Slashdot Mirror
Americans Drove Less in 2005
antifoidulus writes "CNN is reporting on a study that shows that not only did Americans buy more fuel efficient vehicles in 2005 (although sadly this trend reversed itself in the later half of 2006) but they also drove slightly less on average, according to the article, 'The drop in driving was small — the average American drove 13,657 miles (21,978.8 km) per year in 2005, down from 13,711 miles in 2004.' This is the first drop since the energy crisis of the late 70's. However, although SUV and mini-van sales have been falling, they still represent over half of the private vehicle sales in the United States."
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.
What state has a wide yellow license plate with no graphics? And what's the circular road sign with a red border?
'The drop in driving was small -- the average American drove 13,657 miles (21,978.8 km) per year in 2005, down from 13,711 miles in 2004.
This is what passes for a slashdot story these days? OMFG.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
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.
Based on the Edmunds 2006 buying guide for minivans, the average gas mileage they get is around 20/26. This is only slightly less than the 22/30 gas mileage that 4 door sedans get (the Civic throws this off, otherwise it'd be around 28). Obviously there are better vehicles for getting better gas mileage, but for people that want a little more space, have a family, or need to move larger objects once in a while, minivans aren't a bad option.
I personally drive a V8 crew cab pickup truck and even got a comment from a guy I used to work with about ruining the environment. Thing is, I work from home every day and as a result drive less than 4000 miles per year. I burn far less fuel than most hybrid owners, but still have to put up with their comments about what I choose to drive. You don't know people's driving habits, so it's really not fair to make generalizations about them.
Incidentally, while we didn't NEED a pickup truck, it did make sense for us since we're remodeling our house and landscaping during the summer. We tend to haul something at least a few times a month. Our only other options would be to rent a truck or borrow someone else's truck. It's also nice having a heavier vehicle during our Wisconsin winters.
Whenever vehicle stories come up on Slashdot, I read comments about how buying an SUV is all about showing off how much money you have, and that 99% of people don't need a truck. The fact is, anyone who owns a house and puts a decent amount of work into it or has a family with at least 2 kids will make use of the space in their vehicle. Hybrid SUV's are good alternatives, but the extra cost (initial + repairs) just turns people off to them right now.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
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.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
People are going out to less movies because of wait for it... PIRACY!!!
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I didn't know CNN did reporting.
The difference is so small that it's almost totally explained by 2004 being a leap year.
I agree wholeheartedly
I did the math and the difference is 0.3%. There's a word for that: statistical noise. It's a shame there's no one over at CNN with enough of a mathematical / scientific background to pick up on that and nix this story.
What's more is I don't trust the numbers themselves. Numbers like "13,657" and "13,711" imply a degree of precision, whereas "14 kilo-miles" (you guys should really switch to metric) does not. Given that there's no measurement error analysis I'm inclined to think these numbers are essentially the same.
In short, this is bullshit.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
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.
I did the math and the difference between the two figures are 0.3%.
I'm inclined also to say that's "Not a big difference" because I doubt their measurements have that kind of resolution. From that standpoint, "13,657" and "13,711" are essentially the same number. To the layman it might look like, "Hey, that means people are driving 54 fewer miles per year!" but anyone with a science background will look at that and say, "Pfft. That's statistical noise. Where's your error analysis?"
In short, these figures are no indication that people are actually driving less.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Parent:
Yeah, well, it's easy to drive less when you don't have a job to go to. (With link to bureau of labor and statistics)
Umm... Did you even read the site you linked to? Here are the latest numbers right on the front page. Spectacular numbers, all of them. People most certainly have jobs to go to. Probably just that more are working from home and driving less when on vacation.
Unemployment Rate:
History 4.4% in Oct 2006
Change in Unemployment Level:
History -238,000 in Oct 2006
Change in Employment Level:
History +437,000 in Oct 2006
Change in Civilian Labor Force Level:
History +199,000 in Oct 2006
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
Hi, Pot. I guess that was directed toward Kettle and I?
This year, I drove more than any year before. Mostly because I am sick of the potemkin security at the airports. Although I had to go through the ID song-and-dance to get my driver's license, that was a mostly one-time thing. So when I drive I am not on anyone's list. I buy my gas with cash and pay for the motel rooms with cash too. The only thing that gets me are the plate cameras at the tollbooths, and the cell towers when I leave my phone on.
I'm not paranoid. I don't think anyone is out to get me. But driving is the closest thing we have to feasible anonymous travel nowadays -- you need id to board a plane, you even need id to buy a train-ticket - even though the people who 'check' the id wouldn't know a forgery unless it had "FAKE" stamped across it in big red letters. And don't even think about walking a couple of thousand miles, that just isn't going to happen.
Osama bin Laden has turned this country into a nation of cowards. There is not much I can do about it, but at least I still have the luxury of opting out of the herd of sheeple.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
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.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Why are people suprised? higher prices means less car use. I even modelled this here.
But US prices are still relatively low. To fill up a 50 litre car with gas in the UK costs around £50, translating to about $90.
I think you need to hit £1.50 a litre ($145 to fill up) before you get mass behaviour changes though.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Here are some direct links to back it up:
Chart 1-2. The unemployment rate is down from its most recent peak in June 2003 (PDF)
Chart 1-6. The percentage of the population that is employed has trended up since September 2003 (PDF)
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
Americans are wasting a billion gallons of fuel per year by being so fat.
Lose some weight. It's good for you and it's good for the environment.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
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.
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.
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.
My SUV gets better mileage than most sedans. A lot of the near luxury sport sedans and coupes average BELOW 20mpg and yet hardly anyone points them out.
People harp about SUV driving people forget the big picture. At least for most of us one car is going to be a SUV or VAN. Someone has to have the "family" car - the hauler. Sure it would be nice to have an extra "commuter" vehicle but with prices today and insurance that isn't practical. So someone gets the SUV/MV etc. Your bound to see us solo in it, thats going to happen.
Outside of Civics and similar vehicles (hybrids don't count - I think they are a joke) that get 35+ easily on small gasoline engines I only see diesels as a viable alternative. I have seen Euro 300s with diesels that average 27mpg, not the 20 or so the gas versions get.
So next time you see that SUV plowing down the road and get your eco-fits going, realize that many of the near luxury sedans that are so very popular today are getting as bad if not worse mileage.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"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.
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.
The following isn't an attempt to flame you, it's simply my own point of view. I don't regard a house in suburbia as a birth right, more as a necessity. Much as I would like to live relatively close to where I work, I would have to pay extortionate housing prices if I realized that ambition. I therefore bought an apartment that isn't even in the city suburbs but in a nearby township and I bought it because it had a low price-tag due to the distance it is from the city center and from the nearest mass transit access node. I ride an old mountain bike (which I fixed up and is in good nick but looks so ugly nobody has bothered to steal it so far) to the nearest station and ride a train to work. I do this as much to get a good dayly workout as I do it to save myself the not incosiderably costs of owning a car. I do agree with you that a family in Europe or N-America, living in the suburbs, needs at least one car. However, from my point of view, if I have to buy a car, the choice will be governed by fuel economy and low operating costs as much as anything else. If I ever get married I will buy some sort of fuel efficient 5 door hatchback for the wife and kids but I'll be damned if I buy a gas guzzling Mini-van and an SUV for myself to commute to work I'll stick with my bike. If I absolutely have to buy a second car for myself to commute to work I will buy some small fuel efficient car or a hybrid when they become affordable. I simply have a score of other things I'd like to spend my money on rather than automobile fuel bills.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
No, because that would be basically impossible without massive and expensive privacy invasion by the government (mandatory GPS tracking, anyone?) And besides, what's the advantage, emissions-wise? With regard to road maintenance, etc. well that is called a toll road.
Comparitively, tax on gas is simple and as an added benefit encourages the development of vehicles with better fuel economy. Compare the sort of vehicles generally driven in Europe (with high gas tax) to those in the US. Your average car in Europe will have far better MPG figures. Throw in some sort of tax break at the point of purchase linked to low emissions and that's not a bad system.
In the US, only Mercedes is trying to get educate the crowds in the advantages of Diesel fuel. In Europe, Diesel is actually popular, but in the US there is a stereotype that Diesel means slow and sluggish. I've recently visited the autos.yahoo.com website and I was completely baffled by the comments over there. Everyone seems to be surprised by the great fuel economy that the Mercedes-Benz 320 CDI offers and also the incredible acceleration on a highway. In Europe this would be taken for granted.
Let's take another car right now: the Honda Accord. In Europe it also has a Diesel option with the following fuel economy values: Hwy-53 mpg, City-33 mpg. It delivers 140 bhp with an immense torque of 340nm and a maximum speed (in the manual) of 136 mph. Should be taken into consideration that the values for Hwy in Europe are generally taken at a speed of 80mph, which is the recommended or imposed maximum speed on highways in most of Europe. Considering that in the US it ranges between 65 and 75, the values could be better for highway. The same applies for city values. European cities tend to be a lot more crowded and the traffic to be a lot worst than that of a US city (San Francisco does resemble an European city somewhat due to it's smaller streets and it's hills).
Our car is a Renault Megane (Renault is the "other half" of the Renault-Nissan corp.). It has a *1.5*L diesel Engine (3 year old engine) that delivers 110 bhp with an imense torque. It's mpg at 100mph on a hwy is 42 as reported by the on-board computer. That gives-it a 600+ miles range on one diesel fuel fill (15 gallons) at a higher than legal speed. If you only drive legally on hwy (less than 80mph), you could actually cross Europe on one or two fills.
Even more surprising is that the engines that are found in the US have worst performance in any given aspect than the European ones for the same volume. In Europe, for a 2L Gas Engine you can get 200 bhp at some manufacturers.
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
I thought that just more americans became to fat to fit in a car :-P
More cheap gas for me and my SUV. :-D
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Um, I think I may be responsible for these new statistics. About 18 months ago, my daughter made some remark about the extra few pounds I've put on in the last couple of years and I pulled out my beautiful old road bike and started riding the 25km to work every day.
I live in Chicago, and the weather here can sometimes be inhospitable to cycling, but I decided I was going to ride every day if possible. I didn't realize the enormous benefits I'd reap. Yeah, I lost the few pounds and got into better shape, and my health has improved. I smoke a lot less (I don't smoke in the house, so my car was an ashtray). I tried smoking and cycling for a while, but I caught my reflection in a store window and realized I looked stupider than usual with a cigarette hanging out of my mouth, pedaling along.
And yeah, I've saved a ton of cash. We have another vehicle my wife uses, so I went ahead and sold my car. I've bought a new Core 2 Duo based Digital Audio Workstation and midi keyboard with just a little of what I saved from the car, gas, maintenance and insurance.
But the real benefit was the 90 minutes (45 each way) that I spend on the bike instead of in traffic every day. For that hour and a half every day I'm like a child, blasting Stooges or Buzzcocks or Muddy Waters or whatever in my earbuds and checking out what's actually going on in my city. Dodging SUVs and not thinking about much of anything.
I spent a few hundred on really warm and dry clothes and stuff, and the weather really doesn't bother me at all any more. Today it's 26 degrees F and freezing rain, and in a few minutes (it's 6:30am here) I'll be on the road, comfortable under my North Face shell, rocking out to some Clash or whatever, singing at the top of my lungs.
It's been a revelation. I'm probably a little less than at the middle of my lifespan (unless I get hit by a bus on Ashland Avenue this morning) and giving up the car for the bike has been one of the greatest things that has ever happened to me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
..(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'.
I figured it was because we were stuck in traffic longer and so we had less time to drive.
Wouldn't hours driven be a more important figure than miles driven? Especially when you take into account major urban areas with severe traffic problems.
What?
Sir, you have what is potentially the worst grammar and spelling of any person on slashdot.
I tip my hat to you.
People move away from the city to raise a family. Most people can't afford to raise children in or just outside the city while ensuring they grow up in a safe environment. Until you can make American cities child friendly (good luck), it's not going to work.
In the 1970s, car seats were small and compact. In the 1970s, pre FMLA, there was no generally accepted 3 month maternity leave, so normally really small kids had their mother at home.
In the 1970s, airbags didn't make it dangeous for kids under a certain age/weight to right in the front seat.
In the 1970s, carseats could ride in the front OR back... now it is back only, and facing backwards with little kids.
In the 1970s, putting a carseat in the back-middle didn't block the two seats on the side, now it will.
The fact is, the car manufacturers and child safety manufacturers have adapted to A) a change in the legal requirements, B) more litigation, causing car seats to be slightly safer, but 85% of them are installed incorrectly, so they are on average less safe for the kids, but safer from law suits, C) adapt to a decrease in family size.
In the 1970s, 3 kids was normal. In the 1980s and 1990s, 2 kids was normal. Although family sizes are inching back up, anyone with 3 or 4 children will struggle with current cars unless getting a mini-van.
Alex
The following post has little real direction. More my random thoughts than anything organized.
:)
/not/ a luxury item here. Before you ask, no, front wheel drive is not sufficient to meet all conditions. Having traction on that second axle has helped me out more times than I can count, and I spend 95+% of my time in commuter traffic.
:) )
:) For another, I love to spend time in the woods, hiking, hunting, and fishing. Having an old 4x4 1/2 ton pickup means that I can get back into the brush a ways while towing a trailer or boat without worrying about it getting scratched up, also knowing that I can get myself back out again. This truck also acts as the family hauler for everything from trips to Goodwill to moving my sisters to you name it.
;)
:( Anyone know of something something like my dream vehicle in the works from anyone?
People here on Slashdot slam SUVs and minivans out of hand, which I find unfortunate. I'll grant you that there are plenty of people who buy these larger vehicles who really don't need one. There are places and times when they are absolutely an appropriate choice, though. For example, ever see a soccer mom trying to jam 5 or 6 kids into a Honda Civic after practice?
Someone else also commented that people with varied and complex lifestyles may choose these vehicles in order to meet all of their needs with a single vehicle. Many families (like mine, for example) might have one smaller and one larger vehicle.
I don't pretend to speak for everyone in the US, but I think I can shed some light on why SUVs are popular in my neck of the woods. I live in Minnesota, where we have rotten driving conditions seven months a year. 4x4s are most definitely
Personally, I don't own an SUV. I own a ten year old 4x4 Ford 1/2 ton extended cab pickup with the small gasoline V8 and 5 speed manual transmission. I bought it used back in '96. It had been on the road for 6 months and already had 12,000 miles on it. The original owner couldn't keep up the payments for some reason.
It now has nearly 235,000 miles on it. I've gone through one transmission replacement, but I'm still on the original engine and clutch. (What can I say? Dad taught me how to shift by paraphrasing that old TV show, _Kung_Fu_: "You must drive as if shifting on rice paper. You have learned how to do it well when the paper is not torn."
Why do I drive it? Well, for one it's been paid off for nearly 7 years.
Granted, with the number of miles that are on it I'll need to think about getting it replaced in a couple of years. About that time it'll have close to 300,000 miles on the engine, after all. I think I'll have gotten my money's worth out of it.
My dream replacement vehicle would be another 1/2 ton extended cab pickup or 1/2 ton SUV with a manual transmission. My engine choice would either be diesel or a hybrid for the improved mileage. Unfortunately, hardly anyone seems to know how to drive stick shifts any longer so none of the big 3 even offer a manual in a 1/2 ton anymore. Also, in this country diesels aren't being offered in anything smaller than a 3/4 ton pickup and hybrids are only now being offered in 1/4 ton SUVs.
It's just that the SUVs got so big that there's less distance from point A to point B.
Cheers!
There isn't one.
The only "advantage" of the Mileage tax is that it fills the emotional need of those who don't understand the basic economics of the situation to "punish" the perceived wrongdoers, those who drive SUV's and drive alot. It's an emotional thing, grounded in no logic and even less practical economics, like most wacky Liberal ideas.
Yeah, yeah, that was kind of a trollish comment to make. I admit it. That doesn't make it amy less true though.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
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.
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.
"I wouldn't mind seeing a few asshole SUV drivers crushed by a big rig."
I have....wish I hadn't. A semi ran a red light going 65-ish and t-boned (if you can call it that) an Ford. Dead on impact IIRC.
"Quite a few men and women have tried to push my Focus arround while driving their SUVs, whether due to sheer ignorance or impotent rage, I cannot say."
I drive a little ford as well! (hi there fellow small ford driver!) And I know exactly what your talking about. Then I realize hey my car is worth $2000, they're in a shiny new $30,000 SUV that they owe money on. If they hit me I'm pretty much getting a new car, on their tab. Do what they like, as long as I don't think they're being reckless enough to kill me, I just ignore their aggressiveness.
"Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
Then ride a unicycle. It's a little harder for commuting (it's rare to find one with gears), but your hands are free.
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.