or shave 2 cm off the side of each seat.

Newer child seats are larger to accomodate advanced safety features. If you modify a child seat you are condemning your child to certain death in the event of an accident. As it is, child seats are unsafe if installed improperly, letalone modified.

Please, seriously, stop giving child related advice when you have no experience. Bad enough giving technical advice, but now you're treading in waters that can result in death and/or permanent disability.

Re:Too bad

[Blkdeath]

SUV's were never safe. They may be big but have the worst damage to the passengers in the event of an accident.

All assertions are true!

Ever seen the safety ratings for a Dodge/Plymouth Neon? (I could list more, but that's about the cheapest coffin on four wheels one could ever buy)

Where, BTW, did you get the idea that SUVs cause the "worst damage to [the] passengers"? Is it founded in any form of reality? Which SUVs are you talking about; crossovers, car platform, truck platform, compact, mid-size, full-size or are you painting all "SUVs" with the same brush?

They have the worst roll overs and in that case, the top almost always crushes due to the weight of the chassis.

Do you have a source for these ridiculous claims, or just the ambulance-chasing lawyer advert site you posted?

Re:Too bad

[ncc74656]

I didn't realize your pickup was representative of the average vehicle in 1981. Guess what: it's not. First of all, that company was known as Datsun in 1981 so unless you're in some country other than the USA (that apparently uses MPG instead of km/l) I call BS. Second, the gas version got about 25-30 highway so I doubt you got an entire 10 MPG more on the diesel.

I don't know that his numbers are all that unreasonable. It would've had a tiny little 4-banger, of about the same size that you'd find in a VW TDI Golf or Jetta that gets 45-50 mpg (or more). Even larger diesels offer substantial improvements over gas engines of similar size. For something in about the same timeframe as the OP, consider the Chevy 6.2L truck-diesel V8. In 1982, it delivered fuel economy in the low-to-mid-20s, in a package that was at least twice as heavy and that offered much more hauling capacity as the OP's truck. On another page, a poster describes an Olds 350 diesel tweaked to deliver ~34 mpg, though in stock form mid-20s would've been more typical (compare that to the mid-teens that the gas Olds 350 in my Cutlass Supreme delivers). If you can get 30+ mpg from a diesel V8, 40 mpg from a 4-cylinder engine with maybe a third of the displacement doesn't sound unreasonable.

Re:Too bad

[DaveJay]

I have a minivan. I also have a small car. The minivan gets used when my wife and I, and our twins, and our twin stroller, and the huge bag of baby support stuff, get trundled off somewhere (it was also the smallest minivan available at the time that would fit all of those things and still have room for my mother-in-law.)

The small car gets used when I drive to work, and back (picking up the kids on the way, with the baby gear bag going on the front seat and the groceries in the trunk.)

Here's the irony: the smaller car is so old that it gets the same gas mileage as the minivan. Yikes.

Re:Too bad

[Zaphod2016]

I'd like to preface this comment by saying that I am a strong supporter of ethanol and finding economically viable solutions to ecological problems.

You are correct that corn and sugar can can be grown, crop after crop, and processed into ethanol fuel. In theory, we are dealing with an infinite resource, just like all farming.

However, just like all farming, we have begun to witness some serious capacity issues. Crops may be pertpetual, but they depend on the resource known as LAND, which is most certainly finite. Technology can increase production, such as fertilizers, hydroponics, genetic engineering, but these increases are not infinite either; even a tower of hydroponic farms will connect to some portion of the Earth.

With 2006 technology, it is impossible to sustain BOTH our food production, and to become 100% self-sufficient on ethanol fuels, with the farmland available in the US.

The reality of our situation is this: we Americans consume an OBSCENE amount, especially when it come to both food and fuel. Even if we were able to break even, to grow enough fuel for all Americans tommorrow, we would fall back into an energy deficit immediatley. Not only do we Americans consume, but there are 300 MILLION of us now, and more arriving every day.

Technology, biofuels, free-market solutions are all great. However, I believe that a cultural shift is simply inevitable- it is unrealistic to expect my 9 grandchildren to consume as much as I do come 2075...especially if they are joined by another 300 million other Americans in that same time.

Re:Too bad

[Buelldozer]

Weight. It's all weight.

In 1987 your truck didn't come equipped with air bags, side impact beams, crush zones, 6 cd changers, gps navigation systems, dvd players, Anti-Lock braking systems, automatic transmission, and god knows what else. What's worse is that so many of these gadgets are electrically driven. As the electrical demands increase so does the HP 'lost' to powering them through the alternator.

Weight and electrical requirements are killing the MPG of vehicles.

Re:Too bad

[tedric]

I drive a VW Touran 1.9 TDI (77kw/105hp) which uses 5.6l/100km Diesel combined (data from my car computer, 5.9l/100km according to the data sheet).

'units' says:

You have: 5.6l/100km
You want: mpg
                reciprocal conversion
                * 42.002604
                / 0.023808048

From www.vw.com I understand this model isn't sold in the US (I'm from Germany) and be aware that it's a Diesel engine. The (not really) equivalent with a 75kw/102hp Otto engine gets only 29mpg (8.1l/100km).

Here you'll find some pictures and technical data (in German).

Re:Too bad

[ran-o-matic]

That's a cool car, I wish I could buy one. It doesn't look too much bigger than a Jetta wagon, so it's a nice size. I have an older VW Golf TDI with a very similar engine and very similar fuel usage (mine was rated 40 city/50 highway MPG and almost always exceeds its ratings). The Touran is only slightly heavier than my Golf (1498kg if I'm reading the sheet correcly vs 1335kg) and nowhere near the size of a US minivan (a Honda Odyssey has a 2700kg curb weight and is rated 19 city/27 highway MPG). I didn't convert the above fuel economy ratings. Since different testing methods are used in different countries, they aren't really convertible anyway. The GP is talking about a US minivan that returns 42 MPG, but only 21 MPG with bicycles on top!

Re:Too bad

[ran-o-matic]

Doh! I just realized YOU are the GP! Never mind.

Re:Too bad

[LunaticTippy]

You're right that it's the weight, but vehicles don't have to be so heavy. Many advancements have been made in materials, construction technique, and electronics that reduce the weight and power requirements. My Echo weighs 2000 lbs and has many safety, convenience, and entertainment features. It holds 5 adults comfortably and has a large trunk. If gasoline costs continue to be high and volatile manufacturers can focus on minimizing weight, which hasn't been done much in the US.

Re:Too bad

[Eivind]

The last 2 kids are twins. You can't always plan everything out ahead. The *plan* was to have a second kid. Not to have second and third at once.

But then again, that's life for you.

I guess I exxagerated -- I could infact afford 2 cars (or 5), what I meant was that a second car would cost more than it would've been worth to me.

And I also question if 2 cars would be more environmentally friendly than 1 sligthly larger. There's a tendency to drive more when you've got more cars, and there's also the energy and material-consumption associated with producing the car.

Re:Too bad

[Eivind]

School is literally 200meters away. (600 feet for you imperialists)

If school *was* far away there'd be a school-bus.

My work is 1km away -- which means 15 minutes on foot, or 4 minutes on bike.

We have no need for 2 cars whatsoever. The only "advantage" would be avoiding driving around with the large car on those occasions where a small car would have sufficed. (which is most of the time)

Re:Too bad

[syphax]

Mmm logic dictates no such thing. Minivan is used to take 3 kids to preschool and other activities. Minivan does not go to work (work is raising the kids). 1+ kids usually go to grocery store. Same with errands. If no kids, parent(s) take smaller, older, beater car that gets decent mileage, looks like crap, and is paid for.

Re:Too bad

[syphax]

No, my wife's work, at present, is raising kids. So she tends to bring them wherever she is going. We have three; 3 + 1 = 4 (3 + 2 = 5 on the weekends).

I usually ride my bike to work, or take our beater car.

Re:Too bad

[Eivind]

Sure. It's priorities.

I'd like to spend money so that the family can have a larger house. Currently we've got 3 bedrooms, I can see that getting cramped in a few years when we've got 3 teenagers and 2 adults living in it...

We like to spend money *experiencing* things. We prioritize vacations -- also because my wife is from Germany and we want the children to actually get to know their grandparents -- what a concept !

We like, and prioritze, eating out, concerts, gadgets, activities with the kids, and providing economic security (which for us means among other things paying back our mortgage really a *lot* quicker than we'd have to, who knows when rainy days come?)

We have no use for 2 cars whatsoever. Our *sole* benefit would be saving a bit of petrol -- by taking the smaller car on rides where it's sufficient and reserving the large car for only those occasions where the size is needed. (such as when the entire family comes along)

Re:Too bad

[Eivind]

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.

Re:Too bad

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

It's a shame you couldn't have responded in a more thoughtful manner and we could have discussed this without animosity. The best colleges are in England and the U.S. MIT is better than any college you have in Norway. Sending your children there costs money. I have invalidated your entire post.

And yes, in the U.S., people drive a lot. I am discussing this issue from a U.S. point of view on a U.S.-based forum.

Take your anti-American rhetoric and stuff it.

Re:Too bad

[Eivind]

As a Norwegian -- you can go to MIT without having a rich daddy, simply by being one of the top students.

You see, the government recognizes that there's some subjects where foreign universities may be better, and so give a stipendium to send a number of students to them. I know, because my friend (Hi Stig !) did.

I didn't display any "anti-American" anything. I reacted (strongly) negatively to the idea that one cannot reasonably have a family with kids without owning atleast 2 cars. It's your loss if you consider *that* argument universally American. Personally I'm convinced 90%+ of Americans do *not* agree with that.

btw, Slashdot may be in the USA -- but that doesn't mean, not by far, that only Americans read it, or only American POVs are valid.

Re:Too bad

[thedeviluknow]

It's actually more expensive at some places here too but shopping around pays off;)

Re:Too bad

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"btw, Slashdot may be in the USA -- but that doesn't mean, not by far, that only Americans read it, or only American POVs are valid."

btw moron - I didn't say only American point of views were valid. You attacked me for having an American point of view. I showed how an American point of view is obviously valid at this site. Now go crash your car.

Re:Too bad

[Eivind]

Sorry. No go. I attacked you for arguing as if American situations is *all* that exists.

I have a European (Norwegian) POV. But I'd *never* automatically assume that everyone I run into on the net is automatically Norwegian, nor that what works here is universally valid. I'm from Norway, but I'm aware that the world is bigger than that. You don't seem to.

Even in the USA your claim is bullshit. It is perfectly possible for a family in USA to manage perfectly well with just a single car. No, not *all* families. It depends on the specifics, like where you live, where you work, what the kids do and so on. But you never asked about any of that. Instead you point-blank claimed that it can't be done.

It's nonsense in the USA, and it's even *more* nonsense for anyone with a wider perspective.

It's also interesting that you accused me of being too agressive, and now you're yelling around like a wronged 5-year-old.

Re:Too bad

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"I attacked you for arguing as if American situations is *all* that exists."

I did no such thing.

Those are americans?

[Rufus211]

What state has a wide yellow license plate with no graphics? And what's the circular road sign with a red border?

Re:Those are americans?

[AK Marc]

Looks like an 80 km/h speed limit sign. Why does it matter if the picture for "car stuff" happened to be taken in Europe? It's not like they would be sure to catch a driver that picked a car over a truck if they ran out that morning and snapped a photo. Someone grabbed a stock photo, and there it is.

Re:Those are americans?

[dunkelfalke]

i think it is france, not netherlands because afair dutch license plates are a bit shorter and dutch road signs aren't white but yellow.

Re:Those are americans?

[Katchina'404]

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).

Re:Those are americans?

[Scarblac]

Dutch road signs are white, exactly like that one. Also, there's a little square white sign below it, probably with a truck sign, meaning the max speed limit is for trucks only. We have those in the Netherlands, I don't know about France.

The license plate seems a bit long, but what's on it does seem to follow the XX-XX-XX pattern. I'm undecided.

About those three speed limit stickers, that's not Dutch as far as I know, might well be French. Also, there's a hill on the side of the road, and most of the Netherlands is really flat. The concrete in the middle of the road also looks more French to me.

Probably France.

Re:Those are americans?

[Elshar]

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.

Or, if you like, the next rowing competition depicts a replica trireme rowing out of a harbor... Not really what the article is about :P

Re:Those are americans?

[tonan]

My guess is that is in the Netherlands, or France. German plates are white (most of the time), Belgian plates have a red border with red alphanumerics. They're driving on the right, so it isn't UK.

Re:Those are americans?

[BoberFett]

At least all they did was use a picture of a foreign car. I guess they couldn't figure out how to photoshop smoldering compact cars and dozens of missiles and keep it believable.

Re:Those are americans?

[gedeco]

For me this is a French car. Specefic because on the right hand you have 2 separated characters, which is common for french cars to indicate the region
a french nummerplate looks like

xxxxx yz 59

The cars in the picture
Fiat
Renault
Citroën

The road itself looks like a common french road. Remark you have a container transport, wich is quite common between Lille and Dunkerke, the region where I would situate this picture.
The three stickers indication speed limits are also very common for trucks in France

Re:Those are americans?

[mrjb]

Dutch license plates are usually in XX-YY-ZZ format. So the license plate on the picture is probably French.

Re:Those are americans?

[dunkelfalke]

think of these pictures als icons of your favourite window manager, an allegory more or less.

Re:Those are americans?

[gedeco]

One additional reason why I'm sure the Fiat Chroma has a French License plate:
There is a metalic border, part of the license plate. In France, license plates are delivered toghether with the car. It is not uncommon for a France car dealer to create license plates wich contains his coordinates on the metalic border, incorporated to the license plate

Re:Those are americans?

[Simon]

Probably France.

The driver also has his hand placed on the steering wheel, suggesting that he is driving and that the traffic is moving. You're right, this couldn't possibly be a Dutch traffic scene.

--
Simon

Re:Those are americans?

[AK Marc]

Because it's about Americans?

So, you'd rather a picture of Americans watching a baseball game than a generic picture about driving that no one noticed or cared where it was taken? I think that a stock photo about driving is more appropriate. The article is about driving. The picture is about driving.

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.

But then what if it is a picture of last year's snowstorm? It many be Boston, it may be a snowstorm, but it isn't Boston in the snowstorm covered in the article. And, like I said before, the article isn't just about Americans driving, it's about Americans driving less and buying fewer trucks. If you were to take a stock photo, it wouldn't be of Americans driving less, it would be about them last year driving what they drove before they drove less. And you wouldn't have a single person in it that opted for a car rather than a truck this year, as the article discusses, because it was before this year. So you'd have to go take a picture now, and unless it was staged, you wouldn't be sure you caught a single person in the picture that drove less or opted for a car over a truck, so the picture would be just as misleading.

It is pedantic to whine when a stock photo doesn't match exactly what you think it should. The story is generally about driving, and someone clicked the "stock photo on driving" and that's what they got. It is a match. No stock photo will ever be an exact match, but I think that it is adequate for the story. Driving story, driving picture. All is good.

Re:Those are americans?

[Moofie]

But if the picture is not related to the story, it is of no value. I know what driving looks like. If the image is just knuckles on a generic steering wheel, use those column inches for something useful.

Re:Those are americans?

[Brandybuck]

Modded down for poking fun at Reuter's lack of journalistic integrity. I wonder how pissed the moderators would have been if I joked about AP instead...

Re:I definately drive less

[Anonymous Coward]

definitely.

Rounding Error

[Le Marteau]

'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.

Re:Rounding Error

[kfg]

No, it's worse than that. This is what actually passes for science. If you simply throw out both precision and accuracy you get. . .more laws and another grant.

KFG

Looks like Europe to me!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not a big difference...

[Frosty Piss]

Less than 100 miles difference a year is insignificant.

Re:Not a big difference...

[TheFlyingGoat]

300,000,000 Americans. Let's guess 70% are adults that drive. That's 2.1 million drivers. Let's say the average vehicle gets 25mpg. That's 4 gallons per driver per year saved.

That's a total of 8.4 million gallons of gas saved per year, which is roughly equivalent to the number of gallons of gas passenger vehicles burn per day in the US. (Sen. Obama press release)

You're saying that it would be insignificant if all Americans took 1 day and didn't drive anywhere? I'm sure my numbers are off, but it all definitely adds up when you're talking about a country the size of the US.

Re:Not a big difference...

[Valacosa]

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.

Re:Not a big difference...

[frogblast]

Thats not totally fair, if the trend for the last 10 years had been an annual increase of 5% then i would say the figures were significant. ie just becasue there was not a statisticly significant change does not mean the data is meaningless - no change might be a big improvement from what was going on before. (i have not RTFA and i dont know how much the number of miles increased in previous years). for me i think the fact it didnt increase (or at least not a statisticly significant increase) is the important point. i do agree that its a bit meaningless to give 5 sig figs. without some error calculations and without comparing it to the increases that occured in previous years. so, the main point: we need more data!

Minivans?

[TheFlyingGoat]

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.

Re:Minivans?

[PiMuNu]

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. How big are your kids!?!?

Re:Minivans?

[osmodion]

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.

Re:Minivans?

[stewbacca]

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.

As an American, I think you have the right to drive what you want (especially a legal vehicle, such as an SUV), and others have the right to be critical of what you drive (even though I don't care to hear what they think). That's the nature of the beast, isn't it? You are already being punished by having to buy more gas, right? Everyone has the right to be stupid in their own way, whether it be by driving an irresponisible vehicle, or by being beligerent towards other people's freedoms (of driving irresponsible vehicles, for example).

Re:Minivans?

[doom]

This isn't directly criticizing you or the parent comment, as I definitely agree with you that SUVs and other large, low-MPG vehicles are reasonable vehicles for some people.

Nope. Minivans, possibly, but not SUVs. You need to look into this a little more: SUVs were a completely insane fad, a candidate for a new edition of the "Madness of Crowds". They're good for almost exactly nothing.--

(Myself, I wouldn't even want to use one as a skiing vehicle -- if I slide off into a ditch, I'd rather stay up-right.)

Re:Minivans?

[MtViewGuy]

I think the fuel efficiency of vehicles sold in the USA will increase once the new low-emissions turbodiesel engines become widely available a few years from now, using technologies such as DaimlerChrysler's BlueTec system or Honda's new plasma gas reactor catalyst to reduce NOx gases along with advanced diesel particulate traps.

Unlike yesterday's diesel engines, these new engines not only get 30-35% better fuel mileage than their gasoline equivalents, but also lack the distinct clatter and visible smoke of older diesel engines, too. And there's no lack of performance, either, as BMW successfully demonstrated with the amazing 330d model.

Re:Minivans?

[b0s0z0ku]

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.

For a family with 2 kids, what about something like a Honda Fit or Scion? They should fit 4 adults and a child seat and have a nice squareback cargo area behind the rear seats. There's also the option of a Jetta or Passat diesel wagon, but that's skewing the stats since a diesel minivan with good mileage could also theoretically be produced, but isn't due to excessive (IMHO) US environmental restrictions and lack of American interest.

BTW- I grew up in the 80s, and my family didn't even have a 4-door car until I was about 10. We had an older Honda Accord hatchback and a Volvo 142 (which was somewhere in between a new Civic and Accord in size IIRC). My dad finally got an Olds 88 wagon, but no one wanted to drive it because it was less than reliable - it ended up seizing up completely at 50,000 miles. There were even quite a few trips from NY down to Florida in the Volvo.

-b.

Re:Minivans?

[myth24601]

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. How big are your kids!?!?

Your probibly just trying to be funny but it's not the size of the kids as much as the other junk that you have to have associated with them. This is especially true with younger kids when you go on a trip and have to take suitcases for all the clothing and a few toys and possibly a stroller and a collapsible bed(pack -n- play). Young ones also have to rid in car seats which take up a lot of room too.

Re:Minivans?

[myth24601]

Nope. Minivans, possibly, but not SUVs. You need to look into this a little more: SUVs were a completely insane fad, a candidate for a new edition of the "Madness of Crowds". They're good for almost exactly nothing.--

(Myself, I wouldn't even want to use one as a skiing vehicle -- if I slide off into a ditch, I'd rather stay up-right.)

What would you use if you and your family loved to tow a 5000lb. camper on a few trips a year? An fact about larger SUVs that seems to be forgoten here is that towing is just very possible with smaller vehicles and forget about trying to rent a tow vehicle because of all the setup required to safely tow.

Re:Minivans?

[karnal]

In addition to your "showing off how much money" comment you made, me and my wife picked up a hell of a deal on an F150 - 2 wheel drive (it's flat here; winters are dealable) for MUCH less money than an SUV or brand new truck.

Just keep your eyes open for deals....

Re:Minivans?

[Archimonde]

I just cannot understand why would anyone need a truck to build a house. Friend of mine with his two sons built and equipped a 3 story house all by themselves and then *never* needed nothing more than a normal sedan (europe one). All biggest materials (cement, sand, rocks etc) were delivered (with no extra charge) on site. After the house was complete, he ordered a kitchen, an couple of days later a truck arrived with parts. 2 guys assembled it in house for no extra cost. So, all in all he never needed anything more than a basic car. Everything he couldn't put in his car (small by US standards I guess) was delivered to his house with no or very small fee.

I don't mean to question your decision for a private truck, but I just don't get it why stores where you live don't offer delivery.

Re:Minivans?

[dpilot]

It's not the truck that gets used to haul things...

It's the truck that apparently only ever gets used to haul an ego - he bed looks perfectly pristine and there's no hitch.

Personally I have about the smallest vehicles I can wrap around my (rather tall) family. Plus with the overwhelming number of SUVs and ego-hauling trucks on the roads these days I don't feel safe in as small a car as I used to.

Re:Minivans?

[jafac]

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.

My Jetta w/trailer fulfills that need. At 46 mpg (diesel) highway.
Sure - I commute 40 miles a day for work - and I'm not going to move closer. Last time I moved closer to work, the company got bought out and shut down. Not moving again. No spank you.

Plus, I lend out my trailer all the time; it's a little flatbed 4x8 - but since it's not a pickup-truck, I don't get stuck helping people move, or lose my own transportation on Sunday afternoons.

Can I haul 2000 lbs of flagstones? Okay - got me there, I had to take 3 trips. :)

Re:Minivans?

[everphilski]

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.

Its obvious he didn't need it to build the house ... but since he heeded it several times a month anyways, it comes in handy for the building of a house. And I can vouch for the Wisconsin winters.

Re:Minivans?

[jafac]

Call me when that little plastic/glass doorstop with wheels can:
1) Pack my sportbike to the track.

In a trailer.

2) Pack my ATV into the woods ... and back out again.

In a trailer.

3) Pack 1/2 ton of landscaping bricks home.

In a trailer.
(as I said before - I was inconvenienced when I had to make 3 trips for 2000lbs of flagstone. Wah)

4) Pull my boat out of the lake (no boat ramp).

How big a boat? I put my boatS on my roof-rack.

5) Pack a bunch of sheets of drywall/2x4's/plywood ...

In my 4x8 trailer.

6) Can make it to the drugstore when my grandma forgot a perscription ... in 18" of snow.

Okay - got me there. But I live in California. No snow.
(and - I'll out myself; my wife drives a Toyota 4Runner - but she does not commute daily).

My point is - we're confusing WANT with NEED again. Most of these items can be dealt with with a reasonable compact car, and a trailer. If I were a contractor, and needed to do this stuff every day, I'd think it was a matter of efficient business operation to own a big truck instead of a compact with a trailer. But I'm not a contractor. I'm a programmer and weekend warrior. If I had a big boat, or camper trailer, I'd just use the wife's 4Runner to tow it. But I sure as hell wouldn't do my daily commute lugging around an extra 2000lbs of steel, pumping air and gas through an extra 4 cylinders I don't need to maintain 75mph of highway cruising.

Re:Minivans?

[adolf]

You know what? You're right! You don't need a truck. Rather, you need your head examined.

You're a fool if you think that you require such an enormous vehicle just to haul things "at least a few times a month" for a home remodeling project.

I am also a homeowner. Therefore, I understand that the fruit of a home improvement shopping trip comes only in one of two different sizes:

Big, and Gargantuan.

For Big loads, a small, short-bed pickup is more than adequate. You can fit surprising quantities of material of reasonable (8'+) length mostly into the bed; a red flag tied to the end and a couple of tie-down straps (which you should be using regardless) satisfies the DOT's safety requirements. For hauling a room's worth of tile and other Big things like toilets and bath tubs, it also generally works OK. A small pickup can easily handle almost any home remodeling job by itself.

Except, of course, for those things that qualify as Gargantuan. Stuff like 12' countertop sections. 16-foot 2x4s. A kitchen's worth of cabinets. A room's worth of sheetrock. Major appliances. Gargantuan. Say it with me: Gargantuan. The hypothetical small pickup mentioned in the above paragraph is not Gargantuan, and therefore is not equipped to handle these jobs.

But you just don't do much of that, and in fact the average home only has a few Garguantuan trips worth of stuff in it once fully built and furnished, anyway.

Which is, of course, why companies who sell Gargantuan things also ubiquitously offer DELIVERY SERVICES. That's right, for a small fee (or, quite often, for free), they'll load up all of your Gargantuan stuff onto a purpose-built, Gargantuan truck and deliver it to your home, and sometimes even unload it for you.

So you get the best of all worlds: You get the convenience of being able to do Big things on a whim while retaining the ability to purchase Gargantuan items, and you don't have to maintain your own Gargantuan truck.

You get to save on gas, of course. But you also get to benefit from reduced usage of other vehicular consumables: Smaller engines typically contain less oil, making changes cheaper. Brakes are smaller, and therefore less expensive. The tires are cheaper. Exhaust systems are less expensive. Fewer cylinders means cheaper and less-frequent serious engine repairs. And since you're driving it EVEN LESS due to the services of the delivery man, the whole thing lasts longer by default.

So please, get your head examined. If you were a general contractor, or a welder, or a horse breeder, or a stone mason, then I would probably feel differently. But you, sir, are insane if you think that your solitary house and its paltry appetite for Gargantuan stuff is sufficient justification for you to drive such a wasteful vehicle.

Re:I definitely drive less

[MillionthMonkey]

A drop from 13711 miles in 2004 to 13657 miles in 2005. Wow, congratulations, guys.

Since earlier this year I can't drive anymore for medical reasons. So I have to ride a bike five miles to work. A commute like that keeps you constantly whipped into shape. I highly recommend it. (Not having a medical problem that forces you to do it, that is, but just doing it.)

We have one car. It's a Prius. My wife just drives it to Whole Foods and the vet. Maybe a couple thousand miles every year.

Rewind

[flyingfsck]

I wonder how much of the 'reduction' was due to used car salesmen rewinding the odometers more than before...

you don't drive when you don't have anywhere to go

[macadamia_harold]

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.

This is because...

[Cyno01]

People are going out to less movies because of wait for it... PIRACY!!!

Re:This is because...

[Dunbal]

because of wait for it... PIRACY!!!

      Good! All Pastafarians know that this means a decrease in global warming...arrr.

Re:This is because...

[rho]

I was thinking this was partially explained by conveniences such as Amazon and the like. I know I buy a heck of a lot less stuff from bricks & morter, and therefore drive commensurately less often. This will likely only increase with time.

Re:I definitely drive less

[Anonymous Coward]

5 miles whips you into shape? I barely feel warmed up in 5 miles on a bike. I ride 25 miles to and from work a day, with about 700 feet in elevation change. And I don't feel that's enough to keep me in shape.

Wow...

[mofomojo]

I didn't know CNN did reporting.

Re:Wow...

[Conanymous Award]

They Report. You Decide.(TM)

WTF?

[theglassishalf]

I know this is off topic...but screw the Karma. I just had a video pop-up ad appear on the slashdot homepage. If this keeps happening, I won't ever come back.

-Daniel

Re:WTF?

[shodai]

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.

Re:WTF?

[Lemmy Caution]

You realize, don't you, that many many people browse at places where they can't control which client they are using?

It's ultimately the site-owner's responsibility to keep their site sane.

Re:WTF?

[theglassishalf]

I've used Opera and Firefox...neither work as well for me as Camino. Anyway, if I have to use an adblocker, It's not a welcoming community site. There's no place in my life for obtrusive ads, and I won't patronize the business of those who treat their customers in such a way.

Re:WTF?

[cmdr_tofu]

Try NOSCRIPT. I cannot visit a website without it. You can choose what javascripts to allow: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/722/\\ Don't blame slashdot. It's all about the $$

Re:WTF?

[Burning Plastic]

If you use Camino then get hold of the CamiTools pref pane http://pimpmycamino.com/parts/camitools. It adds a gui for a lot of useful preferences and just happens to have an ad blocker section...

I've been using Camino as my main browser for the past two years and CamiTools for most of that time - my favorite feature of Camino is the Keychain integration - avoids adding another browser password manager to my system...

Leap year

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is so small that it's almost totally explained by 2004 being a leap year.

Re:Leap year

[DrKyle]

Yeah, add into that the # of Americans who didn't drive as they were overseas fighting "wars", didn't drive because their cars were destroyed by hurricanes, or didn't drive because they were in line waiting for Revenge of the Sith, and you've probably got the whole decrease covered.

Re:Leap year

[archen]

Well there's the answer to global warming then. Get everyone to play World of Warcraft and no one will ever go out again!

Statistical Noise

[Valacosa]

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.

Re:Statistical Noise

[erikus]

Hmm, it looks like you missed this paragraph:

Growth in U.S. demand for gasoline slowed from an average 1.6 percent per year between 1990 and 2004 to 0.3 percent in 2005 and 1 percent in 2006, the report said.

Your 0.3% is right on, but it's consistently been 1.6% in the years before. Now are you sure it's noise?

Re:Statistical Noise

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Statistical Noise

[dmayle]

"14 kilo-miles" (you guys should really switch to metric)

Look, I'm with you on switching to the metric thing. I'm an American living in France, and I think in metric already, but what kind of unit is that? What's the metric equivalent, megameters? As the French say, "N'importe quoi"...

Re:Statistical Noise

[xant]

I think you mean: 74 megafeet.

Re:Statistical Noise

[lavaface]

Growth in U.S. demand for gasoline slowed from an average 1.6 percent per year between 1990 and 2004 to 0.3 percent in 2005 and 1 percent in 2006, the report said.

Your 0.3% is right on, but it's consistently been 1.6% in the years before. Now are you sure it's noise?

The 0.3% figure the gp cited was for a reduction in miles driven. The 0.3 percent you mentioned was for an increase in gas demand. You seem to imply they are related. They are not. It is statistical noise.

Re:you don't drive when you don't have anywhere to

[cmorriss]

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

Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted by Anonymous Coward
 

...and if you had any balls,...

Hi, Pot. I guess that was directed toward Kettle and I?

Re:you don't drive when you don't have anywhere to

[macadamia_harold]

Umm... Did you even read the site you linked to?

Umm, did you even read the article you're responding to? We're talking about 2005, not 2006, Kreskin.

This American Drove More

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:This American Drove More

[ContractualObligatio]

If I want to travel a couple of thousand miles from A to B, I want to fly because it's faster. I'm not paranoid about paying by credit card, taking my driving license or being blown up by terrorists. I have maybe a few minutes delay because of slightly higher security.

You, however, have to use cash, try to stay off as many "lists" as possible, and are willing to add however many hours to your travel time (including an overnight stay in a motel, fer chrissakes), rather than show a piece of ID *you already have*.

You might not be a coward, but either you are indeed paranoid, or time and logic doesn't figure much in your thinking. If you have an objection in principle to the security thing, that's would be a different point. But don't kid yourself that you are opting out of the herd of sheeple. *You* are the one that has made a real change to your actions, based on what *somebody else* thinks. I'm just dealing with an almost non-existant "problem" because I'm not going to let somebody else's paranoia get in the way of doing what I want to do.

Where's the luxury in having to drive a couple thousand miles when flying is faster and safer? The delay from having to show ID is probably less than the time you take to fill up your gas tank!

Re:This American Drove More

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Where's the luxury in having to drive a couple thousand miles when flying is faster and safer? The delay from having to show ID is probably less than the time you take to fill up your gas tank!

Flying may be safer than driving on a per mile basis, but it is the most risky way to travel on a per trip basis. The delay was never the issue, and if you think it was, then you need to re-read my post.

If you have an objection in principle to the security thing, that's would be a different point. But don't kid yourself that you are opting out of the herd of sheeple.

I suggest you look up the history of the term "potemkin" - if you knew the meaning you would have figured out that I indeed do have an objection "in principle." In fact, if you had even read my post at all you should been able to figure out that I am all about the principle, I never even once mentioned delay or timeliness.

Re:This American Drove More

[ContractualObligatio]

A number of references in my reply to your post show I did read your post, despite your suggestion to the contrary. Presumably your mind is not sufficiently open to consider that I find your post inconsistent and therefore cannot firmly conclude your objection is one of principle, as compared to e.g. knee-jerk anti-authoritarion thinking?

Clearly I recognise the grounds for an objection in principle to the security thing (why mention it otherwise?), and I do get the reference, and I do think the US government is building a fake picture of the dangers we face to justify its actions, or increase control, or however you prefer to describe their goals and motivations. Nonetheless, given the emotional and perjorative tone of calling people like me cowards and sheep, it is entirely possible your thinking is in fact more emotional than logical, and not based on consistent principle as such. As you point out, you can be tracked via other mechanisms that presumably for your own convenience you still keep.

Individuals might have a given point of view or principles similar to your own, and yet nonetheless for practical purposes (e.g. considering the safety of others more important than views on security policy, shared principles here I suspect) choose to make a compromise. You compromise to have a cell phone; I compromise to reduce delays. Why that makes *me* a coward, but gives *you* the luxury of opting out, I'm not sure.

On flying safety - again, not clear what your point is here. Flying is safer per mile because the danger is take off and landing. So driving is clearly safer on a per trip basis if the plane takes off, goes nowhere and lands again. The question then becomes "how many miles do you have to fly before it's safer", and the figure given these days is around 18km (first result on Google for post 9/11 research: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030111/fob3. asp). You can't get commericial flights that short - so flying is always safer. Should you have a different set of figures leading to a different conclusion, fair enough, but I am making a rational decision here.

I did not say delay was the issue, but delays and standing on a forecourt filling up a car are not typically associated with luxury. Perhaps a blunter point to make would be that your supposed luxury in fact appears to be an indulgence in either self-righteousness, thinking you are more free-willed than others, or some other intellectual self-praise. Luxuriating in this kind of self-belief is often an indicator that the individual's stated principles are in fact not the emotional driver behind that person is expressing. For example, a government official might indulge in the luxury of saying they are protecting their citizens from harm, and actually enjoy that warm feeling, while everyone else is thinking they really just want more control even at the risk of removing civil liberties.

Re:This American Drove More

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Nonetheless, given the emotional and perjorative tone of calling people like me cowards and sheep, it is entirely possible your thinking is in fact more emotional than logical, and not based on consistent principle as such.

Ah, so that's the root of your knee-jerkin response. Don't like it, so you go all whacky jousting at windmills. Well, you seem to be good at it, keep it up if it makes you feel better.

Re:This American Drove More

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Osama bin Laden turned us into cowards?

Yes, with the help of our politicians and their backers.

The country that was once the home of the free and land of the brave is now the home of the fearful and land of the brain-washed.

Live free or die, it is the New Hampshire state motto. Yet most people have been convinced that they need to give away their freedom so that they won't die.

You are paranoid and very bitter about something in your weak agenda.

I'm not paranoid at all. It's the cowards like you, anonymous or otherwise, who have succumbed to terrorism and live in a constant state of paranoia. I have no fear of terrorism, I'll take that infinitesimal risk of dying in a terrorist attack over the slow death by a thousand cuts that our own government is pushing on us.

Re:glad to see you guys smartening up

[AstrumPreliator]

While the war in Iraq may have had something to do with a decrease in driving I think your post went extremely off topic. Of course your topic was modded Insightful almost instantly despite having nearly nothing to do with the article in discussion. Now if you had said that the war in Iraq was responsible for higher gas prices and not Katrina as the article seems to indicate which in turn decreased driving in the US I would have been fine with that. However, you decided to make this into a political discussion on Iraq. Kudos AC, kudos.

are you sure it isn't adware?

[Bananatree3]

as far as I know, Slashdot does not have popups. They do have skyscraper banner ads and video adds embedded in the site. However, if you are getting annoying pop-up adds, you may want to check your site for ad-ware which is annoyingly known for such popups.

Re:are you sure it isn't adware?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

More and more advertisments on slashdot are essentially flash movies. More often than not, these either somehow break the DOM, causing themselves to appear over normal text. Perhaps this is what the GP was referring to.

Personally, I think this is deliberate on the part of the advertisers. It happens quasi randomly, and I would suspect foul play on their part. It's essentially Slashdot's fault for having allowed flash advertisements in the first place. Such a scenario was alway on the cards the moment you allow the walking disaster that is flash onto your webpages.

One unscrupulous advertisers could be the ruin of this site, with thousands of veteran commenters leaving in disgust if an all out popup spam or malware campaign is begun by only a single advertiser. I'm surprised 'Taco hasn't realised this and implemented more stringent rules for onsite advertisements.

Error analysis

[Luzumsuz Lazim]

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.

Re:Error analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Error analysis

[Threni]

"It is amazing that how news reporter are so illiterate when it comes to math and science."

Ironic. Perhaps you meant to type:

"It is amazing that news reporters are so innumerate when it comes to math and science."

Re:Error analysis

[flynt]

What I find amusing are people who call out reporters on being 'illiterate' (now what does that word mean?) about math and then go on do something equally incorrect. The article is of course flawed without taking into account the variation in the estimation technique. But your method is worse than leaving out information, because it is wrong. You use some proper terminology, such as 'sigma', but you estimate it incorrectly. It is not as you say, a 'good approximation', for instance, your method takes no account of the sample size in the study, which any good approximation must, so that it converges to a value as the sample size gets large. So before you knock people for not knowing what they are doing, make sure you know what you yourself are doing.

Re:Error analysis

[bograt]

I agree with you that these sorts of reports can be totally uninformative, but I think your stats are misleading. (How do you approximate "error" by 1/sqrt(x), and why do you then +/- x/sqrt(x) == sqrt(x)?)

To estimate the standard error of an estimate like this, you need two things: the sample size and the variation in the sample, neither of which are given here (for 2004 nor for 2005). If the sample size was sufficiently large, and the variation in the sample (a predictor of variation in the population) was sufficiently small, it could well be that this is in fact evidence of a significant (albeit small) change in driving habits.

But we'll never know for sure because, as in all news reports like this, sample means are treated as gospel. A change of one mile in a sample of one driver would probably lead to the same headline.

And then there are distribution assumptions...

Re:Error analysis

[Alomex]

Correct. We went over the figures carefully and average USA households at can tolerate up to $150 barrel of oil without any major changes in habits. Its only past that that threshold where we would start to see substantial shifts in daily driving patterns, location of residence and sales-per-model type figures.

Re:Error analysis

[Luzumsuz Lazim]

Dear flynt, no need for personal insult. Let me start with the word 'illiterate'. English is not my native language (how many languages do you speak?), as you may guess, but even I know what it means. One of the meaning stated by the Oxford Dictionary is 'ignorant in a particular subject or activity.' And, that is exactly what I mean. They give such statistics every now and then, they should consult to an authority about statistics before making the news public.

As for the error analysis: I do this for living (got PhD from MIT in experimental physics - yep I was a keen observer for a while). When you present data, you should always evaluate its error. If you don't have the error, then don't show the data, OR simply approximate it. At that point all we can do is approximation. Then, we have to think about 'the' measurements, about the 'system'. There are precise measurements and there are accurate measurements. They are not the same. This is the first rule of the error analysis. If the individual measurements are not accurate (just think about the leap year, weather conditions, etc..), increasing the sample size won't help you. It is like measuring a distance thousand times with a poorly calibrated meter-stick; you will never get an accurate measurement. The simplest I could do with the data at hand is assuming that we are counting the number of miles an individual travels during the course of the year. Is it good? Probably not. Can I (you) do better: not with the data at hand, or without more assumptions.

However, as an experimentalist, I can bet that the statistical fluctuations of these data will be at the order of 100 miles.

Re:Error analysis

[mph]

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.

That doesn't make sense. The dimensions don't work out; you get miles +/- sqrt(miles), suggesting an error. Suppose their results to different units: "Americans drove an average of 71,808,000 feet in 2005, or 264,000 feet less than in 2004." Now, your estimate of the error is 1/sqrt(71,808,000) = 1.18e-4, and x/sqrt(x) = sqrt(x) = 8473. Since 264,000 / 8,473 = 31.1, we would conclude that it's a 31-sigma result. Same data, just expressed in different units, but a completely different conclusion. Obviously, something's wrong.

What you seem to be thinking of is the fact that if you make N measurements of a quantity, each of which has an independent, normally-distributed error of sigma_x, and average those measurements, the standard deviation of the error in the mean will be sigma_x/sqrt(N). Note that N is dimensionless, so sqrt(N) is also dimensionless, so the units of this expression are the same as sigma_x, and hence the same as the quantity we're measuring.

Thus, the statistical error in the number reported here depends on the error in a single measurement (which could be taken to be the standard deviation of the number of miles people different people drive in a year) divided by the square root of the number of people participating in the survey.

(Another possibility is that you're somehow thinking that distance driven is a Poisson process, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, since this isn't a counting problem. The fact that "distance driven" has units should make it pretty clear that Poisson statistics don't apply here.)

As a different post pointed out...

[wasted]

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.

Re:As a different post pointed out...

[Sique]

... 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.

Re:I definitely drive less

[KiloByte]

5 miles whips you into shape? I barely feel warmed up in 5 miles on a bike. I ride 25 miles to and from work a day, with about 700 feet in elevation change. And I don't feel that's enough to keep me in shape.

Is it uphill both ways?

correction: check your *computer

[Bananatree3]

not site :)

Re:correction: check your *computer

[MichaelSmith]

Firefox has been blocking popups from slash for me lately. Not often, but enough to piss me off. I assume that the site owner has a contract which limits the type of advertising which can be pushed on the user, but that this would require the site operator to keep an eye on things.

When I was young I was an avid reader of Electronics Australia magazine. One month their parent company put a tobacco advertisment on the back page. This spot was normally occupied by stereo gear, etc. The community reacted strongly but the owners probably never got it. Other magazine buyers had no problem with that, so what is wrong with these engineers?

Pretty predictable, but still low

[cliffski]

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.

Re:Pretty predictable, but still low

[BoberFett]

I haven't played your game. It might be quite good for all I know. But why does it seem every time I see you post, you're whoring your software and trying to work it into the conversation somehow?

Re:Pretty predictable, but still low

[cliffski]

I don't think you could possibly say that its exactly offtopic to mention a computer simulation of how governments can cut car travel with an article on cuts in car travel.:(

Re:Pretty predictable, but still low

[HellYeahAutomaton]

You're not comparing apples to apples, and neglecting the fact that the UK is a small island nation. Small island nations always have to pay more for gas. Why? Fewer resources to work with, high refining and transportation costs, and most importantly: higher taxes.

Re:Pretty predictable, but still low

[Cederic]

Fewer resources? We have our own oilfields!
High refining costs? Why any more than anybody elses?
High transportation costs? There isn't as far to transport, so if anything, lower.
Higher taxes? That's the one. That's the only one.

Being a small island nation has fuck all to do with it.

(Note 'small' refers entirely to physical and population size; economically we're far from small, and militarily we're extremely large)

Re:Pretty predictable, but still low

[aadvancedGIR]

What a wonderfull proof! You say something is true because it is how you modeled it in your game...
People need gas, so even if they will eventually reduce their unnecessary usage, they will just pay more money to buy almost as much gas as before and sacrifice other less important expenses(movies, CD, leisure...). You also need to consider the gas price as an incentive to buy a more efficient or smaller car, the catastrophic effect that a brutal price increase would have on the economy (everything will be more expensive), the increased risk of war in the middle east and of course the availability of alternative transportation systems or alternative fuels.

Remember, the difference between an economist and a scientist is that the scientist know that all models are essencially false and can only help working on the measured data they were build to match. Bring measured data, then your model will have a meaning.

Re:Pretty predictable, but still low

[cliffski]

thats only true when they are only consuming the fuel they need. but most people don't NEED an SUV to get to work, they can happily do it in a much smaller, mroe fuel efficient car. Your suggesting that fuel is price inelastic. Im suggesting that the elasticity rises above a point where optimum fuel efficiency has been achieved. People driving gas guzzlers can happily be elastic about reducing consumption, by getting a smaller car next time.

Re:Pretty predictable, but still low

[BoberFett]

I felt kind of bad after writing that reply, it was just the first thing to came to mind. I went and downloaded the demo for Democracy, I figured I should check it out. I owed you at least that much. Interesting take on the government sim. I don't know if I'd use it as evidence for anything in the real world though, since the relationships between policies and outcomes are designed using your views on how the world works rather than a true model. Not that such a model is even possible, humans are fickle creatures. I found it interesting that when I lowered the limits on handguns from Strict Control to Licensed that you Brits turned into a bunch of homicidal maniacs. And I never could please those damn environmentalists. :P

Anyway, it does look like an interesting game. Unfortunately I'm not in the position to spend any money on computer games at the moment, though I do applaud your indie efforts.

so get a subscription account.

[adam]

there is a way to avoid the ads on /.

it's called SUBSCRIBING. if you browse often, it might end up being $2/month, in my experience. if you browse occasionally, it will be less.

i don't like flashpopup ads either, nor have i seen any on /. (so maybe you have a trojan/spyware?) yet, but if they institute them, I won't fault OSDN-- bandwidth costs money.

Re:you don't drive when you don't have anywhere to

[cmorriss]

Nice cherry picking there. Here's the page you got that link from. Pretty much every chart shows 2005 was a good year for jobs, except the one you linked to which was clearly a blip on the overall trend of lower unemployment and a higher percentage of employed workforce.

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)

Re:glad to see you guys smartening up

[Broken scope]

.....most of them barely qualify as Christians. Conservatives yes, Christians.... barely.

Re:I definitely drive less

[MichaelSmith]

Is it uphill both ways?

The prevailing winds where I live tend to switch during the day so more often than not I get a tail wind both ways.

Offset by lardarses

[Bogtha]

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.

Re:Offset by lardarses

[value_added]

Americans are wasting a billion gallons of fuel per year by being so fat.

They probably also buy big gas guzzlers that they can fit into it, and wear out tires faster than the rest of it.

I'm all for lobbying against fat people, but maybe we should take a cue from presidential politics and advocate an approach with a great chance of success , then pick a new Who Would Jesus Bomb T shirt to wear to the protest rallies.

Re:Offset by lardarses

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind your own damn business.

By disproportionately contributing to climate change, they make it everybody's business.

Re:Offset by lardarses

[Ranger]

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.

Those asses could be turned into assets. Since fat can be turned in biodiesel, they could use liposuctioned fat. So instead of driving around on our fat asses we could drive around on our assfat.

Re:Offset by lardarses

[rho]

That was awesome.

Re:Offset by lardarses

[otis wildflower]

I am Jack's sense of environmental responsibility.

Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[Inexile2002]

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.

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[symes]

Sure you CAN walk to your local grocery store, but could you really do it all the time?

No - I don't walk all the time, most of the time I ride a bicycle, a fun, efficient & healthy way of getting about. And on my bike I get to work faster than if I went by car, I park in no time and for free, I get to ride along dinky little country tracks far away from car fumes...

Actually - I hope car drivers stay on their congested roads, if they started to ride as well then it might spoil my fun!

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[lixee]

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

Well, not really...it's more likely that our kids that will be the screwed ones.

Won't somebody think of the children!

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[stewbacca]

The design of most medium sized cities in America requires people to drive. It is not always an issue of "lazy Americans". Mid sized towns don't always have a good public transportation infrastructure and the sprawl is usually too vast. For example, I just returned from Pensacola, FL and it would have been impossible to rely on public transportation, and everything was separated by miles, not blocks like I see in Europe. The nearest supermarket to our hotel was at least five miles away, and the closest bus stop was over a mile away.

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.

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[salec]

Is there any legal or other obstacle to, say, buy a house in center of suburban settlement and turn it into a general store? Or tear the house down and make a medium-sized several-story building with telecommute-ready (remote, broadband connected to whichever company by VPN) offices for rent, small post office and small general store? IMHO there is a lot of potential for profitable business (as well as savings for inhabitants, it is a win-win!) in adding just a little bit of city features to suburbia.

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[rolfwind]

Add to this the propensity of large supermarkets (versus a small grocery store such as Aldi) and you can see walking becomes more quickly unreasonable for the average person - because the parking lots alone are 10x bigger than they are in Europe for the neighborhood store (with 10x distance to cover lengthxwidth). That becomes a lot of walking distance. Especially as zoning here tends to seperate commercial and residential so much that the closest house is at least a quarter mile away.

That said, since my store is just 1/2 mile away, I'd love to bike there to get what I need, but the lack of sidewalks and the fast traffic totally unaccustomed to dealing with bikes (it's more like bikes dealing with them), I'm afraid I'd get killed:( (A good friend in middleschool got killed riding a bike on his curvy rural road where he lived - fucking driver hit and ran too, left him for dead in the ditch at the side of the road.)

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[Kamel Jockey]

Is there any legal or other obstacle to, say, buy a house in center of suburban settlement and turn it into a general store?

Yes. You would have to get the local government for that area to change the zoning of the house in question from residential to commercial. The odds of convincing an elected local government to do such a thing would be very slim, as many of the neighbors would complain quite loudly about the perceived (and actual) negative side effects that such a change might bring.

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[Kamel Jockey]

Don't forget that in many urban and suburban areas, housing is just too expensive for many people. Because of the current housing market fall off, rents in such areas are also increasing. Such people simply have no choice but to move to exurban areas which can provide more house for the dollar.

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[salec]

OK, what are actual negative side effects they might fear?

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[LeezardLvr]

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.

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[Kamel Jockey]

OK, what are actual negative side effects they might fear?

I have not been to many zoning hearings, so these would be guesses on my part:

1. Having a business in any area is likely to attract a lot of pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
2. Some neighbors might object to their narrow residential streets being crowded by parked cars.
3. More traffic on streets not originally designed for such use could lead to more car accidents.
4. More traffic on such streets where children may be walking or playing could lead to more child fatalities
5. The noise generated by a business, and/or by patrons thereof, could interfere with neighbor's perceived right to enjoy their own property (a lot of towns here have banned lawnmowing prior to 8am on weekends because of such concerns).
6. Neighbors of such a property might be concerned that their property values will decrease if they are next to such a business.

These may seem like they are trivial concerns, but if you ever attend a zoning hearing done by any local government in the USA, especially when it concerns the type of planning you suggest, local residents can get... quite ugly... to say the least, when they feel that their property is being threatened. As a recent homebuyer myself, I know I would be irritated if one of my neighbors would decide to pursue such an action.

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[rho]

This is a complaint of mine. I live within walking distance of a drug store where I can buy milk and bread and the like, but I never walk there because I'd have to cross 4-lanes of traffic unaccustomed to watching for pedestrians. I've been hit by a car before, I'm not eager to revisit the experience.

The reasons for this situation are many, and one certainly is the easy-motoring culture that Americans have become accustomed to. The other is the insane level of fiddling that local, State and Federal governments do that encourage people to leave urban areas for the suburbs. Most people really do want that 3br 2ba ranch-style house in a nice neighborhood. They want the space, it's a good environment to raise kids, and the crime is much, much less. If cities spent more time focussing on their priorities--maintenance, crime deterrence and civil services--they'd be less likely to lose citizens to the suburban dream. To compete, urban living has to be at least as crime-free as the subdivision, the taxes have to be as cheap (or the city services more complete), and the public schools have to be highly competitive. That means skewering a lot of liberal sacred cows, such as putting criminals in jail and keeping them there (even if they're black), not providing an endless buffet of social welfare services, and allowing the free market to work in education.

Until those things happen, you'll mostly only see people rail against SUVs and the like, with the spectre of global warming used like the boogeyman to scare people into driving Yugos--which isn't a solution, long-term or otherwise.

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[hey!]

Your arguments are backwards.

We don't have to drive because of the way we live. We live the way we do because we choose to drive.

Our businesses, housing stock, and public policies have been shaped by our choices, and so there is a vicious cycle involved, that is true. But even those are more a matter of choice than we like to admit. I have yet to visit a major city that makes an effort in public transit beyond the minimum necessary to keep auto transit from collapsing entirely. New York is perhaps an exception because travelling by auto in Manhattan is insanity no matter what you do.

Any moderately large city, say well over 100,000 inhabitants, could signficantly reduce its car traffic, if the will was there to do it.

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[myth24601]

Is there any legal or other obstacle to, say, buy a house in center of suburban settlement and turn it into a general store? Or tear the house down and make a medium-sized several-story building with telecommute-ready (remote, broadband connected to whichever company by VPN) offices for rent, small post office and small general store? IMHO there is a lot of potential for profitable business (as well as savings for inhabitants, it is a win-win!) in adding just a little bit of city features to suburbia.

First off, you probibly won't get past the local zoneing board. Secondly, some newer neigborhoods have covenants that you wouldn't be able to get around.

Usually an isolated neighboorhood will have a convienance store fairly close by (within 5 minutes drive). If more demand than that pops up (other neighborhoods out in the boonies) then perhaps a "strip mall" will pop up usually at a simi-main crossroad (maybe 10 min drive) which will have a Grocery store, gas station and such. If the area grows more then they get another strip mall or even the granddaddy of them all, WAL-MART!!!

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[jafac]

You cruel bastard, I live in Miami. They concept of "city planning" is foreign to them. All the regulators are in the pockets of the developers. The developers get to build houses without taking into account the corresponding traffic (or locality of schools, businesses, grocery stores, highway access ramps, etc.).

Welcome to America.

Stop your bitching. It's exactly the same everywhere.

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[jafac]

#1 concern:

"Won't somebody PLEASE think of my property values?!"

In Suburban US, this is what it's all about. The tax exemption for home loans, driving appreciating values, a lot of people have their nest-eggs tied up in real estate. They will kill or die to protect their equity. If that means paying association fees to ensure nobody puts up drapes more than two-shades out of beige, or nobody parks their old beater car on the street, then so be it.

I tend to think that in 100-200 years, when US population density starts to approach that of europe, and all these suburbs begin to age and lose their vinyl-siding lustre, things will start to change.

Of course, by then, global warming will have eliminated about 90% of our settled coastlines, and made 90% of our arable land into desert, so by then, we'll probably just be fighting over stacks of human skulls in the town square.

Re:Americans CAN'T Drive Much Less

[salec]

Why not within 5 minutes walk? Ah, yes, because it is assumed that *everybody* drives. Well that is the point... it is a vicious circle!

Mileage per galon is misleading measure

[salec]

This morning, as I was driving to work, I was thinking about REAL energy consumption: same distance can be driven with various energy (fuel) expenditure.

First, we burn fuel to accelerate and attain certain kinetic energy. This energy is wasted for good whenever I have to lower the speed (unless my car has regenerative braking system). So, keeping as low trip speed ceiling as possible saves a lot. Also, if your vehicle is loaded, acceleration to same speed and back will consume more fuel then when it is empty.

Second, drag force is directly proportional to air speed which is roughly equal to speed against the road. The energy lost conquering drag is this force multiplied by distance (perhaps mpg figures roughly represent that consumption, for some arbitrarily chosen, or actual test-average speed). That is another argument against high speed.

Third, going to up the gravitational potential well (up hill) will burn additional fuel, so if the road is not flat, you will have additional consumption. If your car (once again) has no regenerative brakes, this potential energy will be wasted. Perhaps going around the hill instead of cutting "short" over it would save fuel even though the mileage is much greater, but it has to be calculated for a given mass, relative altitude of the top of the path, drag, speed, etc.

Fourth, what all of us know very well, if we are in a traffic jam and low on fuel, we may as well run out of it even though it would had been enough otherwise. There are two reasons for that: first, there is a lot of acceleration/breaking involved (see above), and second, for low vehicle speed, powertrain is not efficient (it is designed to reach optimum at common trip speed interval) - that is another one for hybrids.

It should be emphasized that above little simple energy analysis is applicable on any surface vehicles (even muscles'-powered), not just ICE automobiles.

So, conclusion is that hybrid powertrain/regenerative braking vehicle design should be mandated by law(s), if automotive fuel consumption is wanted to be optimised on a national(global) level. Likewise, speed limiting, road reconstruction (rectification of elevation) and "smart" traffic lights could have positive effect in lowering overall fuel consumption.

As much cheaper aid for all vehicle types, an electronic device, a fuel consumption computer could be designed, that could calculate (predict) fuel consumption on the basis of input from sensors for vehicle (and load, overall) mass, road speed, airspeed and altitude (or elevation, so that weight force vector projection on vehicle speed vector direction could be calculated), present to the driver the diagram chart of consumption components during the trip and perhaps advise driver on changes in driving style that could save fuel better (i.e. "for additional 1 mpg, keep your speed under xx mph", or "inflate tires 0.1 bar"). With added GPS and map, it could also advise the most fuel-efficient route, on the memorized previous trips or purchased data packs for the area. Additionally, traffic jams information could be broadcast digitally to this devices over the radio, to complete the needed data. That would put drivers in tighter control over fuel consumption and allow them to make informed decisions while driving.

What I would like is, when I am low on fuel, to hit a switch to let car control my speed in order to get me home or to nearest gas station on the available fuel budget.

Re:Mileage per galon is misleading measure

[stewbacca]

"smart" traffic lights could have positive effect in lowering overall fuel consumption.

Of all the uninformed cheap shots dished out by the European crowd, I'm glad to see this thoughtful comment. This is probably one of the only legitimate gripes anyone has posted thus far about American driving habits. I can't stand sitting at a red light for 5 minutes at a huge 4 lane intersection in the middle of the night with not a single car in sight! Why do our towns insist on so many stop lights, and for crying out loud, why are the side streets not turned to blinking red lights and the main streets turned to blinking yellows from midnight to 5 am?!? Is it THAT difficult to synch lights so we don't have to stop every 500 meters?

Re:Mileage per galon is misleading measure

[mdarksbane]

The real problem I see (and I'm guilty as well) is that 90% of the people driving to work every morning are driving alone. Your fuel efficiency per passenger is multiplicative by the number of people your car is carrying.

I have a friend who is a does traffic engineering and he says that the number one thing anyone can do to solve congestion, pollution from gas, etc, is to actually put more than one person in that car.

Even an SUV (and believe me, in more than 2/3rds of cases I see no reason someone should be driving one of those instead of a fuel-efficient minivan or *gasp* a station wagon) with three people in it will be burning less gas per person transported than a hybrid carrying one. With how much single passenger traffic there is it's kind of a shame that scooters and motorcycles aren't more popular.

Now, of course a hybrid that's packed with people would be the best solution, but you can make a big impact without forcing people to give away their SUVs.

Re:Mileage per galon is misleading measure

[salec]

put more than one person in that car.

I would, too, but how many people in your neighborhood both works near and lives near each other? Then, are they working the same hours? Today in the time of implied obligation to work unpayed overtime, return-from-work synchronization is virtually impossible. Then, you have to have your own car, not wait for your buddy Fred Flintstone to finish his work (or worse, discover that he's gone home already).

IMHO, telecommuting is the right solution, by so many orders of magnitude. Even for those occupations that require physical presence, robotic tele-presence could do it in the future. Work should be place-decoupled, for so many reasons: traffic pollution, expenses, workforce migrations, outsourcing, full 24/7 business by employing the staff from daylight hemisphere overnight (no additional pay for late work)...

Imagine the add:

"Restaurant with good renome announces an open position for a Chef, required: minimum experience 5y, timezone GMT-8 plusminus 1 hr, excellent oral and writing English language skills, recommendations from former employers, bandwidth at least 1Mbps, round trip ping maximum 300ms, access to and ability to operate remote actuators assumed."

Re:Mileage per galon is misleading measure

[The_Mr_Flibble]

I agree with you.
I have a prius for driving to work (and a sports car for the weekend)
When I first got my prius I was still burning through a fair amount of fuel (had to fill up just under twice a week).
Now I only need to fill it up once a week if that.
No the prius is not the best car as it costs so much to build (environmentally for the batteries)
however if the car could control the engine itself a bit better it would save even more.
Also if they had figured out how to use lithium polymer batteries instead if nimh's it would of been a lot lighter.

So no the prius is no where near the solution but it is getting there.

Btw I am now averaging 74 mpg on a 100 mile daily commute

Re:Mileage per galon is misleading measure

[recursiv]

Second, drag force is directly proportional to air speed

Aerodynamic drag is directly proportional to the square of the air speed.

Re:Mileage per galon is misleading measure

[salec]

I stand corrected. For some reason (OK, it's BS, I was simply ignorant and still am in other numerous fields that I *feel* I know something about) I thought that low-speed Stokes' (viscous) drag applies, not the high-speed Rayleigh's.

Nevertheless, virtues of abstaining from speeding seem to keep popping up!

Re:Mileage per galon is misleading measure

[everphilski]

But yet you will find that the optimum speed for a car is not 5-40 miles an hour but rather probably about 60 miles an hour. For my Saturn it is 67 miles an hour. While it is true the drag is much higher, it is in high gear and the RPM's are lower than, say, at 50 MPH before it would switch from 4th->5th gear. So it is consuming less gas. I am spinning at, maybe, 2700 RPM and getting 40 MPG interstate. At 70 miles an hour this decreases to 35 MPG. (I know. I regularly make 1000+ mile trips back home to WI and SD from AL. I have this well parsed out.)

So the moral of the story is, due to the gearing of the engine, at high speeds you can be really damn efficient.

Re:Mileage per galon is misleading measure

[salec]

True. But what if you use as high gear as engine can sustain, on whichever speed it is?

Why all those big engines

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why all those big engines

[mrjb]

Sure, go ahead, mod the parent down because you don't like to hear their opinion. It's a perfectly valid one though.

Re:Why all those big engines

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing GP plummeting down to "-1, flamebait" so fast proves the parent's (OK, mine, it is me again) point.

Don't talk against my car!
Don' try to change my car for some stupid girly, sissy, suger-covered, vanilla-smell, Cinderella's Pumpkin, pink, buzzing doll-box!

My car is who I am (er..., wanna be)!

Re:Why all those big engines

[abk81]

I live in the Republic of Ireland where petrol is currently 1.05 euro per litre ($5.15 per US gallon). I drive a 1.2lt 80bhp fiat which get 40miles to the US gallon at worst (city driving). I can carry 4 passangers + a large amount of luggage. On the rare occasion I need to carry oversized equipment/materials I attach a trailer. I have rarely seen an SUV (where did this name come from) in this country or in the US that looks like it has ever gone off road or even carried the full compliment of passangers.

Re:Why all those big engines

[jawtheshark]

Except that none of these cars are even remotely often spotted on our roads. If you want to have an idea what Europeans drive, think VW Golf 1.9TDi, Peugeot 306SW HDi, Renault Sénic.... Oh, and that's for family cars for medium-income families. Higher income will go for a VW Passat, Audi A4, BMW 320. Heck, most people here at work that have a company car don't get something beyond and Audi A3, BMW Series 1.

The belgian guy (above) was exaggerating with his 2.4l figure. That's pretty much the *highest* you'll see in Europe. Most people drive diesels and the entry levels are 1.7l or 1.9l. Most people stay at the entry-level, anything beyond is too expensive.

I bought a gas guzzeler back when gas was still affordable (~0.7€/l or 3.50$/gallon at current exchange rates)and I pay dearly for it now. However, my "gas guzzler" is pretty much economic in the eyes of an American. 1.8l gas engine, doing approx 25mpg (~10l/100km). Replacing is out of the question, I don't have enough money and a company car will bring my gross salary about 700€ down.

Re:Why all those big engines

[Ritchie70]

That's a little bit of an exageration. Yes, vehicles in the US have larger engines on average than in Europe. But we're not talking 4L+ in most vehicles.

For the most part, a 4-cyl will be 2L - 2.4L, a 6 anywhere from 2.6L (rare) to 3.8L (much more common.) One of GM's oldest, most-sold V6 motors is a 3.8L. My wife's new Camry is a 3.5L, I think.

There are very few passenger cars with a V8.

Personally, I drive a VW GTI (2-door Golf) with a 1.8L motor. Most of what I buy for the house fits in back if I fold down the seats and leave the parcel shelf at home. Sometimes it hangs out the back a little. We bought a couple 6-foot bookshelves at Ikea last week. Folded down 1/2 of the back seat, pushed the front passenger seat forward, one of us drove, the other sat in the remaining 1/2 back-seat. No real problem.

If it doesn't fit, I pay Home Depot the $19.99 for 70-minutes usage of their pickup, or rent a van from U-Haul or Enterprise.

All that said, I have been kind of drooling over a Dodge Magnum RT. Had a V6 as a rental, and it felt like a "real car." That's just what popped into my head when I drove it, "Now THIS is a REAL car." The RT has 5.7L of AWD V8 goodness :)

Re:Why all those big engines

[monktus]

The most sensible post I've seen on this discussion. I never do this usually, apologies, but please mod up. Yes it's true that some more expensive European cars have US-sized engines, but the average size in the UK and indeed the EU is much more sensible. UK road tax for older cars is almost twice as expensive for engines over 1700cc for instance.

I can see how the argument above about highway design and usage is pertinent, however surely having a 1.6l Golf or whatever would get you off a slip road quick enough (or a turbo diesel, but you guys don't really do diesel cars do you).

I know it's oft repeated, however few Americans seem to listen: be thankful you don't drive 5l monsters in the UK...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm

Re:Why all those big engines

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a fundamental difference between the US and europe when it comes to the concept of home. when we say redecorate in the US, we mean knocking down the entire house with a big hammer, hauling it off to somewhere, leaving it there, and then purchasing the raw materials for a new house. It doesn't make much sense, but we like to do it. for this, we need trucks. Americans love to haul things, big things. I'm tired of putting 6 4meter long 2x4's in my sun roof and trying to figure out where to put the plywood, AND the motorcycle, so i bought a truck. In europe people houses are all 300 years old, and they aren't changing anytime soon, so why bother with a truck unless you're a farmer/construction worker. Weird thing is, I don't think i've ever seen either over there. I guess I just spent too much time in the cities.

Re:Why all those big engines

[dknight]

my 5.7L V8 engine (1999 corvette) gets, according to my math and the on-board calculator, 34mpg highway (at around 75mph)

Explain again how a smaller engine would be better?

Re:Why all those big engines

[CagedBear]

How do you Europeans redecorate your homes anyway? I live in an old farm house and have a full-size pickup for hauling away the junk (old shingles, siding, etc) and bringing home the new stuff. For several years I tried to do this with a small pickup (Nissan) and it just didn't work. I had to make three times as many trips.

Side note: When I go to work I drive a car and leave the truck home. So I don't really see how owning the truck is contributing to the problem.

Re:Why all those big engines

[welshie]

It's called rental. If I need to haul half a tonne of junk to the appropriate municipal recyling point, I'd rent a truck or van. It would cost me about £40. There is absolutely no point in my owning, taxing, insuring and filling the fuel tank of a large vehicle that I only need once or twice a year. Either that or rent a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_(container). A big truck comes to deliver it. I fill it, a big truck comes to collect it and dispose of the contents.

Re:Why all those big engines

[b0bby]

The cost of gas isn't so great as to make it painful to have a slightly more powerful engine, so a lot of people do. Your post implies that Belgians are concerned with the environment and squashed pedestrians, but I would say that the taxes on larger engined vehicles probably have more to do with it. As an example, when we lived in the UK I had a 1.2l Ford Fiesta. When we moved here, we bought a 1973 Cadillac convertible with a 8l engine. I worked out the numbers, and it the cost of running the two vehicles (per mile) was the same (that was when gas was about $1/gal). I can tell you that the Cadillac was a lot more fun to drive ;) As the UK has become more affluent, I see more and more large vehicles on the road there too - it's natural to want a bit more room, a bit more power, if you can afford it.
You also need to consider the size of your respective countries. Belgium is about the size of the state I live in, Maryland; unlike most Beligians, however, I go out of state daily. It's easy to go quite long distances - I drive with my family to Florida most years, which is an 850+ mile trip each way, 90% on just one road. It costs about $170 in gas, which is way less than flying four people, we have our vehicle when we get there, and we don't have to deal with idiotic restrictions like making toddlers take off their shoes and walk alone through a metal detector. It's nice to have a larger engine (and cruise control) on a long highway trip like that, and we go on numerous shorter trips each year. Most Europeans don't do long drives like that, it's a cultural difference.
Believe me, I would like to see minimum mpg requirements tightened up here, I think that and higher gas prices are the only way to seriously reduce consumption. I just don't think that the issue is quite as clear cut as some Europeans would like to think.

Re:Why all those big engines

[RexRhino]

The biggest reason, of course, is that it is affordable in the United States. With the higher costs of fuel, higher taxes on larger vehicles, lower wages, less nessicity to drive (making a purchase of a vehicle more a luxury than anything else), most Europeans can't really afford to drive a big-ass SUV. I have a feeling that if purchasing a big SUV were just as affordable in Europe as it was in the U.S., there would be a lot more SUV drivers.

I am too lazy to do it, but I would guess that if you looked online and calculated the cost of an SUV in Europe, and the yearly cost of maintanence, and calculated the same cost in say Ohio in the U.S., the cost difference would be 40%+.

Re:Why all those big engines

[anaesthetica]

Parent said:

Why the need for those big engine?

So if the average american would deside to set his pride and ego aside...

Bigger is not always better.

Please allow me to speak for American when I say, Hahahahahahahah hahhahhaahahha hahahahah hahahhahahhaa HAHAHA hahahahha HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh man.

Re:Why all those big engines

[toddestan]

The Corvette gets better mileage than you might think. It's very aerodynamic, and due to its fiberglass construction, it's also fairly light. The big ass V8 engine barely has to do any work when cruising at highway speeds, thus it actually gets pretty good mileage. Drive it like an old granny, and it'll do decently in the city too.

The real problem is not the V8 engines in most American cars. It's just that most American cars are oversized and heavy, and most SUVs and trucks have pretty poor aerodynamics, hence the poor fuel consumption (and the reason why many people feel that a big engine is a must).

Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[drgonzo59]

... it would have a negligible impact on oil consumption in the US

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.

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[UbuntuDupe]

A journal entry everyone needs to read. (Should I submit that?)

Basically, you won't see a drop in driving in America until cities are built in such a way that it's feasible to live without a car. In fact, the more places that are like this, the better, in that they increase options for Americans who for whatever reason (environmental, disability) don't like driving. The journal entry presents a way that would reduce congestion and lay the groundwork for cities needing a car less.

What I've noticed is that there are a lot of developers willing to build very densely so that say, 90% of your needs can be met in the six tall buildings within walking distance of you, but every large city in America is governed by power-tripping bureaucrats who want to micromanage any innovative new development that comes to town.

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[SpecTheIntro]

Not only is this outlandish, but it's unethical, too. You are attempting to limit someone's ability to travel freely within the US. It's one thing to tax gas, which is a good, and another thing entirely to tax someone's distance travelled. You're talking about an extremely totalitarian policy. What comes next, taxing people for buying more than one pair of running shoes a year? It's the same principle: rather than tax someone for the goods they consume, you want to tax them for how they choose to consume the good as well.

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[bigdavex]

What do you think of the idea of tracking the amount of driving and increasing the tax accordingly?

I think it's a bad idea. It's much, much more difficult to enforce than a gas tax. The gas tax encourages people to drive less, with smaller and more efficient vehicles. Taxing the miles has little basis in the costs to the roads or the environment.

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[PingSpike]

I also fail to see any advantage in taxing by the mileage. Despite feasibility concerns and odometer fraud potential, the current system of taxing the gas at the pump accomplishes the same goals, is already in place and is easier to administer. The only advantage the mileage tax is that because it would be yearly its more easily "hidden" and people would be less likely to complain about it. But you state your goal is to change behavior, not to increase tax revenue in and of itself. When you want to get more tax revenue without unrest, you split the taxes up to reduce visbility and confuse the populace so they don't know who to blame. But you want to change behavior I think you want that visibility.

Consider that people already pay more when they drive more miles throught he gas tax. The behavior change largely hasn't occured because the cost of gas just isn't high enough for it to occur. People have been bitching and moaning about the increase in gas prices the last few years now, but the fact is they've hardly changed their buying habits or driving behavior at all. So its clear to me that despite all their moaning, it was still worth it to them. They wanted their SUVs and if gas cost a lot, well, they could still afford it this time. When we touched on $3/gallon you started to see a bit of a shift, but that was brief.

Plus you have to consider that it will take awhile for the behavior to change. If I just bought an SUV last year and then gas jumps $1/gal I'm not just going to buy a new car. I wouldn't really save any money there. By the same token, its not a trivial matter for some one to say "wow, gas is expensive now...I'll just sell my house and move to the city, uprooting my family and possibly making my spouses commute worse". It'll change future decisions, but not many decisions that have already been made.

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[winnabago]

1. Developers don't give a hoot about density. They take the value of the land, divide by the rent a typical unit can bring (or sale price), and build that many units + X% profit. If a planning board makes them add first floor storefronts or upgrade utilities, then they might do that. Parking is dictated by zoning, so they build the minimum. In the suburbs, away from a highway, the value per lot is lower, so only enough building to make money will be put up. There is no 'developers ideology' where one would want to save the environment with tall building clusters.

2. Cities are currentlybuilt so that we can live without a car, millions of americans presently make the intentional decision to live far enough away from each other to require one, and they'll say that it's because they can have a backyard and garage. The main reason, though? Fear of the city, due to decades of marketing the suburbs as safe and pleasant. There is an abundance of habitable urban area that just isn't perceived as safe to raise a family. Fortunately, in many cities over the last 15 years, white flight has started to reverse itself, lead by the childless and empty nesters. The real issue is to reverse the notion of the child incubator label that is attached to the suburbs. Many older suburbs are becoming cities of their own, like Silver Spring MD, Hoboken NJ, Lowell MA, and have their own mass transit, and kids even!

3. Your idea of taxing driving at rush hour would likely have unintended consequences. Companies would shift their work day or move their offices even further out of the city, accessible only by country roads, their hiring pool limited to those who live nearby, and for those who can't choose where they work, they would be put in an artificial "commuting class" watching the wealthy drive by in their Lexus coupes. Furthermore, the housing stock already in place would be put in an extreme position of devaluation, upending the current balance of the housing market for the sake of easing congestion. I agree that something radical must be done, but demand side thinking only hinders those who are least able to do something about it. Growth boundaries, such as Portland's, have proven to be effective, but there is a strong opposition from developer types. I don't know what the best solution is, but getting more people on buses will be going after the wrong side of the equation.

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[UbuntuDupe]

1. Developers don't give a hoot about density. ... There is no 'developers ideology' where one would want to save the environment with tall building clusters.

I didn't say any of that. (See sig.) I just said there *exist* developers willing to do this, as, you agree, there are developers willing to do a lot of things.

Cities are currentlybuilt so that we can live without a car,

No, they're not, they're really, really not. Outside of NYC, Boston, and Chicago maybe, the transit system does not support a carless lifestyle for anyone not willing to go miles out of their way.

The main reason, though? Fear of the city, due to decades of marketing the suburbs as safe and pleasant. There is an abundance of habitable urban area that just isn't perceived as safe to raise a family

I'll agree with you on that, but that's mainly because of the power-tripping bureaucrats I deried above.

3. Your idea of taxing driving at rush hour would likely have unintended consequences. Companies would shift their work day

So? If their workday unnecessarily matches that of many others, they *should* be moving it already.

or move their offices even further out of the city, accessible only by country roads, their hiring pool limited to those who live nearby,

You just explained why they wouldn't do it.

they would be put in an artificial "commuting class" watching the wealthy drive by in their Lexus coupes

So? Their commute is much shorter now, regardless of where they live.

Furthermore, the housing stock already in place would be put in an extreme position of devaluation,

Why? Yes, you have to pay high tolls at rush hour now, but since you'll be riding a bus, you won't pay very much, and your house is now located on prime real estate that's just "a few minutes from work", even during rush hour!

Growth boundaries, such as Portland's, have proven to be effective,

HAHAHAHA!! You're kidding, right? Those are well-known to cause "leap-frog" development, making the problem even worse.

I don't know what the best solution is, but getting more people on buses will be going after the wrong side of the equation.

It doesn't "get more people on buses"; as I made pains to point out, it "gets people" to do *whatever* is compatible with market prices for rush hour road use. Maybe that means a different work schedule. Maybe that means a carpool or vanpool. Maybe that means living closer. Maybe it means biting the bullet and paying the toll. If work schedules were rigid, it would draw entrepreneurs to start implementing viable transit options that don't require a car, making that less inconvenient than it is now.

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[winnabago]

I read your posts, I even went and read your journal entry. You alluded to a few things about developers, and since I work for one, I thought I could offer a counterpoint. Lay back man.

Cities are currentlybuilt so that we can live without a car, No, they're not, they're really, really not. Outside of NYC, Boston, and Chicago maybe, the transit system does not support a carless lifestyle for anyone not willing to go miles out of their way.

There has long been the problem of American transit being behind the rest of the world. There is sprawl in Europe, there are traffic jams, but the heart of the problem is the mentality that there just isn't another option than driving. People will make up any excuse to avoid mass transportation here. There are too many germs, it takes too long, costs are out of control, government is corrupt, etc. etc. How can we change this?
Your solution seems to me to be problematic, because it doesn't do anything to reduce growth. As a stopgap, it MAY reduce traffic, at the expense of certain property owners, but as I mentioned before, it might just offload more traffic to the rest of the day. And what about traffic on regular non-highway roads? There would be no change, as the rush to get the bus depot is still there.

Forgive the oversimplification, but you are saying that we should all be working on a rotating schedule, half the population working through the night, just so that you can have less traffic at 8:30am? I tend to see this as shortsighted - I would rather see an effort made to condensing cities, putting more diverse zoning adjacent to each other, and working to eliminate the demand for transit in the first place. Traffic is just one of the problems we face. Diminished watershed area, empty downtowns, and a completely dysfunctional mass transit system (amtrak?) and just some issues that mass busing doesn't recognize.

it "gets people" to do *whatever* is compatible with market prices for rush hour road use

The more I think about it, your proposal is all about rush hour traffic. Wouldn't you agree that a fundamental shift of our living balance is instead necessary, either by legislation? I like the idea of the market deciding on who uses the road, but only if the appropriate incentives for moving your home/job come with it. Maybe the taxes could be used to finance moving corporations near existing or new transit lines? Or making these cities you talk about more non-car friendly? Don't jump all over me, I'm on your side, but I just don't have the same enthusiasm for entrepreneurial effects.

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[drgonzo59]

You are the only one who got my idea. My claim was that Joe BigSUV probably already knows that his car drinks a lot of gas and takes a lot of his money. He will only drive to work but might think twice about doing "extra" driving. Someone with a Prius, will say, "my car is fuel efficient I will go see a movie on the other side of town". So they both will spend the same ammount of money on gas and burn about the same amount of fuel. Except that the guy in the Prius might drive more thus also contributing to traffic congestion, another big problem. Now, I don't have any data to support it, it was just a guess, so take it for what it's worth. When Jane AnyCar sees that just driving to work will cost so much at the end of the year, she might think twice about commuting 60mi round-trip every day far. Now she pays at the gas pump, and the small increase per gallon (actually not that small!) doesn't bother her and she never really does the math to figure out how much she would save if she moved closer to her work (or moved the work closer to her). And yes, the side benefit, besides saving the environment is decongesting the transportation system.

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[Blkdeath]

So? If their workday unnecessarily matches that of many others, they *should* be moving it already.

Workdays tend to coincide so that businesses can interact with one-another, hence the term "business hours". This also allows for similar social and family time after work hours and on weekends.

Take for example restaurants, food distrubutors, supermarkets, food producers/manufacturers. Restaurants obviously have to be open to serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner which occur at predictable times allowing them to prepare in advance and staff accordingly. Their distributors and suppliers have to work during the day to accommodate their orders, therefore supermarkets, warehouses and other suppliers must work accordingly. Manufacturers/producers must supply said distributors and the chain is complete. Synergy. It exists in every field of work.

If you want to help eliminate congestion, make alternative arrangements. Car pool, mass transit into and out of major downtown areas, etc.

Now taxing people who commute to/from work who are often in situations where living "in the city" is too darned expensive, puts an increased barrier on them and makes their lives even more difficult; especially at the rates proposed in that journal entry. Taxing busses, BTW? Considering a single bus can eliminate as many as 50 cars per run, isn't that redundant?

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[UbuntuDupe]

me:So? If their workday unnecessarily matches that of many others, they *should* be moving it already.

you:Workdays tend to coincide so that businesses can interact with one-another, hence the term "business hours". This also allows for similar social and family time after work hours and on weekends.

Take for example restaurants, food distrubutors, supermarkets, food producers/manufacturers. Restaurants obviously have to be open to serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner which occur at predictable times allowing them to prepare in advance and staff accordingly. Their distributors and suppliers have to work during the day to accommodate their orders, therefore supermarkets, warehouses and other suppliers must work accordingly. Manufacturers/producers must supply said distributors and the chain is complete. Synergy. It exists in every field of work.

So, in other words, you didn't read the the word "unnecessarily" in my post (see sig), and you didn't understand why your entire response here is beside the point? There are more succint ways to say that.

I understand why the work day is what it is. Really. Really, I do. My plan does not favor or disfavor it. It just makes the costs of congestion show up on everyone's balance sheet so that becomes another factor in whether any one business decides to match the schedules of others. Get it?

If you want to help eliminate congestion, make alternative arrangements. Car pool, mass transit into and out of major downtown areas, etc.

Make alternative arrangements? Who's making these arrangments? Do you mean, me, personally join a carpool? Well, as anyone else always argues before reading my complete proposal, if only I (or 10, 20, or 1,000 people) take these alternative modes, they will make their commute LONGER, and have to deal with ADDITIONAL annoyances, and STILL not noticeably reduce congestion! Lots of sacrifice for me, no gain for anyone. Not much of a "help".

That's why it's necessary for everyone at once to bear a *dollar value* cost of these, so that everyone has an incentive to shift at the same time.

Now taxing people who commute to/from work who are often in situations where living "in the city" is too darned expensive, puts an increased barrier on them and makes their lives even more difficult; especially at the rates proposed in that journal entry.

No; they are already paying in ungodly commute times. I don't live in a big city (thank God*), but when I did (and from talking to the people who have), I had to get up two hours earlier than I would otherwise have to, and get back two hours later. That is a huge, real cost to me. If I rode a bus in light traffic, I could shave probably an hour off the commute itself and live at reasonable hours. And the cost? $4 toll. (See below.) I make that in about ten minutes.

Taxing busses, BTW? Considering a single bus can eliminate as many as 50 cars per run, isn't that redundant?

No. The tax is in proportion to the congestion the vehicle contributes. A bus congests about what 3-4 cars would (maybe more). The "savings", and therefore the incentive to use the bus is already reflected in the price that the commuter pays. While one bus pays more than one car, one bus rider pays less than if he drove a car. If it's $100 for a bus, plus (as a high estimate) $100 for the bus company's operating costs on a trip, that $200 is distributed over 50 people, who see a commute price of $4. ($200/50)

*I mean "God" in the secular sense.

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[UbuntuDupe]

There has long been the problem of American transit being behind the rest of the world. There is sprawl in Europe, there are traffic jams, but the heart of the problem is the mentality that there just isn't another option than driving. People will make up any excuse to avoid mass transportation here. There are too many germs, it takes too long, costs are out of control, government is corrupt, etc. etc. How can we change this?

You mean, how can we change the *validity* of these objections, or people's *belief* in their validity?

I think my proposal invalidates them: If costs "force" huge numbers of people onto high-density transit methods, that will draw private transit providers, which will have cleaner buses, more convenient routes, and competition on cost.

As for how to make people believe that? I don't know. I think if people sat down and looked at the impact of my proposal on their lives, they'd want it. But how many people vote based on a sober analysis of the issues?

My proposal certainly requires people to kill a few of their sacred cows; I don't deny that.

Your solution seems to me to be problematic, because it doesn't do anything to reduce growth.

I assume you mean city area growth, rather than economic growth. I think it does in that it gives (and transparent) monetary incentives to those with shorter commutes.

As a stopgap, it MAY reduce traffic,

Well, the proposal is to keep raising the tolls until traffic is at moderate levels, so this has to happen unless people would pay infinite tolls to keep driving.

at the expense of certain property owners,

I think the cost of commuting is more than offset by the loss of commute time. If this were really an issue, then in the transition, tolls could go into a compensation plan.

but as I mentioned before, it might just offload more traffic to the rest of the day

I don't see why that's bad. As long as the traffic keeps moving, roads can be used efficiently.

And what about traffic on regular non-highway roads? There would be no change, as the rush to get the bus depot is still there.

Well, if you look at the number of people per bus depot, it's a lot less likely for it to fail to meet capacity.

Forgive the oversimplification, but you are saying that we should all be working on a rotating schedule,

I think I took great pains to avoid favoring any kind of outcome except uncongested roads and for people to bear the cost of their own congestion. It makes no difference to me if it results in a) ultra-staggered workdays, b) everyone living in an apartment in the same building as their office, or c) everyone riding the bus. I do, however, strongly suspect it would be mostly c), leading to businesses gravitating toward building around the major depots, which would have the effect of greatly favoring non-car lifestyles. If a huge variety of businesses is located near any one depot, and there's little traffic inbetween, you could live most of your life without driving. And I think the *possibility* of this, whether or not you use it, is good for everyone.

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[Blkdeath]

So, in other words, you didn't read the the word "unnecessarily" in my post (see sig), and you didn't understand why your entire response here is beside the point? There are more succint ways to say that.

No, I ignored it because it's irrelevant. Who decides which work days "unnecessarily match[es] that of many others"?

No. The tax is in proportion to the congestion the vehicle contributes. A bus congests about what 3-4 cars would (maybe more).

You do realize you're arguing a non-sequitur, right? You acknowledge that a bus can eliminate 50 cars from the road, yet congests as much as 3-4 cars? Even assuming 4 cars, that's a negative 12.5 car congestion ratio so the bus companies should be reimbursed for their travels, no?

Re:Tax the _driving_ distance, not just the gas.

[UbuntuDupe]

No, I ignored it because it's irrelevant. Who decides which work days "unnecessarily match[es] that of many others"?

It's not irrelevant; it's the very heart of the matter. Some businesses use normal hours. They do this because it optimizes profitability. This calculation does not include the congestion cost they impose on others. My proposal imposes on them that cost. Some of those businesses will, in such an environment, find that using different hours increases profitability. That means that previously, they were using business hours that imposed a cost on others (through congestion) not justified by the productivity of their business. Those are the ones unnecessarily matching the hours of others. Which was the whole point.

me:No. The tax is in proportion to the congestion the vehicle contributes. A bus congests about what 3-4 cars would (maybe more).

you:You do realize you're arguing a non-sequitur, right?

I realize you disagree with me; it's not a non-sequitur.

You acknowledge that a bus can eliminate 50 cars from the road, yet congests as much as 3-4 cars? Even assuming 4 cars, that's a negative 12.5 car congestion ratio so the bus companies should be reimbursed for their travels, no?

No. I explained this before. The bus is congesting more (than a single car). Each person is congesting less (than if they had driven a single car each). If 50 people go from driving a car ($30 toll) to using one bus (which pays $100 toll plus $100 operating costs), their costs go from $30 each to $4 each. Each person saves money by switching to the bus. It that sense, the people that alleviate congestion are "reimbursed".

The bus's reimbursement comes from the passengers that pay to ride it. But if doesn't carry any people, it's not alleviating congestion, but adding to it. Under the toll I proposed, it would only make money to the extent it actually gets people to, together, cause less congestion than they would indvidually in cars.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Re:SUV vs Hybrid demand

[angrycrip]

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.

Quit the villification of SUVs

[Shivetya]

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.

Re:Quit the villification of SUVs

[doom]

Hey guys: I have an idea: how about you try getting a vehicle sized for typical usage, rather than try to cover the entire range? Then when you do something unusual, you rent something bigger.

Also: SUVs suck for hauling. A mini-van yes, but an SUV no.

Re:Quit the villification of SUVs

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

I'm glad you have no problem spending other people's money. They might have other ideas.

Re:Quit the villification of SUVs

[mdarksbane]

Depends what you're hauling. A minivan can't pull the trailer with the skid loader or excavator you picked up to finish the trenching and grading around your project. It can't pull a boat either. Are you saying that anyone who owns a boat should have to run a truck every time they go out, because they only boat once a month?

Re:Quit the villification of SUVs

[dykofone]

There is one "commuter" vehicle that has been gaining popularity: motorcycles.

I own a "hauler" - the '86 F-150 with horrible compression, getting about 8 miles to the gallon. But it can hold 8 people plus lumber/groceries/etc. It sees about 1000 miles a year total road time.

Then I have a Vulcan 750, getting 45 mpg and seeing about 20,000 miles a year. Motorcycles are cheap to start, inexpesnsive to maintain, and fun. Take a look at scooter sales over the past few years, those things are everywhere. Cold and rain aren't as big a problem as many think, with just a little care and the right gear.

And with the right combination of saddle bags, backpack, and bungee cords, I swear I can carry more on the motorcycle than I could with the Land Rover I used to own.

Re:Quit the villification of SUVs

[crotherm]

As for the family argument - most SUVs don't have more interior space than a medium-to-large sedan

Are you on crack? I go to frequent camping trips, LAN parties, basically places where people and equipment go together for long distances. I always get to drive because my Explorer has loads of room for 5 adults and gear. It may not be the best in any one category, but for the price, it had the most room for people and gear. Plus I get to go on the back roads in the mountains/desert.

Re:Quit the villification of SUVs

[ryanov]

Why can't a minivan pull a trailer or a boat? I've certainly seen it.

Re:Quit the villification of SUVs

[ryanov]

The vast majority of SUV's get below 20mpg (I don't villify all SUV's, but most) and the vast majority of sedans get above 20mpg.

Take into account the bumper height difference and the fact that other cars can't see properly with an SUV around and this is where this comes from.

SUV's are fuck-awful family cars.

What is your gas mileage?

Re:Quit the villification of SUVs

[mdarksbane]

A minivan can haul, to a degree. Heck, even my Celica can pull a small trailer. But there are weight limits, and depending on the size of what you are pulling you will need something with a sturdier rear frame and suspension as well as a heftier engine to pull it. I'm pretty darn sure that most minivans are not rated for even a skid loader's weight, although they might do a small boat.

There's also a significant difference between what you CAN pull and what you can pull safely and without damaging your vehicle.

more plane travel?

[Michael Wardle]

A reduction in car travel doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in travel overall or a reduction in pollution.

Maybe people flew more last year?

Re:more plane travel?

[MonkeyCookie]

Quite true. People could be doing something else that results in more pollution.

For example, when I'm not driving I go burn tires out in my back yard for fun. Driving more would result in less pollution in my case.

Re:I definitely drive less

[Guerilla* Napalm]

Here as well. Unfortunately I tend to go into the wind whichever way I go.

Almost completely OT

[tehdaemon]

Something like this?

(had to, this is my wallpaper at the moment)

One more time: SUVs are not safer for the driver

[doom]

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.

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.)

SUV required if you have a family?

[fantomas]

"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.

gas demand inelastic?

[doom]

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.

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.

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

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.

Sounds like fun, I can't imagine why this hasn't been done yet!!! Do you honestly believe that a politician would be involved with legislation specifically designed to get people to stop doing things that they enjoy? Not to mention the huge negative impact it would have on our economy. There is no need for a drastic measure to reduce fuel consumption. None. What we need to do is SLOWLY reduce our fuel usage. Raise the requirements for fuel efficiency on the car manufacturers slowly every few years. Gas prices will tend to get more expensive over time. New technologies are being worked on and should be encouraged and funded. All of this will lead to less fuel consumption without affecting our daily lives and without destroying our economy.

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[funkify]

Ummmm... gas prices DID suddenly triple!

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[multiOSfreak]

Sounds like fun, I can't imagine why this hasn't been done yet!!! Do you honestly believe that a politician would be involved with legislation specifically designed to get people to stop doing things that they enjoy?

And there's the problem:

1) When politicians aren't pandering to corporate lobbyists and special interest groups, they're busy worrying about getting reelected rather than doing what needs to be done (as un-fun as it might be). What would be nice would be to have a crop of politicians that put reelection as a lower priority than doing actual legislative work.

2) Americans, by and large, really care about the environment and people in other countries and other parts of the world...until it negatively impacts them having a good time or becomes, in some way, inconvenient.

It would be great if all of us (Americans, that is) could see our lives (really see it) relative to those who live in countries like Sudan or even Iraq. I think that would help put things into perspective and stop all the whining about gas prices and credit card debt. But I could be wrong. :)

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[refriedchicken]

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. This is not 100%. As this world moves in the direction of technologically isolating people (working with a computer instead of a person, telecommuting, DVD's delivered, etc), people will FIND a reason to go out and be around other people (regardless of cost). It is the the High Tech, High Touch principal (people NEED human interaction). So while they will buy less but drive the same or close to the same.

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

When politicians aren't pandering to corporate lobbyists and special interest groups, they're busy worrying about getting reelected rather than doing what needs to be done (as un-fun as it might be). What would be nice would be to have a crop of politicians that put reelection as a lower priority than doing actual legislative work.

So... let me get this straight. You would be happy with politicians who lied (more than usual) to get elected and then enacted a bunch of legislation that the American people are against. No thanks. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ring a bell?

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[theantipop]

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.

What you describe here is economic depression. If you force reduced spending by encouraging everyone to grind out their lives in the confines of their home trillions of dollars go unspent that were previously used to spur the economy. Aside from this is a basic human need to experience the world that can't be contained by high gas taxes, thus compounding the problem.

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[Dhalka226]

1) When politicians aren't pandering to corporate lobbyists and special interest groups, they're busy worrying about getting reelected rather than doing what needs to be done

I suppose this point is really about how you see politics. Are politicians supposed to represent their constituents, or are they supposed to lead them? If the former, then politicians are doing roughly what they should be doing. Not being re-elected is a sign of voter displeasure. Doing what it takes to get re-elected could easily be seen as representing the majority opinion of your constituents on an issue. If the latter, than you're absolutely right.

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[mutterc]

find work closer to home

While I agree that this is a good way to help save the planet, I don't think it's possible in today's "throwaway employee" job market.

Jobs just don't last long enough to use them to make detailed decisions about where to live. For example, I live in northeast Raleigh, NC, and currently work in Morrisville (about 25 miles away). Before that I worked in RTP (~30 miles) and on NCSU Centennial Campus (~10 miles). I could certainly move to Cary or Apex and be significantly closer to work. However, what happens when I get laid off and my best local job option is in Wake Forest? I'm right back in the same long-commute situation.

(This assumes you can even stay local, of course; some people have a hard enough time of it that they have to pick up and move at every job change. I don't see the number of those people getting smaller.)

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[doom]

refriedchicken wrote:

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.

This is not 100%. As this world moves in the direction of technologically isolating people (working with a computer instead of a person, telecommuting, DVD's delivered, etc), people will FIND a reason to go out and be around other people (regardless of cost). It is the the High Tech, High Touch principal (people NEED human interaction).

I largely agree with you -- and I might add I neglected to add "they would carpool to work more".

And I would add that I wish people would get over the idea the only way to live life is sealed up in little metal cages isolated from social interactions with the rest of the citizenry.

(I have a suspicion that this is one of the reasons that the country is falling apart: People living in urban areas, using public transit, have a stronger sense of group identity, a visceral grasp that the other people really are people. The United States underwent a radical change in the post-car suburban era, and maybe that's part of the result.)

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[doom]

IDontAgreeWithYou wrote:

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.

Sounds like fun, I can't imagine why this hasn't been done yet!!!

Poor baby. Daddy wanna take your T-bird away?

(Oddly enough, I do think that it's fun... car driving, like many forms of "convenience" is a guarantee of a dull, boring existence... if you work through the challenges of doing without it, the life on the other side will almost certainly be an improvement.)

Do you honestly believe that a politician would be involved with legislation specifically designed to get people to stop doing things that they enjoy?

Yeah, how can you live without spending hours of day behind the wheel of a car?

I'd rather not get involved with predicting the behavior of politicians, but I note that there are folks out there floating wild and crazy ideas like replacing the income tax with a carbon tax.

Not to mention the huge negative impact it would have on our economy.

Yeah, yeah, that's what they all say. What if we made a massive investment in modernizing our rail transport? That wouldn't be "good for the economy"? Look up the actual costs of car-based living in the United States some time... the hours people spend trapped on highways, the money tied up in decaying equipment (that might otherwise have been invested, eh?), the sheer number of lives lost to the eminently predictable "accidents" (around 40,000 a year in the US)... you think all of this is "good for the economy"?

There is no need for a drastic measure to reduce fuel consumption. None.

I would want to double-check the figures, but my guess is that I agree with you. I'm not under the impression that car exhaust is destroying the planet (now, coal powered electricity generation, on the other hand... and perhaps the predicted hordes of Chinese vehicles, without even catalytic converters...). One thing that might push me the other way is that it might reduce our dependance on imports from the Middle East (or more accurately, as I understand it, on prices that are strongly influenced by exports from the Middle East), and thus reduce the incentives for the politicians that you mentioned to play games over there.

What we need to do is SLOWLY reduce our fuel usage. Raise the requirements for fuel efficiency on the car manufacturers slowly every few years.

Personally, I think you're confused about the real problems with cars, but you are certainly not alone.

A car-based life-style destroys your health, and wastes your money and time all in the service of weakening your community.

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[toddestan]

Ummmm... gas prices DID suddenly triple!

Not really, it's just that a dollar now buys roughly 1/3 the oil it used to. I wonder why?

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

I appreciate your well thought out reply, but I think you missed the main point of my post. Most people in the U.S. (and yes including myself) are not willing to suddenly give up driving, especially because the government suddenly raised the taxes. And it will seriously impact the economy. Taxes are never, repeat NEVER good for the economy. Not to mention that I, like millions of other people in the country drive a good distance to work where there is no public transportation. So if you suddenly raise the price of gas, suddenly millions of people are forced to relocate causing massive problems in the housing market. There is absolutely NO WAY that it will not cause anything less than a disaster for the economy. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but we have built our economy, infrastructure and lives around cars. If you can get by without using a car, great. Most of us don't want to.

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[doom]

IDontAgreeWithYou wrote:

I appreciate your well thought out reply,

And I appreciate your level-headed reply (because I can certainly be a tad obnoxious on occasion).

but I think you missed the main point of my post. Most people in the U.S. (and yes including myself) are not willing to suddenly give up driving, especially because the government suddenly raised the taxes.

I realize that this is what people say but I actually don't believe that it's true. Faced with rising gas prices people really will adjust their behavior over time and do things differently: the claim that spending on gas is completely "inelastic" even in the short term is almost certainly not the case: one of the reasons I made up a hypothetical scenario of gas prices "tripling", is to get that across. A price shock like that would send everyone scrambling for carpools, demanding public transit, looking for ways to rearrange the many-and-various discretionary trips that they take.

Whether this is "bad for the economy" is a different issue -- I was just talking about demand "elasticity", and I wasn't specifying where the price shock would come from -- for purposes of that discussion political instability in the Mideast works just as well.

But if you're asking me if I think it's a good idea to jack gas prices via a tax, I suppose I would say yes, though how fast would be adviseable would certainly be a good question, and my preference would certainly be for something like the scheme that I think Gore proposed, which is to raise "carbon taxes", but to drop other taxes proportionally -- what we need is a shift in incentives, not an increased burden.

Taxes are never, repeat NEVER good for the economy.

Now now... don't you think that our fine-elected leaders are capable of wisely managing economic stimulus? Why I'm sure they'll do at least as good a job as they did with your zoning regulations.

Not to mention that I, like millions of other people in the country drive a good distance to work where there is no public transportation.

Yeah, I know. Why do you guys put up with that? If the local politicians where I were living couldn't do any better than that, I'd be looking to kick their ass.

I'm sorry that you don't like it, but we have built our economy, infrastructure and lives around cars. If you can get by without using a car, great. Most of us don't want to.

Many, many, people are convinced that surburbia is just the natural order of things, but really it's a pretty new way of living, and if you look at it closely a very artificial way of living: a creation of some odd public policy decisions about zoning regulations and highway funding. Fifty years ago people changed the way they were living. A change like that could happen again.

Re:gas demand inelastic?

[doom]

Jobs just don't last long enough to use them to make detailed decisions about where to live.

It's a problem, but there are ways to deal... my strategy has always been to live some place in the middle of areas where there's a lot of potential jobs. This is, of course, one of the advantages of cities, but it's also true of the relatively sprawling Silicon Valley area -- where notably it is not that tough to get around by public transit (provided you haven't been suckered into spending a lot of money on a house with a view but without transit).

Waiting for the Republican backlash

[doom]

leenks wrote:

both are Bush repubs by the way,

And they don't mind you publicising that fact on the Internet? I'm British, but I would be horrified if someone published the fact that I'm a closet Blair (and, therefore, Bush) fanatic! I'd end up being killed!

He must not live in the San Francisco Bay area.

The rest of the country isn't quite there yet... give them a few months. By this time next year you're going to see amazing amounts of denial and/or denials on the subject. "Well, of course, I was never really one of those Bush supporters."

Bush is the new Nixon. For generations to come, Republicans will be saying "But he's not as bad as Dubya!"

No kidding.

[nurb432]

Fuel prices hurt the economy's bottom line.

such low gas prices in the USA!!!

[krayfx]

maybe people in the USA are lucky to have such ridiculously low gas prices. startled aren't you ?

yeah. i bet.

In india, in most states, its about $4.50 a gallon, as compared to the *a somewhat lowly* $2.27 (http://www.gaspricewatch.com/new/)!!! thanks to the high state & central taxes - which forms about 40% of the gas price, ...most people prefer vehicles that offer more mileage/ economy.

My two (euro) cents.

[Savage-Rabbit]

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.

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.

Re:My two (euro) cents.

[Inexile2002]

Nothing in your post seems like a flame to me. I agree with pretty much everything you said and understand completely about your decision to move to a nearby town. Like wise to the other guy who responded to me who also rides a bike. I'm lucky enough to have recently moved to Madrid which has an excellent metro system and unbelievable urban density to support further metro development. I can walk to everything I need and I take the metro to work. And there are thousands of people like me, or cyclists who ride to work. Hell thousands, probably millions. But in every major city in the western world, come rush hour, every major highway in town jams up with hundreds of thousands of cars. (Madrid included, traffic here is a nightmare beyond anything I ever saw in Canada, where I'm originally from.) But that's not my point. My point is that the majority of people in cities in North America really just can't not drive, and can't not drive allot. So it's going to take something big to really change the problems associated with all that driving - pollution, wasted time and productivity, highways that cut ugly, semi-impassable barriers through urban areas, the cost of fuel etc.

Actually, as much as I have the smog and oil wars and the ugly highway cutting through the park I take my dog to, what I think about the most on a day to day basis are the poor bastards who waste 2 hours or more of their day, every week day, sitting in traffic. 10 hours a week just sitting there, really not doing anything. I just don't have that kind of free time, and if I did I wouldn't ever waste it commuting. I resent the 15 minutes each way I spend on the metro, and since I'm not driving, I can read. When I try to imagine the lost sleep, lost time at home... it just seems so horrible. Hell, I only need to take the metro 5 stops and I'm thinking about moving somewhere walking distance. My time is worth WAY more to me than my bank balance and I would pay allot more for an apartment nearer work if it meant an hour and a half or more free time every day.

But, judging by the number of cars on the highway every day, that's just me.

Making the case for car-free living

[doom]

Inexile2002 (540368) wrote:

The vast majority of cities in North America (I'm including Canada here) are designed around driving.

The count of numbers of "cities" matters less than the percentage of population living in post-car cities or Real Places (as I tend to think of them). You're certainly correct that a lot of people have got themselves stuck in the 'burbs, but the percentage might only be as much as 50% or so, depending on where you draw the boundaries (e.g. a big chunk of the US population is supposed to be in the New York "tri-state" area, much of which has car-alternatives).

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?)

All right, now you're talking about *time-efficiency* which is different from capability. There's a peculiar illusion about car-usage by the way, where most people think it's a lot faster than it really is... e.g. a trip of a few miles inside of San Francisco takes about the same amount of time to drive as it does to bike it, once you add in all the time spent scoping for parking, sitting at lights, and so on...

Just as a thought experiment, try to imagine a practical alternative to driving to the supermarket. My claim would be that most people could do it with a bike *and* a bike-trailer.

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.

Well, you see, it's rumored that there are some non-white people in them there satantic cities. (I note with some grim amusement, a certain panic afflicting surbubia over the thought of things like houses packed full of salvadorean immigrants -- white flight, denied!).

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.

It's a tough one all right. Anyone who looks at the problem realizes that the 'burbs are fucked by their zoning regulations, but you can't convince the 'burbians of that. At least not yet.

Note though, that in general, public transit gets better the more people who are using it: there's a virtuous circle, it's easier to justify more buses, and more people use them, because there are more of them, and you don't have to wait as long, etc. It would not seem like that should be such an insanely difficult problem to crack... though admittedly I would not say it has been, in any 'burb that I'm familiar with.

Home delivery solves the problem to some degree, but you really can't organize cities around the idea of home delivery.

Tell that to Manhatten.

So basically, people HAVE to drive.

Nah, they think they have to drive. I would claim that anyone who's sufficiently motivated can figure out ways to radically reduce or eliminate car driving from their lives (I'm down to a half-interest in a car that I hardly ever drive, myself). It might involve some mental flexibility to realize that if you pay more in rent and less in car payments your life will be better (more physical and social activity), but I don't think it's impossible for folks to get to that point.

Either the culture needs to change, and in some places that seems to be starting, or automobile efficiency needs to be greatly improved.

Actually, improving car mileage doesn't really do all that much for us. Americans obssess about the pollution coming out of car

Re:Making the case for car-free living

[bumptehjambox]

a trip of a few miles inside of San Francisco takes about the same amount of time to drive as it does to bike it, once you add in all the time spent scoping for parking, sitting at lights, and so on

we're not talking just about San Fransico, not every city is like that, thankfully.

Well, you see, it's rumored that there are some non-white people in them there satantic cities.
wth? what does that have to do with anything? nice obligatory socioeconomicpolitical statement there, bro. I've reached my threshold, I cannot take anymore of them. ::vomits::

It might involve some mental flexibility to realize that if you pay more in rent and less in car payments your life will be better
Great, so someone can make a few more hundred dollars off me, and I have to live in a place with the worst air to breathe, the worst noise pollution, and well, other people. Sounds like hell. Living in a city, walking hard city streets is not 'good for you'..its better than NOT doing it, but walking on pavement is not very healthy, and even so, walking to a subway isn't the greatest exercise.

Maybe if everything about apartments and cities changed, it'd be an acceptable place to live, but I am not banking on it. Until that day, I opt-out of that disgusting environment.

A mortgage on a house, and car payments, works out to less than a shithole apartment in an acceptable metro-area. You say life "will be better" but I don't buy it. I don't buy how breathing in crap air, with particles from the trash on the sidewalk, and living in a festering apartment I have no control over is better. What is better about living in that apartment, paying MORE, and around 5pm having to smell a mixture of 10 different ethnic foods clashing to make a god awful smell of death. Give all comfort up, and endure that, for what? The environment? I have to endure the shittiest environment, to help the environment. Well, bravo to you, seriously, think about it like that and it is a selfless act. You're enduring the worst, to help the greater good, and you will never experience the fruits of your toil. But, personally, I say- screw that. Screw that because if there is a better way to live, a healthier, more comfortable way, I'm going to seek it. I realize I don't fit in the same category as my neighbors, the soccer moms and such, but I live outside the city, far outside, and I don't like the city. It is my right to not live somewhere I effing HATE. I guess it doesn't matter for my life anyway, I wouldn't be helping the environment by moving, I hardly ever drive anywhere, and I don't even have my car insured beyond the $10 fire/theft ATM because it's winter and I am in New England.

Yes, this bastard lives in New England without an SUV, I am THAT good. Self-induced back patting commence.

Re:Making the case for car-free living

[schnikies79]

The fact is that not all of us want to live in an urban environment. I live approximatively 10mi south of the neatest town and have all my life. Less pollution, virtually no crime (2 murders in the last 10 years and that is for the entire county), cost of living is way down there. I have a garden where I can grow my own vegetables so no need to buy them. I even have enough room that I built a wood shop for my favorite hobby and I have a couple horses. Say what you like but there is absolutely nothing appealing living in a crowded area. If I need anything I can hop in my car and head for Louisville which is about 35mins away. I'm sure not going to sell off my house and property to live in a crappy apartment and pay rent for the rest of my life. Nature is much more appealing.

Why on earth would you do that?

[blorg]

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.

Americans don't know much about fuel ecconomy.

[d3vi1]

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.

Re:Americans don't know much about fuel ecconomy.

[will_die]

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.

Re:Americans don't know much about fuel ecconomy.

[OneSmartFellow]

Strange, in England, deisel is more expensive by about 2-3 pence per litre

Re:Americans don't know much about fuel ecconomy.

[Cederic]

8p per litre at the garage I filled up at this morning :(

Then again, the car I bought two weeks ago just gave me 545 miles from a full tank (filled up on Tuesday) at 45mpg, which isn't too bad for an automatic with me driving :)

It's not a SUV, a minivan, a truck or a small car.

Re:Americans don't know much about fuel ecconomy.

[Darth_brooks]

It's the same in the US. In my area (Northern Indiana) Diesel is 30-40 cents per gallon more expensive than gasoline right now, and has been since the price of gas started falling at the end of summer. That will hurt the short term chances for increased adoption of Diesel fueled vehicles.

As for the long term; the first thing people think of in the US when you say "diesel" is a semi truck belching foul black smoke. You've got a huge PR hurdle to clear there. People think diesel is a dirtier fuel than gasoline.

Re:Americans don't know much about fuel ecconomy.

[otis wildflower]

Do Renaults still have the goofy paddle turn signal or do they use a stalk like the rest of the civilized world?

(My friend had an Eagle Premier, which was a rebadged Renault, and that drove me NUTS)

(His family also had a diesel Oldsmobile, and if that is what Americans think of when they think of diesel, I understand why they're afraid, that car SUUCCCKKKKKED...)

Re:Americans don't know much about fuel ecconomy.

[RexRhino]

The problem with diesel is that it has trouble meeting certain emissions standards in U.S. states. While diesel is good when it comes to conserving fuel, and it may well be a better choice - diesel has larger particulates and is more likely to cause smog. In the U.S., the laws seem to be more geared for preventing smog than preventing CO2 emissions, as smog is an immediate and visible problem, while CO2 emissions are a long term problem.

Re:Americans don't know much about fuel ecconomy.

[maeka]

People think diesel is a dirtier fuel than gasoline.

Well, it is. By its very nature. Both the nature of the fuel and the nature of the combustion (timing). Steps can be taken to clean up the emissions of diesel ICEs, but they are dirtier than gasoline ones, no reasonable person can deny that.

Re:Americans don't know much about fuel ecconomy.

[d3vi1]

All the Renaults I knew in the past few years used a stalk. That includes Laguna, Clio, Symbol, Logan and Megane. I don't know about the other ones (Velsatis and the vans).

Re:Americans don't know much about fuel ecconomy.

[Nimey]

Others have cited the foul black smoke[1] belching out of diesel trucks. Another reason is that back in the early '80s General Motors had a few diesel-powered cars that IIRC didn't have turbochargers, probably for price reasons. They were infamous for their slow acceleration.

[1] I saw one last year that looked like there was a godsdamn forest fire coming out its tailpipe. It was truly its own smoke screen.

Re:you don't drive when you don't have anywhere to

[maxume]

No, no no, the public ethos of the moment is wage pressure; you can find a job, it just doesn't pay enough to live on. Never mind the abandonment of Walmart and continuing strength in housing, this country is clearly poor, and getting poorer.

ohhh.. it was the fuel price

[__aahlyu4518]

I thought that just more americans became to fat to fit in a car :-P

Ever heard of an odometer?

[brunes69]

You already register your car every year with the state I assume? Not sure if this is true in all states but it is in most.

Anyway, it's not too difficult. Every year when you register your car, they check the odometer reading, compared to last years reading you pay some amount.

It's not rocket science.

Re:Ever heard of an odometer?

[blorg]

You already register your car every year with the state I assume?No, we don't, tax is paid yearly but the vehicle itself isn't checked. Granted this could be acceptable if there was a yearly check involved, although it would encourage odometer fraud which is already widespread enough.

I still don't understand though the advantage of a mileage tax to gas taxation, which seems simpler and has the _advantage_ of taxing not only increased mileage but also inefficiency.

Re:Ever heard of an odometer?

[d3ac0n]

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.

Re:Ever heard of an odometer?

[2short]

The milage tax would "punish" SUV drivers less than the gas tax. Not to call you ungrounded in logic or anything. Oh, what the hell: you're an idiot.

Re:Ever heard of an odometer?

[smallpaul]

How is a mileage tax more of a whacky liberal idea than a gas tax?

Re:Ever heard of an odometer?

[toddestan]

Huh? Where did you come up with that? The gasoline tax punishes the people with the vehicles that burn the most fuel per mile driven - the SUV drivers. If anyone wants to change it over to a per mile basis instead of a per gallon of fuel basis, it's the people who drive the trucks and SUVs* that want to shift some of the burden of the taxes onto those with fuel efficient vehicles. Hardly what I consider a "liberal" idea.

*Most SUV drivers I know, like everyone else, opposes this retarded idea. The only proponents seem to be the government, law enforcement, and insurance companies - and purely for the tracking ability and little else.

YIPPEE!!

[krygny]

More cheap gas for me and my SUV. :-D

It's my fault

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:It's my fault

[illuminatedwax]

A lot of the inner parts of the city that are more congested really suck for biking though. You'd get clobbered by some crazy drivers if you rode in some parts of Chicago with your earbuds on. And Chicago drivers are fucking crazy. American streets are not very hospitable to biking - they should really allow bikes on sidewalks, like Japan (and some European countries) do. You don't see people getting hit by bikes there, and a lot more people ride their bikes.

Re:It's my fault

[dr_dank]

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.

Holy crap, its a miracle you're still alive. Especially in a hostile urban environment, you need all of your senses sharp at all times if you have any hope of avoiding being a hood ornament for the crosstown bus. Not like a car where you can crank the stereo, have a cigarette and walk away from a fender bender should one occur, it doesn't take a nobel prize-winning physicist to know who wins the battle between an Escalade and a Schwinn.

Re:It's my fault

[b0s0z0ku]

it doesn't take a nobel prize-winning physicist to know who wins the battle between an Escalade and a Schwinn.

Bikes are more maneuverable and city traffic seldom averages faster than 15-20mph. Also depends what you mean by "win" - a kick to the door or a twisted mirror of some driver that's deliberately being an asshole (not just being inattentive, but actively trying to squeeze you onto the sidewalk while yelling rudeness) is always possible. For the careless drivers, a loud yell or a blast from a cycle air horn generally wakes them up pretty quickly.

-b.

Re:It's my fault

[b0s0z0ku]

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.

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.

Re:It's my fault

[recursiv]

they should really allow bikes on sidewalks, like Japan (and some European countries) do.

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.

Re:It's my fault

[illuminatedwax]

You've never ridden in Japan, where almost everybody gets around by bicycle, and does so mostly on the sidewalk. In fact the streets are so crowded and narrow in Japan that the sidewalk is really the only place to ride. People are more used to riding on the sidewalk, so bicyclists respect pedestrians for the most part (bells are standard) and they aren't stupid enough to blow through red lights. Similarly, pedestrians are more aware of bikes around them. I've only ever had and seen incidents on small back roads with blind intersections.

It's a chicken and egg thing - is riding on the sidewalk inherently more dangerous for the bicyclist? No, it's less dangerous if the bicyclist is careful. Are the statistics higher? Yes, because they aren't being careful. It's a shame that there were no statistics about pedestrians in that link, but I would think that if you could ride on the sidewalk to begin with, more people would ride, making things safer overall.

Re:It's my fault

[mattkime]

I did the same thing and people really just don't understand how it can change your perspective.

Biking fixes so many things with the american lifestyle - lack of exercise, burning fossil fuels, paying for car insurance, and paying for the whole car. If this could be mainstreamed then it would be the biggest and most positive cultural change in our nations history.

The ride to and from work becomes a battle. You get to your desk and an coworker asks how you're doing and you want to respond, "I'm awesome! I'm here!" By the time you get home at night you've spent more time exercising than a lot of gym jocks do. Further, the ride really does change your understanding of the city and how it works - how traffic patterns change over the seasons and how different portions of th city work together.

The surprising part is how small the sacrifices are. You have to wash more sweaty clothes and perhaps shower once you get to work. But two hours of exercise doesn't take more than half an hour away from your day.

Re:It's my fault

[mattkime]

I do the same and while my workplace has a shower, I'd go to a nearby gym to shower if it didn't.

Re:It's my fault

[smellsofbikes]

>it doesn't take a nobel prize-winning physicist to know who wins the battle between an Escalade and a Schwinn.

I guess that depends on what you mean by 'win'.
Last time I had a head-on collision, it did total the bike. I also totalled the (cheap) car and spent some time in the hospital.
But the last three crashes I've had, the bike suffered no damage, I had some bruises, and the cars involved had big ass dents (not (big ass) dents, but big (ass dents) because my hip and shoulder are what hits if I have a moment of warning) in side panels and in two cases broken windows. Total damage to me: some aspirin. Damage to car: in excess of $2000. I love that.

Death to cars.

Re:It's my fault

[nick.ian.k]

Can't speak for the guy myself, but I commute by bike 8 months out of the year, including the hot part of the summer. Your assumption is largely correct: light clothes are a big part of the secret. It's the one part of the year where you'll catch me wearing a cycling jersey. A decent one can be had for $30 or a bit less and is very breathable and helps prevent you from overheating, and is designed to wick away just enough moisture where you can avoid being completely drenched in filth-sweat and yet have some of your sweat do its intended business and help cool you down. Beyond that, I also wear a pair of cycling shorts underneath a pair of Dickies work pants (hemmed about three or four inches above the ankle to avoid getting caught in the drivetrain): the work pants curb the "Go Lance!" and worse comments from idiots on the street, while the shorts breathe just fine and also provide a little extra padding between my butt and the saddle.

The office job I've held for the past year doesn't have shower facilities and there's no gym close by, but it's not hard to clean up for work: I bring a change of clothes in my bag, rolled up to avoid creasing, and once a week bring in a different towel that I keep in a desk drawer. I change out of the bike clothes in one of the bathroom stalls, wipe myself down with the towel, and change into the work clothes; the bike clothes get hung in an unused closet so most of the sweat can dry out.

Re:It's my fault

[b0s0z0ku]

the work pants curb the "Go Lance!" and worse comments from idiots on the street

Can't you reply, "Go Fatass! Oh wait, you're *not* going while I pass all of your asses on the shoulder. Muhahahahahaha!" ?

-b.

Re:It's my fault

[nick.ian.k]

Can't you reply, "Go Fatass! Oh wait, you're *not* going while I pass all of your asses on the shoulder. Muhahahahahaha!" ?

Ha. Yeah, it's tempting, but here's two things I figured out a while ago:

1) Anyone aggressive enough to try to provoke someone who has done *nothing* to them is probably going to get more aggressive upon getting a taste of their own medicine; given the sheer difference in mass between our respective vehicles, this is not something I want to push too hard.

2) I'm convinced cycling is a valid way to get from A to B and that the best place for it is on the road with other vehicles. This is legal most places, but there are plenty of people out there who either aren't aware or aren't convinced. The best way to demonstrate that cycling's a good way to get around, or at least valid enough for motorists to treat me as another vehicle, is to behave like a sane user of the road infrastructure. Riding predictably, obeying traffic laws and signals, and conducting oneself in a courteous yet assertive manner is a much better form of applied advocacy than the "FUCK YOU, CAGER!" rhetoric with which so many urban cyclists seem obsessed. Bullshit machismo is bullshit machismo.

Re:It's my fault

[Rob the Bold]

Bikes are more maneuverable and city traffic seldom averages faster than 15-20mph. Also depends what you mean by "win" - a kick to the door or a twisted mirror of some driver that's deliberately being an asshole (not just being inattentive, but actively trying to squeeze you onto the sidewalk while yelling rudeness) is always possible. For the careless drivers, a loud yell or a blast from a cycle air horn generally wakes them up pretty quickly.

I admire your bravery. I've had food thrown at me on my bike for daring to take up any of "their" road. I may need to get an air horn, since yelling doesn't seem to do the trick with windows rolled up, climate control blowing and stereo playing. I think the "win" referred to is a fatal or disabling injury. I don't fully trust people not to intentionally hit me. Sure they might get a hefty fine, but that would be cold consolation for my estate.

Re:It's my fault

[b0s0z0ku]

Riding predictably, obeying traffic laws and signals, and conducting oneself in a courteous yet assertive manner is a much better form of applied advocacy than the "FUCK YOU, CAGER!" rhetoric with which so many urban cyclists seem obsessed. Bullshit machismo is bullshit machismo.

The "fuck you..." in me only comes out when someone's an asshat for no reason. After all, I do drive too, though less than I used to since I've started working in NYC. Throwing things or deliberately trying to cut off cyclists who are moving to the front of the line on the shoulder is way over the line.

Speaking of NYC, people there seem to treat cyclists with more respect than in some of the wealthier suburbs. i.e., I've had people drive aggressively in NYC, but not overtly be abusive. When I ride the folding bike, I even get quite a few "hey, cool bike, where can I get one?" comments.

-b.

Re:It's my fault

[b0s0z0ku]

I don't fully trust people not to intentionally hit me. Sure they might get a hefty fine, but that would be cold consolation for my estate.

I don't think that the majority of people are psychopaths. I.e. they'll try to squeeze cyclists and block them, but intentional hitting someone with the risk of death[1] is more than most people can stomach. I mean, there are so many other ways to kill someone yet you're probably more likely to slip in the shower and break your neck than to get murdered.

-b.

[1]- for both parties. A pissed-off bike messenger waving a heavy lock chain is not to be messed with.

Re:It's my fault

[hwyengr]

unless I get hit by a bus on Ashland Avenue this morning

Dude, you're braver than me. I refuse to ride on Ashland, especially if the weather is bad. 4 lanes, its the fastest moving traffic north-south street on the northside. Elston or Milwaukee are fantastic streets for heading towards the loop, and Damen is a nice north-south. Unless you're coming from the southside, in which case I don't know anything about that.

Re:It's my fault

[nick.ian.k]

The "fuck you..." in me only comes out when someone's an asshat for no reason. After all, I do drive too, though less than I used to since I've started working in NYC. Throwing things or deliberately trying to cut off cyclists who are moving to the front of the line on the shoulder is way over the line.

Oh, don't get me wrong. There's definitely a line. Some things definitely demand the fist-shaking, steely-gazed "THREE FEET!!!" pyscho-holler-from-hell approach. Most don't.

Speaking of NYC, people there seem to treat cyclists with more respect than in some of the wealthier suburbs. i.e., I've had people drive aggressively in NYC, but not overtly be abusive. When I ride the folding bike, I even get quite a few "hey, cool bike, where can I get one?" comments.

Well, I wasn't talking about NYC specifically, more any urban environment where there are tons of cyclists. I'm in Chicago and I'm still amazed by how "good" most motorists are to me during the commute from the south side up through the Loop...and I mean "good" in comparison to the way I've had drivers act when I've biked 50 to 100 miles outside the city during some easy touring. I'd chalk it up to a mix of the lower speeds cars travel at on city streets and the commonness of cyclists in cities vs. the opposite in areas of lesser population density.

Re:It's my fault

[dr_dank]

I've had food thrown at me on my bike for daring to take up any of "their" road.

Even though a bicycle is recognized as a motor vehicle by the traffic codes of most states, common sense and reality dictate that they aren't. How a device with two wheels and a skimpy frame sold in TOY STORES for petes sake is equivalent to a two-ton machine is beyond me.

Not to slight those with pricy Cannondales and spandex who take their hobby seriously, but the motorists I see passing the cyclists on the service road of a very busy interstate aren't going to take kindly to bikes taking the lane or causing a bottleneck. This is during rushhour, mind you, and I see it all the time.

Re:It's my fault

[b0s0z0ku]

I'm in Chicago and I'm still amazed by how "good" most motorists are to me during the commute from the south side up through the Loop...and I mean "good" in comparison to the way I've had drivers act when I've biked 50 to 100 miles outside the city during some easy touring.

Also fewer drunken yahoos, since the drunks are more likely to walk home in the city rather than driving around throwing beer bottles at any convenient object.

-b.

Re:It's my fault

[pafrusurewa]

The main problem is intersections, i.e. when cyclists go straight ahead and drivers take a turn and sometimes don't see them. That makes bike paths (and riding on sidewalks) incredibly dangerous. In fact, you're about 10 times as likely to die on intersections if you use bike paths than if you stay on the road (study by the University of Lund, Sweden, comparing fatality rates before and after the construction of bike paths).

You can't keep cyclists totally seperated from drivers. Would be great if you could, it just isn't possible. Every kind of seperation ends at the next intersection. And bikes are vehicles and can move at great speeds, unlike pedestrians (I do about 50 kph on my bike between lights in the city, at least 35 kph for longer distances). So please tell me, how can sidewalks be safer for me (and pedestrians)?

And don't say "Japan is different, people care more." Or if you do, at least provide evidence. (Please do, I'd like to believe you.)

Re:It's my fault

[pafrusurewa]

I just noticed that you say, in effect, "it's dangerous because people aren't careful." Now that's just stupid. Given two options, one of which is inherently more dangerous than the other (because we're human) and saying the dangerous one could be made safer than the safe one by doing X only works if you don't do X for the safe option.

Following your logic, however, I would like to say that driving is safer than taking a train because if drivers were more careful and if there were more drivers there wouldn't be any accidents.

Okay, now I realize that I've wasted my time replying to an obvious troll. If that wasn't your intention, please at least read the relevant studies.

Vehicles don't belong on the sidewalk, period.

Re:It's my fault

[maeka]

As my childhood grumpy old neighbor would always say:
"It's a sideWALK not a sideRIDE!"

Re:It's my fault

[Rob the Bold]

I don't think that the majority of people are psychopaths.

That's true, I don't think most people will intentionally hit me. But here's a sobering thought: According to "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-S tout/dp/0767915828/sr=8-1/qid=1165002752/ref=pd_bb s_sr_1/104-3007941-4375118?ie=UTF8&s=books, 4% of people are sociopathic. Yikes. So how many drivers do I have to encounter (assuming they are representative of the general population) to have a 50% chance of finding someone who'd run me over without a second thought? About 17. There's another response to my previous post that illustrates this point well.

I know other things can kill me, and I do keep riding, but the odds are against me. Suburban USA is just not set up for bike transport, and the "I've got mine, get out of my way!" attitude of car drivers around here is all too common.

Re:It's my fault

[Rob the Bold]

I guess that depends on what you mean by 'win'.

Last time I had a head-on collision, it did total the bike. I also totalled the (cheap) car and spent some time in the hospital.

Good Lord, man, what would you condiser a 'loss'? I'm on your side here, but there's no mention of the driver of the car being hurt, just the car. And that's the thing: drivers assume that they won't be the ones suffering the "ass dents" if an accidnt occurs. Worst case for them is ass dents in their car, versus ass dents in our asses, etc.

At any rate, I hope your winning streak continues, and by that I mean that I hope you don't get hurt too badly, not that you end up in the hospital again. Death to cars and suvs.

Re:It's my fault

[smellsofbikes]

I definitely lost the time I screwed up my knee and went to the hospital. The other times -- well, yeah, I got bruised, but that heals. Dents in their cars don't heal, those cost money. So I regard that as a win. They did something stupid (almost always either pulled out in front of me from a side-road to my right, or tried to pass-and-then-turn-right-directly-ahead-of-me; they were clearly at fault, so the incident cost them much more than it cost me. Sure, I'd like to take their stupidity when driving a lethal weapon out on their hides, but if I go chucking bricks through their windshields, then *I* get to talk to the police.

Winning streak has been running since the hospitalization crash in '93, and before that, restitched part of ear back on in '83 in another pass-and-right-turn-directly-in-front-of-me, with about 15 dented and crumpled cars, with five or six broken windows, in what I'd call the 'win' column. So, maybe 15:2. (And in the ear one, the bike was repairable, and the financial cost was greater to the car owner than me. But still: that hurt like hell, so I can't call it a win.)

Death to cars! Ride safe.

Re:It's my fault

[b0s0z0ku]

4% of people are sociopathic. Yikes.

I assume that there are also degrees of sociopathy i.e. it's not an on/off black/white type of thing. And the majority of sociopaths would still control themselves - one of the aspects of sociopathy is that a sociopath will disregard the rights of others for personal gain. But I hesitate to say how intentionally hitting someone will gain you anything. In the best case, you'd get a dent and a bit of blood on your car, still have some explaining to do to your wife, and (if you report it as an accident) have a lot of paperwork to fill out at the police station. Not to mention the lawsuits. Worst case: execution for Murder One or not hurting the cyclist much and having the crap kicked out of you by him.

-b.

Re:It's my fault

[illuminatedwax]

Well I'd like to go outside and shoot video of kids riding their bike full speed down a very narrow sidewalk, or people riding their bike through a crowded mall, or people dutifully stopping at intersections (while remaining on the sidewalk) and checking for traffic, or people moving out of the way for bikes because they can tell that there's one behind them because they're used to bikes being on the sidewalk, etc., but I don't have a camera and I don't know enough technical Japanese to look up bike accident statistics. So you'll just have to take my word for it that everyone in the city rides their bike, on the sidewalk.

All of the behavior that you and the other cyclist pages talk about as making sidewalk riding dangerous just doesn't occur here - people check for traffic, warn pedestrians they are coming, etc.

Completely unrelated: in Japan, you can leave your bike unlocked for weeks outside and it will still be there when you return. You can leave your expensive merchandise in your bike basket for hours outside in a crowded street and no one will touch it. Some common sense things in America just don't apply elsewhere.

Re:It's my fault

[Nimey]

Do you know any push-bikers who wear armored clothing like motorcyclists do? I know you'll never go as fast as a moto, but I'd still feel safer in even summer-weight armor than in thin clothes, especially with the idiot cagers around.

Re:It's my fault

[pafrusurewa]

Actual traffic safety numbers are almost always very different from what people assume intuitively (like the construction of bike paths in many European countries because politicians believe it _must_ be safer when in reality it's much more dangerous). Humans are lousy at gauging actual risk (or everybody would be scared to death of driving a car which is more dangerous than cycling in the road, incidentally). Sorry, can't take your word for it. At least go and educate yourself about the topic, doesn't have to be in Japanese.

Re:It's my fault

[PopeRatzo]

Yes, my workplace has showers. A very big plus in my book.

Re:It's my fault

[PopeRatzo]

Actually, I do Damen as well. I only ride Ashland for about 2 blocks, to stop at the bakery and fill my thermos with coffee and pick up a scone. Because of the exercise I get, I can now eat scones with impunity.

2006 numbers?

[nwbvt]

"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)"

Where is this number coming from? The only mention in the article of 2006 is

Sales of vehicles with lower gas mileage "have begun to slump, with monthly, seasonally adjusted sales reportedly declining nine of the 12 months ending September 2006," CERA said. "Weakness is most pronounced for the heavier class of SUVs."

which seems to indicate that the trend continued (at least until 3 months ago).

Statistical Significance

[maidix]

So they calculate that Americans are driving, on average, 50 miles less in a given year... in a "trend" that did not actually last a full year. Did I get that right? And from this they are drawing a conclusion? This is so typical of CNN, which is probably why I only get their drivel when I accidentally click in to it from another site.

Re:America.. the wastrels

[stewbacca]

If Americans would only organize their cities and suburbs properly, I believe that they to could very easily provide a public transportation service that eliminates the need to drive cars, almost totally, for every day purposes.

Perhaps you don't understand the design of US cities nor do you understand how US politics work. How exactly am I, as merely one concerned citizen, going to persuade the other 120,000 inhabitants of my city that busses are a good investment, even if I am right? Don't get me wrong, I agree with your goal; it just isn't realistic. The mentality of high taxation and flourishing social services (such as public transportation) is not exactly compatible with the US way of life.

There are examples of great city planning, such as Portland, Oregon. But we can't just suddenly "organize our cities and suburbs properly".

comments

[scharkalvin]

1: Engines of US made cars and trucks not as efficient as those in Europe.
A: Our engines have more smog controls.
2: US cars have larger engines.
A: We also have larger SUV's and trucks. Do we need them to haul stuff for our projects?
Our houses are also larger than those in Europe. Our city's are usually not as crowded as yours
so we do have more room and are spread out more.

Having said that.....
I wish we'd bring back the gas-guzzler tax in spades. Make it a graduated tax starting at
less than 30mpg highway and adding on as gas milage got worse. Below 20mpg highway and it would
double or triple the cost of the car/truck. Have to be carefull about this though. Large vans used for car pooling should be treated different because when they are full the passanger mile per gallon is better than a car with only the driver. Diesel fueled vechiles should have to
be judged on a higher mpg as they usually get higher mpg.

SUV's are useful, but to drive 20 miles each way a day to work by yourself in a Ford 'Explosion'
SUV ought to be a capital crime.

Me? My 5 year old Accord gets about 30mph highway. Maybe I'll be replacing it with another
Accord or a Civic when it expires. No hybrids though. A hybrid does NOT get much better highway milage than a stright gas car. (not worth the extra cost to buy and maintain) City driving it makes a big difference though.

Re:comments

[FooAtWFU]

but to drive 20 miles each way a day to work by yourself in a Ford 'Explosion' SUV ought to be a capital crime.

I realize you're exaggerating, but I'm going to call you on it anyway.

A capital crime. Would you prefer they should lose their head the old-fashioned "capital" way with the executioner, or maybe the guillotine, or perhaps a hanging? Or should they be sent to the electric chair? Ought we be humane and destroy them with a lethal injection? There's probably a lot of them; perhaps we can take a cue from the Germans and construct some gas chambers (oh! haha, a pun!) or dig some mass graves and have some soldiers blast them with machine guns.

I have a list of ways we could do it; we have lots of choices! If you want to have some community involvement in this process, you could have SUV drivers stoned, like some countries with Islamic law do to women who have been raped (those promiscuous sluts!). Anyone want to have them drawn and quartered? Boiled in oil? Keel-hauled? AHA! I think I have it! Crushing by elephant!

Thank you for your two moments of perspective on the matter of 'capital punishment'. We now return you to your regularly scheduled ranting. What were we talking about again - cars?

Re:comments

[padishar123]

people in europe don't understand american's. me personally, i drive a 2000 chrysler concorde. i average 30-32 MPG on the highway (road trips) and 22-24 bumping back and forth to work each day. i average a tank of gas a week and around 400 miles per tank on road trips. i like many americans travel quite a bit. i live in indiana, i have family in florida, wisconsin, illinois, michigan, california, and nevada. i drive to northern wisconsin at least 4-5 times a year.

two things americans like:
1. big
2. comfortable

i'd be perfectly happy with a honda or nissan but honestly, they are lousy cars. they're uncomfortable, noisy, the seats are like sitting on church pews, and i feel like i'm driving the cheapest piece of crap out there. my concorde is full leather, power everything, quiet, has 8 speakers, and a really nice cruise control. if i could get all the room (read width) in a car the size of a honda and quality built, i'd buy it! however, i can't. foreign cars suck because they're built cheaply. i've been in an avalon. i wasn't impressed. it's still a small crappy jap car.

american car manufacturers understand that we buy cars on three basic factors:
1. styling (i.e. does it look really cool or "mean")
2. big ass engine because we love to floor it getting on the interstate or running yellow lights
3. comfortable (legroom, wide seat, plush seat, etc...)

the japanese cars do not meet these criteria and that's why the ford f150 which does is selling so much. the japanese have sold cars to all the tree huggers here, all the folks who hold reliability above all other, and those who have evaluated the dollars and cents of owning a big truck or SUV.

the japanese have yet to figure out that what the other 50% of people that are solid american car only car buyers are by and large disasstisfied with the crappy foreign cars. like i said above. honda does not have to build a giant SUV to get me to buy it. they have to build a small but COMFORTABLE car. in car manufacturing, small equates to cheap and crappy. if someone was to build a plush 2dr econobox i'd probably buy it. if i could get all the niceties of my concorde in a 2 dr. with no trunk i'd be happy. however, this vehicle doesn't exist. comfort in this country = big. and big = big ass engine and that's what american's love.

i have three vehicles:
1. the chrysler (which i put 20-25k miles on a year)
2. a '93 f250 supercab (for all my hauling needs - gets like 12 mpg - maybe 2k miles a year)
3. '86 honda 450 motorcycle(summertime commuting to work = 60 mpg)

most people don't want to maintain three vehicles like i do so they take the lowest common denominator which is a giant vehicle. this one vehicle serves all their needs.

besides, our government knows we want cheap gas and we'll use our military to strong arm any country who won't give it to us. it's not my way but that's the way our government thinks.

you aren't going to affect changes with us solid americans until gas gets exteremely high or until the big three fold.

'nuff said

~LP

Re:comments

[Rob the Bold]

I realize you're exaggerating, but I'm going to call you on it anyway.

It's called "hyperbole." I'm sure you've seen it a million times.

Re:America.. the wastrels

[Oxygen99]

You should try the UK. I live in one small town ten miles from an even smaller town in which my office is located. It takes me about fifteen minutes to drive from door to door. I leave at 8.45 and arrive around 9. I do this because I have to.

Alternatively, there's one bus I can catch. This leaves at 7am and takes an hour and a half. The return journey takes the same amount of time. That's three hours a day to cover twenty miles. I can't catch a train. The service has been cancelled and the station closed. Before that, the train I could catch arrived at 7am cost £4 a day and was cancelled approximately once a week. Occasionally, a replacement bus would be provided. Other times it just wouldn't turn up. Once a week. Try appearing professional when you can't even guarantee you're going to be present. I can't cycle because the only routes are along a busy dual carriageway with no cycle lanes or a busy single lane country road with no visibility and lunatic drivers. I have no particular desire to commit bicycle suicide so this option is right out. Oh, and I can't walk on a regular basis (Though I have done in summer) because it takes around two and a half hours. That's a five hour daily commute. Sorry people, but that just isn't reasonable.

You're right that with reorganisation these things can work but people don't just live in cities. There's millions of people who live in rural or small town environments that have absolutely no viable public transport service. None, nada, zero. In this day and age with all the concerns over the environment, that's a disgrace.

Correct me if I am wrong....

[OneSmartFellow]

..(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'.

Wrong reason.

[oyenstikker]

It is not because Americans were more economically or environmentally conscious. It is because they bought GPS navigation systems and took better routes.

Re:Wrong reason.

[Peyna]

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.

Re:Wrong reason.

[purplelocust]

The data is sketchy enough as it is, and it would be much harder to collect data about time in cars than annual mileage travelled. At least cars come with built-in odometers!

Minivan

[MindStalker]

Minivan? My 2001 Chevy Ventura minivan gets 23 city 30 highway actual. Better than my Malibu, so stick it!

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[hb253]

You obviously don't know the definition of wheelbase. FYI, it's the distance betweem the centerlines of the front and rear axles.

Also, your contention that vehicles flip over due to snagging on guard rails makes no sense. Can you point to any online sources that support your assumption?

Re:you don't drive when you don't have anywhere to

[Peyna]

Yeah, but all of those people that were hired in October to help with the Christmas season will be back on the street come January 1st.

Design

[Stigu]

About the design bit...

In case of the evolution of Belgium, you are absolutely right. It's a very old area in Europe, it's been inhabited for thousands of years, and is in the heartland of where the industrial revolution began. It's always been a major population center, Belgium as a nation has always been a democracy. We've always had more political parties, so there is a background of having a social and green concerns properly addressed. That makes it's evolution quite different from America.

Finland on the other hand went from a farm and forester type of society straight into the modern society, just as the US has. It had, especially in the beginning, little or no industry anywhere but in he cities, which are pretty far apart.
They chosen very smart people in my opinion to run and plan the public transportation. In the Helsinki area for example, trains go from the center to the urban areas as well as long distance to far cities. From every trainstop, there is also a bus transfer center. A place where virtually all buses in the area go through. This allows a very good coverage by the combination bus and train. In the inner city area trams, metro and buses have their own lanes during normal business hours. This really speeds up the speed of public transportation vs taking a car. Of course you need to enforce the trafic law, but what's one or 2 camera's or cops on a city's budget.

The public transportation here works like clockwork. I've virtually never seen a bus more then 3 minutes early or late. Most of Helsinki is surely suburbs. Only 2 train stops are actually in the city area, the suburbs start beyond that.
What you as a private citizen could do, in my opinion, is to find out what your local city elected person in charge of transportation has in mind for your city, and suggest improvements where you think they've gone really wrong. If they are negative about your suggestions, go to the local paper, they should be interested in running any story where a member of the local electorate can be put in bad light.

Besides that I cannot think of anything you could immediately do. Still, I've lived in a city most of my life exactly for the reason that everything is close by. For me that's surely worth the "trade off" in loss of backyard or anything like that. It might be different for you though. But that's just me. Rather have everything close.

Reduced descretionary driving

[amightywind]

I did the math and the difference is 0.3%. There's a word for that: statistical noise.

Averaged over such a huge statistical sample it certainly is not. What you are seeing is a reduction in discretionary driving because of high gas prices or the market working.

14 kilo-miles" (you guys should really switch to metric) does not.

One arbitrary length measure is as good as another, 1/10,000,000th of the arc distance from pole to equator or the length of King Henry I's foot. In America when we find something useful we don't feel the need to change gratuitously.

Re:sold my mini van

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, you have what is potentially the worst grammar and spelling of any person on slashdot.

I tip my hat to you.

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[kniLnamiJ-neB]

Indeed... best comment I've seen today. Someone with mod points please make up for the fact that the rest of the mods are on crack... GP deserves an Insightful for the last line alone.

It's always "move to the city"

[CagedBear]

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.

Re:It's always "move to the city"

[schnikies79]

Perhaps your idea of "safe and wonderful" is a bit different. My county has had two murders in the last ten years. I don't consider not having a yard to walk in "wonderful", nor do I consider the sound of traffic 24hrs/day wonderful. what is wonderful is being able to grow your own vegetables in a garden, having two a couple horses and being able to operate my own wood shop (it's a big hobby of mine). There is nothing worse than throwing your money away renting and then have absolutely nothing to leave to your children. I live about 10mi south of the nearest town and never move to the city. The country is quiet, clean and more in tune with nature.

you can have the city and I'll take nature, peace and quiet and a front/back yard.

Re:It's always "move to the city"

[tompaulco]

You mean until we can 'convince' Americans that cities are child friendly. American cities are safe and wonderful.
Well, my firsthand experience in American cities contradicts your statement, so I believe in order to convince Americans that the cities are safe and child friendly, you will have to do a lot of pro-city commercials, and you will also have to prevent people from actually going in to the city.

UK now a part of Central Europe?

[Stigu]

Sorry dear old cap, but I honestly don't count the UK or Ireland as part of Central Europe.

Especially not after the "Splendid Isolation" policy the UK has had in the not to distant past. I've been in the UK before, but only in London, southeast England and South Wales. That was quite a while ago, about 10 years, except the London bit, so I don't think my impression from way back then are anything to go on.

I had absolutely no issues with getting around in the London Area by public though. It was the same as most other decently sized cities in my opinion. Not especially good, but surely not to bad either.

20 miles, let's make it 30 km, I know it's a bit further but that's not important. 30km isn't to bad. I've had to travel a lot further for job, about 45km in each direction, took me an hour a day to get there, and another hour,hour and a half sometimes due to traffic. I didn't really have to much problems with it, because I could do a lot of my work in the train or bus on the way to work.
Your problem however, seems to stem more from bad planning on the side of your elected politicians to pay proper attention to the public transport. I'm most surely not an expert on UK politics and can therefore give no real constructive comments on how to solve it. You just might be "fudged" and have to suffer the situation.

I do know however, that I've always lived in cities because I could get anywhere easily, fast and to have everything I crave at my fingertips. The lights, the sounds, city life has always been good to me.

Change in the Laws

[alexhmit01]

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

Some insightful, some clueless comments (as usual)

[sgtrock]

The following post has little real direction. More my random thoughts than anything organized.

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 /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.

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. :) 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.

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. :( Anyone know of something something like my dream vehicle in the works from anyone?

They didn't drive less

[fpp666]

It's just that the SUVs got so big that there's less distance from point A to point B.

Cheers!

Are you kidding me?

[eples]

Careful - on such a high horse you could easily fall and break your neck.

Honestly, 20mpg vs 25mpg - I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[ryanov]

Please learn to read. Below 20 and above 25 is a rather large gap. I could have used 15 and 30 if I wanted to be somewhat realistic, but then I would have been sniped at for using some cars and making a generalization, but that would be closer to the truth.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[eples]

Okay, I see your point about not being dramatic, but 5mpg difference is roughly only 5 tons of atmospheric carbon a year. Let's use math instead. You can use the below formula for a more specific number:

You can figure out about how much carbon dioxide your vehicle emits each year with this simple calculation: Your vehicleís carbon dioxide (tons per year)= (miles you drive each year) divided by (miles per gallon multiplied by 100)

Re:SUV vs Hybrid demand

[Lumpy]

Actually hybrids are not cheaper in any way. they get marginally better gas mileage for the same car class.
Scion Xa is your BEST buy right now for fuel to cost ratio. they get the best gas mileage for their cost and end up having a far lower TCO than anything else. A toyota prius costs enough more to pay for your fule in the Scion for nearly 1/2 the life of the car. Now if you want to be a yuppie that tries to brag, get the hybrid. but they have no real value in saving money.

Alas, most americans are either too stupid or too busy trying to impress others with their car to make an educated and well thought out car purchase decision.

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[PingSpike]

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.

and...

[geekoid]

"However, although SUV and mini-van sales have been falling, they still represent over half of the private vehicle sales in the United States."

And? Do you have some point other then "their bad bacause everyone says there bad?"

ass.

Hauling lots of stuff

[mike3k]

Yesterday I found that I could easily fit 8 large bags of mulch in my Prius with room for more. What's that about hybrids being too small?

Re:Hauling lots of stuff

[/dev/trash]

Add in a wife and a kid, and get back to me.

0.4 percent

[aggiefalcon01]

So the drop was by less than half of 1%. That number would be helpful in the description ... So I guess what's interesting is not the amount of the drop (infinitesimal) but the fact that it dropped at all, instead of rising.

Re:Tax break!

[angrycrip]

Ahh, but they got a nice tax break for buying a hybrid, making it the same price as the regular Camry (their last 3 cars), and it does get better milage. So it was cheaper, as well as cooler.

Each person is requiring more and more space

[bigtrike]

There's also the problem of people getting larger and requiring more space per person.

Thank god these new larger vehicles have cup holders large enough for a 300 calorie drink so you can have your hands free to eat your 600 calorie sandwich and 300 calorie fries while rushing from sitting at one place to another.

I know why...

[dwater]

...because they've moved all those thirsty hummers off to Iraq/etc.

Too bad the pro drivers are so good.

[FatSean]

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

Some day i'm gonna follow those fuckers to a parking lot and do to them with my hands what they did to me with their two-ton douche-mobile.

Re:Too bad the pro drivers are so good.

[blugu64]

"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.

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[tompaulco]

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.
They may be less likely to roll over, but they are generally pretty unsafe in a single car accident, head on, or front corner collision, as those type of accidents often result in broken legs due to the proximity of the legs in relation to the engine and front of car.

Pickups, not minivans

[r00t]

Besides being tolerable as gas milage, minivans actually get filled with kids.

Pickups do not haul manure. They haul air and a driver, not counting the idiots who fill the back with kids! The milage is terrible, as is the safety. Basically, a pickup is an SUV without the rear upper portion.

Thank you

[Weaselmancer]

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.

I always love comments like these. Everyone on both sides of the argument will almost always use the Prius as the counterexample for an SUV.

Makes me grin every time. My Prius is, in the eyes of the public, the exact opposite of an SUV. Makes driving one that much more satisfying.

Re:Thank you

[Weaselmancer]

Ah! There you are, Prius-troll. You took your time getting here. Ok. I'll tick off your trollitems one-by-one. Ready there, giggles?

Because you're a fucking retard? Lovely troll bait. I'm betting you weren't on any debate teams.

Because you're lousy at math? Fifty mpg is more than twice what my minivan was getting. Seems simple enough.

Because you paid that much more and will not recoup the purchase price difference between the Prius and and a fuel efficient "regular" vehicle like the Honda Civic when equipped with an automatic until a number of years after the purchase? I intend to keep this car for many years. And I simply don't like the Honda Civic.

And on the whole, I'd rather give my money to Toyota rather than Exxon, if I can help it. They're trying to help solve a problem - Exxon is perpetuating one. I don't even care if it costs more in the end. It's called "voting with your dollars". If everyone did it, change would take place. I also don't buy music CDs. Why? Same reason. I try to spend my money in ways that don't run counter to my conscience. You should try it.

Because you haven't accounted for battery replacement? Eight year 100,000 mile guarantee on the battery and all electronic parts of the hybrid system comes standard, so I should be good until 2014. But thank you for your kind concern.

Because you haven't accounted for the damage to the environment caused by manufacture of said batteries? Don't care. I'm not doing this for eco reasons. I am not a tree-hugger. You're wrong to assume everyone who has a hybrid vehicle is one. What I like is having an awesome car that goes 400 miles for $18. Batteries? Batteries get made all the time. There's one on your motherboard probably, one in your cell phone, packs in your laptop. And, a decent sized 12 volt one under the hood of a Honda Civic. And every other car in the world, pretty much. So - big deal.

Prius troll, thank you for playing. It's always fun.

Re:Thank you

[Weaselmancer]

First off, thanks for not posting like the moron AC earlier. Reasonable discourse is always preferred.

If you were to lump together all the batteries consumed in 10 years, I'd suggest that your Prius would increase that number by a large percentage, probably as much as 100-300%.

True enough. My point was that nobody cares about all the AA batteries, or the 12v under the hood of your non-hybrid. People like to trot out the "huge batteries must be evil" chestnut whenever someone says hybrid.

Besides, Toyota has a recycling program for those batteries in place.

The only estimate we have, in my mind, would be cost - and it does take you a worrisome amount of time to recoup your added investment in the hybrid technology that makes the Prius different from the Toyota Yaris, which by itself gets a freakish 40mpg highway.

I'm not worried about my recoup costs. I *like* the Prius. The hybrid tech is dead silent on the freeway. It has wonderful fast pickup, since the electric motors are always 100% ready. Honestly, if you drove one you'd see there's more to love than the MPG.

Also, my wife will be getting a Yaris sometime within the next year or two. Also an awesome car.

Don't forget the added and possibly unnecessary tech besides the batteries - take a look at what disposing of used computer parts is doing to certain 3rd world nations sometime. Now, I'm not saying that driving a Prius makes you evil, far from it, but I think it's a long cry from sainthood as well, and people who drive them tend to act as smug as if the car were an instant holier-than-thou halo.

And I have a basement full of motherboards and other junk. Unfortunately, consumers these days tend to make tech waste. RoHS is working on helping that particular problem, though.

Also, just to pick another nit - in my original post you won't find any tree hugging there (despite my earlier link). I don't care if they make the batteries out of baby seals. My Prius is currently getting 52mpg. I'll be visiting a friend in Florida next spring, about 1000 miles away. Gas for the trip one way should cost me about $40. Couple that with the dashboard GPS and it'll be a fine trip.

Your other arguments have grievous flaws as well - such as comparing the mileage of a Prius vs. a Minivan, without regard for the capacity of each vehicle, in terms of mpg per passenger.

I am the only passenger, 95% of the time. Most of my driving is to and from work. Last year when I was driving my van I had a different job. It was 45 minutes away. I'd fill up every 4 work days or so, at a cost of around $50 (gas was >$3 then). I was spending around $300 a month on just gasoline. That's when I decided to get a hybrid.

Currently my job is much closer to home, so the numbers shifted and the van would now be cheaper. Gas is closer to $2, and the drive is down to 15 minutes. But you know what? Having the hybrid makes small trips nice too. I can go home for lunch if I want and not feel like I'm spending a lot of money to do so. It's nice having gas be an incidental expenditure again. I have no regrets with my Prius.

As for the passenger capacity, I think in 5 years I only had more than 4 passengers less than a half a dozen times. So yeah, the van from that point of view was wasteful. But - I bought the van when gas was cheap enough to where it didn't matter. Now that it does, the van is retired. I use it for camping, helping friends move and chores like that, and the occasional trip to the Home Depot.

Re:Thank you

[ncc74656]

Makes me grin every time. My Prius is, in the eyes of the public, the exact opposite of an SUV. Makes driving one that much more satisfying.

Smug Alert!

Construction

[raygundan]

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.

I just finished a 1000 sq. ft. basement using only a Honda Civic. I needed exactly one delivery from the hardware store to drop off the lumber and drywall. Why load the stuff into a truck yourself, when you can have somebody else drop it off with a forklift? And why pay for the truck all the time when it's only needed once or twice per large construction project?

A few times I needed a couple more boards when I fudged a cut or underestimated quantities-- but 8-foot lumber fits in a 2-door '01 Civic with the trunk closed, and 12-foot can stick out the back in a pinch.

For me to need a truck, I'd have to be engaged in a project of that size every week or two before it became a justified expense.

Re:Construction

[TheFlyingGoat]

For you a truck doesn't make sense, for us it does. We don't have the money or time to do our entire basement at once, making it impossible and pointless to purchase all of the materials at once. We're doing it gradually, meaning I get 10-20 2x4's at a time and will do the same with insulation, drywall, and trim. Paying a $50 delivery charge each time just doesn't make sense.

That's the point, though. Everyone's needs are different, which is the bigger point I was trying to make. A small car makes excellent sense for you, but to assume it will work for everyone is just wrong.

Re:Construction

[raygundan]

Incidentally, I'm not trying to suggest that people's needs are not different. Towing a boat, for example, is not possible with a Civic. But large home construction projects are, and that is the only thing I wanted to point out.

got your cause and effect backwards

[r00t]

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.

All at once?

[raygundan]

This was a 15-month project done in my spare time. Just becase I got a stack of stuff delivered doesn't mean the project has to be done immediately. It helps to sit down with your floor plan for an hour and walk through your build order to prevent having to move the pile at a later date. (ie, don't stack your stuff where you're going to frame a new wall.) The pile of material was 4x8, and about five feet tall. Lumber on top, then drywall, then subfloor-- and build in that order.

But it's not rocket science, and it saved me an immense amount of time and effort. If, like us, your hardware store charges $50 for a delivery-- I'd be willing to bet you can afford a couple of those a month based *solely* on the monthly car payment difference between a V8 pickup and a Civic.

Re:All at once?

[everphilski]

like the GP I grew up in Wisconsin and my family always drove large vans - before the Minivan came into existance. Sure we could have driven smaller cars but the thing is it wasn't just one project (lifting the roof to re-do a bedroom and triple the space) but it seemed like we were always doing projects. We pulled the seats out of the back and you had tons of room for 4x8 sheets of plywood, drywall, lumber, whatever you needed to fix the polebarn / make the treefort / fix the bathrooms when they flooded over family vacation (ironically to Niagara Falls) / build the dogs a playpen / etc. Utility is handy it isn't just a one time deal. And like he said, for vacations and hauling stuff... once you have 2 kids and the third one on the way you kinda hit the point where you need to think about something bigger.

Re:glad to see you guys smartening up

[derubergeek]

..it's pretty obvious you're either a troll, a moron, or still living in your Dad's basement...

I'm glad you used OR rather than XOR. OR is much more appropriate in this case.

The beauty of it is that I was able to take advantage of short circuiting early into the evaluation...

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[BlackSnake112]

I wish I had mod points

4 wheel drive can help one get moving in snow but it does nothing to help one stop. What was that physics thing about a body in motion? I still think a winter drive course should be set up and made a mandatory part of one's road test. That and backing up. In places where snow and ice are a reality, people should know that they can drive in it. Putting all these new things in cars to make them safer is leading to more and more dangerous drivers. I know a few people who think that with anti-lock breaks they can drive as fast as they want to and stop in 1-20 feet. I am not kidding. And now the auto parking car? Give me a break, if you can't park your car in that spot... look for another spot.

Do I have a SUV, yes and no. It is 2 door, it does have 4 wheel drive but it is smaller than the mini vans that would be able to haul the same things. I wanted a vehicle that I could put the doors and sheetrock in (I was fixing up my house at the time) and also be able to haul the boat, jet skies that I don't own but I usually wind up towing when I visit the people who do own them. The house I lived in had a single car garage. It was a car port that was walled off to make a garage. The little SUV fit inside it. The full size SUVs don't too tall and usually too wide. All but the really tiny minivans were too tall. I test drive 8, took them home to see and all were too tall. I park my car in all but the sub-compact parking spots. I do call it a car rather than a truck. IT is higher than most cars, but I drive it like a car. Not a sports car. If you can drive your regular car around at 100+ mph and take sharp turns more power to you. I do not do that. I drive slower in the snow and rain. I get passed all the time in the snow but I get to where I am going, safely.

I have a friend with a land rover who was always saying he could go faster than everyone else in the snow. He did that until we did a little test. We went to a big open parking lot when it snowed. Took each car to 40 mph then stood on the break petal. Guess which car stopped first? My little SUV stopped in ¼ the distance then his land rover did. And his land rover was newer then my car. Then he rolled it on a jug handle a few days later the new car was a smaller SUV.

Yes my gas mileage sucks, I get 19 around town and 24 on the highway. And I tow a bunch of stuff without a problem. A pickup truck was not an option, I don't want the stuff I put in the back out in the elements.

big trucks

[smellsofbikes]

While I'm more or less sympathetic with what you're saying: I have a Subaru station wagon that gets about 30 mpg, handles beautifully on twisty icy roads, and I can put four bicycles or a spare Subaru engine block in the back. I often use it to carry 10' lumber or ladders, with the trunk lid closed. Plus, I spent another $400 and got a 4'x8' trailer, so when I need to bring home 20 sheets of 4'x8' plywood or drywall, it's no problem, and the rest of the year, I'm still getting 30 mpg.

Re:I definitely drive less

[smellsofbikes]

No, but vectorially speaking, the parent poster *will* have a headwind both ways unless there's an unusual wind pattern there. Canyon winds sometimes flow downstream in the morning and upstream in the evening, so if you're lucky you can get a tailwind both directions.

just wait for 2006 numbers! gas prices?

[johnpaul191]

just a theory, but you figure the gas prices were ramping up slowly, but they totally spiked post-Katrina. there was still 1/3 of 2005 left, but the gas prices did not really drop when the oil processing plants were back online. people seem to have accepted that the days of $1/gallon gas are gone and making adjustments to their lives. maybe it's just people i know, or the ones that talk about it, but i know people have started to drive less. if they drive, they are more likely to carpool. in a way it's great. it make people reconsider public transportation and bicycles. it made hybrid cars seem far more sensible than they did a few years ago. people actually check the air pressure in their tires. it's too bad it came at the expense of the oil companies making record profits.

on a side thought.... how come my natural gas prices (in Philadelphia PA) spiked "due to disruptions caused by Hurrican Katrina" and 14 months later they have not gone down one cent? at least gasoline is down about $1/gallon from its peak. natural gas, nothing!

Re:I definitely drive less

[MillionthMonkey]

Parent is a fraud: First you tell us to ride a bicicle while you have been driving until you could no more because of your condition. Big lover of the environment are you.

So?

Second, your wife has a prius and you babble some nonsense about driving 'a couple thousand miles a year'. For that mileage it would have been much wiser to buy a normal car. A Prius is more expensive than a normal car and you aren't paying it off.

I love it when a clueless AC gives me advice on how to run my life. I paid $13k in cash for a used 2001 Prius off Craigslist back when I had a license and a much longer commute, since as a big lover of the environment I didn't want to waste gas.

Fair enough.

[raygundan]

I tried to be clear, but it's not coming across. I'm not suggesting that a car with four seats works for families of five who ride together. That's obviously not true. I'm not suggesting that folks who routinely tow a trailer or a boat can get by with a subcompact. Nor would I make the dubious claim that someone who lives in the country where the roads aren't plowed shouldn't have a vehicle capable of getting them to a hospital/drugstore/bar in an emergency in winter.

*All* I pointed out is that home construction projects are feasible with small cars. Deliveries and rentals are not expensive, and a thoughtfully planned project will only need one. Particularly when you compare them to the cost difference between a pickup and a civic. It seems like people can't justify paying a delivery or rental fee now and then, when the alternative is paying significantly more every month for your car loan and fuel whether you use it or not.

Like you said... utility is handy. But it seems awfully expensive compared to just getting things delivered.

Re:Fair enough.

[boarder]

In a whacked out world where every delivery is done by one truck and that truck is then thrown away, they don't compare well at all. Unfortunately for your stupid argument, that isn't how it works. You see, in the real world that truck makes several deliveries every single day. So you have one truck making 1000 deliveries versus 1000 trucks making 1 delivery.

Even if we assume the delivery truck is horribly wasteful (which they typically are), his argument STILL holds that it would be better to rent a truck that one time you need it versus A) paying a higher car payment, and B) wasting gas driving that truck to the store.

Wow, the markets work? What a shocka!!

[otis wildflower]

Whoda thunkit, make gas more expensive and people use less of it. I'm shocked, shocked!

Here's hoping gas prices stay high so the poor stay off the road. Underinsured vehicles, poorly maintained jalopies and more traffic are not my idea of things I want to be around during my commute, so if gas were $4/gal and that reduced congestion I'd be a happy panda.

Let 'em take the bus!

For the Children

[toddhisattva]

They buy them because they need them to haul kids around, full stop.

So it's the childrens' fault!

People should not have kids.

So we can save the environment.

So the kids will have a nice place to live.

Wow, gas prices higher? Driving declines...

[robophobe]

Who'd a thunk it. Looks like economic forces are the best one's to encourage behaviour change. And fuel efficiency innovation too. This is a non-problem. Taxes? Why? Let's just wait until gas prices get high enough and then alternatives will appear. When market forces make it too painful to drive people will naturally drive less and seek cheaper alternatives.

"tax concessions"

[cascadingstylesheet]

>Take away the massive tax concessions that make these vehicles
>economical

What on earth does that even mean? Do you really think of taxing
something less as being a *gift*?

Maybe we should provide the *same* "tax concessions" on *all other*
vehicles, if you think it's such an important factor ...

Re:"tax concessions"

[toddestan]

No, he means that light trucks get taxed differently from cars - they get taxed less and they have to comply with less strict regulations. This means that cars and light trucks do not compete on an even playing field, the light trucks are artificially cheaper than they should be (that's why the large cars like the family station wagon from decades past don't exist anymore - they couldn't compete). I'm all for repealing the tax concessions for light trucks - let them compete on their own merits, and if you still want one you can pay the real price.

Re:"tax concessions"

[drsmithy]

What on earth does that even mean?

It means SUVs aren't subject to the same taxation structures as normal passenger vehicles. Hence they are relatively cheap to manufacturer and sell.

Maybe we should provide the *same* "tax concessions" on *all other* vehicles, if you think it's such an important factor ...

That could work as well.

Re:SUV vs Hybrid demand

[LunaticTippy]

I like the Toyota Echo I got for $10k that gets 40mpg. The equivalent now is the Yaris. It's fun to drive and surprisingly roomy. I can fit 5 large adults no problem, and it's tall enough for my 6'2" self to sit in the back. If they'd come out with a diesel 50mpg would be no problem.

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[operagost]

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....).

Holy crap! Imagine what would happen if a tractor-trailer were to try driving on a highway! Big trucks flipping all over the place! Maybe it would help if we put something over the wheels to keep them from touching barriers and guardrails. Hmm... call it a "fender."

Re:Americans CAN'T bicycle Much Less

[yarbo]

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

Re:Tax break!

[ryanov]

It's not a fair comparison. The Prius has/does a great many things that a cheap Scion xA does not.

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[doom]

hb253 wrote:

You obviously don't know the definition of wheelbase. FYI, it's the distance betweem the centerlines of the front and rear axles.

The definition on Wikipedia disagrees with you: "In automobiles, the wheelbase is the distance between the center of the front wheel, and the center of the rear wheel."; and also the phrase "wide wheelbase" is extremely common.

Also, your contention that vehicles flip over due to snagging on guard rails makes no sense. Can you point to any online sources that support your assumption?

It's discussed in the book "High and MIghty" by Keith Bradsher. If I get a chance maybe I'll do some web searches for you later (but you might try to do a few yourself, you know).

A reasonable question.

[raygundan]

Another reasonable question might be:

"How do the emissions from driving a pickup truck all the time compare to sending a delivery truck as needed and driving a small car the rest?"

or

"Is sending a delivery truck with deliveries for multiple people on a circular route with many stops more efficient than every individual driving to and from the store?"

or

"Is it more efficient to send a single flatbed then to make two or three trips with a pickup for large loads?"

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[doom]

doom wrote:

hb253 wrote:

You obviously don't know the definition of wheelbase. FYI, it's the distance betweem the centerlines of the front and rear axles.

The definition on Wikipedia disagrees with you: "In automobiles, the wheelbase is the distance between the center of the front wheel, and the center of the rear wheel."; and also the phrase "wide wheelbase" is extremely common.

Eeek. I mis-read the line I just quoted, it in fact does agree with you. My apologies.

In any case, the second point stands: the existance of a technical definition doesn't obviate the vernacular definition, and "wide wheelbase" (as opposed to "long wheelbase") is a pretty common term.

Depend

[Mark_MF-WN]

It depends entirely on what you are comparing those numbers to. If the figure in question increases by an average of 10% each year, 0.3% is most definitely NOT noise. Interpretation is the big thing here. How do these figures compare to the average rate of change of American driving?

Also, you don't really know how good their precision was. If they actually tracked 1000 people over the course of a year, and read off their odometers, their precision would be quite high. 1000 randomly selected subjects is a great sample size, and the data itself would have precision to within a single mile. It's unfortunate that they don't provide more of their data and calculations, but it is just a mass-media news blip. It's not as if they pretend that the article is in fact a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Being critical is great, but sense is required. Being that critical of a story in Reuters suggests that you are taking the story way too seriously to begin with. Save the calls for in-depth analysis for genuinely important sources of information, like scientific research or your shareholders' reports. Reuters is barely more than cheap entertainment.

Re:Some insightful, some clueless comments (as usu

[lavaface]

The original owner couldn't keep up the payments for some reason.

maybe they didn't have any money? :P

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[Blkdeath]

In any case, the second point stands: the existance of a technical definition doesn't obviate the vernacular definition, and "wide wheelbase" (as opposed to "long wheelbase") is a pretty common term.

That would be "long wheelbase" and "wide track", FWIW.

why is it that

[agenthitt]

Why is it that people tell me I need to get a smaller vehicle just because I drive an SUV? I'm tired of that crap from people who really don't know why I have it. Most every week I pull a trailer 400 miles, then bring another one back (usually these are near full). Try doing that with a hybrid. It doesn't happen as much around these parts as it used to but when we get a big snowstorm I attach a plow (provided by my local city), help clear some of the streets so those *other* cars can get out. Then I use the plow to clear off local parking lots (many for free, mostly non-profit groups and religious institutions). The city lets me and a few others do this because we are helping them out as well. I also help out quite a few people that are stuck, I do this for free, attach a chain to the appropriate part of their car and pull them out. And still people complain that I drive an SUV (sometimes right after I pull them out of a jam... can you believe it?) How many of those that complain that I drive an SUV go camping. I go at least once a month, be it camping in a camp site, or maybe some no trace camping while backpacking. I try to get at least a week long trip in the woods two or three times a year (don't always succeed...). Many of the places I go if you use a lesser vehicle such as a minivan, or god-forbid a hybrid, well good luck to ya, I'll see ya when I get back... I go year round, summer in the heat, winter in the cold and often snow. When its warm out I do ride a motorcycle. Because so much of what I do is so dependent on my SUV it is happening less and less now a days. To bad, as the ride on the motorcycle is so relaxing. (and the fuel millage is so much better than any car out there, but thats not why I ride it...) And because I drive an SUV people want to raise my taxes on gas. No consideration that its needed for one of my jobs, no consideration that I help the community I live in for a very small stipend (more like volunteer work) when the roads get bad. No consideration that some of the other things I do I couldn't do without it. I should start complaining back to people who complain to me (especially the ones I've just helped out...)

Re:Some insightful, some clueless comments (as usu

[sgtrock]

Hehe. I'll agree that there a lot of fools on the road in this state and a LOT of them drive SUVs. Many of them seem to think that they're invulnerable behind the wheel of a 4x4. I'd argue, though, that they'd end up in the ditch regardless of what they were driving.

Given the choice, I'll always take a 4x4 in bad weather conditions. Generally, I don't use the second axle as the extra ground clearance in my truck gets me above most of the real trouble. However, when it's really slick and/or the snow is deep I'd far rather have power to both axles. Gentle acceleration and engine braking is a lot easier then. (That's why I prefer a manual over an automatic, btw. Engine braking with most automatics just isn't as easy to control as it is with a clutch and 5 gears to work with.)

I'll also note that I tend to keep lots of space between me and the vehicle in front of me so I don't get surprised nearly as often as the the tailgaters. :)

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[doom]

Blkdeath wrote:

In any case, the second point stands: the existance of a technical definition doesn't obviate the vernacular definition, and "wide wheelbase" (as opposed to "long wheelbase") is a pretty common term.

That would be "long wheelbase" and "wide track", FWIW.

Yes, "wide track width" appears to be the technical term in the automotive engineering world.

Re:Some insightful, some clueless comments (as usu

[Nimey]

Have you looked at AWD cars like Subarus or Audis? Always power to all four wheels and there's three differentials so that if only one tire has traction, the power goes to that wheel. Plus being cars they'll handle better than an SUV or pickup.

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[doom]

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.

Okay, let's check my memory of Bradsher's "High and Mighty" (2002). Here's some quotes, from pages 153-156 (trade paper, 2003 edition published by publicaffairs):

Federally funded tests have found that SUV drivers can face disaster if they strike a glancing blow at high speed against a guardrail with a top edge at 26 inches or lower. The rail can either "trip" the vehicle, causing it to roll over, or may even fail to keep the SUV on the road at all.

Even when guardrails are high enough to prevent vehicles from going over the top, their design poses special risks for SUVs. The problem, once again, is that SUVs are designed for off-road driving and have the wheels placed differently from car wheels.

The SUV's front wheels are close to the front of the vehicle with very little of the vehicle's structure in front of them so that they can climb up and over large rocks, or handle the transition from flat ground to a steep incline.

The problem, according to researchers at the Texas Transportation Institute, is that guradrails work best when they interact with a vehicle's metal structure. Problems arise when one of a vehicle's wheels gets far enough under the guardrail to snag the pillar holding up the rail. Since the pillars are virtually unbreakable, a snagged wheel either rips off or, if it stays on, achors that corner of the vehicle to the pillar while the rest of the vehicle swings around. In both cases, a rollover is likely.

SUVs were involved in fatal crashes with guardrails at a rate 20 percent higher than the typical vehicle. That is a surprisingly high number, because heavier vehicles usually protect their occupants better in guardrail crashes ...

SUV design is also changing in ways that may make this problem worse, not better. To reduce the risk of rollovers during everyday driving and improve overall vehicle stability, automakers have been mounting SUV wheels wider on new models. On some of the best-selling new models, like the 2002 Ford Explorer and Chevrolet vehicle, with very little metal in front of them.

So there you have it. I'd only give myself a B for memory on this one, I was pretty close, but not dead-on -- not too bad for a book I haven't looked at in years, I suppose.

• text of an interview with Brasher
• Review of 'High and Mighty'

Re:Some insightful, some clueless comments (as usu

[sgtrock]

Yep, I have. My Dad owned a Subaru for years. Nice little vehicles.

I've never seen one with the kind of miles on it that I've got on my truck, though. The other gotcha with them is the lack of carrying capacity and towing capability. They're just too small for what I use my truck for.

Re:Parking ...

[redcane]

Yes they do have parking sensors, hence why I was royally pissed when a fucktard in an X5 backed into my Holden Panelvan. For those not in the know, that is not a vehicle that is hard to spot. Unfortunately parking sensors don't make up for shit driving.

Re:One more time: SUVs are not safer for the drive

[doom]

See my my post above.

Re:Some insightful, some clueless comments (as usu

[toddestan]

I live in Minnesota too, and "needing" a 4x4 SUV or truck is a big misconception around here. Virtually all of my winter driving in inclement weather is not on snow covered roads, it's roads covered with packed snow or ice. There is no denying that a 4x4 is unbeatable in deep snow, but most of the time the plows have been busy, and fellow drivers have managed to keep the snow from piling up on the road (if not, chances are my destination is closed anyway!). On a slick surface, I would much rather have my FWD car than a 4x4 truck. Why? On a slick surface, the poorer handling of the large vehicle means you're more likely to get into trouble, the added mass means it'll take you longer to stop it and makes it harder to steer it, and the higher center of gravity means that once you get into trouble, it's more likely you'll end up on your side or roof. Combine this with the false sense of security that the SUV gives most people, and you have a recipe for disaster. It's no mystery to me why I'm always seeing SUVs and trucks wiped out on the side of the road anytime the weather gets too nasty. If you ask me, the absolute best vehicle for winter driving around here is an AWD car like a Subaru.

sidewalk should be an option

[r00t]

If your idea of fun is participating in the Tour de France, then yeah, you belong on the road.

I sure do NOT belong on the road. I'm wicked slow compared to you people. I can't accelerate decently. Drivers get frustrated and pissed off at me.

I've even been hit when trying to ride on the road. Nobody ever hit me on the sidewalk, nor have I ever hit anybody on the sidewalk.

Re:sidewalk should be an option

[recursiv]

I was hit twice in the same day riding on the sidewalk.

Average mileage of 13,600 to 13,200 miles in US?

[RockDoctor]

For comparison, before I got rid of my last car I was doing averages of under 8,000/year. That's 8 years ago, since when I've hired a car when I perceived a sufficient need (i.e. holidays).
Needless to say, the wife isn't even bothering to learn to drive. What use is it?

Use more compact cities, dudes!

Praise the Lord, then!

[gd23ka]

Landoverbaptist is a little different from your usual run of the mill ministry:
It's a (hilarious) parody site of one. If you didn't see that then I suppose
your intellect will be the last thing to get in the way of you getting "saved".
Rejoice, mentally innocous poster and Praise the Lord!!