 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / May 2006Mad Against Distracted Drivers (MADD) on Cell Phones
"Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find out, Adam and Kari head to a local raceway to try their hand at driving a skills course, first, while being distracted on a cell phone, and then after knocking back a couple of rounds of beers." Mythbusters, on Discovery Channel, has recently proven that Distracted Drivers on Cell Phones are more dangerous than Drunk Drivers by a long shot (even if it is straight rum), and yet MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) ignores the problem, the way our government does. While smiling drivers proudly chat away behind the wheel of their massive SUVs, we feel terrorized and MAD about all the hypocrisy surrounding the issue. But, of course, you must understand it's all part of a larger issue... I'm adding my thoughts here to something I came across: "In a society where truth is so camouflaged and avoided," the li-on hunter (read lie hunter) is the most honest profession. Do we need a new acronym, MADD-CP? WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is > potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > shot (even if it is straight rum), and yet MADD (Mothers Against Drunk > Drivers) ignores the problem, the way our government does. Interesting topic, but I remain skeptical w/ its findings. How does "danger" get measured? Can Adam's and Kari's results be generalised to all cell-phone drivers? Cheers, Carl Rogers ----------------- Calrog.com, Pictures of Highway Shields: http://hwy-shields.calrog.com Highway Shield & Travel Literature: http://www.lulu.com/calrog-bookstore Lemme guess...Adam and Kari are 300 lb heavy weights who drink nightly, so a few rounds of drinks isn't going to affect them one bit. Even for normal weight people, a 'few rounds' may mean just 2 or 3 beers, and probably won't put them over the limit. I would also question the course - I seem many people on cell phones, even in NJ where it's illegal, and I don't see many people leaving the lane or acting like they are drunk. If anything, most often I see someone going slower than normal - which means maybe doing about the speed limit rather than 10 over. > Lemme guess...Adam and Kari are 300 lb heavy weights who drink nightly, > so a few rounds of drinks isn't going to affect them one bit. No, they are lightweights. > Even for normal weight people, a 'few rounds' may mean just 2 or 3 > beers, and probably won't put them over the limit. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > someone going slower than normal - which means maybe doing about the > speed limit rather than 10 over. Probably Driving Under Phone Influence is even worst than DUI because, being legal, you don't know the danger you put others into. But hey, they can always get a larger SUV the way you did, right? > Lemme guess...Adam and Kari are 300 lb heavy weights who drink nightly, > so a few rounds of drinks isn't going to affect them one bit. Nope. Adam is a fairly normal (physically) 30-something guy and Kari is seriously HAWT. One good reason to watch TV these days. > Even for normal weight people, a 'few rounds' may mean just 2 or 3 > beers, and probably won't put them over the limit. Limit or not, Car & Driver magazine did the 'drinking' test a number of years ago. They diligently tested (with the help of a local police Breathalyzer) 20 minutes after each drink and then ran slalom (and other?) maneuverability courses. One drink, surprisingly, made for *better* times - presumably because their normal 'cone avoidance' reaction was slightly inhibited. After that, it was all downhill. In the end, after a number of drinks, no one actually exceeded the 0.10% BAC level, but they were roaring drunk and one yakked on the way home. > I would also question the course - I seem many people on cell phones, > even in NJ where it's illegal, and I don't see many people leaving the > lane or acting like they are drunk. If anything, most often I see > someone going slower than normal - which means maybe doing about the > speed limit rather than 10 over. I haven't seen this episode yet. I'd expect it to be similar to the C&D test: some kind of maneuverability exercise that demands coordination and attention. It's really hard to test for going straight down the road. That, however, is not where the greatest hazards of cellphone use lie. I will *covertly* use my cellphone while driving down a highway when I'm not near any traffic - but that's just the point. Little attention is needed to go straight at a steady speed with no dangers arising nearby you. Unfortunately, the vast majority of cellphone-using drivers fails to make that distinction. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there, done that) > > "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is > > potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "danger" get measured? Can Adam's and Kari's results be generalised to all > cell-phone drivers? Well, not one, but they had TWO drivers drive a course and in the case of the phone asked them questions that made them THINK so they couldn't be paying much attention to driving, the way it routinely happens in phone conversations... 'Most of us are guilty of it, talking on our cell phones while driving. "I've caught myself sometimes not paying attention. I ran a stop sign before," says driver, Justin Waldie. Waldie uses his cell phone often and knows it can be distracting. "It causes a lot of wrecks," he says. "I've seen wrecks with people using their cell phones and not paying attention," says driver, Drew Cherry. That's why he tries to limit his cell phone use while on the road. "I need to talk to my parents and let them know that I'm coming home, in that case, I would use my cell phone," he says. "If you're talking on a cell phone or you're trying to monitor a radio, you're not paying attention to what's going on around you," says Albany Police Lt. Kenn Singleton. He says talking while driving can cost you. "It is a secondary law, a violation," says Singleton. And charges could follow, if you're involved in wreckless driving while on the phone. "The driver has due care. In other words, if a person driving the vehicle and has an accident this is going to be a secondary violation," he says. If you're going to use your phone, police say you should pull over first. As for Justin and Drew, both plan to do less talking. "I do feel guilty in the way I use my cell phone," says Cherry.' http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4695268&nav=5kZQ >> "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is >> potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Carl Rogers Dateline NBC did one of these with 6 or 7 people several years ago when we were just starting to hear noises about driving while using the cell phone, usually tacking it on as the second run of 7 or 8 runs where they get the drivers progressively more drunk or more drowsy on each run. The first run is done sober, the second sober with a cell phone, then they go into the drunk or drowsy phases. The results showed that, if the cell phone conversation was pretty much mindless drivel that didn't need much attention to stay with, the drivers didn't have too much problem driving the course. As the conversation became more thought intensive (such as mental number crunching) or went into more passionate topics to the driver, the drivers performed worse with results similar to the middle runs of the drunk or drowsy phases of the test. The drivers picked up that no-eye-movement, glassy-eyed stare indicating that little more than the 'autopilot' was driving the car. Anything that involved additional use of the hands such as note-taking or dialing the phone produced even worse results. Having a hands-free phone didn't seem to produce much better results. There are probably more scientific tests out there by now.  Signature--Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways -------------------------------------------------- >> "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is >> potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Carl Rogers I certainly appreciate your skepticism. That being said, I remember an incident when a proverbial "soccer mom" was palming the wheel of her Suck-U-V, taking a turn close, and yapping on a cell phone as she turned a corner and almost hit me. I was well behind the stop line. The bitch gave *ME* a dirty look. Rule #1 Hit me while you are gassing on your cell phone and you a have 48 hours to change your name, move, and join the witness protection program. After that I'll burn your f.cking house down with you in it. Rule #2 See rule #1 Your address will come from the police report. BTDT. > donquijote1954: > Mythbusters, on Discovery Channel, has recently proven that Distracted > Drivers on Cell Phones are more dangerous than Drunk Drivers by a long > shot (even if it is straight rum), and yet MADD (Mothers Against Drunk > Drivers) ignores the problem, the way our government does. Of course. MADD is just another bunch of hypocrites much like our government. After they do their silly little rallies, they probablly get into their vehicle to go home and first thing they do is to plaster the cell phone to their ear. They won't go after cell phone drivers because then *they* would be in the cross hairs. > > donquijote1954: > > Mythbusters, on Discovery Channel, has recently proven that Distracted [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cell phone to their ear. They won't go after cell phone drivers because > then *they* would be in the cross hairs. When you see someone picking up on just *one* issue, when we are falling prey to many problems, WE CAN SUSPECT HYPOCRISY. Or we can suspect the lawyers' invisible hand to be at play since they make big bucks in every case, accident or not. Nowhere in their website though I see any mention of distracted drivers, which are the true menace and terror on our roads because probably STUPID DRIVERS OUTNUMBER DRUNK DRIVERS 10 TO 1. Of course, drunk drivers can also be stupid --like when they drink too much-- but that's another issue. http://madd.com >> > donquijote1954: >> > Mythbusters, on Discovery Channel, has recently proven that Distracted [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >http://madd.com Have you tried having a dialogue with them about it? Ben > >Of course, drunk drivers can also be stupid --like when they drink too > >much-- but that's another issue. > > > >http://madd.com > > Have you tried having a dialogue with them about it? I have used other methods: common sense. You could be a threat to anyone when you are drunk, but you may relatively safe with a "few drinks." A case in point is when I was driving a car with a few drinks but other driver cut me off in slow motion, like saying, "Outta my way." Well, I had to yield to his stupidity because *I* would have been in trouble if I excersized my rigtht of way. So the Law of the Jungle prevailed one more time... Making drunk driving illiegal has little effect on alcohol sales. Making cell phone use illegal while driving eats into cell phone company profits-- thus it's not criminalized nor publicized as a terrible thing on a par with drunk driving. That's just another thing you have to live with when you live in an oligarchy like the U.S. > Making drunk driving illiegal has little effect on alcohol sales. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's just another thing you have to live with when you live in an > oligarchy like the U.S. Yep, that's the way it is in the jungle, I mean in a hierarchal system where size matters, size being measure by money. Everything else is CAMOUFLAGE... ;) That's the title of this interesting article that leaves you wondering, when are we going to put the dinosaur on a diet? I know he refuses, but that's only because he's as stupid. So should the diet be forced upon him by a $7 gallon, or will he awake in time before the next asteroid hits earth? Well, I dunno... What's the answer? We need to go on diet: "It's true that there is no silver bullet that will entirely solve America's energy problem, but there is one that goes a long way: more-efficient cars. If American cars averaged 40 miles per gallon, we would soon reduce consumption by 2 million to 3 million barrels of oil a day. That could translate into a sustained price drop of more than $20 a barrel. And getting cars to be that efficient is easy. For the most powerful study that explains how, read "Winning the Oil Endgame" by energy expert Amory Lovins (or go to oilendgame.com). I would start by raising fuel-efficiency standards, providing incentives for hybrids and making gasoline somewhat more expensive (yes, that means raising taxes). http://moderaterepublican.blogspot.com/2005/08/when-you-drive-suv-you-drive-with.html Of course, I'd throw the bicycle among the options to be had in a post-dinosaur world, since they are cheap and make you healthy, and, of course, because then riding a bicycle won't be as suicidal as an ant walking among the dinosaurs... EVOLVE OR ELSE! Once upon a time lived a race of dinosaurs whose violence and appetite alarmed everybody... One day a Little Ant, tired of feeling stepped upon, and worried about her cooperative enterprise, came up to the Americanus Raptor--the biggest dinosaur of them all--and asked: "Why you eat and eat everything in your path? Why don't you slim down? Why can't we little animals at least have our own way?" Then the dinosaur, blowing the Little Ant away, shouted: "Bigger is better, so get lost!" The Little Ant, then, gathered the whole cooperative and said: "Comrades, our world is being threatened by the dinosaurs, so..." And at that precise moment the Earth was hit by a big ball of fire, destroying all but the small animals... Moral: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles Darwin > What's the answer? We need to go on diet: > > "It's true that there is no silver bullet that will entirely solve > America's energy problem, but there is one that goes a long way: > more-efficient cars. If American cars averaged 40 miles per gallon, ... If we had the same population we had in say 1960 there would be no reason to give up big fast powerful cars and live like Europeans or NYers, cheek to jowel with our neighbor, smelling each others' farts. The only reason to do that is so stupid people can keep on breeding like cockroaches. Don't blame the person in an SUV, blame the stupid SOB who had 3 or more kids. (S)he's the one who got us into this fix. > > What's the answer? We need to go on diet: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > an SUV, blame the stupid SOB who had 3 or more kids. (S)he's the one who got us > into this fix. Well, the Indians would have taken eons to get where we are, so the European arrivals are to be considered undesirable rabbits. A 40MPG car can still be a lot of fun. Many cars in Europe get that mileage, which when coupled with stick shift, are far more fun than, say, a 200 hp Toyota Camry. Some even have an American badge. The question being, why on earth is not available in America if they are good for the Germans and others and we are in the era of globalization? Could it be that that the dinosaur is afraid of competition? GM Opel Corsa Over the years, the Corsa has become one of the best selling cars around the world, changing its name, body style, suspension, or engines depending on whether it is sold to Europeans, Brazilians, Indians, or South Africans. After impressive worldwide sales of the first two Corsa model generations, the current model line, introduced in the fall of 2000, has now boosted total Corsa output to more than 11 million cars.1 Over a half million Corsas are expected to be produced each year, which constitutes an eighth of GM's entire world output.2 The Corsa is one of the most successful models in GM Opel's history since it was introduced in 1993. In addition to receiving over twenty international design awards, the Corsa has been Europe's top-selling small car since 1994. Corsa has held sales leadership positions in Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Portugal. GM Europe's past President, Louis Hughes, called Corsa "the right car for the right time because it combines the fuel economy of a small car with roominess, comfort and safety of a larger automobile."3 This small car is sold in approximately 80 countries and manufactured in 16 plants on five continents. [...] Trade barriers are breaking down all around the world, allowing the shipment of vehicles almost anywhere. However, some requirements for local content and some trade barriers drove GM to establish Corsa assembly facilities around the world. A lot of local sourced content was added in the various regions in order to reduce cost. Overall, common customer needs for a small car in conjunction with the stable product designs that dominate the mature stage of the Corsa's product lifecycle have made it easier to use global manufacturing. 8 http://globaledge.msu.edu/NewsAndViews/views/papers/0027.pdf OK, still reading "It's No Accident," but in disagreement with SPEED as a major factor in accidents, and about the implementation of SPEED GOVERNORS. We don't need speed governors if we move toward Opel Corsa style cars, with small engines. The limitatation would be in the HP given by the small engine (say 1 liter), not in any mandated ridiculous speed set by Big Brother that would, say, limit a Porsche to 65 MPH... These smaller cars could be sold with stick shift only, and for a small price (say $8,000) would sell like a crazy. Those who don't drive stick shift, you know, retired... What is ridiculous is those overpowered, oversized vehicles like SUVs coupled with an automatic transmission and undertrained drivers. Those who receive training and get a special license though could still squezee the juice from their Porsches or GTIs in the fast lane. Pity the author of that book doesn't even acknowledge the fast lanes, and probably ignores that English roads while faster are safer than America's. Anyway, here are the specs for the Opel Vauxhall Agila... "The Agila Design comes with a 1.2i 16v engine and a host of comfort and convenience features including air-conditioning and a stereo radio/CD player." (look picture how cute) http://www.vauxhall.co.uk/vx/carsandvans/brandcarhub.do?method=loadBrandHubCarPa ge&vehicleType=C&scope=S&brandName=agila Hey, you'll say, "It'll never happen in America," but anyway this is a project for another land where the Banana Revolution will take place. Not to be confused with the Banana Republic we got in America though... ;) > OK, still reading "It's No Accident," but in disagreement with SPEED as > a major factor in accidents, and about the implementation of SPEED [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > small engine (say 1 liter), not in any mandated ridiculous speed set by > Big Brother that would, say, limit a Porsche to 65 MPH... Small cars like the Corsa are perfectly capable of high speeds. Graham >Small cars like the Corsa are perfectly capable of high speeds. Somebody needs to explain that to all the PriuSloth owners... SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > >Small cars like the Corsa are perfectly capable of high speeds. > > Somebody needs to explain that to all the PriuSloth owners... Hybrids don't impress me very much. Something of a song and dance about nothing - it seems like they're playing to the gallery. Small diesel cars here can easily get 70 UK mpg today and are simple and inexpensive. Graham >> >Small cars like the Corsa are perfectly capable of high speeds. >> >> Somebody needs to explain that to all the PriuSloth owners... I've actually seen some (about 2) of those move about as good as I could get out of the torqueless wonder car. So, it's the driver, not the machine. > Hybrids don't impress me very much. Something of a song and dance > about nothing - it seems like they're playing to the gallery. Small > diesel cars here can easily get 70 UK mpg today and are simple and > inexpensive. Yep. As of now the hybrid isn't cost effective. It's much more cost effective to buy a conventional vehicle of the same size with an economy drivetrain. > >> >Small cars like the Corsa are perfectly capable of high speeds. > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > effective to buy a conventional vehicle of the same size with an economy > drivetrain. I can't really see how a hybrid can ever be cost competitive with so many extra bits required ! Graham > I can't really see how a hybrid can ever be cost competitive with so many extra > bits required ! Nor even energy efficient with all the conversions they entail. >>> >Small cars like the Corsa are perfectly capable of high speeds. >>> >>> Somebody needs to explain that to all the PriuSloth owners... > >I've actually seen some (about 2) of those move about as good as I could >get out of the torqueless wonder car. So, it's the driver, not the machine. Isn't it always? As has been noted previously in this group, the Prius has this cool little LCD display in the dashboard that shows the driver in real time what's going on and how good the mileage is. I guess Prius drivers treat driving like sort of a video game, where their score is measured in MPG. Actually getting someplace is a secondary consideration. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > On 4/30/2006 11:44 PM ... Scott en Aztlán wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > treat driving like sort of a video game, where their score is measured > in MPG. Actually getting someplace is a secondary consideration. Are you saying that they don't typically arrive at their destinations? > > OK, still reading "It's No Accident," but in disagreement with SPEED as > > a major factor in accidents, and about the implementation of SPEED [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Small cars like the Corsa are perfectly capable of high speeds. I can see this is been hot while I've been away. Perhaps is about time I get a lap top, which, incidentally, are making their way into high end cars, so you can perfectly use the Internet while you drive in this land of "anything goes." But am I wondering off the subject? Perhaps... Anyway, a 1 liter Corsa, which is the first Corsa I drove in Spain 20 years ago, was a very capable car, fun to drive (compared with the Chevettes we had at the time in America), but they had their limit in the brute horsepower of the engine when negotiating a hill, and their skinny wheels reached their limit as well, and the whole car was telling you "enough" around 70 MPH. So such a car is the best insurance against speeding without getting into regulation. And, of course, while having fun. ;) > > > OK, still reading "It's No Accident," but in disagreement with SPEED as > > > a major factor in accidents, and about the implementation of SPEED [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > against speeding without getting into regulation. And, of course, while > having fun. ;) Well...... the only small car I've driven fast was an MG Metro ( 1.3 litre ) and I had that up to 115 mph once ! It's a tiny bit scary in a car that small though. Graham > Well...... the only small car I've driven fast was an MG Metro ( 1.3 litre ) > and I had that up to 115 mph once ! It's a tiny bit scary in a car that small > though. > > Graham I had one of those first Hondas, a 36hp two cylinder car, and at 70 mph felt like you were in Daytona. It was actually a lot of fun! > > Well...... the only small car I've driven fast was an MG Metro ( 1.3 litre > > ) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I had one of those first Hondas, a 36hp two cylinder car, and at 70 mph > felt like you were in Daytona. It was actually a lot of fun! I have four of those, and 70mph is no problem. The joy of 50+ mpg is only dampened by the lack of A/C and a tiny 5 gallon tank. Mike G. - > > > Well...... the only small car I've driven fast was an MG Metro ( 1.3 litre > > > ) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I have four of those, and 70mph is no problem. The joy of 50+ mpg is > only dampened by the lack of A/C and a tiny 5 gallon tank. Lucky you. I wished I had it now. It's a 600cc, not bigger than the average motorcycle. I guess the bureaucrats still hadn't figured out back then how to regulate those toys out of the market. Here it is... http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1972-MICROCAR-HONDA-600-SEDAN-PARTS-ONLY_W0QQitem Z4631382724QQcategoryZ6260QQcmdZViewItem > > > > Well...... the only small car I've driven fast was an MG Metro ( 1.3 litre > > > > ) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1972-MICROCAR-HONDA-600-SEDAN-PARTS-ONLY_W0QQitem Z4631382724QQcategoryZ6260QQcmdZViewItem Not unlike some baby Fiats. Graham > Not unlike some baby Fiats. Ever seen a Fiat Abarth Zagato Sprint Special? > > Not unlike some baby Fiats. > > > Ever seen a Fiat Abarth Zagato Sprint Special? I hadn't. Google found me a Fiat Abarth Zagato though. Cute. Graham > > > Not unlike some baby Fiats. > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Graham I don't America can ever produce a successful microcar like that. They may succeed at big ones and that's why we got SUVs. >> > > Not unlike some baby Fiats. >> > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I don't America can ever produce a successful microcar like that. "successful"? Whoosh. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer > >I don't America can ever produce a successful microcar like that. > > "successful"? Whoosh. Yeah, why not, the Fiat 600 carried millions of people around without boring them to death the way most American cars do. Stick shift, sunroof option, and dead cheap to boot. >> >I don't America can ever produce a successful microcar like that. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >boring them to death the way most American cars do. Stick shift, >sunroof option, and dead cheap to boot. That Fiat 600 was not the Abarth Zagato. The Abarth Zagato was a very small run vehicle. I'm sure it was a very fun machine that its owners probably loved (in spite of the fact it was a Fiat,) but it was hardly successful, compared to say, the MG, Triumph or Porsche. For that matter, while there were a bunch of Fiat 600s sold, they were also largely responsible for the Fix It Again Tony epithet. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer > I don't America can ever produce a successful microcar like that. They > may succeed at big ones and that's why we got SUVs. That's what Enzo said about GT cars. Made Ford mad. A year later GT-40s were eating his Ferraris alive. US industry can produce anything that the gummymint will permit. Americans wanted midsized sedans and station wagons like, say, the 1966 Chevelle (SP?) but NHTSA put a stop to such light roomy family cars and made Detroit produce dangerous underpowered minicars instead. So the public buys the next best thing -SUVs. > > I don't America can ever produce a successful microcar like that. They > > may succeed at big ones and that's why we got SUVs. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > dangerous underpowered minicars instead. So the public buys the next best > thing -SUVs. You assume that the public have the say in what they want at least partially, whether SUVs or the war in Iraq. I suspect though the public opinions and needs are manufactured. Well, you acknowledge that yourself in "US industry can produce anything that the gummymint will permit." So small efficient cars are not promoted, but SUVs are OKd by Big Brother. How many commercials you see of subcompact cars vs. SUVs? And that's the root of the problem... Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda. In countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite. It is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and formal censorship is absent. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html > You assume that the public have the say in what they want at least > partially, whether SUVs or the war in Iraq. I suspect though the public [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Big Brother. How many commercials you see of subcompact cars vs. SUVs? > And that's the root of the problem... I assume that because I lived in a time when it was much truer than today - when you could have gone to Europe and brought back a Ka, or anything else you wanted; when many people did just that. I doubt advertising is the problem. If car makers were running ads showing subcompacts being crushed by SUVs I might agree, but they are not. I've owned any number of different kinds of automobiles, from an economical Renault Dauphine (45mpg) to MGAs and MGBs (22-32mpg but alot more performance), to pick ups, vans and Cadillacs - even a GTO that could pull a tire off the ground on acceleration (12mpg). They don't make anything like the Renault or the MGs because the bumpers wouldn't pass new DOT rules. Ditto the real Minis (50mpg) and Coopers (somewhat less). Midsized (then) sedans that got 20mpg began getting 12 thanks to EPA. And whorehouses are still illegal in Montgomery Co. Md even tho a poll once showed over 70% of residents in favor of legalization. Why? Not because of the general public but because of small pressure groups lobbying lawmakers. They don't have to outlaw a certain car or type of car. Bumper regs effectively eliminate light cars like the Renault. EPA testing is so expensive, and each varient must be tested, that it limits the selection and thus keeps many cars out. That's prolly what happened to the ones you mentioned. Or maybe the tail light is an inch too high or low. So who's to blame? Ralph Nader and his buddies on the one hand, environmentalists on the other. Get a rope ...... > > You assume that the public have the say in what they want at least > > partially, whether SUVs or the war in Iraq. I suspect though the public [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you could have gone to Europe and brought back a Ka, or anything else you > wanted; when many people did just that. I guess America had freer trade before globalization... Funny, ah? SUVs have a winner's aura (equivalent to saying "I'm the King of the Jungle") and that makes people do anything to drive one. To top that off, many people buy them for their SIZE, as to be surrounded by as much steel as possible, when they negligently talk on the phone, etc and become an accident in the making. I doubt that people are that careless, say, in a stick-shift Ka. And I say stick shift because I doubt that it also has a bearing in whether you are connected to the road, or just become another distracted driver with a license to kill. > I doubt advertising is the problem. If car makers were running ads showing > subcompacts being crushed by SUVs I might agree, but they are not. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > So who's to blame? Ralph Nader and his buddies on the one hand, > environmentalists on the other. Get a rope ...... > I guess America had freer trade before globalization... Funny, ah? YES! Thanks to our DOT and EPA, we cannot have many cars and bikes that Euros and even Canadians are able to buy. For example, I lusted for a Suzi Gamma, but it didn't pass EPA regs so Suzi didn't import it into the USA. In 1960, I could have simply caught a plane to Canada, bought one, and rode it home. But no, if I "imported" one in 1980 or later I had to put up a bond equal to the price of the bike and sign up to have the bike approved by DOT and EPA certified inspectors within 30 days. Otherwise the gummymint kept my bond AND confiscated my bike. And guess what - there were NO certified inspectors for motorcycles! So much for globalization. > SUVs have a winner's aura (equivalent to saying "I'm the King of the > Jungle") and that makes people do anything to drive one. To top that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > doubt that it also has a bearing in whether you are connected to the > road, or just become another distracted driver with a license to kill. Hogwash! If the primary reason for owning an SUV were prestige, there would only be new ones on the road, instead of the countless older ones. My Grand Cherokee is 13 years old - hardly making me king. The prime reason IS size, not only for the added safety it offers but for the carrying capacity. And auto transmissions are one reason manufacturers are able to offer long warrantees. Fact is only a self-hating masochist would drive a stick shift Ka given any alternative - the same kind of person that whips his own back bloody. My ex had been raised in a strict southern baptist family and brainwashed to believe that any thing fun was bad. I quip that they avoided sex because it might lead to dancing. She had left the church but it never left her, poor woman. If she began having fun she'd subconsciously do something to bummer it. She fell in love with and bought a nice Z-27 Camero then hit every curb and pole she could find until the car became ugly. She would have liked a stick shift Ka. > > SUVs have a winner's aura (equivalent to saying "I'm the King of the > > Jungle") and that makes people do anything to drive one. To top that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > be new ones on the road, instead of the countless older ones. My Grand Cherokee > is 13 years old - hardly making me king. There are many reasons for buying an SUVs (perhaps as many for not buying one) but these reasons stand out. As you may see there's quite a bit of Napoleonic Complex... ;) "What this tells us is that people are not just buying SUVs because they are comfortable, but they are also buying them because it makes them feel more powerful in today's world. People gain power socially when they are seen driving one of these monsters, and they are always seen. People buy SUVs to gain power and dominate over nature. Advertisements for SUVs always show a pristine, untouched landscape vacant of any other human activity. SUVs have no place in these pictures, nor can they often even get to these places in real life; however, the advertisements make people believe that they can in fact conquer nature in their automobile. Being able to tame an untamed landscape makes people with inferiority complexes feel superior, but so does hiking into the same landscape successfully without damaging its surroundings. The consumer's belief in the SUV's reliability and power is based almost completely on an illusion. If advertisers told the truth about the safety and ability of their SUVs then they would not sell, and car companies need these to sell because they rely on the unusually large profits. People buy SUVs because they feel safe, or because THEY CAN BE MORE AGGRESSIVE ON THE ROAD, or in nature, and FEEL POWERFUL SOCIALLY or otherwise. The advent and popularity of the SUV can therefore tell us a great deal about consumers: that they are greatly misinformed or uninformed, and for the most part, quite insecure." http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/suv.htm > There are many reasons for buying an SUVs (perhaps as many for not > buying one) but these reasons stand out. As you may see there's quite [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when they are seen driving one of these monsters, and they are always > seen. People buy SUVs to gain power and dominate over nature. Oh, bullshit. I own an SUV (Jeep Liberty) so I can go places I can't go with other vehicles. Normally, I go places (like to work and back most days) on my R6. When my wife and I both go somewhere, we're usually on my FJR. If it's icy out, or I need more luggage capacity than the FJR, we're in my Miata. If we're exploring logging roads in the Cascades, or exploring dunes on the Pacific coast, we're in the Jeep. If we need to cart home something BIG from a store, we may also be in the Jeep. If we're crossing the mountains in the winter, we're in the Jeep, and it's set to part-time or full-time 4WD, as appropriate. No Napoleonic Complex is involved at all. Just utility, plain and simple. After all, that's an SUV's middle name. Whenever I read a post like yours, condemning anyone driving an SUV, I figure I'm reading a post from someone who can't afford an SUV for those times when it's appropriate to be in one. So you come up with bullshit like this "Napoleon Complex" instead. Give me a f.cking break! >> There are many reasons for buying an SUVs (perhaps as many for not >> buying one) but these reasons stand out. As you may see there's quite [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Oh, bullshit. I own an SUV (Jeep Liberty) so I can go places I can't go >with other vehicles. So where can you go with a Jeep Liberty that you cannot go with a 4WD Toyota Tacoma? SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > So where can you go with a Jeep Liberty that you cannot go with a 4WD > Toyota Tacoma? Home from the store with 5 bags of groceries and 3 friends when it's raining? >> So where can you go with a Jeep Liberty that you cannot go with a 4WD >> Toyota Tacoma? > >Home from the store with 5 bags of groceries and 3 friends when it's raining? My Tacoma Extended Cab will do that... A Quad Cab would do it a little more comfortably, however. >>> There are many reasons for buying an SUVs (perhaps as many for not >>> buying one) but these reasons stand out. As you may see there's quite [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So where can you go with a Jeep Liberty that you cannot go with a 4WD > Toyota Tacoma? This is based on what my '90 Toy 4WD pickup could do: with a 4WD Tacoma, you can probably go the same places a Liberty can. The Toy certainly went places a 4Runner could. There are probably a few places one can go that the other can't (and vice-versa), because the Toy is longer but narrower than the Liberty. The pickup can carry more gear, especially with a shell. The Liberty can carry more people. One other advantage of a Tacoma: crap you don't really need, like power windows and door locks, (heavy) are optional, which they probably aren't on a Liberty. The Toy (both the '90 4WD and my '99 Tacoma 2WD) does just fine with a 4 banger. I have no idea whether Jeep even has a 4. SignaturePat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals... > Oh, bullshit. I own an SUV (Jeep Liberty) so I can go places I can't go > with other vehicles. Three feet above the interstate, instead of one ? >> Oh, bullshit. I own an SUV (Jeep Liberty) so I can go places I >> can't go with other vehicles. > > Three feet above the interstate, instead of one ? What's an "interstate"? > >> Oh, bullshit. I own an SUV (Jeep Liberty) so I can go places I > >> can't go with other vehicles. > > > > Three feet above the interstate, instead of one ? > > What's an "interstate"? An optioned-out Gold Wing? >>> Oh, bullshit. I own an SUV (Jeep Liberty) so I can go places I >>> can't go with other vehicles. >> >> Three feet above the interstate, instead of one ? > >What's an "interstate"? If you'd asked Google that question, you'd have gotten your answer a long time ago. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>> Oh, bullshit. I own an SUV (Jeep Liberty) so I can go places I >>> can't go with other vehicles. >> >> Three feet above the interstate, instead of one ? > >What's an "interstate"? Hint: it's not intestate. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer > > There are many reasons for buying an SUVs (perhaps as many for not > > buying one) but these reasons stand out. As you may see there's quite [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Oh, bullshit. I own an SUV (Jeep Liberty) so I can go places I can't go > with other vehicles. Are you shunned by big size SUVs? ;) Actually the Liberty is not that stupid and it's very cute. It shows that America needs not be that stupid, and that those in the big size SUVs are the really stupid jerks. > Normally, I go places (like to work and back most days) on my R6. When my > wife and I both go somewhere, we're usually on my FJR. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > times when it's appropriate to be in one. So you come up with bullshit like > this "Napoleon Complex" instead. Give me a f.cking break! I think the smaller SUVs are OK and that even medium size SUVs like the Ford Explorer, BMW, Mercedes, etc have a place for some adventurous people, real adventurous people. > "What this tells us is that people are not just buying SUVs because > they are comfortable, but they are also buying them because it makes > them feel more powerful in today's world. People gain power socially > when they are seen driving one of these monsters, and they are always > seen. People buy SUVs to gain power and dominate over nature. I rented an SUV last week as I was carrying a lot of my and another company's equipment to a few places for tests and demos. I felt like an a.s driving that huge machine (Expedition). Literally embarassed. It was justifiable. Only two of us fit in the truck once all the gear and luggage was aboard, so I don't feel like it was waste of fuel. But I'd be really embarrassed were I all alone wearing a suit and tie on my way to work in the city... Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > "What this tells us is that people are not just buying SUVs because > > they are comfortable, but they are also buying them because it makes [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'd be really embarrassed were I all alone wearing a suit and tie on my > way to work in the city... Why did you get an SYV? Did you have to take that equipment off-road? A minivan generally has more room inside than a similarly-sized SUV. I ocne flew with a bunch of hockey buddies to another city for a tournament. We rented an SUV because we needed the space for our gear. But the SUV didn't impress me with its cargo capacity. A minivan, as we got the next time, is better for that job. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com > > "What this tells us is that people are not just buying SUVs because > > they are comfortable, but they are also buying them because it makes [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'd be really embarrassed were I all alone wearing a suit and tie on my > way to work in the city... Exactly right. We should make a distinction between a minority that uses it for legitimate uses, and a majority that uses it for "show and tell." But still those who use it for legitimate purposes must be aware of its environmental consequences as well as the risk they pose to others on the roads. A STRICTER AND DRIVER'S LICENSE IS IN ORDER and TICKETS DOUBLED. Or perhaps a speed governor the way the author of "It's No Accident" proposes could be used. Sincerely, SUVs weaving around traffic at supersonic speeds is ROAD TERRORISM. >> > "What this tells us is that people are not just buying SUVs because >> > they are comfortable, but they are also buying them because it makes [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Accident" proposes could be used. Sincerely, SUVs weaving around >traffic at supersonic speeds is ROAD TERRORISM. I've said for years that penalties for moving violations should be based on the listed vehicle weight . Do 80 in a 60 in a 2000 pound car and you pay $500. Do it in a 6000 pound 'Burb and you pay $3000 and lose your license for 6 months. > >But still those who use it for legitimate purposes must be aware of its > >environmental consequences as well as the risk they pose to others on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > car and you pay $500. Do it in a 6000 pound 'Burb and you pay $3000 > and lose your license for 6 months. Make sense. You should be named Head of the Department of Road Safety (equivalent to Homeland Security today) when our revolution finally gets to power. Should we try SUV owners for terrorism? ;) > > >But still those who use it for legitimate purposes must be aware of its > > >environmental consequences as well as the risk they pose to others on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Should we try SUV owners for terrorism? ;) Why not? After all, SUVs seem to explain all that is wrong with the world, the universe and the even NYC. > > Should we try SUV owners for terrorism? ;) > > Why not? After all, SUVs seem to explain all that is wrong with the world, > the universe and the even NYC. In a way, yes. They waste oil, lots of it, and that's behind the bombing of the towers, the war in Iraq, Global Warming, the Bush presidency and a few other evils out there. > >> > "What this tells us is that people are not just buying SUVs because > >> > they are comfortable, but they are also buying them because it makes [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > car and you pay $500. Do it in a 6000 pound 'Burb and you pay $3000 > and lose your license for 6 months. If you applied that to tractor trailers, the fine would be millions and capital punishment for the driver. > > I've said for years that penalties for moving violations should be > > based on the listed vehicle weight . Do 80 in a 60 in a 2000 pound [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you applied that to tractor trailers, the fine would be millions and > capital punishment for the driver. Good point, but in an unintended way. That's precisely why tractor trailer drivers are required to have a special --and expensive-- license. The gross weight of their vehicles do play havoc in an accident. If not, it would be carnage, worst than SUVs. Thus we need an SUV DRIVER'S LICENSE. Otherwise it'll just be a License to Kill. > Exactly right. We should make a distinction between a minority that > uses it for legitimate uses, and a majority that uses it for "show and > tell." We already do. You can get a new econobox for $12,000. An SUV casts 2 or 3 times as much. > ...... Sincerely, SUVs weaving around > traffic at supersonic speeds is ROAD TERRORISM. SUVs can't do supersonic speeds. > > Exactly right. We should make a distinction between a minority that > > uses it for legitimate uses, and a majority that uses it for "show and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > SUVs can't do supersonic speeds. On occasion they even break the sound barrier. Well, metaphorically, but they use their sheer size to intimidate others out of their way. > Well, metaphorically, but they use their sheer size to intimidate > others out of their way. I'd suggest that those "others" are too easily intimidated. > > Well, metaphorically, but they use their sheer size to intimidate > > others out of their way. > > > I'd suggest that those "others" are too easily intimidated. Would you stand your ground in the path of a raging elephant? > Would you stand your ground in the path of a raging elephant? Sure ... well armed with my trusty elephant gun. > > Would you stand your ground in the path of a raging elephant? > > > Sure ... well armed with my trusty elephant gun. And what gun would you have against a raging SUV? >>> Would you stand your ground in the path of a raging elephant? >>> >> Sure ... well armed with my trusty elephant gun. > > And what gun would you have against a raging SUV? SUV's don't 'rage'....they are inanimate objects. Now the DRIVER of ANY vehicle can 'rage' and become a problem.....and the elephant gun would be more than enough! > > And what gun would you have against a raging SUV? > > SUV's don't 'rage'....they are inanimate objects. > > Now the DRIVER of ANY vehicle can 'rage' and become a problem.....and > the elephant gun would be more than enough! Yeah, but they sure design them to look bad and mean, probably to appeal to the predatory instincts in SUV drivers. Well, they sure scare the hell out of other drivers... 'The desire of the SUV driver is to be big and strong - and intimidating. SUV drivers want to sit up high and literally "look down" on other drivers. And they want to drive as recklessly as the drivers in the off-road ads. Most are adult males - who insist on continuing to be teenage boys.' http://www.cartalk.com/content/rant/whatnow1105/index.html > Yeah, but they sure design them to look bad and mean, probably to > appeal to the predatory instincts in SUV drivers. Well, they sure scare > the hell out of other drivers... They do?? Never had one scare me. Maybe you have a phobia. > 'The desire of the SUV driver is to be big and strong - and > intimidating. SUV drivers want to sit up high and literally "look down" > on other drivers. And they want to drive as recklessly as the drivers > in the off-road ads. Most are adult males - who insist on continuing > to be teenage boys.' Doesn't everybody want to be big and strong? We like to sit up high so we can see more than the car in front's license plate and thus avoid accidents. What you deem reckless probably isn't, it's just that you can't see ahead. But yes a nearly 70 I do insist on continuing to be a teen - that's why I still ride motorcycles. > > Yeah, but they sure design them to look bad and mean, probably to > > appeal to the predatory instincts in SUV drivers. Well, they sure scare [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doesn't everybody want to be big and strong? No, only Napoleonic people do. ;) But why do you have to chose one method to pump up your ego that puts other in peril? Why can't you buy a pink suit, or one my T-shirts that say "You can eat my banana." I assure you the ladies get the message. We like to sit up high so we can > see more than the car in front's license plate and thus avoid accidents. What > you deem reckless probably isn't, it's just that you can't see ahead. Sure, but then others don't see past you. But yes a > nearly 70 I do insist on continuing to be a teen - that's why I still ride > motorcycles. Congratulations, but if you ride a bike you should know what is like to be at the wrong end of the food chain. > And what gun would you have against a raging SUV? The one seen in all the movies that holds an infinite number of rounds each capable of blowing up a tall building. > > And what gun would you have against a raging SUV? > > > The one seen in all the movies that holds an infinite number of rounds each > capable of blowing up a tall building. Wouldn't you get out of the way? http://www.remnantofgod.org/nl0410suv.gif > > Exactly right. We should make a distinction between a minority that > > uses it for legitimate uses, and a majority that uses it for "show and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > SUVs can't do supersonic speeds. Well, metaphorically speaking. But they use their sheer size to intimidate others. Literally. Real tough people buy minivans. And, of course, SUV owners don't go to heaven... "That's right: real rock climbers drive minivans." Catholics vs. sport utilities [...] SUV's fail the test of human dignity, solidarity and the common good on three counts. First, they use more gas and release more poisonous emissions than cars in general do. This might be acceptable if there was a specific need for SUV's, but as we will see, in the vast majority of cases, there is not. The second way in which SUV's fail these principles is in the fact that they are more dangerous to other vehicles and their passengers than cars generally. This is both because of the size of SUV's and, especially, their height. Such height means, for instance, that the lights from oncoming SUV's go directly into the eyes of the driver of a standard car. This is part of the intimidation factor that SUV's are designed to bring, but it also can blind the other driver and cause an accident. The height of SUV's also means that in collisions the full weight of the SUV strikes above the protection of the car. Again, the rear bumper of the SUV went above the hood of my car. The SUV driver may walk away, but the passengers in the other car may be decapitated. This is why insurance companies have been investigating raising rates on SUV's. The SUV driver may not walk away, however, and this is the third conflict with the common good. The vehicle may even be more susceptible to one-car accidents because of its tendency to roll over. SUV owners and drivers should read Charles Wheelan's Jan. 10 editorial in the New York Times, "Lives Changed in a Split Second: The Terror of an SUV rollover." Wheelan normally writes for The Economist, so he can hardly be charged with leftist, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism bias. In this particular column, he writes that his vehicle, "felt a lot less practical as we lay smashed upside down in it on Interstate 80 at 4 a.m ... I learned a lot of things very quickly. Each of our girls screams in a slightly different way and I now know that it is a good thing to hear both screams coming from inside a crushed vehicle - because it means that everyone is alive ... I know that when there is no other way to get a six-month-old out of a crushed vehicle, you will drag her through broken glass ... My three-year-old daughter's hand was smashed and she lost her right thumb." Wheelan continues, "SUV's as a class are more likely to roll over than other vehicles. Indeed, the problem is inherent in vehicles that ride high on a relatively narrow wheel-base, which is the most attractive feature of SUV's." Wheelan's message to potential and real SUV drivers is this: if you don't care about the good of passengers in other vehicles, at least consider the good of the passengers in your own. SUV drivers may claim a right or freedom to own one,and in a legal sense this is the case. In Catholic teaching, as John Paul makes clear in Veritatis Splendor ("The Splendor or Truth"), the exercise of freedom is not an end in itself, but must be in relation to truth. Wheelan confesses that he bought the SUV because it "projected a different image than a minivan or a station wagon." That image is one of the rugged outdoorsman, as is evident in the many SUV commercials and vehicle names like "Expedition." However, the vast majority of SUV's are not used for these purposes; the minivan would do even better for the owners. The image sells. The automotive industry's own psychological studies - used for marketing purposes - state that SUV owners are more anxious about their image than other vehicle owners. They are more taken up with what John Paul II decries as "consumer culture" than other drivers. Meanwhile, the automotive industry is thinking, "gotcha." The irony is that persons who really do those outdoor activities look upon SUV's with a skeptical eye. One of the magazines that actual rock climbers and alpinists read, Climbing, ran a survey about whether it should run tobacco and alcohol ads. The consensus was that it should not, but a further concern surfaced. "The heated debate also revealed that many readers are strongly opposed to any advertising that is not directly related to climbing, with unrealistic SUV ads taking the brunt of the criticism." If one travels to Red River Gorge, the best place to climb in the Midwest and parks at Miguel's, the place where most of the climbers camp, one finds few SUV's, but rather high mileage pick-ups with cabs converted for sleeping and - the horror of SUV owners - minivans. That's right: real rock climbers drive minivans. http://www.nd.edu/~observer/01182001/Viewpoint/0.html And they don't have much of a future on this earth either. So I hope. Hallelujah. ;) This documentary says it all... THE END OF SUBURBIA: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream Since World War II North Americans have invested much of their newfound wealth in suburbia. It has promised a sense of space, affordability, family life and upward mobility. As the population of suburban sprawl has exploded in the past 50 years, so too has the suburban way of life become embedded in the American consciousness. Suburbia, and all it promises, has become the American Dream. But as we enter the 21st century, serious questions are beginning to emerge about the sustainability of this way of life. With brutal honesty and a touch of irony, The End of Suburbia explores the American Way of Life and its prospects as the planet approaches a critical era, as global demand for fossil fuels begins to outstrip supply. World Oil Peak and the inevitable decline of fossil fuels are upon us now, some scientists and policy makers argue in this documentary. The consequences of inaction in the face of this global crisis are enormous. What does Oil Peak mean for North America? As energy prices skyrocket in the coming years, how will the populations of suburbia react to the collapse of their dream? Are today's suburbs destined to become the slums of tomorrow? http://www.endofsuburbia.com/ 'Detroit tells us that it builds the cars America wants. But I don't like to think that Detroit's cars accurately reflect Americans. I've met many Americans who are basically thrifty, hard-working and innovative. Detroit's cars are none of these things. So how does it sell them? It promises us these SUVs, pickups and muscle cars will transform us into rugged or powerful individuals, and gives them names like "Durango" or "Charger" to complete the deception.' This storm would be equivalent to "The Day After Tomorrow," and it will leave Detroit cold and dead... The Perfect Storm: Why Small Cars Will Be Big By Philip Reed My friend is not given to hysterical predictions. That's why I was so surprised when, in the middle of a recent meeting here at Edmunds.com, he laid out an alarming scenario. We are now at the "floor" of gas prices, he said. In other words, gas costs will be rising from here on in. How steeply gas prices will climb is unknown, and the rise will be out of the control of the most powerful forces in the world, including the U.S. government. (If you want a scary prediction of oil shortages, watch the documentary film, The End of Suburbia. Foreign automakers clearly believe that rising fuel costs will drive consumers to buy much smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. Honda, Nissan and Toyota are all introducing subcompacts that get 30-plus miles per gallon of gas. Are our domestics among those jockeying for position in a competitive landscape? Well, here's what my friend had to say: "People talk about tough times for the domestics - they haven't seen anything yet. These market conditions (rising gas prices and stiffer foreign competition) are gathering like a 'perfect storm,' and it will hit them smack in the back of the head." [...] Another friend of mine said that Detroit just doesn't have any interest in making small cars and instead keeps believing that gas prices don't matter. "After the first oil shortages in the '70s, they tried to make small cars. They put out the Vega and the Pinto. The cars were crap and they weren't even fuel-efficient. Now we're in the same position again. Detroit just doesn't get it." Detroit tells us that it builds the cars America wants. But I don't like to think that Detroit's cars accurately reflect Americans. I've met many Americans who are basically thrifty, hard-working and innovative. Detroit's cars are none of these things. So how does it sell them? It promises us these SUVs, pickups and muscle cars will transform us into rugged or powerful individuals, and gives them names like "Durango" or "Charger" to complete the deception. A few years ago I was in Rome, where they have to drive anywhere they can, including the sidewalk. I rode around all day in a Renault Twingo and didn't feel emasculated as a result. When we stopped for gas, the car took only 3.0 liters (0.78 gallon) - the Twingo is capable of 49 mpg at highway speeds. Another sign of trouble for U.S. automakers: Only two of the 12 spots in the "green car" survey by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy are occupied by domestic nameplates. And it isn't because the domestics have been hybrid-resistant (except for the Ford Escape Hybrid and Mercury Mariner Hybrid) - only three of the gas-sippers on this list are hybrids. The others are, well, just plain efficient. It's time for a new vision of America, and we can't look to Detroit to tell us what that will be. The vision will be provided by the most brutally honest force in effect: the free market. As the perfect storm gathers, Americans will vote with their wallets. Will they buy Detroit's latest macho machine and assume that gas prices will drop, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Or will they shrug off the libido-prodding ads and show that, in the future, small is big? http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/driving/articles/109791/article.html Venture Rider wrote: > On 11 May 2006 13:08:25 -0700, donquijote1954 said: > > >As you may see there's quite a > >bit of Napoleonic Complex > > Are you saying Napoléon rode a really big horse? It wasn't so much that the horse was big but that he was small. But see, he was happy with *one* horse, now you need 300 horses (hp) to carry your big ego... http://lekowicz.com/library/images/fr_live_napoleon_on_horse.jpg Timberwoof wrote: > > Makes me feel better about flipping off the bitch in the pickup truck who > > tried to run me off the Freeway this afternoon in similar circumstances! > All we can do is wave the single-finnger salute and think most un-Bhudda-like > thoughts about Karma. That's most unholy. I would tell them "You can eat my banana," which is the message on my brand new T-shirts. The bumper stickers are coming soon... ;) http://cafepress.com/peacebanana "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote It wasn't so much that the horse was big but that he was small. But see, he was happy with *one* horse, now you need 300 horses (hp) to carry your big ego... 300 HP is for sissys, wimps and other liberal city bred cockroaches. If it cannot do zero to 100 and back to zero in 14 seconds, like Shelby's sport cars, then it is too slow! > 300 HP is for sissys, wimps and other liberal city bred cockroaches. If > it > cannot do zero to 100 and back to zero in 14 seconds, like Shelby's sport > cars, > then it is too slow! Sorry Vito, but you wouldn't like the Shelby Cobras. Those aluminum doors bend like hell when you try to slam somebody's head in them. Maybe America needs some of this too... ;) 410-Pound Man Walks Across the Country Steve Marshall Reporting KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO LEDGEWOOD, NJ (KNX) -- Imagine walking across country. Now imagine walking across country when you weigh 410 pounds. San Diego resident Steve Vaught is doing just that and he has almost completed his objective of walking from his California home all the way to New York. And when he arrives there, he will weigh in at more than 100 pounds lighter than when he began his cross-country walk last year. Vaught checked in from New Jersey as he made his way toward The Big Apple, estimating that he will complete his epic journey on Tuesday. Vaught left his San Diego home more than a year ago, on April 10, 2005. Since that day, he has gone through dozens of pairs of shoes and, while his latest pair is pretty well worn out, he has vowed to finish his journey in them. Vaught, 40, says he began the trip when he realized that he would have to lose some serious weight or face the prospect of dying before the age of fifty. As the father of two children, Vaught says that wasn\'t an option. And traditional dieting efforts have not worked for him. So he launched this radical walking trip, which he calls "Fatman Walking." He says he hopes the trip not only results in him being leaner, but also sets an example of a healthy lifestyle for others to follow. He has detailed his trip in an online journal, www.thefatmanwalking.com. http://www.knx1070.com/pages/33050.php? >>I don't America can ever produce a successful microcar like that. They >>may succeed at big ones and that's why we got SUVs. > > That's what Enzo said about GT cars. Made Ford mad. A year later GT-40s were > eating his Ferraris alive. That is not progress. Racing car design is great "envelope" pushing for engineering, but does not directly produce transporation options of any value for anyone. > US industry can produce anything that the gummymint will permit. Americans > wanted midsized sedans and station wagons like, say, the 1966 Chevelle (SP?) but > NHTSA put a stop to such light roomy family cars and made Detroit produce > dangerous underpowered minicars instead. So the public buys the next best > thing -SUVs. You are a myth generator. If the Japanese can produce high quality, efficient, safe small cars, that make money for the manufacturer, why can't American car cos.? US car manufs manipulate CAFE to produce more popular, inefficient, higher profit margin large vehicles. The US auto manufs did not take on the challenge to make smaller cars work. They are not relaiable, they are cheaply designed, but expensive to make. Since they are crap, people who prefer smaller, more economical cars, prefer to pay more for a small Japanese car than for a small American made car. Toyota is on the verge of selling more cars in the US than GM. GM is on the verge of bankruptcy. Ford is on the verge of bankruptcy. In 1980, 70% of vehicles on US roads were cars; 30% were "light trucks" (includes pickups, minivans and SUV's). In 2000, the percentages were 51-49, and the number of vehicles on the road has increased 30%. So, 30% more vehcicles and burning more fuel on average per vehicle. Pollution is increasing. Oil imports are increasing. Proven oil reserves are dwindling. Roots of it all: Detroit's indifference and greed and American individualism and desire for bigger, better, faster, more. $59B / year to the middle east for oil. Less than $3B back in trade. Waste not. Want not. Recall that back in the 80's Ronald Reagan got angry at Detroit's executives for their very high salaries and bonuses. This after Detroit kept lobbying to keep Japanese car imports to a strict minimum. So Ronald did the right thing, he let competition flourish and removed the barriers to car imports. I was never a big Ronald Reagan fan, but that one was hard to beat. Again, today Detroit is its own worse enemy and is paying the price for decades of following the bottom line year to year with profit only minded 5 year plans and no vision for the future beyond that. They were warned time and time again, often from the brighter lights in their own organizations. The oil embargo of the 70's was the great warning they never heeded. Cheers, Alan > In 2000, the percentages were 51-49, and the number of vehicles on the > road has increased 30%. So, 30% more vehcicles and burning more fuel > on average per vehicle. Be careful about quoting statistics for vehicles "on the road." My wife and I own five vehicles, but obviously only two of those can actually be "on the road" at any given time. As we become more affluent, we can afford more cars and motorcycles than we actually need. We can thus fit them better to the particular task at hand, instead of trying to do it all with a single vehicle. That doesn't mean there are suddenly that many more vehicles "on the road." More owned, true, and more licensed, for sure. But not necessarily more burning fuel, except as would be consistent with a growing population. > Pollution is increasing. > Oil imports are increasing. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > organizations. The oil embargo of the 70's was the great warning they > never heeded. Very, very good. But in their defense, I'd argue that the pea-sized brain of the dinosaurs never allowed them to plan for the future. Their gluttony took over any other concern. :( Ronald however bailed out Chrysler. Remember, the neo-cons are all for corporate welfare. ;) ...the same idea as when Reagan bailed out Chrysler: "We can't lose this company! It's part of the American Fabric!" http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-07-03-002-21-NW-BZ-DT&tbovrmode=3 > Vito wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > engineering, but does not directly produce transporation options of any > value for anyone. Yes it is! GT cars were not race cars per se even though they were raced. FIA rules guaranteed "streetability". Corvettes, AC Cobras, and XKEs were selling like hotcakes because people wanted them, and what can be more progressive than giving people more of what they want. A GT-40 was at least as "streetable" as an XKE or Cobra, both were viable "transportation options" until government meddling, driven by the likes of Nader, put them out of anybodys' reach. Check out what used ones sell for then ask if they are valuable to anyone. > > US industry can produce anything that the gummymint will permit. > > You are a myth generator. No, you are disingeneous. > If the Japanese can produce high quality, efficient, safe small cars, > that make money for the manufacturer, why can't American car cos.? They can but "will not" doesn't equal "cannot". Bad management is to blame there. Look at the siliness of tha annual model change. That doesn't mean they cannot produce the same car for over a year. > giving people more of what they want. A GT-40 was at least as "streetable" as > an XKE or Cobra, both were viable "transportation options" until government > meddling, driven by the likes of Nader, put them out of anybodys' reach. Check > out what used ones sell for then ask if they are valuable to anyone. Transportation means moving one from a to b, not making racing cars. I would care less except for the drastic effects on the environment. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Transportation means moving one from a to b, not making racing cars. I > would care less except for the drastic effects on the environment. Uh, you may continue to "care less". There aren't enough "racing cars" out there to have any perceptible effect on the environment. But I guess most folks with a room-temperature I.Q. already knew that... > > Transportation means moving one from a to b, not making racing cars. I > > would care less except for the drastic effects on the environment. > > Uh, you may continue to "care less". There aren't enough "racing cars" out > there to have any perceptible effect on the environment. I rather suspect he meant the influence racing cars have on our expectations of everyday vehicles actually. Engine bhp has risen awesomely over the years. Graham >> > Transportation means moving one from a to b, not making racing cars. I >> > would care less except for the drastic effects on the environment. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > expectations of > everyday vehicles actually. Engine bhp has risen awesomely over the years. Not really; but I assume that you weren't old enough to have been there. Back in the late 60s and early 70s there *were* a lot of "muscle cars" out on the streets, and they had some amazing HP ratings; but those cars largely became unpopular after the first gas shortages and price increases hit. Since then, there have been a *lot* more smaller-engined cars on the roads, and the 7-liter 400 HP family sedan has pretty much become a dinosaur. (The popular saying was that these cars "would pass anything on the road except a gas station...") The main influences that real "race cars" have had on the street cars of today are in fields of superior suspension, brakes, streamlining, transmissions, and weight reduction. The engines have gained some technology from racing cars as well, but it's largely limited to things that make them more efficient rather than things that just make them more powerful. Pete > >> > Transportation means moving one from a to b, not making racing cars. I > >> > would care less except for the drastic effects on the environment. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Back in the late 60s and early 70s there *were* a lot of "muscle cars" out > on the streets, and they had some amazing HP ratings; Only in the USA. > but those cars largely > became unpopular after the first gas shortages and price increases hit. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from racing cars as well, but it's largely limited to things that make them > more efficient rather than things that just make them more powerful. In Europe, bhp in the average family car has been rising steadily for decades. In the 60s and 70s maybe as little as 50-60 bhp would have been considered acceptable. Graham > Only in the USA. Not so....Aussie had the Ford Falcon coupes (V8 351) and Holden Monaro's (Chev 350 V8's). The Poms had their big Jags and Rover V8's were put in anything from a Landrover to triumph TR7's (as well as Rovers....). > > Only in the USA. > > Not so....Aussie had the Ford Falcon coupes (V8 351) and Holden Monaro's > (Chev 350 V8's) Oz is another funny place ! > . The Poms had their big Jags Not exactly very many and they are inline 6s. > and Rover V8's were put in > anything from a Landrover to triumph TR7's (as well as Rovers....). Fairly rare beasts again until the 1976 Rover SD1. These aren't big seller vehicles. I was referring to the more average 1200-1600 cc engine that you'd find in the average family car back then. These days more like 1400 - 1800 cc with 2 litres still being seen as something a bit more special. Graham >>> Only in the USA. >> Not so....Aussie had the Ford Falcon coupes (V8 351) and Holden Monaro's >> (Chev 350 V8's) > > Oz is another funny place ! LOL.....no arguments on that one! >> . The Poms had their big Jags > > Not exactly very many and they are inline 6s. They were quite common down here......and some had the V12's. They were still up there as petrol guzzlers. >> and Rover V8's were put in >> anything from a Landrover to triumph TR7's (as well as Rovers....). > > Fairly rare beasts again until the 1976 Rover SD1. These aren't big seller > vehicles. Again, the big motor cars from England were common down here. Not as 'muscle' like as the Comaro's etc, but lashings of torque. > I was referring to the more average 1200-1600 cc engine that you'd > find in the average family car back then. These days more like 1400 - 1800 cc > with 2 litres still being seen as something a bit more special. > > Graham The Jappa's here seem divided into the 'economical' (1100cc - 1600cc), family (1600cc-2000cc) and sports (2000cc 4 cyl to 3.5lt V-6's) with Lexus thrown in as direct competion to Ford and Holden (our big sellers) straight & V6's and V8's. I'll be buying a Ford V8 in the next few months if prices keep tumbling like they are.....sod the price of petrol, thats just a running cost. I can't see a V8 car costing much more than a litre sportsbike if you only use it for fun. >>>> Only in the USA. >>> Not so....Aussie had the Ford Falcon coupes (V8 351) and Holden [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > They were quite common down here......and some had the V12's. > They were still up there as petrol guzzlers. The differences seem to be that America and Australia have plenty of wide open spaces. Europe doesn't. They're entirely different markets for automobiles (and bikes). Crowded eastern cities in America are much more "European" than other parts of the country. There are many thousands of adult New Yorkers, for example, who have never owned a car. They've never felt they needed one, and wouldn't know where to keep one if they had it. I feel so sorry for them! > > They were quite common down here......and some had the V12's. > > They were still up there as petrol guzzlers. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > who have never owned a car. They've never felt they needed one, and > wouldn't know where to keep one if they had it. I feel so sorry for them! I just feel sorry for those who have no car in the states where you do need a car. I spent like 3 hours yesterday waiting for buses... > I just feel sorry for those who have no car in the states where you do > need a car. I spent like 3 hours yesterday waiting for buses... I feel sorry for anybody who has neighbors only a wall away. Taint natural. > In Europe, bhp in the average family car has been rising steadily for decades. > In the 60s and 70s maybe as little as 50-60 bhp would have been considered > acceptable. That's true for most underdeveloped regions ..... > > In Europe, bhp in the average family car has been rising steadily for decades. > > In the 60s and 70s maybe as little as 50-60 bhp would have been considered > > acceptable. > > > That's true for most underdeveloped regions ..... Or where they drive light cars that don't need more horsepower. Still most cars in Europe are offered in that category. They excell at handling not at horsepower. > > > In Europe, bhp in the average family car has been rising steadily for decades. > > > In the 60s and 70s maybe as little as 50-60 bhp would have been considered [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > most cars in Europe are offered in that category. They excell at > handling not at horsepower. Indeed, the handling of most American cars is considered laughable by Europeans. Graham > > Or where they drive light cars that don't need more horsepower. Still > > most cars in Europe are offered in that category. They excell at > > handling not at horsepower. > > Indeed, the handling of most American cars is considered laughable by Europeans. And European suspensions are often seen as too harsh by the majority of American drivers. Must be the concrete interstates... If you compare the road systems in Europe and North America you can see why there is a distinction. American cars were designed to travel long distances on arrow-straight interstates and in some form of comfort. Having your fillings jarred loose on expansion joints every 100 feet does not come under most definitions of comfort. Enthusiasts, however, prefer a firmer ride for better handling in the corners. American car manufacturers have not served that market well, leaving it wide open to European and Japanese manufacturers. Dean > > > Or where they drive light cars that don't need more horsepower. Still > > > most cars in Europe are offered in that category. They excell at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And European suspensions are often seen as too harsh by the majority of > American drivers. Must be the concrete interstates... Concrete roads are truly shocking. > If you compare the road systems in Europe and North America you can see > why there is a distinction. American cars were designed to travel long > distances on arrow-straight interstates and in some form of comfort. > Having your fillings jarred loose on expansion joints every 100 feet > does not come under most definitions of comfort. I can remember expansion joints in the dim past. They're nasty. I think all the concrete roads here have been replaced. > Enthusiasts, however, prefer a firmer ride for better handling in the > corners. American car manufacturers have not served that market well, > leaving it wide open to European and Japanese manufacturers. And here we have relatively few roads that are even close to 'straight as an arrow'. Doesn't it get boring driving on them ? Graham >And here we have relatively few roads that are even close to 'straight as an arrow'. >Doesn't it get boring driving on them ? > >Graham Not with the DVD player. :-)] SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > >And here we have relatively few roads that are even close to 'straight as an arrow'. > >Doesn't it get boring driving on them ? > > > >Graham > > Not with the DVD player. :-)] Then you keep alert by drinking coffee until an unexpected maneuver makes you spill your coffee and you lose control when the hot coffee lands on you lap and then you swerve your SUV into an smallish car that happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, killing a couple of people. But, of course, your insurance company is there for you and you buy another SUV, which you always wanted. Jungle? There's no jungle, at least while you remain on top of the food chain, right? >> >And here we have relatively few roads that are even close to 'straight as an arrow'. >> >Doesn't it get boring driving on them ? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >of people. But, of course, your insurance company is there for you and >you buy another SUV, which you always wanted. I *HATE* coffee! And, yes, I have very good insurance. No, I don't need another SUV; the one I have still fills my needs very well. Do you know what a "smiley" is? >Jungle? There's no jungle, at least while you remain on top of the food >chain, right? Your characterization, not mine. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > I *HATE* coffee! How about tea? > And, yes, I have very good insurance. > No, I don't need another SUV; the one I have still fills my needs very > well. > Do you know what a "smiley" is? Yep, and I just used "you" in the sense of anyone. I have drinked coffee while driving, and I have drinked and drive, and have spoken on the phone while driving, but those are the very things that we must sacrifice in order to have safe roads. These things though can be most disastrous for others when you are at the wheel of an SUV, and I have not. > that we must sacrifice in order to have safe roads. Safe roads?? Who needs safe roads? Imagine what the overpopulation would be like if we had safe roads. >> I *HATE* coffee! > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > can be most disastrous for others when you are at the wheel of an SUV, > and I have not. If you have had drinks and talked on the phone while driving, and not crashed or caused an accident, how will not doing these things make you safer? It's all down to the driver, no matter what they drive. SUV's are cool! > If you have had drinks and talked on the phone while driving, and not > crashed or caused an accident, how will not doing these things make you > safer? "LET HE WHO HAS NOT SINNED THROW THE FIRST STONE..." > It's all down to the driver, no matter what they drive. > > SUV's are cool! No, they ain't. Weight or mass is the greatest factor in damage to the other vehicle. That's why tractor trailer drivers are required a commercial license. And that's why you should never let an elephant step over you. ;) "2,000 people would still be alive if their vehicles had been hit by a heavy car instead of an SUV" ARE SUV'S SAFE? Overall safety on America's roads has increased over the last decade. However, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) threaten to reverse the trend. There is increasing evidence that SUVs are not as safe as they appear. Recent studies show that SUVs pose a significant threat to drivers and passengers of other cars on the road. In addition, there are indications that safety problems threaten passengers and drivers of SUVs themselves. Most drivers want to feel safe on the road, but choosing an SUV for safety may be making the situation worse. Partly, it's an issue of escalation. Like an arms race, as more drivers choose heavier cars, those who choose lighter cars are in more danger. http://www.suv.org/safety.html > Then you keep alert by drinking coffee until an unexpected maneuver > makes you spill your coffee and you lose control when the hot coffee > lands on you lap and then you swerve your SUV into an smallish car that > happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, killing a couple > of people. But, of course, your insurance company is there for you and > you buy another SUV, which you always wanted. Thus you serve the environment by eliminating other polluters. > I can remember expansion joints in the dim past. They're nasty. I think all the > concrete roads here have been replaced. They make a great base for asphalt. > And here we have relatively few roads that are even close to 'straight as an arrow'. > Doesn't it get boring driving on them ? Yes. That's the reason for our land yachts. > Indeed, the handling of most American cars is considered laughable by Europeans. As are Euro roads by most Americans. > Vito wrote: > > > In Europe, bhp in the average family car has been rising steadily for decades. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Or where they drive light cars that don't need more horsepower. The "Or" is misused. The reason they don't need HP is that they are underdeveloped, including their roads. > The main influences that real "race cars" have had on the street cars of > today are in fields of superior suspension, brakes, streamlining, > transmissions, and weight reduction. The engines have gained some technology > from racing cars as well, but it's largely limited to things that make them > more efficient rather than things that just make them more powerful. To wit, all beneficial things. Overhead cams, computer- controlled fuel injection and electronic ignition driven by crank position sensors were all things found only on GP engines but are now commonplace. The same technology that gets max HP from a given engine size can easily get the best gas mileage by simple remapping. > > The main influences that real "race cars" have had on the street cars of > > today are in fields of superior suspension, brakes, streamlining, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that gets max HP from a given engine size can easily get the best gas mileage by > simple remapping. I really wonder if these things wouldn't have happened to production cars anyway. What next ? Launch control on street cars ? Graham >>The main influences that real "race cars" have had on the street cars of >>today are in fields of superior suspension, brakes, streamlining, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that gets max HP from a given engine size can easily get the best gas mileage by > simple remapping. On the other hand, NASCAR race cars have pushrod V8 engines with carburetors. Some NASCAR driver said that the car he drives to the track is more sophisticated than the car he drives on the track. John Mara >On the other hand, NASCAR race cars have pushrod V8 engines with >carburetors. Some NASCAR driver said that the car he drives to the >track is more sophisticated than the car he drives on the track. > >John Mara Yes, but that's because of the rules, not because of a lack of technology available to Nascar car builders. And there's even a reason for those rules: better technology would mean more speed, which the tracks can't handle. Think restrictor plates. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > >On the other hand, NASCAR race cars have pushrod V8 engines with > >carburetors. Some NASCAR driver said that the car he drives to the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mean more speed, which the tracks can't handle. Think restrictor > plates. If that were the reason they could just go to smaller engines. I think it is more a matter of keeping it harder to cheat. >> >On the other hand, NASCAR race cars have pushrod V8 engines with >> >carburetors. Some NASCAR driver said that the car he drives to the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >If that were the reason they could just go to smaller engines. I think >it is more a matter of keeping it harder to cheat. Well, there are a lot of things they *could* do. Yes, cheating (as in any sport) is a constant problem. But the rules keeping pushrod engines aren't just to keep cheating down, it's a matter of trying to make the rules fit all permutations of electronic controls for more modern engine systems. Traction control, for example, could make Nascar racing safer, but it also adds considerably to the cost of building a car, plus there's the problem of a failure really screwing up a weekend. Simply allowing such technology isn't enough; they need to be failure proof (or as failure proof as is possible; tire-within-a-tire, for example.) But then, Nascar is a specific type of racing; if, as a fan, you want to see newer technologies in racing, pick a type that uses them; they certainly exist. Nascar appeals to a certain demographic, just as, for example, Formula racing appeals to another demographic. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > >> >On the other hand, NASCAR race cars have pushrod V8 engines with > >> >carburetors. Some NASCAR driver said that the car he drives to the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Bill Funk > replace "g" with "a" Considering that all "stock" cars now have fuel injection, there is really nothing hi-tech about it. Just makes it a lot easier for the tech inspectors when only simple mechanical carbs are allowed. Don't have to worry about a software change on the fly or such things. As for keeping it pushrod engines, as you say, it fits the demographic. (Yep, don't need any of those buzzy little formula engines, just big thumping raw power ;) I don't think traction control and ABS are kept out so much because of cost or safety, but because they would ultimately reduce the skill required to drive. Cost is trotted out as a reason for many restrictions, but how much does ABS cost compared to four new tires every time there's a yellow flag? It is often said that racing improves the breed, that it advances technology etc. But when you get right down to it, it is just as likely to prevent innovation. Look up the STP turbine car in Indy racing, or Jim Hall's Chapperells in Can-Am racing. Bruce > > giving people more of what they want. A GT-40 was at least as "streetable" as > > an XKE or Cobra, both were viable "transportation options" until government [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Transportation means moving one from a to b, not making racing cars. I > would care less except for the drastic effects on the environment. 1) The cars I mentioned are NOT "racing cars". Indy car and NASCAR cars may be but these are not. 2) If what you say were true then there would be no personal transportation at all, we'd all have to use public transportation and go when and where the politburo decided that transportation should carry us. 3) Automobiles have many times less effect on the environment than overpopulation. In fact the only ill effect they have is due to overpopulation. The use population has doubled in my lifetime. Had it not, we'd need no laws to protect the environment. But I don't hear you calling for population control. >> Not unlike some baby Fiats. >> > Ever seen a Fiat Abarth Zagato Sprint Special? Is that the 850? > Vito wrote: > >> Not unlike some baby Fiats. > >> > > Ever seen a Fiat Abarth Zagato Sprint Special? > > Is that the 850? I think so but it's been a lot of years since I considered buying one but opted for an MGA instead. Looked like a friends GT-250 in and out but without the power or pricetag. > Not unlike some baby Fiats. The Honda would actually go more than two consecutive blocks without breaking down. Ever the fast learner, I had *3* Fiat 850 Spiders. Gorgeous to look at, and allegedly got 40mpg.. However, the mileage you get when pushing it is absolutely fantastic! And push I did.. > Ever the fast learner, I had *3* Fiat 850 Spiders. > > Gorgeous to look at, and allegedly got 40mpg.. > However, the mileage you get when pushing it is absolutely fantastic! > And push I did.. FIAT not Fiat. It's an acronym. Means Fix It Again Tony. > > > > Well...... the only small car I've driven fast was an MG Metro ( 1.3 > > > > litre [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1972-MICROCAR-HONDA-600-SEDAN-PARTS-ONLY_W0QQit > emZ4631382724QQcategoryZ6260QQcmdZViewItem Ah - the AN600 Sedan. Had two of those too (white and green). Only have orange AZ600 Coupe's now. http://www.hemmings.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/carshow.getshow/make/Honda/m odel/AZ600 http://www.classiccarsuppliers.com/vehicle.php?ho737072 http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1972-Honda-AZ600-Coupe_W0QQitemZ4628027998 QQcategoryZ6260QQcmdZViewItem Mike G. - < snip > > Pity the author of that book doesn't even acknowledge the fast lanes, > and probably ignores that English roads while faster are safer than > America's. British roads aren't that much faster actually. The lower accident rate is most likely due to less aggressive driving and also better highway planning. Graham > British roads aren't that much faster actually. Are they any faster? I recently drove US I95 from VA to mid-FL and back. Most speed limits were 70mph with probably half the cars doing 80-85+ mph. > The lower accident rate is most likely due to less aggressive driving and also better highway planning. The problem there was slow drivers, typically in RVs (combis?) driving under 60mph and creating "turbulence" like a rock in a stream. You'd be surprised at how capable those small cars are. It's common to see the small cars whisking by at 100 to 120mph on Autobahn in Germany, especially that they are diesel! I had a chance to drive Peugeot 206 HDi (smaller than VW Golf) with diesel motor recently and was surprised how fast it went. It went 120mph easily and effortlessly. It returns 39mpg city, 57 highway, and 49mpg combined. The car is so smooth and so quiet that I am hard pressed to convince myself it's actually a diesel car. With strict emission regulations in Europe, the new diesel cars are much more clean and don't smoke. Having a cleaner diesel fuel helped a lot. It used to be so 'dirty' with 500 to 550 ppm in the USA. Now, the diesel fuel has to be no more than 15ppm. in Germany, Volkswagen offered Lupo 3L with combined cycle of 3 litres per 100km or 78mpg. US Government, namely NHTSA, is the big problem in maintaining the restrictive trade barrier for the automobiles. As long as NHTSA continues its sorry existence and deep resistance to reform itself or to harmonise itself with ECE, the Americans continue to lose. >> British roads aren't that much faster actually. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The problem there was slow drivers, typically in RVs (combis?) driving under > 60mph and creating "turbulence" like a rock in a stream. > US Government, namely NHTSA, is the big problem in maintaining the > restrictive trade barrier for the automobiles. As long as NHTSA > continues its sorry existence and deep resistance to reform itself or to > harmonise itself with ECE, the Americans continue to lose. You have that right!! > > US Government, namely NHTSA, is the big problem in maintaining the > > restrictive trade barrier for the automobiles. As long as NHTSA > > continues its sorry existence and deep resistance to reform itself or to > > harmonise itself with ECE, the Americans continue to lose. > > You have that right!! That's actually a smart comment. I thought you were gonna say that smaller European cars promoted overpopulation on our roads. :) > US Government, namely NHTSA, is the big problem in maintaining the > restrictive trade barrier for the automobiles. As long as NHTSA > continues its sorry existence and deep resistance to reform itself or to > harmonise itself with ECE, the Americans continue to lose. That says it all. Either we live under globalization or we don't. And we just don't. They simply use it when the big fish can eat the little fish and not the other way around. ;) > < snip > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The lower accident rate is most likely due to less aggressive driving and also better highway planning. Or perhaps they can be due to better driver's training (starting with the common sense "L" the first year of learning), and lane discipline, among other factors. But they are safer, much safer actually. Anyway here's a title a little sensationalistic but you'll get the point for sure... American Highway Holocaust Our MVFR (Motor Vehicle Fatality Rate) is 45.8% higher than Germany even though Germany has no speed limits on their Autobahns, 70% of their drivers drink alcohol and drive, and they consume 55% more alcohol per capita. Our MVFR is almost three times higher than England even though England has a higher speed limit and drinks 10% more alcohol per capita than we do. http://christianparty.net/mvfr.htm Well, this is put out by a white supremacist party, so don't take everything at face value. See however the valuable stadistics in there. And anyway MADD too seems pretty fanatics themselves. :) > These smaller cars could be sold with stick shift only, and for a small > price (say $8,000) would sell like a crazy. Bwahahahaha! Where, in Paris? It's been tried. It didn't work! Nobody wants a little chicken sh.t car. They want big powerful roomy cars and since the automakers no longer produce them, thanks to government interference in the marketplace, people buy SUVs instead. They vote with dollars for what they want despite communist trends in the bureaucray. > > These smaller cars could be sold with stick shift only, and for a small > > price (say $8,000) would sell like a crazy. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > marketplace, people buy SUVs instead. They vote with dollars for what they want > despite communist trends in the bureaucray. What porcentage of cars in Paris you think are SUVs? I think their communist bureaucracy works better than our communist bureaucracy. > What porcentage of cars in Paris you think are SUVs? I think their > communist bureaucracy works better than our communist bureaucracy. They'd probably let you in, if you ask real nice. > > What porcentage of cars in Paris you think are SUVs? I think their > > communist bureaucracy works better than our communist bureaucracy. > > They'd probably let you in, if you ask real nice. How you say it French? "Excuse ce moi" or something like that, no? > Vito wrote: > > If we had the same population we had in say 1960 there would be no reason to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, the Indians would have taken eons to get where we are, so the > European arrivals are to be considered undesirable rabbits. That's not entirely true. There were many times as many Indians before Euros (Spanish) brought small pox to wipe them out. > A 40MPG car can still be a lot of fun. Many cars in Europe get that > mileage, which when coupled with stick shift, are far more fun than, > say, a 200 hp Toyota Camry. Some even have an American badge. Perhaps, but nowhere near as much fun as a 600hp AC Cobra or 'vette and certainly without the combo of fun and practicality of, say, a '68 Pontiac GTO. > The question being, why on earth is not available in America if they > are good for the Germans and others and we are in the era of > globalization? Could it be that that the dinosaur is afraid of > competition? I doubt GM has any fear of importing a car they themselves make, seeing as how they are bragging about sending 1000s of jobs to China. More your Opal won't meet our stupid EPA or DOT laws. GM used to import Opals back before these laws took effect. Ford imported the Fiesta - a car that won many rallys and had a cult following it was so good - but dropped it because it didn't meet new EPA and DOT rules. Remember what happened to the MGB when they tried to satisfy DOT? > > A 40MPG car can still be a lot of fun. Many cars in Europe get that > > mileage, which when coupled with stick shift, are far more fun than, > > say, a 200 hp Toyota Camry. Some even have an American badge. > > Perhaps, but nowhere near as much fun as a 600hp AC Cobra or 'vette and > certainly without the combo of fun and practicality of, say, a '68 Pontiac GTO. Well, you can always have your super car driven in a race circuit, not the road you know. It seems to me that 600hp is a bit of an overkill for American roads... > > The question being, why on earth is not available in America if they > > are good for the Germans and others and we are in the era of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and DOT rules. Remember what happened to the MGB when they tried to satisfy > DOT? Yep, and you think they'll say publicly, "We don't want small, efficient cars on our roads doing competition to our SUVs"? No, first they will classify SUVs as "trucks" as to be outside any regulation, and then proceed to regulate the small efficient cars out of the market. If you know what I mean... Remember, "The greatest sin is competition." -John D. Rockefeller > Well, you can always have your super car driven in a race circuit, not > the road you know. It seems to me that 600hp is a bit of an overkill > for American roads. What seems overkill to you is "barely enough" to me. > Yep, and you think they'll say publicly, "We don't want small, > efficient cars on our roads doing competition to our SUVs"? No, first > they will classify SUVs as "trucks" as to be outside any regulation, > and then proceed to regulate the small efficient cars out of the > market. If you know what I mean... Oh BS! GM and every other car maker is simply giving people what they want badly enough to fork over the extra money for. Most buyers ignored the wimpmobiles you advocate and instead chose high-end optioned-out trucks when large cars were legislated off the showroom. The people who buy bought more trucks with back seats then four doors than regular trucks, so GM, et al, gave them what they wanted and these "country Cadillacs" evolved into SUVs *because that's what buyers demanded*!! Yes, I know what you mean: the mfgr.s used a ruse to build the kinds of cars the people wanted instead of the kind butfuk bureaucrats thought they should want. > Remember, "The greatest sin is competition." -John D. Rockefeller GM's SUVs do not compete with GM's wimpmobiles, nor those of any other manufacturer. It's oxymoronic to think they do. GM's big cars did compete with Honda's wimpycars before GM made wimpycars, and GM lost sales when wimpy buyers chose wimpycars. That's why GM began making ever more wimpy cars. But guess what, Honda is making SUVs too now. There isn't enough money to be made catering to wimps. > > Remember, "The greatest sin is competition." -John D. Rockefeller > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what, Honda is making SUVs too now. There isn't enough money to be made > catering to wimps. Funny some show their patriotism with Japanese imports and Arabic oil. Oh, I forgot the "Support our Troops" made in China. ;( There's a very simple reason no Opel Corsas are sold in the US: GM already sells a slightly larger vehicle here called the Chevrolet Aveo, essentially a badge-engineered Daewoo that gets almost 40 mpg. If you wanted to complain about unavailability, bitch about why there are no Ford Fiestas here (the reason: Ford on several occasions tried to sell small cars here, like the Festiva and the Aspire; they all sold at a mediocre rate). Before the Aveo, GM sold the Chevrolet/Geo Metro, basically a badge-engineered Suzuki Swift. There are essentially 5 subcompact cars sold in the US: the Chevy Aveo, Kia Rio, Hyundai Accent, Mini Cooper, and Toyota Yaris/Echo. The problem is, small cars have the reputation of being cramped (for obvious reasons - we Americans are big, these cars are small), as well as low-quality. 3 of them are Korean, and while the Koreans have gotten better, they still tend to be worse than most US models, let alone Japanese cars. The only Japanese-built one, the Toyota Echo, is very eccentric and also rather expensive for such a small car. The Mini Cooper is quite pricey, and its main appeal is as a niche/retro model. It's also the only one of the five with a real performance option (the supercharged Mini Cooper S). Another thing is that Americans tend to take longer trips in their cars than most people abroad. Basically, this is because the US has pretty good highways (second to Germany in quality) and a rail system that completely sucks. Also, the US is BIG - about the same size as all of Western Europe, but with 100 million fewer people and no pesky borders to impede automotive traffic. Gas is also still cheap here by European standards, $3.00 a gallon is still less than it was in England or France before the crisis. And in Japan, it's nearing $10 a gallon. > There's a very simple reason no Opel Corsas are sold in the US: GM > already sells a slightly larger vehicle here called the Chevrolet Aveo, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > standards, $3.00 a gallon is still less than it was in England or > France before the crisis. And in Japan, it's nearing $10 a gallon. However you put it, there's MONOPOLY of the automobile market. You go to Europe and you see a zillion models including the Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles, but not in America. In that regard, America looks like a communist nation... Well, only richer. Perestroika please! Just look at this sweet tender story where a boy's love is crushed by mundane monopoly. This happened in a very far away land... The boy and the Ford Ka This is the story of an American boy who wanted to buy a small car - a very small car in fact. The boy lived for some time in the foothills of Germany's Odenwald, with its enchanted autobahns and infinite speed limits. The boy desired a light, inexpensive, fuel-efficient vehicle to take back from his voyage, and there were several such cars to choose from. The boy clearly was far from home. In this magical land were many small car models unfamiliar to the boy: Opel Corsa, Renault Clio, Toyota Aygo, Peugeot 107. The roads were filled with countless examples of these practical autos, encouraged by less street space and higher fuel taxes. One such car, the Smart Car, was so tiny that it could park perpendicularly in a parallel-parking zone. The boy's affections were captured by the tiny Ford Ka, whose three-door body and corner wheels resembles a futuristic, trapezoidal pod. Ka's back seat doubles as trunk space, and its front seats were close together and a bit cramped. The boy was looking for transportation, not a place to live. Ka surely was not for the obese, but the boy astutely observed that the obese weren't as plentiful on the other side of the ocean. Such a small car must get kick-a.s gas mileage, mused the boy. He looked up the specs and did the math, converting Ka's liters per 100 kilometers rating into the customary miles per gallon of his homeland. Ka's 1.0 liter engine got 48 mpg with standard gasoline, which was more than any non-hybrid car in his own country. A few other European models were even more efficient. The boy laughed at the bloated attention given to expensive hybrid cars in America. Why he hadn't seen the car in his own country, the boy didn't know. After all, Ford is an American company that championed the assembly-line manufacturing process, allowing cars to become affordable for the masses. The boy did more math, converting the funny Euro currency into the almighty dollar of his kingdom. Ka cost less than any model sold back home. Even with a sizable import tariff, Ka would still be affordable, and surely an American company's product could be brought to America. Then the wicked U.S. Department of Transportation stepped in. USDOT publishes regulations for all cars manufactured and sold in America, and the same rules apply to cars to be imported. The guidelines establish procedures "governing the importation of motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards," as the regulations state. Apparently to the boy, other countries didn't try to prevent car theft. Given the higher speed limits of most European countries, the boy also couldn't understand how America's safety standards could be more stringent. Didn't 40,000 people die each year in American traffic accidents, a larger proportion than Europe? In fact, a much larger percentage of traffic-related deaths in Europe are bicycle- and pedestrian-related, which American car safety regulations certainly can't take credit for abating. The only plausible explanations are that Americans are more careless drivers and American roads are more poorly designed and maintained. The boy wasn't surprised by either of these possibilites. In a rage, the boy contacted Ford Germany and learned that there was no way the Ford Ka could be contorted to pass U.S. laws. Ka is sold in Asia, South America, Africa and Europe, but it can't be driven in the United States. In fact, many small cars available in Europe simply are too small to be legal in America. How idiotic and misguided the federal regulations must be, that allow the Hummer and forbid the Ka. It seemed to the boy that Americans feel safer when they can run over people, rather than safely taking up less street space in the first place. Dan Magestro is a postdoctoral research associate in the physics department. He can be reached for comment at magestro.1@osu.edu. http://www.thelantern.com/media/paper333/news/2005/11/28/Opinion/The-Boy.And.The .Ford.Ka-1114179.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.thelantern.com I'm going to argue that the lack of competition was a devil's bargain made between safety and environmental advocates and major US automakers, and could be blamed on both. Basically, consumer advocacy groups demanded fairly extreme modifications to cars in an attempt to make them safer (one example would be the 5mph bumpers seen in the 1970s-80s). Detroit initially fought this, but they acquiesed on the basis that they could withstand it but smaller automakers could not. This is one reason that many foreign carmakers in the US withdrew in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, and also contributed to the end of American Motors (although there were other causes). One big issue was airbags; to this day, many economy cars in foreign countries don't have airbags (or only a driver's-side airbag). Another is that gasoline was not a substantial problem for many years; fuel costs dropped throughout the 80s and 90s. It didn't pay to buy a small car - a larger one cost only a few thousand more, gas was cheap, and Americans weren't happy with the comical early small cars built by both Americans and (non-Japanese) foreign car companies (witness the Yugo or early Korean cars). Diesels failed here for largely the same reason, GM tried to introduce diesel cars in the 70s-80s but the engines were shoddy. As for the Ka, that car was being designed in the mid-late 1990s. At the time Ford had just stopped selling the Aspire in North America, gas was around $1.20 a gallon, and Ford sold the spry ZX2 coupe, basically a 2-door Escort. So Ford did not perceive the need to design the Ka for the US market, after all their last car in the market had been a failure. Also, it could have just been a "D'oh!" moment. Stuff like that happens in the car industries. Example: Ford's original Windstar had the gas tank near where a driver's-side sliding door would have been; when competing minivans started offering a 4th door Ford had to do a substantial redesign and was late in the game. The variety of small cars available in the US was actually far larger a decade or so ago - in 1993 there was the Ford Festiva, Subaru Justy, Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift, Toyota Tercel/Paseo, Hyundai Excel, Mazda 323, and the Dodge Colt/Eagle Summit/Mitsubishi Mirage. The problem is that the markets weren't profitable at the time - the companies reacted to low prices and poor sales of small cars by pulling them and selling larger models. Now they're reacting by looking at smaller cars again, as well as fuel efficiency... Also, don't knock individualism or capitalism (I'm a profound capitalist, but I also believe that it goes both ways - no corporate welfare). I really loathe collectivism - the idea that individuals are unimportant or important only in regards to others. A society is a society but it is made up of individuals and a society that doesn't respect that is oppressive. Sacrificing the individual to the collective is a decision that should only be made when absolutely neccesary. > The variety of small cars available in the US was actually far larger a > decade or so ago - in 1993 there was the Ford Festiva, Subaru Justy, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > larger models. Now they're reacting by looking at smaller cars again, > as well as fuel efficiency... However you put it still is MONOPOLY. The few small cars available were stupid, boring, lacking in character. Why the heck some corporations and/or bureaucrats should determine that I can't drive a Ka or Opel Corsa? That's well advanced on the road to communism. :( > Also, don't knock individualism or capitalism (I'm a profound > capitalist, but I also believe that it goes both ways - no corporate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > collective is a decision that should only be made when absolutely > neccesary. We need to strike a balance between sharks and sardines. So far only the predators got a chance... HOW THE POLITICAL JUNGLE WORKS Politics works like this: Big People of Big Country buy Big People of Little Country, who, by the way, will be elected in "democratic elections" thanks to big bucks; Big People of Big Country give big loans to Little Country (of course, to buy "made in Big Country"); Big People of Little Country pocket a big chunk and invest it in the Big Country, without ever investing in real development (education, health, the environment, etc); Little People of Little Country work for ever to pay back what they never got; Big People of Little Country thank in big ceremony Big People of Big Country in the name of Little Country, and promise to repay the big debt; and Little People of Little Country get big promises, just like Little People of Big Country. And they lived happily ever after... (Moral: The Big Fish eats the Little Fish. Well, unless the Little Fish get organized...) < snipped good sensible stuff - ;-) > > Another thing is that Americans tend to take longer trips in their cars > than most people abroad. Basically, this is because the US has pretty > good highways (second to Germany in quality) and a rail system that > completely sucks. Also, the US is BIG - about the same size as all of > Western Europe, but with 100 million fewer people and no pesky borders > to impede automotive traffic Actually, in the EU the borders have now gone. Only the UK keeps border controls ( as you have a sea crossing in the way - or the tunnel of course too ) . Graham > > What's the answer? We need to go on diet: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > like cockroaches. Don't blame the person in an SUV, blame the stupid > SOB who had 3 or more kids. (S)he's the one who got us into this fix. Is this an example of the American spirit of independence and taking responsibility for one's own actions? SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com >>>What's the answer? We need to go on diet: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Is this an example of the American spirit of independence and taking > responsibility for one's own actions? While freedom means freedom, individuals will make the wrong choices when it comes to collective resources. There are things that deserve regulation for the common good. With a non-renewable, finite resource, that pollutes and causes political instability, it would seem that a "common good" approach to oil would be collectively approved. Individualism, regretably shows that most people are either ignorant, ambivalent or arrogant about their oil consumption choices. The "American spirit of independence" is a laugh. While it's a beautiful thing to say about oneself, the reality is exposed after events like Katrina: "Where is the governemnt to save me?" This is precisely what will happen when spiraling fuel prices drag the US economy to a dead halt, people will ask what the government did and the answer will be: "The wrong things". Blame the SUV's driven by a lawyer in the suburbs 40 miles to and from work every day, as his doctor wife drives her SUV to her hospital 30 miles away every day. Since the 80's the proportion of cars to light trucks (which includes SUV's and minivans) has gone from 70-30 to 51-49. That's where much of the problem lies. If the 121M people who live in Florida, Texas, California and the BosWash reduced their fuel consumption (about 8 M barrels per day) by a mere 10%, it would be equal to the ANWR daily (peak year) output. That could delay exploiting ANWR for another 10, 20 or 50 years. (I have no illusions that it will be tapped one day, but it's easier to conserve than to exploit). It's about managing a precious resource. And we're not doing it. Waste not, want not. Oil is non-renewable. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>>What's the answer? We need to go on diet: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >work every day, as his doctor wife drives her SUV to her hospital 30 >miles away every day. Blame the environmentalists (again) for prompting the government to build CAFE rules that have killed the traditional station wagon. Now, when people need that much cargo and people carrying capability, they pretty much have to buy an SUV. The Dodge Magnum, an SUV that has been warped to the point that its so close to a station wagon its hard to tell the difference, gets great mileage. Here's the EPA's guide to 2006 mileages: Magnum........ A-4..... 2.7/6 .. 21/28 .. $1,376 ....................... A-4..... 3.5/6 .. 19/27 .. $1,502 ....................... A-5..... 3.5/6 .. 19/27 .. $1,502 ....................... A-5..... 5.7/8 .. 17/25 .. $1,650 ....................... A-5..... 6.1/8 .. 14/20 .. $2,250 .. P The P after the big V8 mileage means premium gas. But note the 2.7 liter 6 cylinder 4 speed automatic at 21 city, 28 highway. That's impressive for a vehicle that's advertised to carry "A ladder, 10 sheets of plywood, a guitar, an amp, etc (I forget what all the guy said) as in the commercial. Even the small V8, at 17 city, 25 highway is pretty impressive. These aren't the "12 mpg" suv figures. So, think what things would be like if the environmentalists hadn't mucked up the station wagon production. Station wagons don't have AWD, generally, and people loved 'em. SUVs generally do, and it robs gas mileage in a lot of cases. >Since the 80's the proportion of cars to light trucks (which includes >SUV's and minivans) has gone from 70-30 to 51-49. Yeah, 'cuz you couldn't buy a decent station wagon. >That's where much of the problem lies. Environmentalists screwing with things like station wagon availability is where much of the problem lies. >If the 121M people who live in Florida, Texas, California and the >BosWash reduced their fuel consumption (about 8 M barrels per day) by a >mere 10%, it would be equal to the ANWR daily (peak year) output. If they could legally buy station wagons instead of SUVs to do the same jobs, they might be able to reduced their fuel consumption and be happy about it. They _won't_ be happy about buying something that doesn't fill their needs to occasionally haul a lot of stuff. So they won't buy it - they'll buy the low gas mileage, high capability SUV. >That >could delay exploiting ANWR for another 10, 20 or 50 years. We should immediately drill for oil with just 1 criterion - someone with the money to drill it thinks there's a profitable amount of oil there. That's it - finished - over with. The only criterion. Doesn't matter if its off shore, on shore, in Alaska, in California, in Texas, etc. Just drill for the damn stuff. Things will improve. >(I have no >illusions that it will be tapped one day, but it's easier to conserve >than to exploit). It would be, if environmentalists who want to control everything but have no concept of unintended consequences would get the hell out of the way and let it happen. >It's about managing a precious resource. And we're not doing it. Its about letting the free market work, and we're not doing it. >Waste not, want not. Oil is non-renewable. Oh, sure it is - you just have to wait a few million years... <G> But given a 20 - 50 year cushion of oil production to meet our needs without importing it, which would be achievable if we just drilled our own oil, then we could come up with something better - solar, alcohol, etc. Dave Head >Cheers, >Alan >>>>>What's the answer? We need to go on diet: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > shore, in Alaska, in California, in Texas, etc. Just drill for the damn stuff. > Things will improve. No. They will get worse. Every gallon of gas burned is gone forever and it is a non renewable resource. Every barrel discovered costs more than the last barrel discovered. Every barrel expoited costs more than the last barrel to get to market. And these are the market independant variables. The only way to slow this down and spread it out over time is to reduce the rate of consumption. This is very easy to do; it's just not done. It is like having money in the bank being replenished slowly but being spent arbitrarilly. Any responsible person would control the spending before seeking to increase the replenishment. There is no credit account for oil. >>(I have no >>illusions that it will be tapped one day, but it's easier to conserve [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > concept of unintended consequences would get the hell out of the way and let it > happen. Nonsense. Most people simply don't care enough to conserve. If there were no controls then the 50%+ of cars sold today that are subject to CAFE would not be as efficient as they are (not that that is adequate, but it is far better than nothing). >>It's about managing a precious resource. And we're not doing it. > > Its about letting the free market work, and we're not doing it. "Free market" assumes that a resource, even if relatively scarce, will be available indefinitely. Oil does not fit that description. Further, since oil is not only responsible for a lot of pollution and is coupled very directly and so importantly to the economic engines of the world, it deserves (nay, requires) to be treated seperately and specially. It is too important to leave to the whims of a free market. What works so well for the price of bananas does not for the over consumption of oil. It is akin to spending your retirement money faster than investments can replenish it before you die. >>Waste not, want not. Oil is non-renewable. > > Oh, sure it is - you just have to wait a few million years... <G> But given a > 20 - 50 year cushion of oil production to meet our needs without importing it, > which would be achievable if we just drilled our own oil, then we could come up > with something better - solar, alcohol, etc. A 10% reduction in consumpion by the most populous areas in the US is _equal_ to the production of the ANWR on a daily basis. So you get the same effect and you get to keep the oil for a later day. A 6% reduction by all Americans is equal to the daily import of oil from Saudi Arabia. As to the "station wagon" effect: <<Bush said last week that he wants Congress to give him the power to raise fuel efficiency standards for cars. The fleet average of 27.5 miles per gallon has not changed for two decades. Bolten said the president does not have a specific increase in mind and the transportation secretary would take time to figure it out. Bolten said Bush does not just want to raise the standard, but change it so that it is based on vehicle weight and size.>> --Washington Post, April 30, 2006. In a way I'm happy prices are higher as people will consume a little less and it gives incentive to develop and improve alternative energy. Unfortuantely, it's not enough "less" and there will be losers in the job market because of it. In the meantime Exxon et al get disproportionately richer. How does that help the economy? I have nothing against corporate profits, but these profits are based on inefficiency in consumption; not efficiencies at Exxon. Companies should rightly be rewarded for their own efficiency (the usual example of competition). This is not the case here; it is simple windfall by market condition for Exxon. That money is no longer in free circulation in the economy. Now tell me that's right. Cheers, Alan >>>>>>What's the answer? We need to go on diet: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >No. They will get worse. Every gallon of gas burned is gone forever >and it is a non renewable resource. But it is the best "today" solution. We should use it to buy ourselves time to go to the next stage of energy use. We only need the technology to make solar or nuclear fusion or geothermal to be the "fuel of the future". The longer we have to work on it, the more likely someone's gonna figure it out. >Every barrel discovered costs more than the last barrel discovered. Depends on what they find and where. >Every barrel expoited costs more than the last barrel to get to market. Might, but not if they build a railroad or a pipeline to it. >And these are the market independant variables. > >The only way to slow this down and spread it out over time is to reduce >the rate of consumption. This is very easy to do; it's just not done. No, there are 2 ways - the other is to increase production. >It is like having money in the bank being replenished slowly but being >spent arbitrarilly. Any responsible person would control the spending >before seeking to increase the replenishment. There is no credit >account for oil. No, if your bank account isn't being replenished fast enough, and you have the ability, then you quite rationally get a better job to fill it up faster. >>>(I have no >>>illusions that it will be tapped one day, but it's easier to conserve [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Nonsense. Most people simply don't care enough to conserve. Nonsense - most people would love to do what they do every day but do it for less. If they could buy a vehicle that would get all their people and stuff hauled, and could do it while spending less for gas, they would. But that option isn't there any more - they have to buy an SUV. >If there >were no controls then the 50%+ of cars sold today that are subject to >CAFE would not be as efficient as they are (not that that is adequate, >but it is far better than nothing). Quite possibly. The gas mileage of a car isn't the #1 reason for buying it, usually, especially amongst otherwise expensive cars. There's not a lotta pressure for high mileage cars, other than the fuel price. But today, that might be enough. >>>It's about managing a precious resource. And we're not doing it. >> >> Its about letting the free market work, and we're not doing it. > >"Free market" assumes that a resource, even if relatively scarce, will >be available indefinitely. Where does that come from? The free market today for oil is $70 or so a barrel. That doesn't say that tomorrows free market won't be $75 because the supply is less... >Oil does not fit that description. Its essentially limitless within our lifetimes. When the easy to get stuff is scarce enough to raise the price sufficiently, you'll see a hoarde of people developing shale oil and the tar sands oil. >Further, >since oil is not only responsible for a lot of pollution and is coupled [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >same effect and you get to keep the oil for a later day. A 6% reduction >by all Americans is equal to the daily import of oil from Saudi Arabia. Great - lets bring back the station wagon at 28 - 30 mpg (prolly doable with a turbocharged 4 cylinder) and maybe we can do it, if the environmentalists can quit having kittens about it. Get people to buy station wagons again instead of SUVs... might be doable. >As to the "station wagon" effect: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that it is based on vehicle weight and size.>> > --Washington Post, April 30, 2006. Interesting concept to peg it to weight. That will get some improvement out of the big SUV's and trucks that might not otherwise happen. Maybe it'll bring back the turbocharger - we can hope - there's just no excuse, period, for not using this fuel efficient, effective technology. >In a way I'm happy prices are higher as people will consume a little >less and it gives incentive to develop and improve alternative energy. In a way, I am too, same reason, and hope that it will also spur both alternative energy (alcohol seems to be the leader in being easy to do) and for conservation via producing more fuel efficient vehicles. The hydraulic hybrid is supposed to be out on a Ford F150 in 2008 - 60 mpg around town, prolly diesel, AWD, etc. Crank that technology into a passenger car eventually, and we might see 100 mpg cars. >Unfortuantely, it's not enough "less" and there will be losers in the >job market because of it. In the meantime Exxon et al get [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >market condition for Exxon. That money is no longer in free circulation >in the economy. Now tell me that's right. Well, if it wasn't that high, then would there be a failure to cut back, and the oil would all go to places like China and India which would pay more for it, and we'd experience a shortage? No gas at the gas station - that's what happens when the price is kept artificially low, as in the price controls of the energy crisis of the 70's. The less we try to pay for it, the more it will fail to be conserved, and the more we'll need, and fail to get on the market. Instant shortage. Dave Head >Cheers, >Alan > On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:16:40 -0400, Alan Browne >>No. They will get worse. Every gallon of gas burned is gone forever >>and it is a non renewable resource. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or nuclear fusion or geothermal to be the "fuel of the future". The longer we > have to work on it, the more likely someone's gonna figure it out. And you can save enough fuel now to avoid ANWR while it gets figured out. >>Every barrel discovered costs more than the last barrel discovered. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Might, but not if they build a railroad or a pipeline to it. You're ignorant of the facts about oil exploration and exploitation today. It's further away, in worse conditions, harder to extract and refine. Much easier to simply use less of what you already have. >>And these are the market independant variables. >> >>The only way to slow this down and spread it out over time is to reduce >>the rate of consumption. This is very easy to do; it's just not done. > > No, there are 2 ways - the other is to increase production. Unfortunately not. If production is plentiful it leads to more over consumption. Recau >>It is like having money in the bank being replenished slowly but being >>spent arbitrarilly. Any responsible person would control the spending [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, if your bank account isn't being replenished fast enough, and you have the > ability, then you quite rationally get a better job to fill it up faster. True. But in this case all those good jobs are scarce and getting scarcer. >>>>(I have no >>>>illusions that it will be tapped one day, but it's easier to conserve [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > hauled, and could do it while spending less for gas, they would. But that > option isn't there any more - they have to buy an SUV. I would guess that only 3 out of 20 people with SUV's need a vehicle that size. But, it's easier to rationalize having something than to work harder on doing with less. I do with less and occasionally rent a larger vehcile (minivan or SUV). >>If there >>were no controls then the 50%+ of cars sold today that are subject to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pressure for high mileage cars, other than the fuel price. But today, that > might be enough. It would have to be sustained and higher. Unfortunately, US prosperity and wide city streets and huge mall parking lots allow people to choose inefficiency. Freedom of choice never meant the "right" choice for everyone or the collective good. >>>>It's about managing a precious resource. And we're not doing it. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > barrel. That doesn't say that tomorrows free market won't be $75 because the > supply is less... I was referring to "letting the free market" work. In the prior post I was talking about "managing a precious resource". Letting the free market set prices _as if_ it was a limitless resource is _not_ managing it. >>Oil does not fit that description. > > Its essentially limitless within our lifetimes. When the easy to get stuff is > scarce enough to raise the price sufficiently, you'll see a hoarde of people > developing shale oil and the tar sands oil. Er, being done: Alberta is closing in on 1 M bbl / day. In part the very high price of oil supports this. And to boot, it requires using natural gas (clean burning and in high demand for other uses) to extract the oil form the tarsands. Mild insanity that would not be needed if we were not burning so much oil. But, it's the ecomomic engine of western Canada right now. >>Further, >>since oil is not only responsible for a lot of pollution and is coupled [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > quit having kittens about it. Get people to buy station wagons again instead > of SUVs... might be doable. I don't disagree, but CAFE is being adjusted to account for most SUV's; and Bush recently called for this to go even further (without a specific goal, alas; but for Bust it's a lot ... or maybe just window dressing). >>As to the "station wagon" effect: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > back the turbocharger - we can hope - there's just no excuse, period, for not > using this fuel efficient, effective technology. Turbo/supercharging does work, however, automobiles run at a regime for most of the day that does not get the most out of it. Hybrids (electric+combustion) are much better (at least for city+some_highway). The latest "improvments" to the beast cars are things like idling 1/2 of the cylinders during cruise. This is very effective in cruise, but the engines remain hopelessly inefficient in city driving ... where so many SUV's spend their time. I'm also a bit peeved at Honda for the Accord Hybrid. Great idea! Oh, it's a 6 cylinder 200 HP (250 during acceleration with electrics). They made an environmental muscle car! A 4 (or even 3) banger with electric boost would have done just fine. >>In a way I'm happy prices are higher as people will consume a little >>less and it gives incentive to develop and improve alternative energy. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > diesel, AWD, etc. Crank that technology into a passenger car eventually, and > we might see 100 mpg cars. Sounds a few years away. >>Unfortuantely, it's not enough "less" and there will be losers in the >>job market because of it. In the meantime Exxon et al get [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > fail to be conserved, and the more we'll need, and fail to get on the market. > Instant shortage. There will be shortages in the coming years regardless of price and how people respond to it. As a Canadian I'll probably see gas shortages in Quebec 'cause Alberta will sell to the US and China. Cheers, Alan >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:16:40 -0400, Alan Browne > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >And you can save enough fuel now to avoid ANWR while it gets figured out. I can? Well, its like this - I just bought my car for the next 10 years, so if you're dreaming of me doing better that 27 mpg on the road, you're dreams are not going to come true. Its' gonna take 5 1/2 years more to pay off the thing as it is, and then, hopefully, it'll be reliable enough to go another 4 years without my having to endure another car payment. >>>Every barrel discovered costs more than the last barrel discovered. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >today. It's further away, in worse conditions, harder to extract and >refine. Much easier to simply use less of what you already have. See above. I'm not using any less oil than 27 mpg will allow... >>>And these are the market independant variables. >>> >>>The only way to slow this down and spread it out over time is to reduce >>>the rate of consumption. This is very easy to do; it's just not done. >> >> No, there are 2 ways - the other is to increase production. >Unfortunately not. If production is plentiful it leads to more over >consumption. Recau Not at $3 a gallon, which is already here... >>>It is like having money in the bank being replenished slowly but being >>>spent arbitrarilly. Any responsible person would control the spending [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >I would guess that only 3 out of 20 people with SUV's need a vehicle >that size. I would guess that you would be wrong. I need my Jeep for: Deer hunting (anything else would get stuck in the snow), hauling stuff from the home improvement store, pulling things around on this rural property (fallen limbs that are too big for me to move myself come to mind), and going to work when the snow is deep. All of this is probably 20 days of driving out of the year. The rest of the time, I don't need the Jeep. But... I had, for quite some time, money for just 1 car. So, I drove the Jeep 100% of the time. Now, I still have the Jeep, but bought a car that, according to the EPA, gets 27 on the highway. Great. I drive it as much as I can. But, most people buy just 1 car - and they base that purchase on the 20 days a year needs, not the other 345 days a year needs, because the car that will work for those 20 days, will also do the job of the car that will do the other 345 days a year, but the car that is best for the 345 days a year, _won't_ do the job of the car that is capable of those other 20 days. So... lotsa people actually _need_ an SUV - just not very often, that's all. >But, it's easier to rationalize having something than to >work harder on doing with less. America is not about "doing with less". America is about doing _better_ than you did yesterday, last week, last year. Its called progress. America is not accustomed, nor does it want to be come accustomed, to going backwards in the "progress" thing. >I do with less and occasionally rent a >larger vehcile (minivan or SUV). Well, good for you, but that is not the "American way". >>>If there >>>were no controls then the 50%+ of cars sold today that are subject to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >inefficiency. Freedom of choice never meant the "right" choice for >everyone or the collective good. Well, America has never been into "collectivism", other than a few crazy hippies and some religious wierdo's in Texas that got themselves crisp-fried in the early nineties near Waco. We're all about individualism, and doing better than we did yesterday. >>>>>It's about managing a precious resource. And we're not doing it. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >was talking about "managing a precious resource". Letting the free >market set prices _as if_ it was a limitless resource is _not_ managing it. Oh. OK... >>>Oil does not fit that description. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >were not burning so much oil. But, it's the ecomomic engine of western >Canada right now. Cool. I guess the price is "high enough", eh? Now, if we just get the shale oil thing going, which is located on good ol USA soil... Nothing against Canada, but we do have this balance of trade problem... >>>Further, >>>since oil is not only responsible for a lot of pollution and is coupled [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >and Bush recently called for this to go even further (without a specific >goal, alas; but for Bust it's a lot ... or maybe just window dressing). Well, the Dodge Magnum is the 1st really appealing "station wagon like" car for a while, even if Dodge won't call it that and it doesn't have a 2-way tailgate that opens either down like a tailgate or out like a door to reveal a 3rd set of seats that allows 9 people to travel together... But it'll haul a lot, comes in 4 wheel drive if you want it that way, and is surprisingly fuel efficient, especially with the smaller engines. >>>As to the "station wagon" effect: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Hybrids (electric+combustion) are much better (at least for >city+some_highway). Oh, yeah, hybrids are great. I want an alcohol-burning, turbocharged hybrid... <G>. We'll get this energy independence thing figured out from both ends - increase the supply, while decreasing the demand... >The latest "improvments" to the beast cars are things like idling 1/2 of >the cylinders during cruise. This is very effective in cruise, but the >engines remain hopelessly inefficient in city driving ... where so many >SUV's spend their time. Well, if they get the hydraulic hybid technology to work, that will take care of the city driving portion of the equation. >I'm also a bit peeved at Honda for the Accord Hybrid. Great idea! Oh, >it's a 6 cylinder 200 HP (250 during acceleration with electrics). They >made an environmental muscle car! A 4 (or even 3) banger with electric >boost would have done just fine. People are still buying performance, and they want to actually _sell_ the cars, so they profiled it for acceleration. But just think how much more fuel would have been used if they simply got that performance by installing a bigger gasoline engine. Then the electric hybid at least looks useful, even if it is not all that it could be. What they need is a switch to allow the customer to warp it either way... tune it for power today, tune it for economy tomorrow, switch back the next day, etc. >>>In a way I'm happy prices are higher as people will consume a little >>>less and it gives incentive to develop and improve alternative energy. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Sounds a few years away. It has been pointed out to me in another thread that the emergence of the hydraulic hybrid on a Ford F150 in 2008 is speculation. Well, I'm still hoping, but if it does happen, then 60 mpg around-town rating for it will cause me to think about whether I want to keep the Jeep or not. >>>Unfortuantely, it's not enough "less" and there will be losers in the >>>job market because of it. In the meantime Exxon et al get [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >people respond to it. As a Canadian I'll probably see gas shortages in >Quebec 'cause Alberta will sell to the US and China. There may or may not be shortages. If the price goes up, people will find a way to conserve. People less hard-headed about it than me will actually carpool. I'll go to some real big extremes to avoid car pooling, or otherwise sharing my space inside my car. I just want to be alone, that's all... Dave Head >Cheers, >Alan > There may or may not be shortages. If the price goes up, people will find a > way to conserve. People less hard-headed about it than me will actually > carpool. I'll go to some real big extremes to avoid car pooling, or otherwise > sharing my space inside my car. I just want to be alone, that's all... > > Dave Head Back in the seventies 'oil crisis' the govt here introduced 'carless days' where you weren't allowed to use your car on a day you selected. This was supposed to cut back on driving ,but, you guessed it, the 'two car' family arrived....... Just wait until rationing begins! > On Mon, 01 May 2006 18:43:07 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: >> ... Freedom of choice never meant the "right" choice for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > better > than we did yesterday. "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Looks like collectivism to me! FloydR > "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect > union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > FloydR Oh. Thats old and out of date now.....ask George W.! > >It would have to be sustained and higher. Unfortunately, US prosperity > >and wide city streets and huge mall parking lots allow people to choose [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the early nineties near Waco. We're all about individualism, and doing better > than we did yesterday. The religious weirdos still run this country, but now they got a new messiah. I think they open the doors to Armageddon, WW3 and "The Day After Tomorrow." :( >>>On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:16:40 -0400, Alan Browne >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > as it is, and then, hopefully, it'll be reliable enough to go another 4 years > without my having to endure another car payment. I too keep my cars for about 8 years. But I pay them down as fast as possible. I buy high reliability (Honda) simple (not luxury gadget infested) and efficient (4-cyl Accord). It pays off in many ways that include a reasonable trade-in value, reasonable price, high-rel, low consumption. My neighbor across the street just traded in his S-71 for something as big (or bigger) ... but he's in the construction industry, so it makes sense for him given the places he has to go to. >>>>Every barrel discovered costs more than the last barrel discovered. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > See above. I'm not using any less oil than 27 mpg will allow... I understand that and 27 mpg is not _that_ bad. Regrettably, all those people who bought high consumption vehicles for whatever reason are unlikely to change them fast. Trade in value will be low, esp. after the high depreciation of the first year or so of ownership. >>>>And these are the market independant variables. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Not at $3 a gallon, which is already here... I have seen little to suggest that even $3+ / gal is changing anyone's habits in a positive way. People would rather pay for gasoline than find ways to reduce consumption. Yes, SUV/light truck sales have taken a hit. Yes, consumers are angry over Exxon profits. But not enough as yet to reduce consumption. It does occur to me that since middle east tension and US "expenses" thereto are very related to energy, it would be appropriate to add a war tax to the top 33% consumption vehicles at the pump. <ducks and runs> >>>>It is like having money in the bank being replenished slowly but being >>>>spent arbitrarilly. Any responsible person would control the spending [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > But... I had, for quite some time, money for just 1 car. So, I drove the Jeep > 100% of the time. That's a very common story. Could you run the numbers and see how it would go if you bought a less expensive car and rented the Jeep for the times you need it. I suspect it's a wash or close enough that you'd be willing to pay a premium to be a good citizen. (See also my E-85 post). > Now, I still have the Jeep, but bought a car that, according to the EPA, gets > 27 on the highway. Great. I drive it as much as I can. But, most people buy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > capable of those other 20 days. So... lotsa people actually _need_ an SUV - > just not very often, that's all. I understand that, unfortunately it is that 350 days of waste for 15 days of need that is driving the problems (pollution / waste / price). Another issue is insurance. Say you own two vehicles, a big ole truck and a Honda Civic. One driver. You have to pay equal liability on both even though you can't drive both at the same time. Insurance co's don't help. >>But, it's easier to rationalize having something than to >>work harder on doing with less. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accustomed, nor does it want to be come accustomed, to going backwards in the > "progress" thing. Progress does not mean "bigger". If it did, computers would not fit in your pocket. Progress means, among other things, efficiency. As I stated earlier, the US alone has 30% more vehicles than in 1980, but the proportion of high consuming vehicles has gone up wildly. >>I do with less and occasionally rent a >>larger vehcile (minivan or SUV). > > Well, good for you, but that is not the "American way". Efficiency is a key American way (basis of the economy) that shows in most other areas of the economy other than energy consumption. And by the way, the "American way" is not be fiat the "only way" or for that matter the "right way". If the American economy (the "American way" that is so efficient) did not do so well, then few American's could afford to be so inefficient with cars. Automobiles are one of the most popular fetishes in the world, and the America automobile fetish is "BIG". >>>>If there >>>>were no controls then the 50%+ of cars sold today that are subject to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the early nineties near Waco. We're all about individualism, and doing better > than we did yesterday. See above. Consuming more is not "better". Capitalism, the great area of American excellence is based on competition and efficiencies. American enrgy use (esp. in vehicles) is not efficient. It is just as Ameican to say "Most efficient" as "bigger, better, faster, more". But more doesn't need to mean "big". It should mean "more efficient". The "collective good" is practiced in America. This includes giving blood, charity, religious participation, vollunteers of all kinds (I meet more Americans involved in civic activities than anyone else). Americans are very generous and involved. Except when it comes to energy! They're downright greedy in that resepct. >>>>>>It's about managing a precious resource. And we're not doing it. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Cool. I guess the price is "high enough", eh? Now, if we just get the shale > oil thing going, which is located on good ol USA soil... No. Terrible. Uses cleaner natural gas to manufacture thick oil from tar which then needs even more natural gas to "synthesize" the crude oil that can finally be refined. Creates a lot of greenhouse gasses just to make the oil that then makes greenhouse gasses ... > Nothing against > Canada, but we do have this balance of trade problem... Getting worse by the second. So is your public debt. So is your private debt. >>>Great - lets bring back the station wagon at 28 - 30 mpg (prolly doable with a >>>turbocharged 4 cylinder) and maybe we can do it, if the environmentalists can [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > comes in 4 wheel drive if you want it that way, and is surprisingly fuel > efficient, especially with the smaller engines. It looks like a brute (I confess it is COOL looking), but it looks like a hog too. (I say that w/o any knowledge of its efficiency). >>Turbo/supercharging does work, however, automobiles run at a regime for >>most of the day that does not get the most out of it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > <G>. We'll get this energy independence thing figured out from both ends - > increase the supply, while decreasing the demand... You increase one, you won't get the other. Balance everywhere, damn it, praise it, that's the fact. >>The latest "improvments" to the beast cars are things like idling 1/2 of >>the cylinders during cruise. This is very effective in cruise, but the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, if they get the hydraulic hybid technology to work, that will take care > of the city driving portion of the equation. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/02/epa_eaton_and_p.html >>I'm also a bit peeved at Honda for the Accord Hybrid. Great idea! Oh, >>it's a 6 cylinder 200 HP (250 during acceleration with electrics). They [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > warp it either way... tune it for power today, tune it for economy tomorrow, > switch back the next day, etc. If, instead of a measily 13 hp electric motor (effecitively 50 hp for accleration) they had put 50 hp electric + 125 hp gasoline (3 or banger), they could have achieved the same effect. Would require lots of voltage and/or amps, and maybe larger batteries, however. More expensive. But when you accelerate with the 6 cyl, it is not very efficient at all... >>>diesel, AWD, etc. Crank that technology into a passenger car eventually, and >>>we might see 100 mpg cars. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > carpool. I'll go to some real big extremes to avoid car pooling, or otherwise > sharing my space inside my car. I just want to be alone, that's all... I agree there and I do want my convenience. But I can do it at less mpg most of the time. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I have seen little to suggest that even $3+ / gal is changing anyone's > habits in a positive way. People would rather pay for gasoline than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thereto are very related to energy, it would be appropriate to add a war > tax to the top 33% consumption vehicles at the pump. <ducks and runs> Yep, I'd vote for it. If you got an SUV and proudly display one of those ubiquitous "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers, it's high time you show your support with your wallet, not the education and healthcare of the poor. Of course, then you may proceed and enlist yourself in the Army, which is also the domain of the poor. Maybe then there will be peace. ;) >>>>On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:16:40 -0400, Alan Browne >>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >people who bought high consumption vehicles for whatever reason are >unlikely to change them fast. Yeah. Buying a new ride is always expensive. >Trade in value will be low, esp. after >the high depreciation of the first year or so of ownership. And the fact that the high fuel consumtion used vehicle will be less desireable. >>>>>And these are the market independant variables. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I have seen little to suggest that even $3+ / gal is changing anyone's >habits in a positive way. Well, I just saw a report on TV that its almost impossible to find a Toyota Prius to buy. A white one might take a month waiting time to get, while the more popular black color could be a 6 month wait. >People would rather pay for gasoline than >find ways to reduce consumption. Some of 'em. >Yes, SUV/light truck sales have taken >a hit. Yes, consumers are angry over Exxon profits. But not enough as >yet to reduce consumption. Well, its not the profit doing it, tho. They make 9 cents a gallon on the gas as profits, as reported on TV. Who's really pocketing the increased price? Not sure. >It does occur to me that since middle east tension and US "expenses" >thereto are very related to energy, it would be appropriate to add a war >tax to the top 33% consumption vehicles at the pump. <ducks and runs> Oh, I just hate the idea of another tax as a solution to something. It might be OK if the tax was spent exclusively on something that would actually solve the problem, like maybe finding a way to electrify all the highways and use nuclear power to move individual cars. Anything that would keep the oil in the middle east, unsold, and the owners of the oil dirt-poor. Yeah, never happen, but think of it as a goal... >>>>>It is like having money in the bank being replenished slowly but being >>>>>spent arbitrarilly. Any responsible person would control the spending [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >would go if you bought a less expensive car and rented the Jeep for the >times you need it. Not possible, as you can't rent a Jeep like I have. The Jeeps you will rent are all going to have "all season" tires that will get stuck on the unmaintained state land where I hunt deer, and be found there sometime during the spring thaw. My Jeep has some snow tires with some of the most aggressive, all terrain tread I could find. Great tires, _don't_ get stuck in the snow (so far) and the solution to my recreation requirement. >I suspect it's a wash or close enough that you'd be >willing to pay a premium to be a good citizen. (See also my E-85 post). I'd enjoy owning 1 less vehicle if it'd actually work, but it won't work. And, maybe this afternoon, I'm going to drive the Jeep, loaded with trash, to the landfill. Yeah, I could maybe get the job done with 3 trips in the Subaru, if I wanted to load trash onto the back seat, but... heck... I don't, really. Wouldn't want to spend the 3 hours or so to have a rental car company pick me up, rent the car, haul the trash, turn in the car, and have them drive me home. And, since the rental car company is 15 miles each way, it might not save all that much gas. >> Now, I still have the Jeep, but bought a car that, according to the EPA, gets >> 27 on the highway. Great. I drive it as much as I can. But, most people buy [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I understand that, unfortunately it is that 350 days of waste for 15 >days of need that is driving the problems (pollution / waste / price). Yep. The partial cure to this is for the lawmakers to allow the large station wagon again. People talk about the europeans still making them, buy as luxury models, but I still don't recall seeing anything on the road that I would call a large station wagon. A large station wagon seats 9 people, and can carry a whale of an amount of stuff. Someone says Volvo, and I look at the Volvos I see on the street, and I see a narrow vehicle nothing like the big wagons the USA used to produce with the 2 way tailgate that would either fold down for cargo, or open like a door for the 3 people in the 3rd row of seats. Maybe I missed it, I dunno, but they're so expensive that they can't be a solution to the problem - they need to be minivan cheap in order to help solve the problem. >Another issue is insurance. Say you own two vehicles, a big ole truck >and a Honda Civic. One driver. You have to pay equal liability on both >even though you can't drive both at the same time. Insurance co's don't >help. Nope, they don't. >>>But, it's easier to rationalize having something than to >>>work harder on doing with less. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Progress does not mean "bigger". Progress generally means a increase in capability to do something that the buyer desires to be done. That _usually_ means bigger, because the buyer wants to haul a lot of stuff, or tow a boat, or something like that. >If it did, computers would not fit in >your pocket. That would be a portability capability. >Progress means, among other things, efficiency. Lately, that means something to buyers! <G> >As I >stated earlier, the US alone has 30% more vehicles than in 1980, but the >proportion of high consuming vehicles has gone up wildly. Well, they had some real gas hogs back then, and most people had 'em - there were few really small cars other than sports cars. And the small cars weren't necessarily all that efficient. I and a 6 cyl AMC Gremlin, 1974 model, that was not that great on mileage. In 1980, tho, I had a 77 Jeep Cherokee. Also bought a Plymouth Horizon that year - good mileage, not great. >>>I do with less and occasionally rent a >>>larger vehcile (minivan or SUV). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the way, the "American way" is not be fiat the "only way" or for that >matter the "right way". <G> >If the American economy (the "American way" that is so efficient) did >not do so well, then few American's could afford to be so inefficient >with cars. Automobiles are one of the most popular fetishes in the >world, and the America automobile fetish is "BIG". The country is so vast, you need a capable car if you want to travel that way. If you are traveling with a load of people, it even makes economic sense when you start adding up the cost of the airline tickets for, say, 6 people. >>>>>If there >>>>>were no controls then the 50%+ of cars sold today that are subject to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Ameican to say "Most efficient" as "bigger, better, faster, more". But >more doesn't need to mean "big". It should mean "more efficient". Some people are coming to that conclusion now. But people still want "fast" even if it is "efficient". I _really_ enjoy my 27 mpg Subaru WRX, which is definitely "fast". >The "collective good" is practiced in America. This includes giving >blood, charity, religious participation, vollunteers of all kinds (I >meet more Americans involved in civic activities than anyone else). >Americans are very generous and involved. > >Except when it comes to energy! They're downright greedy in that resepct. It makes a lot of things more comfortable, which Americans are definitely "into". Riding around on scooters in a cold rain is not "comfortable". Getting tailgated by anyone at all if you're driving a 2000 lb car is not "comfortable". Having people look right at you, and pull out in front of you anyway, when you're driving a rollerskate car is not "comfortable", either. "Bigger is better" is still true in a lot of situations, still. >>>>>>>It's about managing a precious resource. And we're not doing it. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >that can finally be refined. Creates a lot of greenhouse gasses just to >make the oil that then makes greenhouse gasses ... Yep, but its "our" greenhouse gases, instead of Saudi or Iranian greenhouse gases, and that's all the difference. >> Nothing against >> Canada, but we do have this balance of trade problem... > >Getting worse by the second. So is your public debt. So is your >private debt. Yep. But if we start being energy self-sufficient, that will improve dramatically. >>>>Great - lets bring back the station wagon at 28 - 30 mpg (prolly doable with a >>>>turbocharged 4 cylinder) and maybe we can do it, if the environmentalists can [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >It looks like a brute (I confess it is COOL looking), but it looks like >a hog too. (I say that w/o any knowledge of its efficiency). Some of the smaller engined Magnums are quite effiicient. >>>Turbo/supercharging does work, however, automobiles run at a regime for >>>most of the day that does not get the most out of it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You increase one, you won't get the other. Balance everywhere, damn it, >praise it, that's the fact. >>>The latest "improvments" to the beast cars are things like idling 1/2 of >>>the cylinders during cruise. This is very effective in cruise, but the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/02/epa_eaton_and_p.html That's the one. >>>I'm also a bit peeved at Honda for the Accord Hybrid. Great idea! Oh, >>>it's a 6 cylinder 200 HP (250 during acceleration with electrics). They [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >expensive. But when you accelerate with the 6 cyl, it is not very >efficient at all... Well, maybe someday it'll be warped the other way. >>>>diesel, AWD, etc. Crank that technology into a passenger car eventually, and >>>>we might see 100 mpg cars. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >I agree there and I do want my convenience. But I can do it at less mpg >most of the time. Next car purchase, I hope to do it at less mpg. Next car purchase is prolly about 10 years away, tho. Dave Head >Cheers, >Alan > It is like having money in the bank being replenished slowly but being > spent arbitrarilly. Any responsible person would control the spending > before seeking to increase the replenishment. Yes. And how best to control spending? Do you keep issueing check books to every fool who wants one, but limit each one to spending say $100/year or do you also limit the number of checkbooks? > Blame the environmentalists (again) for prompting the government to build CAFE > rules that have killed the traditional station wagon. Now, when people need > that much cargo and people carrying capability, they pretty much have to buy an > SUV. The SUV could be killed in one fell swoop by changing the CAFE exemption rules that allow SUVs to claim light-truck status. And there are a lot of wagons on the market, now. > The Dodge Magnum, an SUV that has been warped to the point that its so close to > a station wagon its hard to tell the difference, gets great mileage. Here's > the EPA's guide to 2006 mileages: What are you talking about? The Magnum IS a station wagon. > If they could legally buy station wagons instead of SUVs to do the same jobs, > they might be able to reduced their fuel consumption and be happy about it. > They _won't_ be happy about buying something that doesn't fill their needs to > occasionally haul a lot of stuff. So they won't buy it - they'll buy the low > gas mileage, high capability SUV. Again, what the hell are you talking about? When was it ever illegal to buy a station wagon? > It would be, if environmentalists who want to control everything but have no > concept of unintended consequences would get the hell out of the way and let it > happen. You have a real thing against environmentalists, don't you? Did some environmental group cost you a job, or something? > Dave Head Dean >> Blame the environmentalists (again) for prompting the government to build CAFE >> rules that have killed the traditional station wagon. Now, when people need [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >What are you talking about? The Magnum IS a station wagon. See... even you can't tell the difference - but it's marketed as a cross between an SUV and a sedan, with ads that show that it can do the same things your SUV can. A review of the Magnum says: http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/DodgeMagnum/ Dodge never refers to the Magnum as a station wagon. The company calls it a cross between a sport-utility and a sedan. The reviewer does call it a station wagon, tho. >> If they could legally buy station wagons instead of SUVs to do the same jobs, >> they might be able to reduced their fuel consumption and be happy about it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Again, what the hell are you talking about? When was it ever illegal >to buy a station wagon? Everywhere in the USA that you couldn't find a decent one to buy. The only thing you could find was some micro-mini thing that wouldn't haul more than 4 or 5 people, not 9. >> It would be, if environmentalists who want to control everything but have no >> concept of unintended consequences would get the hell out of the way and let it >> happen. > >You have a real thing against environmentalists, don't you? Yeah... I think about 90% of it is done for other reasons than the environment, OR is done for the environment but without any understanding of the real science behind it, or consideration for possible unintended consequences. These people always want to perform some draconian cure for something they're not quite sure about, such as global warming, that would wreck the economy if we actually tried to do something about the greenhouse gases, but for which the predictive models don't necessarily take into account all the carbon sequestration that might occur to mitigate the effects. > Did some >environmental group cost you a job, or something? I'm just sick of the situation where, every time someone proposes doing something to make things better, some environmental bunch says we can't for some insignificant reason, such as snail darters or spotted owls. The damn motorcycle race thru the desert was scrapped because of some damn critter that was supposedly endangered. They were attacking auto racing, at one point, because it uses fuel, but of course races like the Indy 500 never used gasoline, it was always alcohol, which can be made of a lot of things, not always oil. Always something. Screw that - be rational for a change. Dave Head >> Dave Head > >Dean >Blame the environmentalists (again) for prompting the government to build CAFE >rules that have killed the traditional station wagon. Now, when people need >that much cargo and people carrying capability, they pretty much have to buy an >SUV. That's hilarious. The environmentalists wanted an across-the-board CAFE, but the automakers got the politicians to exclude trucks (&SUVs.) And you blame the enviros for that. heh. You think a free market would solve all problems, but it took legislation to get carmakers to cut emissions and make cars safer. The builders certainly wouldn't have done it on their own. If there were no CAFE, we'd all be driving 10mpg vehicles. Free market? I'd love to buy a fuel economic truck, but there aren't any. (Your assertion that 21mpg is "great" is laughable.) I don't have the option of taking my business elsewhere. Now that Bush has decided to eliminate the truck exclusion to CAFE, eventually I will. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer >>Blame the environmentalists (again) for prompting the government to build CAFE >>rules that have killed the traditional station wagon. Now, when people need [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >CAFE, but the automakers got the politicians to exclude trucks >(&SUVs.) And you blame the enviros for that. heh. They at least had a brain - they realized that there would be no capable trucks for doing real work if they fit 'em all with 4 cylinder engines and that they would only attain a top speed of 47 mph... and not pull a boat up a hill. >You think a free market would solve all problems, but it took >legislation to get carmakers to cut emissions Well, yeah... its a big investment that if a company does that on its own, its at a competative disadvantage to a company that doesn't. >and make cars safer. That _wasn't_ necessary. If people would have really wanted that stuff, then the car companies could make a profit at offering it. But it was widely known that, at that time, safety didn't sell, so this was a bunch of do-gooder safety nazis that made us pay for stuff we didn't want. >The >builders certainly wouldn't have done it on their own. They _couldn't_ have done it on their own, without losing money. >If there were >no CAFE, we'd all be driving 10mpg vehicles. I dunno - there were Toyota Corollas _before_ CAFE - if we'd have wanted economy, it was available. > Free market? I'd love to >buy a fuel economic truck, but there aren't any. Stand by... 2008 Ford F150 is supposed to be 60 mpg city rated... and its _not_ mandated, either - they'll be selling it to make a profit. Dave Head > (Your assertion that >21mpg is "great" is laughable.) I don't have the option of taking my >business elsewhere. Now that Bush has decided to eliminate the truck >exclusion to CAFE, eventually I will. > >You think a free market would solve all problems, but it took > >legislation to get carmakers to ................make cars safer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that, at that time, safety didn't sell, so this was a bunch of do-gooder safety > nazis that made us pay for stuff we didn't want. So how come Volvo pioneered safety improvements like the lap and diagonal seatbelt ? Did no-one want it ? Was it altruism ? > Stand by... 2008 Ford F150 is supposed to be 60 mpg city rated You *have* to be kidding ! Graham >> >You think a free market would solve all problems, but it took >> >legislation to get carmakers to ................make cars safer. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >So how come Volvo pioneered safety improvements like the lap and diagonal seatbelt ? >Did no-one want it ? Was it altruism ? Someone musta wanted it, eh? >> Stand by... 2008 Ford F150 is supposed to be 60 mpg city rated > >You *have* to be kidding ! Nope - new hybrid technology - no batteries, 82% efficient at capturing braking energy. Dave Head >Graham > >> >You think a free market would solve all problems, but it took > >> >legislation to get carmakers to ................make cars safer. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Nope - new hybrid technology - no batteries, 82% efficient at capturing braking > energy. Yeah I saw that. The hydraulic energy recovery thingy wasn't it ? I simply have trouble believing that it will make *that* much difference. Graham >> >> >You think a free market would solve all problems, but it took >> >> >legislation to get carmakers to ................make cars safer. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Yeah I saw that. The hydraulic energy recovery thingy wasn't it ? Yep, that's it. >I simply have trouble believing that it will make *that* much difference. They had a Ford Expedition getting 32 around town 2 years ago. It seems that they believe they've learned enough since then to achieve 60 in an F150. We'll see... Dave Head >Graham > >I simply have trouble believing that it will make *that* much difference. > > They had a Ford Expedition getting 32 around town 2 years ago. It seems that > they believe they've learned enough since then to achieve 60 in an F150. We'll > see... Not only that, SUVs will also fly in the future --a real handy feature since they already cause the lion's share of death and mayhem on our roads. > Not only that, SUVs will also fly in the future --a real handy feature > since they already cause the lion's share of death and mayhem on our > roads. Is the latter your biased opinion or can you cite figures?? I vote for minivans. > > Not only that, SUVs will also fly in the future --a real handy feature > > since they already cause the lion's share of death and mayhem on our > > roads. > > > Is the latter your biased opinion or can you cite figures?? I vote for > minivans. No, I mean COMMON SENSE: GROSS WEIGHT and HIGH BUMPERS make for WMDs on our roads. "Rather than hitting the reinforced doors of a car with its bumper, an SUV will slam into more vulnerable areas and strike a car driver in the head or chest, where injuries are more life-threatening." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0212.mencimer.html > Vito wrote: > > > SUVs ... already cause the lion's share of death and mayhem on our roads. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0212.mencimer.html Ah-ha!! Then SUVs and their drivers are actually environmentally friendly. Not only are they helping reduce the root cause of our energy and environmental problems (overpopulation) but they are doing the Lord's own work by selectively removing the least intelligent - those stupid enough to drive minicars - from the gene pool. >> Vito wrote: >> > > SUVs ... already cause the lion's share of death and mayhem on our roads. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >removing the least intelligent - those stupid enough to drive minicars - from >the gene pool. It's rare to find suck crystal clear logic on the net, you have distilled it down to its essence. Congrats! Well done! > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0212.mencimer.html > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > removing the least intelligent - those stupid enough to drive minicars - from > the gene pool. And so were Hitler and Pol-Pot. So SUVs are conducting minicar cleansing, in order that only the big and polluting survive. I don't think there's any brain in it though, just pure Darwinism. Still reading the book "It's No Accident." Well, MADD gets suspicious of chasing the buck when it refuses breath analyzers from being installed on repeating DUIs cases (prevention) and simply wants more enforcement ($$$). So they are part of the Darwinian jungle in which they thrive as much as the vultures in the plains of Africa... :( "Meanwhile, the greatest hope for further reducing drunk driving casualties lies not in modest reductions in the legal limit of alcohol but in technology... Known formally as the breath analyzer ignition interlock system this technology makes driving while intoxicated physically impossible... At the same time, researchers estimate that as many as 80% of motorists whose licenses are suspended continue to drive anyway... Yet Madd makes surprisingly little effort to promote it. Without pressure from an outside organization, NHTSA also shows little interest in aggressively promoting this life saving technology." Turby wrote: > >Still reading the book "It's No Accident." > > You've been reading it for over a month. Why is it taking so long? Well, the end is coming soon and I will try to discuss here what she proposes. I already know that limiting speed is one of her proposals that I don't like. Rather we should open our markets to microcars that get you to top speed without getting you in trouble. If we kept our 200hp Toyota Camrys and limited it via speed governors to, say, 70 MPH, we'd run the risk of falling sleep and that's even more dangerous than DUI. Oh, in the solution I'd retire MADD, who, according to the book, doesn't have any official policy against cell phone use among their own staff!!! > Vito wrote: > > Ah-ha!! Then SUVs and their drivers are actually environmentally friendly. Not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cleansing, in order that only the big and polluting survive. I don't > think there's any brain in it though, just pure Darwinism. Well Germany WAS better off even after WW2. Maybe I'll get a bigger bugcatcher for my SUV. Wouldn't want those minicars damaging my radiator. > > Vito wrote: > > > Ah-ha!! Then SUVs and their drivers are actually environmentally friendly. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Well Germany WAS better off even after WW2. Maybe I'll get a bigger bugcatcher > for my SUV. Wouldn't want those minicars damaging my radiator. Only improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, can put a dent on them. But, oh well, we don't want violence. Skyrocketting gas prices should do. > Nope - new hybrid technology - no batteries, 82% efficient at capturing braking > energy. If this is true, an F150 will be my next vehicle, and I wasn't even considering a pickup. :D But although I traditionally have been a Ford fan, I must point out that they license their current hybrid technology from Toyota. They don't really have any of their own stuff, and if Toyota hasn't done it yet, I question whether Ford can do it. Of course, I might be off base. Quite frankly, nothing would make me happier than if I was. And 08-09 is the timeframe I'm looking at for buying my next vehicle, so... we'll see. You'll have to forgive me for being rather skeptical. :) (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you aren't trolling, but I've never read your posts, so...) SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Apple Valley, CA Resident of Southern California - the home of beautiful people and butt-ugly traffic jams >> Nope - new hybrid technology - no batteries, 82% efficient at capturing braking >> energy. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >(I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you aren't >trolling, but I've never read your posts, so...) Oh, there's tons of people that think I'm a troll, but this site says the Ford F-150 hydraulic hybrid is real, or speculates that it is: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/60_mpg_ford_f15.php The original site was a Detroit spy site: http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/hydraulichybrid.html It seems to have been damaged by some ad server covering the text toward the bottom, but its mostly there. Dave Head > Oh, there's tons of people that think I'm a troll, but this site says the Ford > F-150 hydraulic hybrid is real, or speculates that it is: > > http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/60_mpg_ford_f15.php OK, well, speculation isn't fact. You're presenting it like it is fact. > The original site was a Detroit spy site: > > http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/hydraulichybrid.html More speculation > It seems to have been damaged by some ad server covering the text toward the > bottom, but its mostly there. It's all there. I run Firefox with the Adblock plugin, which shows that the Google ads that are normally there are hidden on my browser. But it's all speculation. Kindly refrain from presenting it as The Truth. :) SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Apple Valley, CA Resident of Southern California - the home of beautiful people and butt-ugly traffic jams >> Oh, there's tons of people that think I'm a troll, but this site says the Ford >> F-150 hydraulic hybrid is real, or speculates that it is: >> >> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/60_mpg_ford_f15.php > >OK, well, speculation isn't fact. You're presenting it like it is fact. I feel pretty good about it, coupled with the official release of information a couple years ago about the 32 mpg Expedition. >> The original site was a Detroit spy site: >> >> http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/hydraulichybrid.html > >More speculation The guy's an industrial spy that pays particular attention to the auto industry. I think that Ford prolly just let it slip to him... that way, if they _don't_ come out with it, well, they never really announced it, did they? >> It seems to have been damaged by some ad server covering the text toward the >> bottom, but its mostly there. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >But it's all speculation. Kindly refrain from presenting it as The Truth. :) Well, I do get carried away with certain potential good news. I _have_ been taking the spy's word for it, and its been a long time since I've been to his site. So, I just kinda forgot about the "unofficialness" of the info... Dave Head >> But it's all speculation. Kindly refrain from presenting it as The Truth. :) > > Well, I do get carried away with certain potential good news. I _have_ been > taking the spy's word for it, and its been a long time since I've been to his > site. So, I just kinda forgot about the "unofficialness" of the info... Well, I hope it's true. People love pick'm'up trucks around here, because the Victor Valley has tons of unpaved dirt roads with huge holes in them. Raising your truck isn't just a fashion statement here. It's almost a necessity. :) I suspect an F150 with that kind of fuel economy would sell faster than the local dealers could get them. SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Apple Valley, CA Resident of Southern California - the home of beautiful people and butt-ugly traffic jams >>> But it's all speculation. Kindly refrain from presenting it as The Truth. :) >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Well, I hope it's true. Yeah, me too! >People love pick'm'up trucks around here, because the >Victor Valley has tons of unpaved dirt roads with huge holes in them. Raising >your truck isn't just a fashion statement here. It's almost a necessity. :) Ha - one of those places! <G> There's lots of 'em - the gov. and city people wonder why people want SUV's and things like that. Well... lotsa people need 'em. >I suspect an F150 with that kind of fuel economy would sell faster than the >local dealers could get them. Yep - they wouldn't be able to keep 'em in stock. The regular pickup truck people would be falling all over themselves beating a path to their Ford Dealer's door, and the "green" people would be snapping 'em up too, and the causual people in between, that just see $$$ savings from the gas mileage would also be there. Dave Head > >Blame the SUV's driven by a lawyer in the suburbs 40 miles to and from > >work every day, as his doctor wife drives her SUV to her hospital 30 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that much cargo and people carrying capability, they pretty much have to buy an > SUV. Blame the environmentalist, excuse the polluting pig, ignore the loopholes in a law created by lawyers (yes, they write the trick into the law) so the Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles could keep the no less stupid American automobile industry afloat. HOW THE LAW WORKS... FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LION One day the King of the Jungle, tired of being called AUTHORITARIAN, gathered the most cunning animals in the kingdom, chief among them the Foxes, and told them: "It's mighty unjust that I am not recognized for what I am. You know full well that the best of my SCRAPS, after you, go to the Little Animals... Well, I want you to write LAWS, so from now on it'll be them, and not me, who would rule over this God chosen kingdom..." After a few months of hard deliberations (and a few "private parties" and "business trips") the Foxes (now turned politicians) returned with a long, long book of laws written in a language so hard to understand to the Little Animals that they thought it was old Greek. After translation, it started like this: "The animals with a mane will be treated like kings; the animals with paws and teeth will be above the Laws; and the animals who will represent the interests of the Little Animals, us, will be granted a raise in benefits and status... Of course, ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION will be considered ILLEGAL, and will result in the Lion eating the Little Animal..." (Moral: The trick is in the law.) > Dave Head wrote: > > Blame the environmentalists (again) for prompting the government to build CAFE > > rules that have killed the traditional station wagon. > > Blame the environmentalist, ..... Absolutely! My 1966 Ford Fairlane V8 got 20MPG, seated 6 passengers and had plenty of trunk space. Then the gawdam environmentalists bribed congress to pass a bunch of idiotic laws that took effect in 1970. So my buddies 73 Dodge, a comparable mid-size V8, only got 12MPG. So the same idiots mandated better mileage to cover their obvious blunder and the only way the auto makers could comply was to replace the family sedan and station wagon - the big sellers - with smaller cars. My wife's PT cruiser gets 25mpg - 20% better than a 1966 Fairlane - but it barely seats four. If I need to seat six, or want comfort and power, I have to buy a *big* SUV instead of a Fairlane. > HOW THE LAW WORKS... FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LION > One day the King of the Jungle, .......... Like animal tales? How about "f.ck you and the horse you rode in on!". > My wife's PT cruiser gets 25mpg - 20% better than a 1966 Fairlane - > but it barely seats four. Don't you mean that your wife's PT Cruiser barely seats 5? Edmunds.com reports that the PT Cruiser has more rear leg room (40.9") than a Ford Explorer (36.9"). Granted, it has less hip room, but you can still fit 3 in my PTs back seat comfortably, as long as their under 300 pounds. > Vito wrote: > > My wife's PT cruiser gets 25mpg - 20% better than a 1966 Fairlane - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Explorer (36.9"). Granted, it has less hip room, but you can still fit > 3 in my PTs back seat comfortably, as long as their under 300 pounds. Make that 200 pounds, or less. Both the PT and the 66 Fairlane had bench rear seats so the question of "how many" depends on the level of discomfort you'll tolerate. The Fairlane was quite a bit wider. We often got 7 into my Renault Dauphine too .... when we were kids. I currently weigh 200 and wouldn't want to put 3 of me in a PT Cruiser back seat. Well, that all depends. If it's me (170 lbs) in the middle of a gorgeous woman on each side, I wouldn't mind at all. But you add a Michael Moore in to the mix, and I'll politely excuse myself... LOL. I should also excuse myself for comparing the leg room of the PT Cruiser to the Explorer. The Explorer has three rows, so it isn't a fair comparison. A comparison with Small SUVs would make more sense. Rear leg room for these are: Ford Escape: 35.6" Jeep Liberty: 37.2" Mazda Tribute: 36.3" Mercury Mariner: 36.3" PT Cruiser: 40.9" The PT Cruiser does pretty well considering it's 5.5" shorter than the smallest SUV listed and weighs 150 lbs less.. > The PT Cruiser does pretty well considering it's 5.5" shorter than the > smallest SUV listed and weighs 150 lbs less.. Very true, but it doesn't have near the room of a typical family sedan of the 60's and 70's such as a 1966 Ford Fairlane and it gets only a few MPG better gas mileage - thanks to fedgov. That was my point. >> Vito wrote: >>> My wife's PT cruiser gets 25mpg - 20% better than a 1966 Fairlane - [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > currently weigh 200 and wouldn't want to put 3 of me in a PT Cruiser > back seat. How is the front seat legroom in the PT Cruiser? My sister has a Neon, which is based on the same platform the PT is based on, and the front legroom is poor. I've told this story in misc.transport.road before, but in the Neon, the headlight switch is a pull switch on the dash, the same kind as in the 66 Fairlane. One night I was driving the Neon, and shifted around in the seat because I was getting fatigued. My knee bumped into the dash, and turned the headlights off. Luckily I was able to turn the lights back on without having an accident. By the way, I'm 6'3". Vito wrote: > <robinjoe61@yahoo.com> wrote >> Vito wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > currently weigh 200 and wouldn't want to put 3 of me in a PT Cruiser > back seat. How is the front seat legroom in the PT Cruiser? My sister has a Neon, which is based on the same platform the PT is based on, and the front legroom is poor. I've told this story in misc.transport.road before, but in the Neon, the headlight switch is a pull switch on the dash, the same kind as in the 66 Fairlane. One night I was driving the Neon, and shifted around in the seat because I was getting fatigued. My knee bumped into the dash, and turned the headlights off. Luckily I was able to turn the lights back on without having an accident. By the way, I'm 6'3" 230. > How is the front seat legroom in the PT Cruiser? My sister has a Neon, > which is based on the same platform the PT is based on, and the front > legroom is poor. .... By the way, I'm 6'3". The seats in the PT are taller, like a kitchen chair rather than a recliner, giving the effect of more legroom. My inseam is only 31" but I don't put the driver or passenger seat all the way back. SWMBO's PT is a 2006 - I'm told they changed the seats a little. Ronnie, The PT Cruiser is NOT based on the Neon. They have a different unibodies (chasis), engine, interior, exterior, etc. The most common misconception about the PT Cruiser is that it's built on the Neon chasis. It is not. The original prototype displayed in car shows was built on a Neon chasis, but when it went in to production they developed a new chasis (actually, a unibody). John P. Critzer, DC's senior product planner for Chrysler said: "Word was that it was based on the Neon. But it really is unique. It's a new platform. Only fasteners, switches and parts like that are shared with the Neon." http://tinyurl.com/kte65 As for leg room, as Vito said, it's a totally different seating position, so numbers aren't very helpful. You just need to try one on for size, and let us know what you think. > > How is the front seat legroom in the PT Cruiser? My sister has a Neon, > > which is based on the same platform the PT is based on, and the front [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > driver or passenger seat all the way back. SWMBO's PT is a 2006 - I'm told they > changed the seats a little. My honest opinion is that one the greatest flaw in American cars is the low seating position that made them uncomfortable and claustrophobic. SUVs provided a high seating and better visibility of the road that made people feel in like the king of the road. European cars though always provided higher seating, and hence they never moved toward the SUVs. Actually the European car par excellence, the hatch-back, is only a mini SUV or the SUV a big hatch-back, however you want to look at it. They are size efficient (having done away with the trunk) and carry tons of cargo with the back seat down to boot. > We should immediately drill for oil with just 1 criterion - someone with the > money to drill it thinks there's a profitable amount of oil there. That's it - > finished - over with. The only criterion. Doesn't matter if its off shore, on > shore, in Alaska, in California, in Texas, etc. Just drill for the damn stuff. > Things will improve. Oil drilling goes on 24/7 365 days per year, all over the world, just to MAINTAIN the current level of oil production. Oil production in US and north sea fields will continue to decline, though, as it has for the last 20 years. Political instability in Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela make any big increases in oil production in those countries unlikely, to say the least. We'll be doing good if we can just maintain the current level of production from those countries. There is not going to be any big worldwide increase in oil production, regardless of who is president or which global warming/cooling theory you subscribe to. That means that the supply of refined product (i.e. gasoline) isn't going to increase either, since no one would be dumb enough to build an expensive new refinery if they didn't have a supply of oil to feed through it. Demand for refined product continues to increase, though, because there are people in countries like India and China who are finding out how much better it is to ride a scooter rather than pedal a bicycle...and they have the money we paid to them at Wal-Mart to buy the oil with. The only way people in the US will use less gasoline is if the price goes up and that's why the price is going up, every day. Probably it will have to get to about $5 per gallon this year before the average SUV driver will start taking conservation even slightly seriously. Right now, they say stupid stuff like 'You can't justify the price of that hybrid based on the gasoline savings' and 'Sure gas costs a lot but I can afford it and it's just the cost of driving.' SignaturePosted with OS/2 Warp 4.52 and Sea Monkey 1.5a >> We should immediately drill for oil with just 1 criterion - someone with the >> money to drill it thinks there's a profitable amount of oil there. That's it - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Oil drilling goes on 24/7 365 days per year, all over the world, just to >MAINTAIN the current level of oil production. No, it doesn't - not all over the world. It doesn't happen offshore in American waters (to the extent that it otherwise could), it doesn't happen in places in Alaska known to have oil, etc. > Oil production in US and >north sea fields will continue to decline, Yeah, if we don't sink new wells over top of new sources... > though, as it has for the >last 20 years. Political instability in Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, and >Venezuela make any big increases in oil production in those countries >unlikely, to say the least. We'll be doing good if we can just maintain >the current level of production from those countries. Yep - that's why we better figure out how to produce oil from USA soil. >There is not going to be any big worldwide increase in oil production, >regardless of who is president or which global warming/cooling theory >you subscribe to. Maybe, maybe not. There's these guys that think they've figure out cheap oil shale production. If they have, the supply of oil could go thru the roof. Back down to $1.00 a gallon again, maybe. They think they can produce for $10 a barrel. I hope they're allowed to try (IOW, the environmentalists don't find a way to keep them from trying.) >That means that the supply of refined product (i.e. >gasoline) isn't going to increase either, since no one would be dumb >enough to build an expensive new refinery if they didn't have a supply >of oil to feed through it. There's a bunch of people trying to build a refinery 40 miles east of Yuma, Az. right now, that would be one huge refinery, except... they're being stopped politically, as usual. Its where the Mexican pipeline come in, so they _would_ have something to refine, but the damn obstructionists are going to kill it, as usual. >Demand for refined product continues to >increase, though, because there are people in countries like India and >China who are finding out how much better it is to ride a scooter rather >than pedal a bicycle...and they have the money we paid to them at >Wal-Mart to buy the oil with. Yep... and money for working Microsoft help desks, and developing software, etc. >The only way people in the US will use less gasoline is if the price >goes up and that's why the price is going up, every day. Yep. >Probably it >will have to get to about $5 per gallon this year before the average SUV >driver will start taking conservation even slightly seriously. Nope - I'm an average SUV driver and already bought my 27 mpg sedan last August, specifically because of the price of gas, and additionally because I needed a new vehicle. If it wasn't for the price of gas, I'd likely have bought... another SUV. >Right >now, they say stupid stuff like 'You can't justify the price of that >hybrid based on the gasoline savings' and 'Sure gas costs a lot but I >can afford it and it's just the cost of driving.' I'm not saying that... Dave Head For the North American audience 60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, Sunday May 7 (19:00 EDT, CBS). E-85 is 85% ethanol. The vehicle must have a fuel mix sensor and controls. This is a growth trend area in North America which, while it doesn't reduce consumption, it at least displaces it with a renewable fuel that burns cleaner than gasoline. Cheers, Alan >For the North American audience >60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Cheers, >Alan And tastes ok with lime in it :D SignatureFree Windows/PC help, http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=88558 >>For the North American audience >>60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >And tastes ok with lime in it :D Sorry to be a pessimist, but in countries that have E-85 fuels, the either don't have farm welfare programs, or mandate that E-85 be forced into the market. Creating a market for farmers to produce for. Here in the US, we have so much food, we pay farmers not to produce anything. Minprices on dairy products, etc. So why would any of our farmers work for money, when they don't have to do anything? Just asking, I mean the US is sitting on top of one of the largest oil reserves( from past geological surveys), but we 'refuse' to drill for it. So our focus isn't cheaper fuels, just satisifying special interest groups. later, tom > Sorry to be a pessimist, but in countries that have E-85 fuels, the > either don't have farm welfare programs, or mandate that E-85 be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anything. Minprices on dairy products, etc. So why would any of our > farmers work for money, when they don't have to do anything? Those days are long gone. The Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 dropped the mandatory set asides. Farmers can plant whatever and how much they want. There still might be some ground set aside in conservation programs. Price supports still exist for dairy, I think. > Just asking, I mean the US is sitting on top of one of the largest oil > reserves( from past geological surveys), but we 'refuse' to drill for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > tom >>E-85 is 85% ethanol. The vehicle must have a fuel mix sensor and >>controls. This is a growth trend area in North America which, while it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And tastes ok with lime in it :D With 15% gasoline, I don't think so. The ethanol alone is pretty potent at 160 to 180 proof. That would dehydrate you dangerously fast as ethanol is highly hygroscopic ... thence making acid. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >For the North American audience >60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Cheers, >Alan Here we go again seeking a trillion $ technological solution to a problem that could be solved by going to smaller cars and lower speeds. And that would SAVE MONEY AND LIVES. > Here we go again seeking a trillion $ technological solution to a > problem that could be solved by going to smaller cars and lower > speeds. And that would SAVE MONEY AND LIVES. Smaller cars I can understand -- I drive a Miata, and so does my wife. But lower speeds??? Where's the fun in that? Next you'll be sayin' we need to iron out all the curves and hills, so we only have straight, flat roads. >> Here we go again seeking a trillion $ technological solution to a >> problem that could be solved by going to smaller cars and lower >> speeds. And that would SAVE MONEY AND LIVES. > >Smaller cars I can understand -- I drive a Miata, and so does my wife. But >lower speeds??? Where's the fun in that? Fun????? YOu are a psychopath if you think driving is fun. How many innocent people do you kill a week with your speeding. We went to the 55 back in 1974 and it saved gas and prevented 9,000 highway killings a year. > Fun????? YOu are a psychopath if you think driving is fun. How many > innocent people do you kill a week with your speeding. I think driving is fun. Go check my criminal record, and you'll see I've not killed anyone in the 19 years I've been driving. Nice try, dumbfuck. SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Apple Valley, CA Resident of Southern California - the home of beautiful people and butt-ugly traffic jams > > Fun????? YOu are a psychopath if you think driving is fun. How many > > innocent people do you kill a week with your speeding. > > I think driving is fun. Go check my criminal record, and you'll see I've not > killed anyone in the 19 years I've been driving. I used to enjoy driving. On today's congested roads in the SE of England it's simply become achore, made worse by by the risk of being fined for parking in the wrong place, being caught for exceeding the speed limit by cameras designed to optimise revenue etc.... FWIW, I haven't myself been 'caught' by a speed cam but my nextdoor neighbour got 'done' for speeding twice in one year and she's certainly no risk on the roads. Shame really. Graham > > Here we go again seeking a trillion $ technological solution to a > > problem that could be solved by going to smaller cars and lower > > speeds. And that would SAVE MONEY AND LIVES. > > Smaller cars I can understand -- I drive a Miata, and so does my wife. But > lower speeds??? Where's the fun in that? That would be unforgiving in a Miata, but you can switch to a little automatic Toyota car that would tell you not to speed right away. The last time I made that mistake it was with a brand new '97 Toyota Tercel "Hawk Edtion" that was more of a chicken than a hawk. Then the dealer told me that happened to you because "you bought cheap"... Those were the time when there were no Ford Focus in the horizon so I guess Toyota was using the hawk to prey on unsuspecting customers that expected "Toyota Quality." It goes to show that MONOPOLY IS NOT A GOOD THING. And, of course, we can use more of those European imports. EffJay R. Yamaha wrote: > Alan Browne wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > (Cross-posted groups removed.) If you got 100 crooks, some of whom are your friends, and you pick on one that has a golden chain, and after beating him up, you keep the gold chain, what would people think of your motives? I think America would get rid of all unwanted suspicions by declaring that she relinquishes any right to Iraqi oil. In the meantime, she's guilty. >If you got 100 crooks, some of whom are your friends, and you pick on >one that has a golden chain, and after beating him up, you keep the >gold chain, what would people think of your motives? it would seem that you're saying that the US is/will get exclusive rights to Iraqi oil. This is wrong. Oil companies that supply the US economy with oil bid for it on the open market just like everyone else. >I think America would get rid of all unwanted suspicions by declaring >that she relinquishes any right to Iraqi oil. In the meantime, she's >guilty. The US has never claimed any "right" to Iraqi oil. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > >If you got 100 crooks, some of whom are your friends, and you pick on > >one that has a golden chain, and after beating him up, you keep the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The US has never claimed any "right" to Iraqi oil. OK, let me put this way, WHO FROFITS FROM IT? Secret US plans for Iraq's oil The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed. Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists". "Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat. Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration. Secret sell-off plan The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas. more... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm If you want to see the whole picture of the jungle, from a corrupt MADD to "accidents" that are no accidents, and from the greedy insurance companies who pass the risk of distracted drivers onto safer drivers to the predatory war in Iraq... it's all about MONEY --or lack thereof. I quote from "It's No Accident"... "Yet from a business perspective, it seems likely that diversifying would have helped, not hurt, MADD's cause in the long run. Not only does much of America now believe, mistakenly, that the only serious problem on the roads is drunk driving, but many people also seem to believe that the problem has been solved. Nothing could be further from the truth. Meanwhile, MADD seems to have lost its inspiration. In the 1990s, scores of chapter executives fled the organization in the face of mounting evidence that MADD's national headquarters was MORE INTERESTED IN RAISING MONEY THAN DETERRING DRUNK DRIVING..." and later... "So if you ever wondered why the legislators in your state cannot even bring themselves to attend the scheduled hearings on subjects like aggressive and distracted driving, let alone pass effective laws or commit the resources necessary to enforce those laws, here is your answer: It's really no skin off their backs. It's not like the state has a line item in the budget every year that reads: $4 Billion for Crash Victims Compensation. If such an item did exist, our elected officials no doubt would be rushing to do anything within reason to prevent cars from crashing." > On 8 May 2006 09:14:55 -0700, "donquijote1954" > >I think America would get rid of all unwanted suspicions by declaring > >that she relinquishes any right to Iraqi oil. In the meantime, she's > >guilty. > > The US has never claimed any "right" to Iraqi oil. Considering the current levels of Iraqi oil production, the whole question lacks much relevance. Remember when Iraq's oil production was supposed to finance rebuilding efforts ? How well would you say that's going ? EffJay R. Yamaha wrote: >We're not in Iraq to obtain oil to burn, efficiently or otherwise. We're >there to fight worldwide terrorism, stabilize the region, and stop a >dictator before he gets a chance to become another Hitler. bu$h is closer to the next Hitler Hitler than anyone alive, and bu$h's illegal and immoral terror campaign in Iraq has nothing to do with WMDs or fighting terrorism, and everything to do with controlling Iraq's vast oil reserves and corporate war profiteering. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21 - http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.st911.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign because of his gross incompetence. "The tools that enable Cuba to save lives and preserve human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21 "They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of warfare or morality." -bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq. http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm http://www.commondreams.org/ http://www.truthout.org/ http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/ http://thirdworldtraveler.com/ http://counterpunch.org/ http://responsiblewealth.org/ "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918) Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron... Venture Rider wrote: > On 8 May 2006 14:33:26 -0700, Rob Kleinschmidt said: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The US isn't finished un-building yet. I think it may require taking all apart then rebuilding anew. Both processes make a lot of money for a few well connected people, with the destroying perhaps being more profitable. Some local employment is created though --in the army. >>For the North American audience >>60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >problem that could be solved by going to smaller cars and lower >speeds. And that would SAVE MONEY AND LIVES. Typical liberal 'solution'. As Darth Nancy Pelosi recently said 'America, if we get back in pwer, we're going to take some things away from you for your own good'. Yeh - like guns, cars, soda, and fast food. In return, 'for our own good', we'll get goverment-funded health care, gays lesbians and trans-gender freaks being 'married', bicycles, and broccoli. SignatureClick here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/ > >Here we go again seeking a trillion $ technological solution to a > >problem that could be solved by going to smaller cars and lower [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > our own good', we'll get goverment-funded health care, gays lesbians > and trans-gender freaks being 'married', bicycles, and broccoli. -goverment-funded health care: If we got goverment-funded warfare, why not welfare? -gays lesbians and trans-gender freaks: Let them get married only by their church. Let the government off marriages altogether. -bicycles: For sure, we need plenty of that. Why, you hate competition? - broccoli: The more the better. Stop the fast food companies from preying on kids by forbidding commercials in their programming. >>For the North American audience >>60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > problem that could be solved by going to smaller cars and lower > speeds. And that would SAVE MONEY AND LIVES. If you've read any of my posts you know I'm a big proponent of driving more fuel efficient vehicles, adapting better driving habits (not as fast, maintenance, driving technique), etc. If everyone in the US would reduce their speed by 8% that would be the same as saving the forecast peak daily output of the ANWR. But even if people do reduce gas consumption, ethanol pollutes less than gasoline and reduces imports from unstable regions of the world. Ethanol provides a stable and growing market for corn and sugar beets, and corn growing sinks CO2, a greenhouse gas. Get your facts before your knee jerks. And that includes providing any backup at all for your "$1 trillion technological solution". Brazil, Illinois and others are doing this now. Illinois alone sells enough ethanol in one year to displace a full day of oil consumption in the US (or several days of Middle East imports). And that is based on facts, not fancy. >>>For the North American audience >>>60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >reduce their speed by 8% that would be the same as saving the forecast >peak daily output of the ANWR. Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? later, tom @ www.NoCostAds.com >But even if people do reduce gas consumption, ethanol pollutes less than >gasoline and reduces imports from unstable regions of the world. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the US (or several days of Middle East imports). And that is based on >facts, not fancy. >Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? Of course. It should have never been dropped since it's a proven fact that it prevents thousands of highway killings a year. Now with $3 gas, all the more reason to lower speed limits. But no, idiots like you would rather have a trillion $ war to steal iraq's oil or spend a trillion $ converting america to ethanol. > >Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? > > Of course. It should have never been dropped since it's a proven fact > that it prevents thousands of highway killings a year. Wrong again! But I know the facts never got in your way! http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa346.pdf >>Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? > >Of course. It should have never been dropped since it's a proven fact >that it prevents thousands of highway killings a year. Now with $3 >gas, all the more reason to lower speed limits. But no, idiots like >you would rather have a trillion $ war to steal iraq's oil or spend a Idiots like me? I asked a question, nothing more. Are you off your meds? tom >trillion $ converting america to ethanol. > Of course. It should have never been dropped since it's a proven fact > that it prevents thousands of highway killings a year. Nonsense. Take a look at highway deaths on a per-passenger-mile basis (which is the only safety comparison that makes sense for any transportation system), and you'll see that this number has been on the decline for years - INCLUDING those years since the federally-mandated 55-mph limit was rescinded. Strong evidence that highway deaths do NOT correlate at all well with the speed limit du jour. Bob M. > Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? Sure. Or even 50 mph. Political reality is another matter, however. And when have politicians ever done the "right thing" when it could affect votes. Or money from PAC's such as big oil and the auto industry. But even that is not needed as almost all people drive at a few mph above the speed limit and a significant number exceed the speed limit on most highways by 10 - 15 mph (based on my observations when travelling all over the US). If only those who exceed the limit were to obey it, a significant amount of fuel would be saved. Montana has no speed limit during the day and 100 mph at night (on some highways, at least) What most people do not like is the notion that their individual freedom needs to take 2nd place to the greater good. "Everyone else can contribute to solving the problem, but I want to drive my high-guzzle car fast and furious." That attitude multiplied by the millions of cars and drivers is what results in over US$60B going to the MidEast per year at $60 / bbl. They buy nowhere near that in US goods in return. (39.6B in 15 years, or 2.64B / year. Even at $20 / bbl, the deficit is huge). Proven world reserves are about 40 years at the current rate of consumption. Consumption is increasing at at least 5% / year. That makes it 15 years worth. That includes opening "ANWR". OTOH, reducing consumption 2.5% would stretch that 40 years out to well over 50. Ouch. Drive faster, bigger, better more. Who cares that you'll be riding a bicycle to work in 20 years, right? How about Ethanol. Watch 60 minutes tonight. Here's some numbers I just crunched: Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) Gallon yield from a barrel of oil: 19.5 Gal (US)** Equivalent barrels: 35,128,205 Derate for 85% formula 29,858,974 Derate for energy (80%) 23,887,179 barrels equiv. US oil consumption per day 20,030,000 bbl/day Equivalent days of US oil cosumption 1.19 oil days Middle east oil imports 2690000 bbl/day * Proportion of daily use (us) 0.1343 Mid East proportion Illinois "offset" days per US year 8.88 days of mideast oil saved by Illinois alone. Scale that up 10X and ... * (average of Feb 2005 to Jan 2006 per US DOE, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oiltrade.html) ** (average gals. of gasoline from a barrel of oil) *** conservative, actual efficiency is 85 - 90% per "in use" studies Cheers, Alan > > Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > all over the US). If only those who exceed the limit were to obey it, a > significant amount of fuel would be saved. Why do you get to choose how I save gas? Maybe I would prefer to use a more efficient vehicle and travel at higher speeds. Don't tell me to slow down so that I can get 60 mpg rather than 55 when I can see SUV's and trucks getting < 20 mpg. Bruce Richmond > Montana has no speed limit during the day and 100 mph at night (on some > highways, at least) [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Cheers, > Alan >>>Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > slow down so that I can get 60 mpg rather than 55 when I can see SUV's > and trucks getting < 20 mpg. I never chose for you. Efficent? switch to diesel. Get rid of SUV's. Slow down. Check your tire pressure. Accelerate briskly not brusquely. Corner gently. etc., etc. etc. will reduce your consumption. Most importantly get the right car for your life/workstyle. In the end conditions beyond your control will dictate what you drive in the future and how fast. Wanna bet that SUV's will be taxed out of existence in the next 10 years? Cheers, Alan > >>>Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I never chose for you. Efficent? switch to diesel. You said you would re-institute the 55 mph limit. That would force your method of saving fuel onto me when there are other ways available. Same with your choice of diesel. I prefer to stick with gasoline, even if it means a smaller engine. I find the stink of diesel fuel and exhaust to be very annoying. IMHO they need to pass some laws dealing with stench. > Get rid of SUV's. I have none. > Slow down. Blow me. > Check your tire pressure. I do. > Accelerate briskly not brusquely. I will accelerate as I choose thank you. > Corner gently. I always corner gently when I am at the limits of traction :) > etc., etc. etc. will reduce your consumption. > > Most importantly get the right car for your life/workstyle. I have, and I don't need your guidance or blessing. > In the end conditions beyond your control will dictate what you drive in > the future and how fast. They may influence my choices but they don't dictate. > Wanna bet that SUV's will be taxed out of existence in the next 10 years? Wanna bet that wont bother me a bit? Bruce > Cheers, > Alan > Montana has no speed limit during the day and 100 mph at night (on > some highways, at least) That's a myth. Montana currently has a 75 mph speed limit on interstates, both day and night. http://www.mdt.mt.gov/travinfo/speed_limit.shtml Between the time the national speed limit of 55 was rescinded, and 1999, Montana used a "Reasonable and Prudent" basis for their speed limits on rural interstates during the day, and had a 55 or 65 mph speed limit at night. Reasonable and prudent didn't mean no speed limit, but a maximum viewed by the police as being safe. You would get cited if you tried to drive more than about 80 or 90 mph. >>Montana has no speed limit during the day and 100 mph at night (on >>some highways, at least) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the police as being safe. You would get cited if you tried to drive more > than about 80 or 90 mph. Thanks for clarifying that. Goes to show that "trust but verify" only works if you verify. I heard this on the radio years ago and just took it for granted. Cheers, Alan >Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) >Illinois "offset" days per US year 8.88 days of mideast oil saved by >Illinois alone. Scale that up 10X and ... You're up to 88 days. Not enough. But what crops will you sacrifice to produce that much ethanol? SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer >> Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You're up to 88 days. Not enough. But what crops will you sacrifice to > produce that much ethanol? And I suspect in that calculation they didn't include the energy needed to grow and harvest the crops (fertilizer, plowing, etc.) or distill the ethanol. That energy has to come from somewhere, likely increased use of coal. >>>Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ethanol. That energy has to come from somewhere, likely increased use of > coal. The corn has to be grown in any case to feed livestock. After the mashing, fermenting and evaporating out of the alcohol, the mash residue provides cattle feed and captured CO2 for other processes. The cow manure is reused for methane and fertilizer. The "energy" comes from whatever convenient source including ethanol used in the process (inluding to power the farm equipment). For every 100 units of energy invested you get 138 units of energy in ethanol (without counting the fertilizer and livestock feed benefit). Solar energy can also be used to evaporate the mash, but while more efficient, it is harder ($) to implement. Delivering oil for refining is not energy free; and energy is used in its production and delivery as well. The difference here is that ethanol is renewable. Fossil fuels are not. Ethanol can be manufactured close to its point of use. Brazil is already at 40% of automotive use of ethanol based on sugar cane. (Bush now wants to eliminate import taxes on ethanol to increase use). Cheers, Alan > >>>Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) > >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Cheers, > Alan There wouldn't be much ethanol use for powering farm equipment. The switch over from gasoline to diesel powered tractors is almost complete. A gas powered tractor doing actual field work is a rare sight. One problem would be that the US just doesn't have enough acres to raise enough ethanol with corn as the source. The guys over at sci.energy have pretty well chewed over this subject. Will ethanol help? Sure. Plus it buys votes in Iowa. There is a form of algae that could produce enough fuel for the US in an area about 100 miles square if I remember right. Article here: http://tinyurl.com/2sbbf Dean < snip > > > The difference here is that ethanol is renewable. Fossil fuels are not. > > Ethanol can be manufactured close to its point of use. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > complete. A gas powered tractor doing actual field work is a rare > sight. Fine. Power the tractors from bio-diesel ! No oil is required. > One problem would be that the US just doesn't have enough acres > to raise enough ethanol with corn as the source. Depends how much ethanol you want. Corn probably isn't the best source. How about sugar beet ? Graham > Depends how much ethanol you want. Corn probably isn't the best source. How about sugar > beet ? Yep, higher sugar. But only one crop per year (in Canada anyway). Not sure about the US (corn or sugar beet). From the corn you also get corn oil. From that you could make biodiesel, but probably need a lot of it for the food industry. >>>>>Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > complete. A gas powered tractor doing actual field work is a rare > sight. The fuel being used is being used for vehicles. 2200 M Gallons / year in the US. 40% of all Brazillian vehicles. Diesel has many advantages in that it is very energetic by volume (why the military loves it too). For farm machinery it is possibly the use of heavy machinery engines that is the attraction. High reliability, plenty of parts, etc. > One problem would be that the US just doesn't have enough acres > to raise enough ethanol with corn as the source. The guys over at > sci.energy have pretty well chewed over this subject. Will ethanol > help? Sure. Plus it buys votes in Iowa. Right now 2200 M Gallons / year in the US are used in cars. That's the euqivalent to 28 days of Middle East oil. Why not keep the money at home and spend it on Elmer and American farm machinery instead of some Sheik's palace? Over 6 M GM, Fords and Chryslers have been sold in the US that can burn E85. Most owners don't know it. > There is a form of algae that could produce enough fuel for the US in > an area about 100 miles square if I remember right. Article here: > http://tinyurl.com/2sbbf All the better. I didn't read that yet, but the first things that strike me are that we know how to make ethanol in large quantities already and that the infrastructre (farms, trucks, roads) are in place for ethanol, whereas for the algae an enormous development still needs to go forward. But good to know it's 'there' and will likely be developed. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>>Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >100 units of energy invested you get 138 units of energy in ethanol >(without counting the fertilizer and livestock feed benefit). It isn't that good for fuel grade ethanol. Getting the last of the water out Ethanol is very expensive. The real problem however is the feedstock. The most attractive feedstock is sugar, which is what Brazil uses. The problem is the price of Sugar in the USA is artificially inflated to protect sugar beet farmers. USA price of sugar is about 3 x the world price, which makes corn more attractive than sugar, however corn as a feed stock is a PITA because you have to break the starch down into monosacharides to ferment it (It also costs money and takes time). Fix the sugar import problem, and ethanol will be a lot less expensive. > Solar >energy can also be used to evaporate the mash, but while more efficient, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Cheers, >Alan > On Sun, 07 May 2006 17:41:32 -0400, Alan Browne >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It isn't that good for fuel grade ethanol. Getting the last of the > water out Ethanol is very expensive. Is done easilly and efficently already and is part of the overall efficiency budget that yields 138 out for 100 units in. > The real problem however is the > feedstock. The most attractive feedstock is sugar, which is what > Brazil uses. The problem is the price of Sugar in the USA is > artificially inflated to protect sugar beet farmers. Give the sugar beet farmers this market and they won't need protection. But, you don't _have_ to use the most "attractive" feedstock. You use the one that grows in your climate and your soil well. > USA price of > sugar is about 3 x the world price, which makes corn more attractive [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Fix the sugar import problem, and ethanol will be a lot less > expensive. No. Importation of the feedstock is the last thing you want to do as it makes the whole process much less efficient Distilled ethanol imports is another matter and Bush wants to remove the taxes on that. >>>> Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > residue provides cattle feed and captured CO2 for other processes. > The cow manure is reused for methane and fertilizer. No, corn grown for ethanol production is mostly in addition to the corn grown for livestock feed. Some benefit comes from using the byproducts from ethanol production for feed, but it doesn't supply the total need. > The "energy" comes from whatever convenient source including ethanol > used in the process (inluding to power the farm equipment). For every > 100 units of energy invested you get 138 units of energy in ethanol > (without counting the fertilizer and livestock feed benefit). Solar > energy can also be used to evaporate the mash, but while more > efficient, it is harder ($) to implement. The majority of energy used to produce ethanol is used to provide heat to encourage rapid fermentation, the distallation of the alcohol, and the drying of the byproducts for animal feed. This is more than 1/2 of the energy provided by the resulting ethanol. The typical ethanol plant uses natural gas for this energy, not ethanol. This has been applying upward pressure on the price of natural gas, and has resulted in increased imports of that energy source. In looking over the suggestion that the ethanol producers in Illinois offset almost 9 days of middle-east oil, I tried to duplicate the number, and get less than 3 days. That assumes the imports from the Middle East, and the proportion of those imports that can be displaced by ethanol. The ethanol production from Illinois is the equivalent of about 8 hours of the country's gasoline consumption, and if you include the external energy to create the ethanol, it is the equivalent of less than one hour of the country's gasoline consumption. > >>>> Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > energy to create the ethanol, it is the equivalent of less than one hour > of the country's gasoline consumption. Apropos of this thread, there was a bit on NPR yesterday about a Canuck who was using a biological process to produce ethanol from straw (cellulose) instead of corn, as is usually done. It sounded intriguing, except the cost to build a viable ethanol plant based on his process was much higher than that to build a tradtional plant. Sounded interesting, anyway, and might push ethanol back into the realm of viability. I don't think the plant used any outside sources of energy, either (he has one operating facility that he's using for a R&D facility.) This would mean that this process could be completely renewable if it were economically viable. If anyone can produce ethanol for an at-the-pump price half that of gasoline or less, they will probably become very, very rich. nate > Apropos of this thread, there was a bit on NPR yesterday about a Canuck > who was using a biological process to produce ethanol from straw [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If anyone can produce ethanol for an at-the-pump price half that of > gasoline or less, they will probably become very, very rich. The Swedes are doing it with wood waste ( also cellulose ). In Britain plants are being built right now that'll process sugar beet. Almost anything contaning sugar and cellulose will work in fact. Graham > N8N wrote: >> If anyone can produce ethanol for an at-the-pump price half that of >> gasoline or less, they will probably become very, very rich. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > contaning > sugar and cellulose will work in fact. You continually ignore important pieces of postings. Ethanol production *WILL NOT* cost less than current gasoline. Certainly not for 1/2 the price of a gallon of gas. Yes, it can and is being produced. No, it won't be cheaper; especially cheaper than current US gas prices. FloydR > > N8N wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the price of a gallon of gas. Yes, it can and is being produced. No, > it won't be cheaper; especially cheaper than current US gas prices. I wasn't making any claims for price. What's its price in Brazil ? Graham "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in >> > N8N wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I wasn't making any claims for price. Go back and re-read: you were responding to a sentence containing price. You need to learn basic english, or at least learn how to actually edit. FloydR > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > containing price. You need to learn basic english, or at least > learn how to actually edit. Actually, I was responding to the comment about the use of cellulose. It seems I may have accidentally trimmed overmuch. Happy now ? Graham > Floyd Rogers wrote: >> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > seems I > may have accidentally trimmed overmuch. You mean "UNDER-trimmed". > Happy now ? Happier. > Graham > > Floyd Rogers wrote: > >> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > You mean "UNDER-trimmed". No, I mean I trimmed too much. As in I trimmed the bit I was responding to. Probably highlighted the wrong section by mistake. > > Happy now ? > > Happier. I'm very pleased for you. Graham > I wasn't making any claims for price. > > What's its price in Brazil ? What's the subsidy/tax situation in Brazil? Bob M. > > I wasn't making any claims for price. > > > > What's its price in Brazil ? > > What's the subsidy/tax situation in Brazil? The claim made here is that they've eliminated direct subsidies. http://tinyurl.com/k9woh http://www.infobrazil.com/Conteudo/Front_Page/Opinion/Conteudo.asp?ID_Noticias=9 72&ID_Area=2&ID_Grupo=9 > No, corn grown for ethanol production is mostly in addition to the corn > grown for livestock feed. Some benefit comes from using the byproducts > from ethanol production for feed, but it doesn't supply the total need. I must be misreading this paragraph. The meaning doesn't seem to square with this: http://www.corn.org/faq.htm ". What is corn wet milling? A. The corn wet milling process separates corn into its four basic components: starch, germ, fiber and protein. After the components are separated, fiber and protein are made into animal feedstuffs, germ is further refined into corn oil and starch can be further refined to create starches with specific characteristics, a wide variety of sweeteners, bioproducts and ethanol. " I live in a rural area. Everyone (farmers, ag people) "knows" that a bushel of corn has the same feed value coming out of an ethanol plant as it had going in. Dean >> No, corn grown for ethanol production is mostly in addition to the >> corn grown for livestock feed. Some benefit comes from using the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a bushel of corn has the same feed value coming out of an ethanol > plant as it had going in. I stand corrected. I assumed, wrongly, that the starch and sugars used for ethanol production had value for animal feed. So the question becomes, the starch and sugar must have value for other uses, and how will ethanol production affect the price of those other uses with the increased demand? > >> Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ethanol. That energy has to come from somewhere, likely increased use of > coal. And where does the energy required to drill for oil, extract it, transport it, refine it, transport it again also come from. Don't try loading the comparisons. Refining gasoline is *also* very energy intensive. Graham >> >> Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Don't try loading the comparisons. Refining gasoline is *also* very > energy intensive. I'm not loading the comparison. The reality is that ethanol production is not a closed system, in terms of energy. In working backwards, it appears that the above comparison is using the total energy of ethanol against the total energy in an unrefined barrel of oil. That ignores a number of things, like the fact that the ethanal consumes a fair amount of natural gas in its production, while the oil refineries are typically closed systems. Also, ethanol cannot displace all of the energy in a barrel of oil, since there are other products, like diesel fuel, that come from that barrel. There is a limited ability to shift the cuts of fuel that come from a barrel in existing refineries. Since the US now imports something like 20% of its natural gas, any additional ethanol production that uses gas will force an increase in those imports, and further raise prices. If ethanol production becomes more of a closed process, then less ethanol will be produced in total, and the price of the ethanol will rise because of cost. There is no free lunch. > >> And I suspect in that calculation they didn't include the energy > >> needed to grow and harvest the crops (fertilizer, plowing, etc.) or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > number of things, like the fact that the ethanal consumes a fair amount > of natural gas in its production, I gather that in Brazil they're using the bagasse from the crushed cane to provide energy for the ethanol production, making it somewhat more self-sufficient. I expect similar things can be done with other feedstock. > while the oil refineries are typically > closed systems. Being a 'closed system' doesn't stop energy being used though. It takes energy to refine petroleum products. > Also, ethanol cannot displace all of the energy in a barrel of oil, since > there are other products, like diesel fuel, that come from that barrel. > There is a limited ability to shift the cuts of fuel that come from a > barrel in existing refineries. How about shifting more to diesel ? Diesel engines are another attractive option. > Since the US now imports something like 20% of its natural gas, any > additional ethanol production that uses gas will force an increase in > those imports, and further raise prices. Assuming the use of natural gas of course. > If ethanol production becomes more of a closed process, then less ethanol > will be produced in total, and the price of the ethanol will rise because > of cost. How will that be ? It would be silly to use the ethanol to provide the energy here. > There is no free lunch. Graham >> >> And I suspect in that calculation they didn't include the energy >> >> needed to grow and harvest the crops (fertilizer, plowing, etc.) [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Being a 'closed system' doesn't stop energy being used though. It > takes energy to refine petroleum products. Yes, but that energy is already included in the total oil requirement, driving the level of import. The production energy is not included in the ethanol volume, so any increase in ethanol output to offset a reduction in oil imports has an associated compounding of energy needed to take into account the processing. >> Also, ethanol cannot displace all of the energy in a barrel of oil, >> since there are other products, like diesel fuel, that come from that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How about shifting more to diesel ? Diesel engines are another > attractive option. There is a limit to how much adjustment can be made. The refineries are made for the current cuts, and you cannot simply stop producing gasoline and shift to diesel. >> Since the US now imports something like 20% of its natural gas, any >> additional ethanol production that uses gas will force an increase in >> those imports, and further raise prices. > > Assuming the use of natural gas of course. Yes, but it will take some sort of energy, be it coal, nuclear, or somthing else, and the original poster's suggestion that the amount of ethanol being produced in Illinois could be directly traded off for imported oil likely ignored that extra energy. In short, the majority of the ethanol produced was simply a conversion from one form of energy to another. >> If ethanol production becomes more of a closed process, then less >> ethanol will be produced in total, and the price of the ethanol will >> rise because of cost. > > How will that be ? It would be silly to use the ethanol to provide the > energy here. So where do you get the energy? Increase natural gas imports? Increase the output of coal-fired power plants? Build nuclear plants? > >> >> And I suspect in that calculation they didn't include the energy > >> >> needed to grow and harvest the crops (fertilizer, plowing, etc.) [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > So where do you get the energy? Increase natural gas imports? Increase > the output of coal-fired power plants? Build nuclear plants? Wind? Solar? Are either of these viable options? >>Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You're up to 88 days. Not enough. But what crops will you sacrifice to > produce that much ethanol? Why isn't 88 days "enough"? I suppose you would be happier with 0 offset to imported oil and just keep sending money that the US has to borrow every day to keep running? The US not only has the greatest economy, but also the largest foreign debt and the largest trade deficit of any country. And it's growing by the moment. As you read this, your future taxes are growing exponentially to pay all that debt. This is one way to slow that down. No crops are sacrificed. American farmers have been paid for decades to not produce produce. This will make for productive land use and is a closed cycle. There is more than enough land to keep scaling this up many times. My 10X was just a "what if" to show the possible impact. Currently, per another source, the US currently uses 2.2 M Gallons of ethanol in cars. That's about 28 "Middle East" import days worth. It's just _starting_. Cheers, Alan > > Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? > > Sure. Or even 50 mph. Political reality is another matter, > however. And when have politicians ever done the "right thing" when it > could affect votes. Or money from PAC's such as big oil and the auto > industry. Drivers vote on the speed limit with their right foot. Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) x 2 Crash & Slider It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. >> Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? > > Sure. Or even 50 mph. Political reality is another matter, however. > And when have politicians ever done the "right thing" when it could > affect votes. Or money from PAC's such as big oil and the auto industry. The congestion caused by reducing the throughput of the nation's roads would IMO, probably cause more fuel to be burned idling and accelerating in stop-and-go traffic than would be saved by driving slower when congestion didn't exist. This is further mimized by the fact that most modern cars have a highway sweet point for fuel economy measured in mpg that is drastically different from the carburated cars of the 1970s. > But even that is not needed as almost all people drive at a few mph > above the speed limit and a significant number exceed the speed limit on > most highways by 10 - 15 mph (based on my observations when travelling > all over the US). If only those who exceed the limit were to obey it, a > significant amount of fuel would be saved. People drive the speed they feel comfortable at. I've driven similiar roads in different states and the speeds are almost always just about the same even with drastically different posted speed limits. (the exceptions being heavy enforcement and some roads I found in IN that were of 1920s design, residences on either side with huge set backs and and 40mph speed limits) >>>Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in stop-and-go traffic than would be saved by driving slower when > congestion didn't exist. Or, if people use roads at the "right rate" there is less bottlenecking and loss of fuel from idling in traffic jams. A highway can only take a certain peak load (cars/hour) after which it jams. This is independant of the speed. If a highway were perfectly straight, this would not apply, but roads curve, rise and fall... hence they all have a peak throughput rate. > This is further mimized by the fact that most modern cars have a highway > sweet point for fuel economy measured in mpg that is drastically > different from the carburated cars of the 1970s. I didn't know that the basic laws of aerodynamic resistance and rolling resistance had changed. The fact is that beyond about 45 mph, cars become increasingly less efficent. That's physics of course. >>But even that is not needed as almost all people drive at a few mph >>above the speed limit and a significant number exceed the speed limit on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > were of 1920s design, residences on either side with huge set backs and > and 40mph speed limits) I agree that a car and road "feel right" at a certain speed and that if you slow down you just want to "hunt" for that feeling. But, regardles of comfort, increases in speed are increases in rolling and aerodynamic resistance which means increasing fuel to overcome it. Physics dictates the cost. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>>Are you suggesting the Fed re-institute the 55 mph limit? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> in stop-and-go traffic than would be saved by driving slower when >> congestion didn't exist. > Or, if people use roads at the "right rate" there is less bottlenecking > and loss of fuel from idling in traffic jams. A highway can only take a > certain peak load (cars/hour) after which it jams. Fix the bottleneck. > This is independant > of the speed. If a highway were perfectly straight, this would not > apply, but roads curve, rise and fall... hence they all have a peak > throughput rate. If you have to slow down for most interstate curves, you don't know how to drive or your car needs repairs. >> This is further mimized by the fact that most modern cars have a highway >> sweet point for fuel economy measured in mpg that is drastically >> different from the carburated cars of the 1970s. > I didn't know that the basic laws of aerodynamic resistance and rolling > resistance had changed. Not my fault you don't understand gearing and internal combustion engines. > The fact is that beyond about 45 mph, cars become increasingly less > efficent. That's physics of course. No, that's carburetors and 1:1 final drives. The world has advanced considerably since then. Take some engineering courses and get back to me. Meanwhile physics professors will continue to say assinine things with no bearing to mechanical reality. One physics professor I had for a class repeatedly recommended removing the spark plugs to clear a flooding condition. It would get the job done, but was simply the most insane way of fixing the condition. Most suggestions from physicists are similiar. >>>But even that is not needed as almost all people drive at a few mph >>>above the speed limit and a significant number exceed the speed limit on >>>most highways by 10 - 15 mph (based on my observations when travelling >>>all over the US). If only those who exceed the limit were to obey it, a >>>significant amount of fuel would be saved. >> People drive the speed they feel comfortable at. I've driven similiar >> roads in different states and the speeds are almost always just about >> the same even with drastically different posted speed limits. (the >> exceptions being heavy enforcement and some roads I found in IN that >> were of 1920s design, residences on either side with huge set backs and >> and 40mph speed limits) > I agree that a car and road "feel right" at a certain speed and that if > you slow down you just want to "hunt" for that feeling. But, regardles > of comfort, increases in speed are increases in rolling and aerodynamic > resistance which means increasing fuel to overcome it. Physics dictates > the cost. Again, you don't understand 4 stroke internal combustion engines in a vehicle application. There are more factors in play than aerodynamic resistance. Why don't you read a book on it, one written by say, a mechanical engineer, then get back to me. Meanwhile, physicists can continue with problems with what would a hole through the center of the earth be like. Oh, and by the way, even someone who has completed a HS physics course knows that static friction is greater than dynamic friction. Also speed and friction are not related, rolling resistance doesn't not become greater with speed, it is highest when going from a stop to moving. In fact, with an automobile, it lessons with higher speed because of aerodynamic -lift-. > No, that's carburetors and 1:1 final drives. oops... that should be 1:1 top gears > > No, that's carburetors and 1:1 final drives. > > oops... that should be 1:1 top gears Many are around 0.85:1 now IIRC. Graham > > > No, that's carburetors and 1:1 final drives. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Graham or even less. The old Borg-Warner 3/OD trannies had a 0.70:1 OD ratio; some modern 6-speeds go even better with ratios as low as 0.50:1. Now that is probably excessive for current speed limits, but maybe the mfgrs. are hopeful that they will be raised soon :) nate > > This is independant > > of the speed. If a highway were perfectly straight, this would not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you have to slow down for most interstate curves, you don't know how to > drive or your car needs repairs. And don't forget ACCIDENTS (crashes). They are greatly preventable, but stubbornly ignored. Perhaps they go to feed the vultures out there... ;) I quote from "It's No Accident"... "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is the highway research, education and policy division of the US Department of Transportation (DOT), estimates that more than 11 million crashes take place annually on US roads. Despite this fact, NHTSA currently has no comprehensive program in place to reduce the overall crash rate. This might seem hard to believe, but it's true... Data about traffic congestion in the US most frequently are used to bolster the call for more road construction. But clearly THE PROBLEM ISN'T SIMPLY A SHORTAGE OF PAVEMENT. According to researchers, INCIDENTS --not traffic volume-- ARE THE LEADING CAUSE OF TRAFFIC DELAYS IN URBAN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE NATION. In fact, incidents --in the form of crashes, car fires, broken down vehicles and spilled truckloads-- now account for more than half of all road delays in metropolitan areas." "It was always part of the plan." It's all explained in this question and answer... Scott Adams, the father of Dilbert, has a question: I don't understand the theory that we attacked Iraq for oil. Can one of you geniuses explain that to the rest of us? I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person. And I certainly think governments are capable of doing bad things. But I don't understand the concept of attacking Iraq "because of oil." What does that even mean? [...] Seriously. Can anyone explain what the plan was? *** Sure, Dilbert's dad. And let me just say that if I had a nickel for every time someone airily dismissed the anti-war crowd's chants of "no blood for oil" by pointing out that we could always buy the oil on the open market, or that Iraq's government still controls it I'd ... well, I'd have quite a few nickels. The first thing one needs to understand is the difference between the old-school paleo-colonialism so popular among Brits wearing pith helmets in the 19th century and the shiny new brand of neo-colonialism that we perfected in the 20th. The essence of the latter is this: of course we'll respect your sovereignty and abide by your domestic laws, as long as we can help write them. That's the heart of it. In her book, The Bush Agenda, Antonia Juhasz detailed how, six months before the invasion, the administration brought in a group of oil executives to advise them on Iraqi oil policy (this, as Bush was swearing up and down that he had no intention of going to war). The State Department also set up a consulting group under the "Future of Iraq Project" called the "Oil and Energy Working Group." After some back and forth among the various consultants, a consensus was reached that Iraq's oil "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war." What a shocker! But they couldn't just say that, or Dilbert's father wouldn't be able to scratch his head at those unruly anti-war types. The administration did a great job of deflecting the criticism; Bush called Iraq's oil wealth its "patrimony" and promised it would stay in the hands of the Iraqi people. And when Paul Bremer was serving as the "dictator of Iraq" (in the words of UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi) and instituted his infamous "100 rules" -- rules that privatized Iraq's state companies, threw open its economy to foreign investment, established a flat tax and instituted a dozen other measures on the Chamber of Commerce's wish-list -- oil was excluded. And the war-hawks said: See? But what Iraq ended up with was a law, written by our oil execs, that gave their companies a far greater cut of Iraq's oil wealth than they can get anywhere else in the Middle East. I'll let Antonia Juhasz explain the deal: 'Essentially the United States crafted a new oil law for Iraq that provides for production sharing agreements [PSAs], which are contractual terms between a government and a foreign corporation to explore for, produce and market oil. Production sharing agreements are not used by any country in the Middle East, or in fact by any country that's truly wealthy in oil. They're used to entice investors into an area where the oil is expensive to produce or there isn't a lot of oil. But Iraq has potentially the largest oil reserves in the world and they're very easy and cheap to get to -- in Iraq, you essentially just stick a pipe in the ground and you get oil. There's absolutely no reason for Iraq to enter into PSAs, but there's every reason for Western oil companies to want them -- they provide the best terms short of full privatization of the oil. Iraq has eighty known oil fields. Seventeen of them have been discovered. Under the new oil law -- written into the constitution -- those seventeen will be under the control of the Iraqi national oil company.' That's what Bush meant when he talked about preserving Iraq's "oil patrimony." But ... 'All undiscovered oil fields are now open to the PSAs. That means, depending on how much oil there is in Iraq, foreign companies will have control over at least 64 percent of Iraq's oil and as much as 84 percent.' PSAs are the worst possible deals for countries; last week economist Mark Weisbrot referred to one in Latin America that gave the government a healthy cut of one percent of its natural gas revenues. That isn't just a law that can be dismissed down the road by Iraq's legislature with a simple vote; it was built into the country's Constitution, a document that Iraqis approved without having a firm grip on its details (read my interview with Juhasz for some insight into how that happened). And it's not just about oil; combine the Oil Law with the rest of Bremer's orders. They not only slashed corporate taxes and allowed foreign investors to take 100 percent of their profits out of the country, they gave them -- by law -- the same status as Iraqi firms. That means that all the things countries like Iraq do to turn foreign investment into a little bit of development are off the table: foreign multinationals can't be asked to invest in the local economy or hire a certain number of Iraqi workers or build schools and health clinics or any of the other strategies that are common in poor but resource-rich countries. All of those rules worked their way into the Constitution as well. None of this is a conspiracy theory; all of it is well-documented in the public record. There were endless position papers put out by industry groups urging the ouster of Saddam in order to open Iraq's economy, and they lobbied quite openly. Juhasz details all of it in her book. People like Dick Cheney, George Schultz and Henry Kissinger warned that American firms were being left out of the fun; while 36 prcent of Iraq's oil ended up in the U.S. during the sanctions years, it mostly came through foreign middle-men -- Saddam gave very few contracts to American firms. That wasn't acceptable and we took him out. It's not a conspiracy when the "conspirators" spent years writing Op-Eds in the Washington Post. The best evidence that Iraq was an economic invasion, though, is the whole history of our relationship with his government. Saddam was supposed to be our boy in the Middle East after the Shah fell in Iran. He didn't become the Next Hitler when he gassed the Kurds. Although always a brutal tyrant, Saddam became a real monster, according to the U.S. government, six months before the first invasion, when, after a very prolonged negotiation with Bechtel, he put the kibosh on the Aqaba pipeline project, a project that both Reagan and Bush 41 wanted badly. That's when we decided we couldn't work with him and the rest, as they say, is ... you know. I hope that helps, Scott. Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/36031/ >And don't forget ACCIDENTS (crashes). They are greatly preventable, but >stubbornly ignored. Perhaps they go to feed the vultures out there... I think you're right. The auto industry makes a fortune off car crashes and they want the carnage to continue. That's why it's called General Murders. >;) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >currently has no comprehensive program in place to reduce the overall >crash rate. This might seem hard to believe, but it's true... It really is insane. Car crashes dwarf the terrorism problem in deaths and injuries and money lost due to injuries and property damange. And furthermore, we know how to correct this huge problem. Take away the DL of speeders and DUIs and red light runners and let people know that if they are at found at fault in a fatal crash, then they WILL go to prison. But no. We let the killilng and maiming continue. > >"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is > >the highway research, education and policy division of the US [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they WILL go to prison. But no. We let the killilng and maiming > continue. One of the things we need is to make those guilty of an accident pay for it in cash, besides any prison applicable. Nowadays the insurance company insulates them from it, making the innocent pay. And the government who chooses to do nothing escapes with no responsibility either. I quote from the same book here... "Having communicated with hundred of families across the country whose loved ones were killed as a result of someone else's dangerous and irresponsible driving behavior, I can attest that the pain and mental anguish, not to mention economic losses, for the families of those who are terrorized by dangerous drivers is no less than that which was inflicted upon victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks. It is not a bit less. Yet the government offers innocent crash victims nothing --not one red cent. Even when the crash stems in large part front the government's failure to enforce its own traffic laws and take modest steps to protect people on the roads, there's no offer to compensate innocent crash victims." >> It really is insane. Car crashes dwarf the terrorism problem in >> deaths and injuries and money lost due to injuries and property [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >protect people on the roads, there's no offer to compensate innocent >crash victims." Car crashes are BIG business and that's why the govt lets this huge problem continue. You're right, the laws are weak anyway and then the govt does not enforce the laws and the highway predators run wild. > >Yet the government offers innocent crash victims nothing --not one red > >cent. Even when the crash stems in large part front the government's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > problem continue. You're right, the laws are weak anyway and then the > govt does not enforce the laws and the highway predators run wild. WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE, so to speak. Incidentally, that's the name of my website! ;) http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > > Car crashes are BIG business .... It's simply Darwinism in action. The superior (in SUVs) weeding out the inferior (in econoboxes) without government intervention. > > > Car crashes are BIG business .... > > It's simply Darwinism in action. The superior (in SUVs) weeding out the > inferior (in econoboxes) without government intervention. I'm glad you said it. But I'm sure the government is on the side of the big and stupid. For one, they use more gas and gas is taxed, so you get the point... Or do I need to say there's a hungry dinosaur somewhere in North America? ;) If you doubt on whose side the government is, just check these perks. (And it's not the small and efficient)... The perks, I previously talked about, that you get are absolutely amazing. Under IRS tax code, Section 179 deduction, you can essentially write off 100% of your SUV if you: 1) Buy an SUV over 6000 lbs 2) Claim and prove you use it for business purposes at least 50% of the time and 3) Set up a second office in your home so you can write off your business miles. Effectively, you can have up to a $100,000 tax deduction. You can buy and write-off a Hummer H2 in full, the year you purchase it. This is not possible for a car under 6000 lbs. For a list of qualifying vehicles go to http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction-list.htm Another perk of buying an SUV is that, if your SUV weighs over 5100 lbs and is classified as a light truck you do not need an emissions check yearly. You save the $30 in my state of NC. Pretty crappy if you think about it. SUV's are allowed, by the government, to waste 1/3 more fuel then a car. The emissions are not inspected and are very high in comparison to a car. http://jovittore.blogspot.com/2004/08/suvs-gas-rate-hikes-and-soccer-moms.html "To the French, SUVs belong in the desert or the mountains, not on the Champs Elysees." I guess they are on the side of the small and efficient... "France's national government has announced a measure that may reduce the number of SUVs on the country's roads. It announced this week, that as of 2005, people buying new vehicles that pollute will be taxed, while those buying cars that pollute less will receive a rebate. The measure is expected to add as much as 3,000 to the cost of a new sports utility vehicle." http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1263482,00.html > Vito wrote: > > It's simply Darwinism in action. The superior (in SUVs) weeding out the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > big and stupid. For one, they use more gas and gas is taxed, so you get > the point... I didn't say that the government favors SUVs. You must be a Communist. The Constitution of the US says that the government may not do anything not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Nowhere does it empower the government to regulate car size. Ergo, to even suggest that it do, short of a constitutional amendment, is treasonous and unamerican - right? > > Vito wrote: > > > It's simply Darwinism in action. The superior (in SUVs) weeding out the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > government to regulate car size. Ergo, to even suggest that it do, short of a > constitutional amendment, is treasonous and unamerican - right? The same government that says "Nyet" ("no way" in Russian) to you importing a Ford Ka (notice the American badge on it) allows you to buy and proudly parade a Nissan Armada, or a zillion gadgets from Communist China... The hope is the Russians also invented Perestroika. ;) Here are the features of the Armada (not to be confused with the Spanish Armada that was beaten by the Royal Navy or something like that)... EQUIPPED WITH FULL-SIZED ADVENTURE "Armada is power without compromise-room for everyone with three rows of seating for up to eight. The confidence of an SUV with the easy-riding smoothness of independent rear suspension. The brawn of a 305-horsepower V8 with up to 9,100 lbs of maximum towing capacity. Explore the full-sized world of Armada." > I didn't say that the government favors SUVs. You must be a Communist. The > Constitution of the US says that the government may not do anything not > specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Nowhere does it empower the > government to regulate car size. Ergo, to even suggest that it do, short of a > constitutional amendment, is treasonous and unamerican - right? I can't think of anything more treasonous and unAmerican than wasting a strategic resource like fossil fuels. >> I didn't say that the government favors SUVs. You must be a Communist. The >> Constitution of the US says that the government may not do anything not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I can't think of anything more treasonous and unAmerican than wasting a >strategic resource like fossil fuels. The Air Force alone consumes 52.5% of all fossil fuel used by the government. $4.7 Billion for jet fuel last year. A $10/barrel increase in oil price costs the Air Force $600 million a year. The Abrams tank can get less than 1mpg. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer >> > Car crashes are BIG business .... > >It's simply Darwinism in action. The superior (in SUVs) weeding out the >inferior (in econoboxes) without government intervention. SUV drivers are hardly superiors. They are terrorists and gutless worms who need a big road hog to hide behind. > >> > Car crashes are BIG business .... > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > SUV drivers are hardly superiors. They are terrorists and gutless > worms who need a big road hog to hide behind. ROTFLMAO! Did you get this information from the same reliable resource that informed you that Bush was going to serve a third term? No wonder you can't get anything right. BTW, I'm going new car shopping in the near future. Strangely enough, after riding in a friend's SUV, I think I'm going to get one for myself. I'll be staying away from Ford, no doubt. Hey, you know you never elaborated on that fatal accident you were in a few years ago: Oh, and did your dumb a.s (and "safety-consious" [ROTFLMAO]) ever figure out what you're supposed to do at crosswalks where you can't clearly see what's going on at the intersection? How can *anyone* be so stupid as to ask such a retarded question? -- Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend (Xeton2001@yahoo.com)'s words of wisdom, love, and respect (spelling and grammatical errors left intact) I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en In many instances you can't see far enough to your left to check if it's safe to turn unless you drive into the X-walk. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/216d067be9306b8b?hl=en& > >> > Car crashes are BIG business .... > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > SUV drivers are hardly superiors. They are terrorists and gutless > worms who need a big road hog to hide behind. I was going to say something to the effect, but what can be more explicit? Exercising this free speech on the ma$$ media though can get you fired... Liberal radio host fired for speaking out against SUV's Here's another victim in an era when money dictates free speech. Arnie Arnesen, New Hampshire progressive radio talk-show host, has been driven from her radio show because a few car dealerships pulled their advertisements after she criticized gas-guzzling SUV's. How does she feel about this firing? Arnie is "hurt," according to a blogger that spoke to her: Just got off the phone with her and she was hurt, not angry, hurt. Hurt that two stations dropped her because of ownership change, and her own station is thinking of dropping her - not because she doesn't have a great audience, but because three media buyers pulled ads from her show. The reason? She doesn't like SUVs and car dealerships don't like people, who don't like SUVs. For those people who don't know it, I'll put it bluntly - Arnie is liberal media in New Hampshire. She's the one who is giving people a channel to the public, interviewing guests that others won't touch. As importantly, she has a gift for getting right wingers to drop the mask and tell the truth. She got Rep. Bass to admit that the estate tax isn't really an issue, but that "people think they pay it" so he is going to push repealing it. That's what makes her such a gem - smart, talented, funny - and most of all effective. For people who complain about how the media is being tilted right by the power of money... here's a chance to do something about it. In all reality, the media is not liberal or conservative. It is controlled by big businesses -- most of which just-so-happen to donate to the Republican Party. The firing of Arnie is big-business's Christmas present to the New Hampshire Republican Party. http://thebluestate.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/week50/index.html > Exercising this free speech on the ma$$ media though can get you > fired... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > feel about this firing? Arnie is "hurt," according to a blogger that > spoke to her: Free speech gives one the RIGHT TO SPEECH - not the right to be heard... She was working in a business - the purpose of a business is to make money, not to provide a platform for free speech. If her program isn't making money, the owners have no reason to put her on the air. Simple as that. >> Exercising this free speech on the ma$$ media though can get you >> fired... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Free speech gives one the RIGHT TO SPEECH - not the right to be heard... And no one the obligation to shell out $$$ to give someone else airtime to say things they disagree with. Liberals like to confuse FREE speech with 'Speech that someone other than me is paying for'. > She was working in a business - the purpose of a business is to make >money, not to provide a platform for free speech. If her program isn't >making money, the owners have no reason to put her on the air. Simple >as that. SignatureClick here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/ > >> Exercising this free speech on the ma$$ media though can get you > >> fired... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Liberals like to confuse FREE speech with 'Speech that someone > other than me is paying for'. Conservatives like to confuse rights for things you buy if you have the money. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml > > Liberals like to confuse FREE speech with 'Speech that someone > > other than me is paying for'. > > Conservatives like to confuse rights for things you buy if you have the money. Yep, I love it when they say the homeless are "free" to sleep under the bridges. It's the only freedom I know that you can have without money. :( These could be their slogans... "Some things are free (like sleeping under a bridge), for everything else carry your Mastercard" or "In God we trust, all others pay cash" Scotius wrote: > >Yep, I'd vote for it. If you got an SUV and proudly display one of > >those ubiquitous "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers, it's high time [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > automobiles are only responsible for about 11% of air pollution, SUVs > aren't contributing much. What a pity it doesn't match the facts. SUVs should carry a bumper sticker that says, "I give a damn about pollution or war, so what?" Well, at least they'd be more honest about it... ;) "The tons of carbon dioxide produced by burning gasoline is the leading cause of the greenhouse effect, which causes global warming. Vehicles contribute to an estimated 60-70 percent of urban air pollution. Automobiles do not maximize the energy they are producing, creating unnecessary waste. The largest area of needed improvement in the automobile is energy efficiency." http://www.ecsel.psu.edu/~mpb181/auto/page2.html > Scotius wrote: > > >Yep, I'd vote for it. If you got an SUV and proudly display one of [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > http://www.ecsel.psu.edu/~mpb181/auto/page2.html Also, we live in a situation where individual choices, multiplied by millions, do matter. Just one person living alone in the woods doesn't need much of a plumbing system, but a city of people needs laws about plumbing and using it. So it's illegal to sh.t or pee in public places. The attitude expressed by Scotius boils down to, "My contribution may be harmful, but it is very small, so I can get away with it, so I don't care." SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > > "The tons of carbon dioxide produced by burning gasoline is the leading > > cause of the greenhouse effect, which causes global warming. Vehicles [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > need much of a plumbing system, but a city of people needs laws about > plumbing and using it. Together, you are validating my point - that it isn't SUVs or any other popular villain causing the problem, it is too many people. No SUV uses 4 times the gas of an econobox. So it is OK to have an SUV so long as you run over a few econoboxes and kill at least 4 occupants. Then you have made a positive contribution to the environment. Crazy? The US population has more than doubled in just my lifetime. And, thanks to all those sub-par people breeding like roaches, I've had to give up many of the things I loved. Thanks to them, I couldn't buy a Suzi Gamma here in the USA, nor is Shelby allowed to make AC Cobras any more, nor can Pontiac make cars like my 68 HO GTO, nor can I ride cross country in the desert, and the fishing hole I had to hike two miles to is now a swimming hole for kids next to a RV park. I've been able to piss or shoot off my back porch for over 20 years but now the roach people are moving in and there is talk of noise ordinances. How much must we all give up so they can continue to breed like that? If I can't have that Gamma then why should they be allowed to have 3+ gawdam kids?? > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > econoboxes and kill at least 4 occupants. Then you have made a positive > contribution to the environment. Crazy? Last time I heard such theories, it lead to WWII. You know, hail the SUV! "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote "Vito" <vito@crosslink.net> wrote: > >It's simply Darwinism in action. The superior (in SUVs) weeding out the > >inferior (in econoboxes) without government intervention. > > SUV drivers are hardly superiors. They are terrorists and gutless > worms who need a big road hog to hide behind. That's merely your flawed opinion. GOD decreed survival of the fittest. It is a statistical fact that SUV occupants survive crashes better than econobox drivers (or motorcyclists for that matter). Thus, in the eyes of GOD, SUV occupants must be superior. You DO believe in GOD don't you. > "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote > "Vito" <vito@crosslink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > drivers (or motorcyclists for that matter). Thus, in the eyes of GOD, SUV > occupants must be superior. You DO believe in GOD don't you. No, if you use it to terrorize people, it must be a Satanic vehicle. Remember, Jesus rode an a.s, which is roughly equivalent to a bicycle or a Ford Focus at most. > > "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote > > "Vito" <vito@crosslink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Remember, Jesus rode an a.s, which is roughly equivalent to a bicycle > or a Ford Focus at most. I recall something about him riding a Triumph. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com >> > "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote >> > "Vito" <vito@crosslink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >I recall something about him riding a Triumph. I heard he had the original Jet-ski. SignatureClick here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/ > >I recall something about him riding a Triumph. > > I heard he had the original Jet-ski. No way, he had a canoe or kayak. That's when he got tired of walking on water. > > No, if you use it to terrorize people, it must be a Satanic vehicle. > > Remember, Jesus rode an a.s, which is roughly equivalent to a bicycle > > or a Ford Focus at most. > > I recall something about him riding a Triumph. It would be a miracle if the Triumph still runs. He traded it in for a Ford Ka, at least in Europe. Here he would be crushed before long, you know with so many Armadas, Terminators and Exterminators with a license to kill. Lucky him, he's eternal. ? > I agree that a car and road "feel right" at a certain speed and that > if you slow down you just want to "hunt" for that feeling. But, > regardles of comfort, increases in speed are increases in rolling and > aerodynamic resistance which means increasing fuel to overcome it. > Physics dictates the cost. You're missing the effect of RPM and gear ratios on engine efficiency. Manufacturer have managed to make cars more and more efficient at higher speeds in recent years. In some cases, the most efficient speed is 55 or 60 mph. Pretty well everything drops in efficiency as speed increases above that sweet spot: http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/Spreadsheets/Table4_25.xls >>>For the North American audience >>>60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >reduce their speed by 8% that would be the same as saving the forecast >peak daily output of the ANWR. And if I have a total daily commute of 1 hour @ 65 MPH, that's ~ 5 minutes of my time, which at my billing rate costs ~ $ 4, considerably more than a gallon of gas. Also, just inventing some numbers here, if my base MPG is 25, and 8 % reduction in speed increases mileage by 10 %, IOW 2.5 MPG, I've saved ~ 1/3 rd of a gallon, IOW ~ $ 1 worth. So there's a net effect on the economy of ( $ 4 ) + $ 1 = ( $ 3 ), that is, negative $ 3. >Get your facts before your knee jerks. And that includes providing any >backup at all for your "$1 trillion technological solution". Good advice for yourself. >Brazil, Illinois and others are doing this now. Illinois alone sells >enough ethanol in one year to displace a full day of oil consumption in >the US (or several days of Middle East imports). And that is based on >facts, not fancy. SignatureClick here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/ >>If you've read any of my posts you know I'm a big proponent of driving >>more fuel efficient vehicles, adapting better driving habits (not as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ~ 5 minutes of my time, which at my billing rate costs ~ $ 4, > considerably more than a gallon of gas. Sorry, the mathematics of your personal convenience does not apply. Most people commute to work on their own time; not company or client time. You have to make the sacrifice, not your company or client. If you believe 5 or 10 minutes a day is a big personal sacrifice for the betterment of the environment and the economy then you are perhaps forgetting the 2,600 US soldiers killed in the past few years so you can burn oil inefficiently? If you meet somebody whose husband or son was killed over there, how do you relate that to your driving habit? Do you believe the price of oil is that that you pay at the pump? > Also, just inventing some numbers here, if my base MPG is 25, > and 8 % reduction in speed increases mileage by 10 %, IOW 2.5 MPG, > I've saved ~ 1/3 rd of a gallon, IOW ~ $ 1 worth. > So there's a net effect on the economy of ( $ 4 ) + $ 1 = ( $ > 3 ), that is, negative $ 3. No. You can't count your personal usage. (above), so you will get a net benefit to your pocket. Further, if everyone reduces consumption, then: -the price falls, so money goes to other places in the economy, or into your savings/investments. -less money is sent to the middle east and stays in the US economy where id does good. -less pollution, less demand on the health care system -reserves will last longer -less instability (Middle East imports of oil: US$59B / year; Saudi imports of arms and aircraft: less than $3B. Now that's a net loss. The US has the greatest and fastest growing trade gap in the world. Oil imports play a big part of that). >>Get your facts before your knee jerks. And that includes providing any >>backup at all for your "$1 trillion technological solution". > > Good advice for yourself. My numbers are well founded based on DOE figures and the Illinois site for ethanol. "Laura Bush"'s number was a "scare" pulled out of the air. Cheers, Alan You are as bad as LBMHB. Plonk. ************************* Dave Since virtually all politicians suck, and are taking away our rights, do your best each election to find someone who has never ran for office, and if they are even slightly acceptable, vote for them. > You are as bad as LBMHB. Plonk. Plonk away. In 15 years of usenet I've plonked two (2) people. But, free speech never bothered me. > Brazil, Illinois and others are doing this now. Illinois alone sells > enough ethanol in one year to displace a full day of oil consumption > in the US (or several days of Middle East imports). And that is based > on facts, not fancy. I don't think beer contains that much alcohol. Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) x 2 Crash & Slider It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. >Brazil, Illinois and others are doing this now. Illinois alone sells >enough ethanol in one year to displace a full day of oil consumption in >the US (or several days of Middle East imports). And that is based on >facts, not fancy. And burns 1.5 gallons of oil for every gallon of ethanol they make. Such a deal. ************************* Dave Since virtually all politicians suck, and are taking away our rights, do your best each election to find someone who has never ran for office, and if they are even slightly acceptable, vote for them. >>Brazil, Illinois and others are doing this now. Illinois alone sells >>enough ethanol in one year to displace a full day of oil consumption in >>the US (or several days of Middle East imports). And that is based on >>facts, not fancy. > And burns 1.5 gallons of oil for every gallon of ethanol they make. > Such a deal. Brazil makes ethanol from sugar cane. The sugar cane provides all the energy required for the ethanol manufacturing process. Ethanol from corn is more or less a break even process at state of the art. However, if that energy came from forms that weren't oil, it would be fine. The idea is to get a fuel for vehicles that doesn't involve oil, and ethanol is great way to make energy the US has a lot of usuable for vehicles. > >>Brazil, Illinois and others are doing this now. Illinois alone sells > >>enough ethanol in one year to displace a full day of oil consumption in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and ethanol is great way to make energy the US has a lot of usuable for > vehicles. And the joy of bio-fuels is that it's compatible with existing infrastructure and vehicles. Graham > >Brazil, Illinois and others are doing this now. Illinois alone sells > >enough ethanol in one year to displace a full day of oil consumption in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And burns 1.5 gallons of oil for every gallon of ethanol they make. > Such a deal. If that was true it would clearly be counter-productive. Sounds like another oil company inspired myth. Graham >>Brazil, Illinois and others are doing this now. Illinois alone sells >>enough ethanol in one year to displace a full day of oil consumption in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And burns 1.5 gallons of oil for every gallon of ethanol they make. > Such a deal. References? The "fact" is that for 100 energy units invested in ethanol you get 138 units out. Cheers, Alan > >>Brazil, Illinois and others are doing this now. Illinois alone sells > >>enough ethanol in one year to displace a full day of oil consumption in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The "fact" is that for 100 energy units invested in ethanol you get 138 > units out. Probably better than that with sugar cane as the feedstock. Graham >>> Brazil, Illinois and others are doing this now. Illinois alone sells >>> enough ethanol in one year to displace a full day of oil consumption in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The "fact" is that for 100 energy units invested in ethanol you get 138 > units out. That depends on what study result you want to latch onto. Others have claimed net energy loss, and some claimed much higher gains. If natural gas is used for hte distilling process, ethanol competes with other uses, like home heating or power generation, for the limited supply of gas, pushing up the price of that commodity. >But even if people do reduce gas consumption, ethanol pollutes less than >gasoline and reduces imports from unstable regions of the world. Ethanol pollutes less than gasoline on a per-gallon basis. Too bad it reduces mileage by more. It's great for Archer Daniels Midland, and it does eliminate the problem of water in the gas tank/lines, but the benefits just about end there. >Ethanol provides a stable and growing market for corn and sugar beets, >and corn growing sinks CO2, a greenhouse gas. Corn growing would sink CO2 if you didn't use the products thereof. Since you do, no sink. >Brazil, Illinois and others are doing this now. Illinois alone sells >enough ethanol in one year to displace a full day of oil consumption in >the US (or several days of Middle East imports). And that is based on >facts, not fancy. And how much oil-based fertilizer and oil-run equipment do they use in producing that ethanol? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >And how much oil-based fertilizer and oil-run equipment do they use in >producing that ethanol? If you are in the business of growing fuel is there any reason why you would buy it from a gas station? I would imagine an ethanol powered tractor starts to make sense after awhile. Free beats cheap nine times out of ten. How much fertilizer is needed to produce a gallon of ethanol? Is it a gallon of crude oil worth? Do you even know? Or are you just spouting off the mindless babble you heard from a friend of a friend in the petroleum industry? If one gallon of fossil fuel dervied fertilizer can produce several gallons of ethanol, it would seem we are stretching out our availble supply of energy quite nicely. > >And how much oil-based fertilizer and oil-run equipment do they use in > >producing that ethanol? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tractor starts to make sense after awhile. Free beats cheap nine times > out of ten. Actually the same reason farmers go to the grocery store for bread. It's a long way from the raw material to the finished product. > How much fertilizer is needed to produce a gallon of ethanol? Is it a > gallon of crude oil worth? Do you even know? Or are you just spouting > off the mindless babble you heard from a friend of a friend in the > petroleum industry? The estimates vary quite a bit. A net energy gain of about 1.38 out for every one in seems to be the most agreed on. Dean > Actually the same reason farmers go to the grocery store for >bread. It's a long way from the raw material to the finished product. Tractors are diesel. Diesel and vegetable oil are easily interchanged. Making vegetable oil requires seed and a simple press. Farmers are keen on on-site tomfoolery. > The estimates vary quite a bit. A net energy gain of about 1.38 >out for every one in seems to be the most agreed on. That's definately on the conservative side of things. By agreed upon you mean that is all petroleum types are willing to concede. Regardless it still represents a net gain for energy in. Which would mean that each barrel of imported oil could be processed into 1.5X the original amount. Do you think a net gain of 50% is something to sneeze at? >> Actually the same reason farmers go to the grocery store for >>bread. It's a long way from the raw material to the finished product. > >Tractors are diesel. Diesel and vegetable oil are easily interchanged. >Making vegetable oil requires seed and a simple press. Making vegetable oil usable as fuel requires more than that. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > On Tue, 09 May 2006 21:11:49 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote: >> The estimates vary quite a bit. A net energy gain of about 1.38 >>out for every one in seems to be the most agreed on. > > That's definately on the conservative side of things. By agreed upon > you mean that is all petroleum types are willing to concede. Actually, that's the BEST the CONSERVATION groups are able to promise. It's not conservative at all. Yes it's a gain, but it's not a big gain. FloydR > > On Tue, 09 May 2006 21:11:49 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote: > >> The estimates vary quite a bit. A net energy gain of about 1.38 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > able to promise. It's not conservative at all. Yes it's a gain, but > it's not a big gain. I've seen figures over 2:1 actually. Newer methods, better plant etc. Farm scale production is likely no better though. Graham >> >> The estimates vary quite a bit. A net energy gain of about 1.38 >> >> out for every one in seems to be the most agreed on. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I've seen figures over 2:1 actually. Newer methods, better plant etc. > Farm scale production is likely no better though. There have been studies that identified a net energy cost, and studies that have identified very high gains. The 1.38 figure seems to be from a recent US government study that tried to sort out all of the various claims, and come up with a definitive number. People are latching onto that study as being the most representative of current technology. > There have been studies that identified a net energy cost, and studies > that have identified very high gains. The 1.38 figure seems to be from a > recent US government study that tried to sort out all of the various > claims, and come up with a definitive number. People are latching onto > that study as being the most representative of current technology. A PDF file from the USDA: http://tinyurl.com/qmgpd > > There have been studies that identified a net energy cost, and studies > > that have identified very high gains. The 1.38 figure seems to be from a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A PDF file from the USDA: > http://tinyurl.com/qmgpd A positive ratio of 1.25 in 1995. Graham > > > There have been studies that identified a net energy cost, and studies > > > that have identified very high gains. The 1.38 figure seems to be from a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Graham I couldn't find the one I was thinking about. A newer one here: http://tinyurl.com/h67w8 Dean > > > > There have been studies that identified a net energy cost, and studies > > > > that have identified very high gains. The 1.38 figure seems to be from a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I couldn't find the one I was thinking about. A newer one here: > http://tinyurl.com/h67w8 Aha ! A report using more up to date figures. The ratio has gone up to 1.67. Graham >>And how much oil-based fertilizer and oil-run equipment do they use in >>producing that ethanol? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >tractor starts to make sense after awhile. Free beats cheap nine times >out of ten. You're growing corn, not fuel. It gets converted to fuel somewhere down the supply chain. And your tractor probably runs on diesel anyway, and can't be converted to ethanol. >How much fertilizer is needed to produce a gallon of ethanol? Is it a >gallon of crude oil worth? Do you even know? Or are you just spouting >off the mindless babble you heard from a friend of a friend in the >petroleum industry? Various studies produce various answers, some of them actually _energy negative_, some of them somewhat energy positive. Depends on the assumptions you make and what you account for. I haven't seen any as good as 2:1 for corn-derived ethanol. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > down the supply chain. And your tractor probably runs on diesel > anyway, and can't be converted to ethanol. FYI: Diesel engines are even easier to run on bio-fuel. I believe corn oil or some other corn products work. If not, I am sure a small plot could be set aside to grow whatever the tractor needs. > You're growing corn, not fuel. It gets converted to fuel somewhere > down the supply chain. And your tractor probably runs on diesel > anyway, and can't be converted to ethanol. What it probably could be converted to run on though is methane from that pile of agricultural waste. Not sure about methane, but propane is a very feasable fuel for diesels. Small amounts of diesel are still used to initiate combustion but most of the oomph is provided by the gaseous fuel. >For the North American audience >60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Cheers, >Alan Where did you read that ethanol "burns cleaner than gasoline" ? Everything I read says otherwise, for example: http://www.businessweek.com/print/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm S. > >For the North American audience > >60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://www.businessweek.com/print/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm Just the naysayers at work. The reason ethanol ( and biodisel ) burns cleaner is because it has a consistent molecular structure for one thing. Gasoline is a pot-pourri of many different molecules ( larger molecules too, which may be another factor ). Graham > Where did you read that ethanol "burns cleaner than gasoline" ? > > Everything I read says otherwise, for example: > > http://www.businessweek.com/print/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm What part of "The American Petroleum Institute v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" confused you? Ethanol is a clean burning fuel. The only "nasty" part of it is the CO2 released in combustion. However, the CO2 absorbed by the corn (or other stock) used to make it is higher than the emission. It is so chemically simple that little noxious can be formed from it. Spilled, it decomposes into harmless bits. Some of the numbers there are plain wrong and misleading. Measured E85 use gets mileage that is 10-15% less than with gasoline, not the 25% shown in that article (and the 25% "citing" they make is false too, there is no such data at the "fueleconomy.gov" site). Unlike gasoline, however, ethanol comes from a renewable resource. The Illinois site cites 10-15% less mpg than gasoline. Per Business Weak: "Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste." is a pure falsehood. For 100 BTU's in, you get 138 BTU's out. And this does not account for the feedstock you get out of the process, nor the fertilizer you get from the livestock. While Ethanol has a 51 cent/gal subsidy, a conservative study of the gasoline subsidy is clost to $1/gal!!! (less conservative studies put it at many dollars per gallon). That whole article is a smear job and guess who spends on advertising at "Business Weak"? Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Ethanol is a clean burning fuel. The only "nasty" part of it is the CO2 > released in combustion. However, the CO2 absorbed by the corn (or other > stock) used to make it is higher than the emission. It is so chemically > simple that little noxious can be formed from it. Spilled, it > decomposes into harmless bits. Guess you are ingoring the unregulated pollutants from ethanol like the formeldahide compounds... I am as much for ethanol as anyone, but emissions wise we are trading one thing for another. > > Ethanol is a clean burning fuel. The only "nasty" part of it is the CO2 > > released in combustion. However, the CO2 absorbed by the corn (or other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > formeldahide compounds... I am as much for ethanol as anyone, but > emissions wise we are trading one thing for another. Do you have a cite for the formaldehyde emissions ? Graham >> > Ethanol is a clean burning fuel. The only "nasty" part of it is the CO2 >> > released in combustion. However, the CO2 absorbed by the corn (or other [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Do you have a cite for the formaldehyde emissions ? I have to google it or dig it out of printed material. I learned about it over a decade ago when the farce that is RFG first appeared. > >> > Ethanol is a clean burning fuel. The only "nasty" part of it is the CO2 > >> > released in combustion. However, the CO2 absorbed by the corn (or other [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I have to google it or dig it out of printed material. I learned about it > over a decade ago when the farce that is RFG first appeared. I had a quick look and it seems to be a result of incomplete combustion. I guess that a 'tune-up' would fix that. Graham >> >> > Ethanol is a clean burning fuel. The only "nasty" part of it is the CO2 >> >> > released in combustion. However, the CO2 absorbed by the corn (or other [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I had a quick look and it seems to be a result of incomplete combustion. I guess > that a 'tune-up' would fix that. No it wouldn't. Incomplete combustion is why cars have a catalyst. It's always present to some degree in real world operation. A way to minimize it is with extremely lean mixtures which of course results in other problems. > >> >> > Ethanol is a clean burning fuel. The only "nasty" part of it is the CO2 > >> >> > released in combustion. However, the CO2 absorbed by the corn (or other [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > it is with extremely lean mixtures which of course results in other > problems. What I've read generally is that ethanol normally burns very cleanly. I also read that ordinary gasoline can also produce formaldehyde by incomplete combustion. I think you're mistaken to attribute it to ethanol alone. For sure, in the future, the best results will be obtained by vehicles like Saab's biopower models that have an ECU designed to respond intelligently to the proportion of ethanol in the fuel. In fact the biopower 9-5 actually produces *more* bhp on ethanol than on regular gas. Expect to see developments from other car makers ( the ones with any intelligence ) along these lines in coming years. Graham >> No it wouldn't. Incomplete combustion is why cars have a catalyst. It's >> always present to some degree in real world operation. A way to minimize [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ordinary gasoline can also produce formaldehyde by incomplete combustion. I think > you're mistaken to attribute it to ethanol alone. I didn't. And I see you still can't post in 80cols. > For sure, in the future, the best results will be obtained by vehicles like Saab's > biopower models that have an ECU designed to respond intelligently to the proportion > of ethanol in the fuel. In fact the biopower 9-5 actually produces *more* bhp on > ethanol than on regular gas. Expect to see developments from other car makers ( the > ones with any intelligence ) along these lines in coming years. Look up Ford Mustang Super Stallion. > >> No it wouldn't. Incomplete combustion is why cars have a catalyst. It's > >> always present to some degree in real world operation. A way to minimize [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I didn't. Sorry ? Didn't what ? > And I see you still can't post in 80cols. Ok, I've changed the setting from 70 to 80. I forget why it was set that way before but do please tell me if it makes a difference at your end. I don't see any problem here you see. > > For sure, in the future, the best results will be obtained by vehicles like Saab's > > biopower models that have an ECU designed to respond intelligently to the proportion [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Look up Ford Mustang Super Stallion. I did. All I see is a 1998 'concept car'. Saab's biopower is for real and in production. It started off selling in Sweden where fuel ethanol is being made from wood waste http://www.carpages.co.uk/saab/saab-95-03-01-06.asp is about to sell here in the UK http://www.eastangliansaabdealers.co.uk/biopower.asp and is targeted to sell in the US next year IIRC. http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/05/saab-9-5-aero-biopower-concept/ I see it's still called a concept in this link but I'm sure they are going ahead with it. Interesting that the 2.3 engine is being used for the US market whilst Europe just gets the 2.0 ! " The concepts 2.3L turbo-four produces almost 20-percent more power than its gasoline counterpart (310 hp vs. 260 hp and 325 lb-ft. or torque vs. 258 lb-ft.) and reaches 60 mph in under 6 seconds, compared with 6.9 seconds for the gas engine " You ought to try one yourself actually. Saabs are nice cars. Very nice in fact. Graham >> >> No it wouldn't. Incomplete combustion is why cars have a catalyst. It's >> >> always present to some degree in real world operation. A way to minimize [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sorry ? Didn't what ? attribute it to ethanol alone. >> And I see you still can't post in 80cols. > Ok, I've changed the setting from 70 to 80. I forget why it was set that way before but do > please tell me if it makes a difference at your end. I don't see any problem here you see. Still over 80 >> > For sure, in the future, the best results will be obtained by vehicles like Saab's >> > biopower models that have an ECU designed to respond intelligently to the proportion >> > of ethanol in the fuel. In fact the biopower 9-5 actually produces *more* bhp on >> > ethanol than on regular gas. Expect to see developments from other car makers ( the >> > ones with any intelligence ) along these lines in coming years. >> Look up Ford Mustang Super Stallion. > I did. All I see is a 1998 'concept car'. Saab's biopower is for real and in production. It > started off selling in Sweden where fuel ethanol is being made from wood waste > http://www.carpages.co.uk/saab/saab-95-03-01-06.asp flex fuel tauri have been out for awhile, but the timing adaptations etc were in that car. > You ought to try one yourself actually. Saabs are nice cars. Very nice in fact. I avoid all things touched by the hand of general motors if at all possible. > >> >> No it wouldn't. Incomplete combustion is why cars have a catalyst. It's > >> >> always present to some degree in real world operation. A way to minimize [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > attribute it to ethanol alone. Ok, understood. Sounds sensible. > >> And I see you still can't post in 80cols. > > > Ok, I've changed the setting from 70 to 80. I forget why it was set that way before but do > > please tell me if it makes a difference at your end. I don't see any problem here you see. > > Still over 80 Hmm.... Can't figure that. That's probably why I had it reduced before. > >> > For sure, in the future, the best results will be obtained by vehicles like Saab's > >> > biopower models that have an ECU designed to respond intelligently to the proportion [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > flex fuel tauri have been out for awhile, but the timing adaptations etc > were in that car. Sorry I couldn't find any detail. Saab's biopower goes one heck of a lot further though, adjusting boost pressure from the turbo too IIRC. > > You ought to try one yourself actually. Saabs are nice cars. Very nice in fact. > > I avoid all things touched by the hand of general motors if at all possible. Saab purists are dismayed at some stuff GM has done to the marque. They are still damn good cars though. Honestly, you ought to try one at least. An Aero model ideally. Graham >>Still over 80 > Hmm.... Can't figure that. That's probably why I had it reduced before. [...] ---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7---------8---------9 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 > Sorry I couldn't find any detail. Saab's biopower goes one heck of a lot further though, > adjusting boost pressure from the turbo too IIRC. It's probably a bug in Netscape 4.8. >>Ethanol is a clean burning fuel. The only "nasty" part of it is the CO2 >>released in combustion. However, the CO2 absorbed by the corn (or other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > formeldahide compounds... I am as much for ethanol as anyone, but > emissions wise we are trading one thing for another. Formaldehydes? No. Methanol, yes. And that is caught at distillation time and can be (are) burned off at very high temp. Stop with the strawmans ... what this produces in polution is a faint nothing compared to gasoline manufacture and consumption. Cheers, Alan. >>>Ethanol is a clean burning fuel. The only "nasty" part of it is the CO2 >>>released in combustion. However, the CO2 absorbed by the corn (or other >>>stock) used to make it is higher than the emission. It is so chemically >>>simple that little noxious can be formed from it. Spilled, it >>>decomposes into harmless bits. >> Guess you are ingoring the unregulated pollutants from ethanol like the >> formeldahide compounds... I am as much for ethanol as anyone, but >> emissions wise we are trading one thing for another. > Formaldehydes? No. Yes. Been over and over this since 1994. However, there is more information as I surf now, but my theme remains the same, 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/environment.htm A 1999 study of the impact of ethanol on air quality by the California Environmental Policy Committee concluded that ethanol in gasoline resulted in slightly higher levels of acetaldehyde and peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN). However, the study also concluded that these slight increases were more than offset by reductions in formaldehyde, a toxic substance considerably more harmful than acetaldehyde. > Stop with the strawmans ... You clearly don't know what a strawman is. > what this produces in polution is a faint > nothing compared to gasoline manufacture and consumption. Guess you missed my stance on ethanol. You might want to review that before you continue. >>>>Ethanol is a clean burning fuel. The only "nasty" part of it is the CO2 >>>>released in combustion. However, the CO2 absorbed by the corn (or other [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Guess you missed my stance on ethanol. You might want to review that > before you continue. Probably, since I got on this ethanol rant I've been writing posts by the gallon. Thanks for the Formadehyde reference above. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > Where did you read that ethanol "burns cleaner than gasoline" ? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > simple that little noxious can be formed from it. Spilled, it > decomposes into harmless bits. Ever heard of nitrogen oxides? High compression ratios make more of them. Raising the compression ratio is one of the ways of reducing what would otherwise have been about a 30% decrease in mileage. > Some of the numbers there are plain wrong and misleading. Measured E85 > use gets mileage that is 10-15% less than with gasoline, not the 25% > shown in that article (and the 25% "citing" they make is false too, > there is no such data at the "fueleconomy.gov" site). Unlike gasoline, > however, ethanol comes from a renewable resource. The Illinois site > cites 10-15% less mpg than gasoline. The stoichiometric air/fuel ratio for ethanol is 9:1 compared to 14.7:1 for gasoline. Or maybe you would rather look at 11,600 BTU/lb for ethanol compared to 18,700 BTU/lb for gasoline. Either of those figures would indicate a 38% drop in milage. It is only by makeing changes such as the higher CR that the hit can be reduced. Most of what I have read makes the 25% sound more realistic. > Per Business Weak: "Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in > an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Cheers, > Alan >From a quick Google search http://tinyurl.com/kk7kn http://tinyurl.com/kywra http://tinyurl.com/8772r Seems like everybody must be in on it. Bruce Richmond > -- > -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm > -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm > -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>Where did you read that ethanol "burns cleaner than gasoline" ? >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > changes such as the higher CR that the hit can be reduced. Most of > what I have read makes the 25% sound more realistic. First of all the fuel is burned as E85, so there's the gasoline offset. Secondly, all sources I've read indicate 10-15% decrease in mileage. Perhaps they are "enthusiastically" biased, but I've not seen anything to contradict that yet. Reference for ethanol NOx would be appreciated. I do realize these are formed ... but they're formed with gasoline in any case. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >First of all the fuel is burned as E85, so there's the gasoline offset. > >Secondly, all sources I've read indicate 10-15% decrease in mileage. >Perhaps they are "enthusiastically" biased, but I've not seen anything >to contradict that yet. You get a 10% decrease in mileage just running on RFG. E-85 is going to be much worse than that. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >>>Where did you read that ethanol "burns cleaner than gasoline" ? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > First of all the fuel is burned as E85, so there's the gasoline offset. This reference http://tinyurl.com/8772r included E85 which has a stoichiometric ratio of 9.8 compared to gasoline's 14.7 ratio. So that get you back to a 33% increase in consumption. > Secondly, all sources I've read indicate 10-15% decrease in mileage. > Perhaps they are "enthusiastically" biased, but I've not seen anything > to contradict that yet. You must be very selctive in your reading ;) > Reference for ethanol NOx would be appreciated. I do realize these are > formed ... but they're formed with gasoline in any case. http://tinyurl.com/8772r included a reference to http://tinyurl.com/j8xvx which explains some of it. If E85 was used without changes to the gasoline engine unburned hydrocarbons went up and NOx went down. As changes were made to optimize for E85 unburnt hydrocarbons went down and NOx went up. Doing a google search of the web for "ethanol NOx " gave plenty of hits that confirm this. Bruce > Cheers, > Alan [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Where did you read that ethanol "burns cleaner than gasoline" ? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Ethanol is a clean burning fuel. The only "nasty" part of it is the CO2 >released in combustion. Burning of ethanol in an automobile engine also produces NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons, though less of the latter two than gasoline. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Some of the numbers there are plain wrong and misleading. Measured > E85 use gets mileage that is 10-15% less than with gasoline, not the > 25% shown in that article (and the 25% "citing" they make is false > too, there is no such data at the "fueleconomy.gov" site). Unlike > gasoline, however, ethanol comes from a renewable resource. The > Illinois site cites 10-15% less mpg than gasoline. They are probably referring to the following query, where you can look at the EPA-tested fuel economy labels for flex fuel vehicles that can use both ethanol and gasoline ("Cars That Don't Need Gasoline" - Look at 2006 data, as 2007 only seems to have GM vehicles): http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm Looking at the data in the list, the weighted average fuel economy when running on E85, compared to gasoline, drops by about 25% for highway driving, and 24% for city. Some of the Chrysler vehicles drop as much as 35%. The clue as to why things don't change is perhaps in who gets away with it, namely the big fish in the food chain... (from "It's No Accident") Everybody's doing it "The first problem is also the most difficult to solve: So many people --from doctors, lawyers, and teachers, to police, prosecutors, judges and legislators-- are breaking the laws and engaging in negligent driving behavior that there appears to be little desire to hold everyone accountable." *** So, unless and until the sardines are empowered there will be a Darwinian Jungle out there. Their revolution is coming soon... THE BANANA REVOLUTION http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 Venture Rider wrote: > On 17 May 2006 09:26:37 -0700, donquijote1954 said: > > >The clue as to why things don't change is perhaps in who gets away with > >it, namely the big fish in the food chain... > > No more jungles and lions? Now it's fish and krill? Oh, that's because the same law of the big fish eats the little fish applies in the jungle (the lion) and in the air (the eagle). Well also on the asphalt jungle (the SUV). ;) For those of you who wathced "60 minutes" I apologize. It sucked. 1) It was one sided. 2) It was "over the top". If you think I'm optimistic about this, the sole proponent they had was completely whacky. Could discredit the whole thing. 60 minutes sucks. I used to like that show. It's really gone downhill. Only bright light of the whole thing was the Brazil segment. 40% and growing conversion to ethanol. Price is less than gasoline by a fair margine (possibly govenerment controlled, not stated). Cheers, Alan > For the North American audience > 60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cheers, > Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Oil drilling goes on 24/7 365 days per year, all over the world, just to > MAINTAIN the current level of oil production. .... There would be NO NEED to maintain the current level of production if we were no breeding like cockroaches. > The only way people in the US will use less gasoline is if the price > goes up and that's why the price is going up, every day. Probably it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hybrid based on the gasoline savings' and 'Sure gas costs a lot but I > can afford it and it's just the cost of driving.' It's not as stupid as you think. Energy is energy and hybrids are much less efficient both to build and maintain than conventional cars. Over their life hybrids use MORE energy. > It's not as stupid as you think. Energy is energy and hybrids are > much less efficient both to build and maintain than conventional > cars. Over their life hybrids use MORE energy. My favorites are the morons who think hydrogen will be the answer. >> It's not as stupid as you think. Energy is energy and hybrids are >> much less efficient both to build and maintain than conventional >> cars. Over their life hybrids use MORE energy. > > My favorites are the morons who think hydrogen will be the answer. All you need is a hydrogen well. I'm sure there must be a whole bunch of hydrogen underground to fuel those new hydrogen cars that Dubya is going to give us. Otherwise, what would be the point? You'd still need another source of energy to free up the hydrogen via electrolysis or another process to separate the H2 from whatever it's bound to. Yep, I'm sure there's a bunch of gaseous H2 hydrogen wells out there. Signature'01 SV650S '99 EX250-F13 '98 ZG1000-A13 '81 CM400T OMF #7 > >> It's not as stupid as you think. Energy is energy and hybrids are > >> much less efficient both to build and maintain than conventional [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > or another process to separate the H2 from whatever it's bound to. > Yep, I'm sure there's a bunch of gaseous H2 hydrogen wells out there. The first options are already working in other countries and some areas in this one as well: BICYCLES, FAST TRAINS... But I don't believe there's a magic bullet, just HAVING OPTIONS is the name of the game. Venture Rider wrote: > On 4 May 2006 13:20:11 -0700, donquijote1954 said: > > >FAST TRAINS... But I don't believe > >there's a magic bullet > > What about bullet trains? Not even that is the magic bullet. ;) We need MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, wich is the fancy word for TRANSPORTATION CHOICES. However, once again, the STUPID MONOPOLISTIC DINOSAUR refuses to evolve, so expect nothing to happen until the next asteroid comes around... :( 'Rather than focusing on transportation system nodes, multimodal transpotiation systems focus on transportation system links and providing system users with a choice of modes along those links. An example of a multimodal system would be if two cities were connected by air routes, highways, and railroads. In an urban sense, a multimodal network might consist of linking the airporl with the CBD with public transit, private automobiles, and taxis. Much of the United States has such a system, but, due to federal, state, and local governments' modal bias towards highways, many modes have not been equally represented in the national transportation network. Modal bias can involve direct governmental funding of a transportation mode or can be much more subtle, such as failing to consider other modes in the planning process or failing to charge users the true cost of using a particular mode. The ISTEA has reduced some of the traditional federal highway bias by making funding programs more flexible and attuned to local needs, but it remains to be seen if state and local governments are willing to pursue multimodal networks by equalizing modal subsidies. The bias question raises two key interrelated multimodal issues: choice and competition. These issues are interrelated because the choice of a particular mode will inevitably depend on how competitive that mode is with other modes. Governmental bias towards a particular mode usually implies that it will be more competitive than the other modes because of the "perks" that mode will receive. In such a situation, mode "choice is no longer determined by the free market, but is instead pre-determined by the public sector. A "level playing field" upon which all modes can compete for traffic is a requirement for successful multimodal transportation systems.' http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/6000/6100/6160/pimt.pdf > >> It's not as stupid as you think. Energy is energy and hybrids are > >> much less efficient both to build and maintain than conventional [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > or another process to separate the H2 from whatever it's bound to. > Yep, I'm sure there's a bunch of gaseous H2 hydrogen wells out there. Hydrogen could still be viable as a storage device, though I'm dubious because of the distribution and permeability problems. There's a bunch of CH4 wells out there. I'd see that as a more viable immediate solution. If you began mining oceanic methane clathrates, you'd stand an excellant chance of solving our energy crisis and/or destroying civilization as we know it with a catastrophic methane release. Talk about living in interesting times. >>> It's not as stupid as you think. Energy is energy and hybrids are >>> much less efficient both to build and maintain than conventional [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >of hydrogen underground to fuel those new hydrogen cars that Dubya is >going to give us. Sure. You just strip the hydrogen from the natural gas. (yeah, I know.) SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> Oil drilling goes on 24/7 365 days per year, all over the world, just to >> MAINTAIN the current level of oil production. .... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >efficient both to build and maintain than conventional cars. Over their life >hybrids use MORE energy. It doesn't really matter if the energy used in mfg is more, if that energy is coal or nuclear. Both of those we can get a lot of. It is the liquid fuels suitable for motor vehicles that is limited. If the hybrid saves a lot of _those_, then it is worth burning more of the coal and nuclear to build the hybrid. Dave Head > It's not as stupid as you think. Energy is energy and hybrids are much less > efficient both to build and maintain than conventional cars. Over their life > hybrids use MORE energy. Please back that up with facts. The point of hybrids is that they can use the engine in a more efficient manner than conventional cars. A Toyota prius is not a great highway car, but really turns in performance for mixed city/highway. The prius is built on the same production line as other similar sised Toyotas. That was part of the Toyota business case. They get 50mpg or better in mixed highway/city. Please tell me that is less efficient than a Toyota Tercel. And back it up. Are you trying to say that kinetic energy is better used to heat up the brakes or is not better stored in a battery for re-use in acceleration? UPS/FedEx diesel hybrid trucks are proven to use less fuel (and pollute MUCH less) than their full diesel predessors. (50% more miles; 90% less particulate emission). Why? Because the diesel (when on) only operates at peak efficienct RPM, never (or rarely) at idle. That reduces the particulate and other emissions and the energy delivery takes place at the point where you get the most energy per litre of fuel. Regenerative braking saves energy for reuse in accleration, not in heating brakes/air. Get facts. Not unfounded opinion. >> Oil drilling goes on 24/7 365 days per year, all over the world, just to >> MAINTAIN the current level of oil production. .... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > efficient both to build and maintain than conventional cars. Over their life > hybrids use MORE energy. Assume you mean the big battery onboard the hybrid since everything else on a hybrid is pretty standard stuff. A Prius gets about 45 mpg vs. maybe 30 mpg for a non-hybrid similar car. In 15k miles per year, the Prius will use 167 less gallons of gas and in the 100k expected life of the battery, it will use 1,100 less gallons of gas than the non-hybrid car. For a hybrid to use more energy than a non-hybrid, then, it would have to take the energy equivalent of 1,100 gallons of gasoline to manufacture that battery. At $3 per gallon, it would cost $3,300 just for the energy to manufacture the battery and a new one would probably have to sell for about $10,000. In reality, Toyota sells a replacement battery for about $1,000 but the newer Prius's have multi-cell batteries so that you can replace a malfunctioning cell rather than the whole battery so the replacement cost would probably be less. And of course, there's always the chance that the battery will last even longer since they've only been used for 5 years. So far, there hasn't been a wave of battery replacing going on. SignaturePosted with OS/2 Warp 4.52 and Sea Monkey 1.5a "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote Vito wrote: > > It's not as stupid as you think. Energy is energy and hybrids are much less > > efficient both to build and maintain than conventional cars. Over their life [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on a hybrid is pretty standard stuff. A Prius gets about 45 mpg vs. > maybe 30 mpg for a non-hybrid similar car. The figures I saw included the energy needed to produce the cars. Every energy conversion involves big losses. Only a fraction of the energy in fuel is converted to mechanical energy by a conventional motor. Converting that energy to electricity wastes more. So does storing the electricity chemically then getting it back then converting it back to mechanical energy. So a hybrid cannot achieve the efficiency of a standard during a steady run at some fixed speed. They do get better economy around town by eliminating idling and by reconverting (saving) kinetic energy when slowing or stopping. This more than offsets their natural inefficiency. OTOH, my 1957 Renault Dauphine got 45 MPG too. > > > It's not as stupid as you think. Energy is energy and hybrids > > > are much less efficient both to build and maintain than [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > converting it back to mechanical energy. So a hybrid cannot achieve > the efficiency of a standard during a steady run at some fixed speed. The Toyota Prius does not run like a diesel-electric locomotive. The engine runs the car at least as directly as an automatic transmission does. When you're up and down hills, the Prius uses regenerative braking downhill and electrical boost from that stored energy uphill so in that circumstance it is more efficient than a conventional car. On the flat, its gasoline engine is running at peak efficiency, where a conventional one us running at much less. In fact, according to a friend who owns one, the gasoline engine tends to run either at peak and most-efficient power or it's off. > They do get better economy around town by eliminating idling and by > reconverting (saving) kinetic energy when slowing or stopping. This > more than offsets their natural inefficiency. It way more than offsets it > OTOH, my 1957 Renault Dauphine got 45 MPG too. Yeah, but it's most efficient in cities where there's a reliable green wave ... and it probably pollutes like crazy. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com > > OTOH, my 1957 Renault Dauphine got 45 MPG too. > > Yeah, but it's most efficient in cities where there's a reliable green > wave ... and it probably pollutes like crazy. And the Renault was 1950's technology - 50 years old. > If the 121M people who live in Florida, Texas, California and the > BosWash reduced their fuel consumption (about 8 M barrels per day) by > a mere 10%, it would be equal to the ANWR daily (peak year) output. > That could delay exploiting ANWR for another 10, 20 or 50 years. (I > have no illusions that it will be tapped one day, but it's easier to > conserve than to exploit). Slightly restated, conservation (efficiency or other means) has been the cheapest way to reduce energy costs. What was the price per gallon point where a motorcycle becomes cheaper to operate (including all maintenance costs such as tires, engine valve checks, etc)? What gets me is all those big SUVs that are carrying only a single occupant. They would actually be efficient if there were six people in them. Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) x 2 Crash & Slider It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. > What gets me is all those big SUVs that are carrying only a single > occupant. They would actually be efficient if there were six people > in them. The only time I see them loaded is when you see those pick-up trucks with a bunch of immigrants laborers in the back. You may start see them empty now. ;) > > What gets me is all those big SUVs that are carrying only a single > > occupant. They would actually be efficient if there were six people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with a bunch of immigrants laborers in the back. You may start see them > empty now. ;) Did you shoot them all? Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) x 2 Crash & Slider It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. > ....... With a non-renewable, finite resource, > that pollutes and causes political instability, it would seem that a > "common good" approach to oil would be collectively approved. Sure, if it were just oil, but it is not. The whole world is a non-renewable finite resource. Hence the only "common good" approach that can solve the long term problem is strict population control. Buying a more economical car, that gets 40 instead of 20mpg, is not going to solve anything if we willi nilly double our population again. > Individualism, regretably shows that most people are either ignorant, > ambivalent or arrogant about their oil consumption choices. How about their breeding choices? > The "American spirit of independence" is a laugh. While it's a > beautiful thing to say about oneself, the reality is exposed after > events like Katrina: "Where is the governemnt to save me?" Therein lies a good example. People left to breed like roaches on the public dole, conditioned to depend on government handouts. > This is precisely what will happen when spiraling fuel prices drag the > US economy to a dead halt, people will ask what the government did and > the answer will be: "The wrong things". Absolutely - but it has zip to do with what was or ws not done regarding petrolium. "The wron things" are our tax credits and welfare systems that encourage more and more babies. > Blame the SUV's driven by a lawyer in the suburbs 40 miles to and from > work every day, as his doctor wife drives her SUV to her hospital 30 > miles away every day. BS. Blame the SOBs who had 3 or more kids. > Since the 80's the proportion of cars to light trucks (which includes > SUV's and minivans) has gone from 70-30 to 51-49. That is because the cars have become rediculously uncomfortable and underpowered, thanks to the same short sighted thinking you espouse - which in turn makes SUVs and trucks more sensible. > That's where much of the problem lies. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > illusions that it will be tapped one day, but it's easier to conserve > than to exploit). But if the same people had simply kept the population from doubling then there would be no need to exploit ANWR *ever*. > It's about managing a precious resource. And we're not doing it. Not "resource" - resources (plural). >While freedom means freedom, individuals will make the wrong choices >when it comes to collective resources. There are things that deserve >regulation for the common good. With a non-renewable, finite resource, >that pollutes and causes political instability, it would seem that a >"common good" approach to oil would be collectively approved. Doubt it. A "common good" approach means them that the politically connected get the oil and the rest of us are out in the cold. >The "American spirit of independence" is a laugh. While it's a >beautiful thing to say about oneself, the reality is exposed after >events like Katrina: "Where is the governemnt to save me?" America is a big, and heterogeneous country. After Katrina, you heard from the fools who expected the government to save them; those that saved themselves weren't around to be interviewed. Of course, you want that same government to save you from high oil prices... what's that make you? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > "Vito" <vito@crosslink.net> wrote: > > If we had the same population we had in say 1960 there would be no [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is this an example of the American spirit of independence and taking > responsibility for one's own actions? Not sure what you mean?? I only had one kid and that was an accident. If others had shown the same responsibility ther would be no oil shortage .... or any of the other man-made environmental problems. > > What's the answer? We need to go on diet: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the stupid SOB who had 3 or more kids. (S)he's the one who got us > into this fix. Every sperm is sacred. Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) x 2 Crash & Slider It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. > Don't blame the person in an SUV, blame the stupid SOB who had 3 or more > kids. (S)he's the one who got us into this fix. Maybe you could just slam his/her head in a car door? >> Don't blame the person in an SUV, blame the stupid SOB who had 3 or more >> kids. (S)he's the one who got us into this fix. > > Maybe you could just slam his/her head in a car door? Too late now. SignatureCheers, Bev *********************************************** "A complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working." -- Tanuki "P.Roehling" <Pete.Roehling@CUTOUTeee.org> > > Don't blame the person in an SUV, blame the stupid SOB who had 3 or more > > kids. (S)he's the one who got us into this fix. > > Maybe you could just slam his/her head in a car door? Not my problem. I'm old. I have enough income to enjoy myself for the rest of my days even if gas goes to $20 or more a gallon - which it's unlikely to do in my lifetime. Can you say the same? No? Then maybe *you* should be slamming some heads ... or other parts.... In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: : Mythbusters, on Discovery Channel, has recently proven that Distracted : Drivers on Cell Phones are more dangerous than Drunk Drivers by a long : shot (even if it is straight rum), and yet MADD (Mothers Against Drunk : Drivers) ignores the problem, the way our government does. As you point out, MADD is an acronym for Mothers Against DRUNK Driving, and that is what they stand for. This doesn't mean they're not concerned about other things, just that with finite resources they focus on one thing. Good for them. Saying that MADD should be fighting cell phone use in cars is like saying that mathematics teachers should be teaching history. Sure, history is important but it's not up to mathematics teachers to teach it. Justin > In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Justin Yep, but they have done a fantastic job at distracting the people from the real issues, like the lack of lane discipline. Of course, now lawyers have a heck of a job at defending these "drunken monsters," for which, of course, they get paid big bucks. "So, what fate awaits these drunk drivers? They may be surprised to find that penalties for DUI, even the first offense, have been increased since they last checked. Due to the efforts of groups like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), some 1,600 new DUI laws have been passed nationwide since 1980." http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/aa082797.htm In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: : Yep, but they have done a fantastic job at distracting the people from : the real issues, like the lack of lane discipline. Again, that's like mathematics teachers being accused of distracting people from learning history. It's not their choice of pursuit, period. : Of course, now lawyers have a heck of a job at defending these "drunken : monsters," for which, of course, they get paid big bucks. What exactly does this have to do with MADD's well-meaning attempt to keep drunk drivers off the roads or with cell-phone use? Justin > In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Again, that's like mathematics teachers being accused of distracting > people from learning history. It's not their choice of pursuit, period. Well, your example demonstrates how hypocritical they are. Would you have any respect for a school that got only *one* subject in its curriculum? > : Of course, now lawyers have a heck of a job at defending these "drunken > : monsters," for which, of course, they get paid big bucks. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Justin Well, it's not the drunk driver shouldn't be an issue, it's that they turn a blind eye toward the issues that added together present a greater threat to society. Pick, for example, on LACK OF LANE DISCIPLINE, UNDERTRAINING, PHONE USE, etc, etc. In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: : Well, your example demonstrates how hypocritical they are. Would you : have any respect for a school that got only *one* subject in its : curriculum? Your analogy is unfounded since MADD is not analogous to the school, it's analogous to the class. It's an organization which deals with a specific issue. If I set myself up as an independent teacher of mathematics it would be silly for someone to complain that all I teach is mathematics. I wouldn't be a school, my job wouldn't be to provide a well-rounded education. Analogously, MADD is an organization set up and with the stated purpose of reducing DRUNK DRIVING. Complaining that they aren't dealing with cell phones is like complaining that they aren't dealing with the price of tea in China. : Well, it's not the drunk driver shouldn't be an issue, it's that they : turn a blind eye toward the issues that added together present a : greater threat to society. Pick, for example, on LACK OF LANE : DISCIPLINE, UNDERTRAINING, PHONE USE, etc, etc. Why should they do this? What do you do for a job? Why don't you do something else when something else might be equally important to the world? It's because you chose your job (probably) and that's what you do, period. Justin '02 Shadow VT750DC > In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > analogous to the class. It's an organization which deals with a specific > issue. "OK, MADD, there are many issues out there on the roads that deserve your attention since they too are causing death and mayhem, just like drunk driving, but that somehow escaped your attention. And I'm mad as hell and won't take it anymore!" (I will send it to MADD right away) "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" Those are memorable lines from the movie 'Network.' In this satirical view of COMMERCIAL TELEVISION, you get a prime time view behind the curtains of the American media network. In it, the main character, Mr Beale, tells the truth and nothing but the whole truth. Talk about the opium of the people... Memorable Quotes: I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. [shouting] You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: [screaming at the top of his lungs] "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/quotes >In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Justin >'02 Shadow VT750DC There's no job on earth more rewarding than trolling the internet. :-) > >Justin > >'02 Shadow VT750DC > > There's no job on earth more rewarding than trolling the internet. :-) No, nothing more rewarding than going with the flow and follow the sheep. It has fewer risks and more rewards, like the scraps of the predators... HOW THE BLACK SHEEP WERE EXPELLED One day the Lion, who had been thinking how to best eat the sheep, decided to dress as one of them... This way the common sheep trusted the new sheep more and more every day, some confessing to him, others voting for him, and most allowing to be fleeced by him... Meanwhile, the Black Sheep--who was able to see through camouflage--thought this way: "If he got big paws and teeth, and takes the lion's share, lion he is..." And that's the reason why from then on the Black Sheep weren't allowed to mingle anymore with the simple and common sheep... Venture Rider wrote: > On 7 Apr 2006 13:09:04 -0700, donquijote1954 said: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So you're a drunk driver, then? Maybe I was, maybe I wasn't but I had some alcohol in blood, which is tantamount to a crime. Well, a crime the same way marijuana is... Stupid crimes become BIG BUSINESS in the hands of the lawyers. Distracted drivers though get away with it, and even win "safe driver" recognition. If there was efficient public transportation, maybe one may even cop out of the farse, you know. >> In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Yep, but they have done a fantastic job at distracting the people > from the real issues, like the lack of lane discipline. Drunk driving is not a 'real issue'? Get the drunk driver sober, then you can more easily deal with the other issues. And you can start up your own organisation, 'Drivers for <real-issue-of-choice>' rather than yammering about <real-issue-of-choice> here. You're only preaching to the choir, not the problem. Signature--Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways -------------------------------------------------- > > Yep, but they have done a fantastic job at distracting the people > > from the real issues, like the lack of lane discipline. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > <real-issue-of-choice> here. You're only preaching to the choir, not > the problem. No, the real issue is SAFETY ON THE ROADS, and we are very far from achieving that. Drunk driving is only one of the factors in it. MADD perhaps is no more than the LION (both in the sense of "lie" and "power") in my stories and my best advice in dealing with a lion is DO NOT FEED THE LION. But, of course, there some smaller organizations that got the whole picture of the jungle... "NHTSA recommends that motorists use cell phones while driving only during an emergency. However, the agency does not sponsor even a single program to discourage cell phone use in non-emergency situations. This contrasts sharply with NHTSA's multi-million dollar seatbelt incentive grants and grants to deter drunk driving." See what I mean? There's grants --big money-- in it... The Partnership for Safe Driving The Partnership is now an independent grassroots organization whose mission is to eliminate all forms of dangerous driving and prevent motor vehicle crashes. We seek to do this through education, research, grassroots activism, and innovative driver support programs. Unlike other organizations that tend to focus on a single cause of crashing, the Partnership for Safe Driving seeks to be a comprehensive crash prevention program and address all factors involved in serious crashes, including speeding, aggressive driving, drowsy driving, distracted driving, drunk driving, drugged driving, road rage, operating a vehicle with faulty equipment, improperly loading vehicles, and unsafe towing practices. *** "Hands Off" For Government Means "Hands On" For Drivers With Cell Phones by: Partnership Staff Washington, DC February 23, 2006 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently announced the results of its latest study of cell phone use while driving. The agency reported that more people than ever before are turning their cars into phone booths. At any given time, 1.5 million drivers now are talking on their cell phones as they barrel down the highways, careen through neighborhoods filled with children, and navigate busy intersections. About 10 percent of the people on the road during the day are using cell phones, up from 8 percent in 2004, the government reported. Women and young people are the biggest culprits. NHTSA recommends that motorists use cell phones while driving only during an emergency. However, the agency does not sponsor even a single program to discourage cell phone use in non-emergency situations. This contrasts sharply with NHTSA's multi-million dollar seatbelt incentive grants and grants to deter drunk driving. Currently, only Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia ban the use of cell phones while driving, and those restrictions apply only to hand-held phones - despite growing evidence that use of hands-free phones by drivers is even more dangerous. Due to lack of funding, none of these states sponsors ongoing education or enforcement programs to deter cell phone use while driving. Thus, the laws are being ignored by many motorists. http://www.crashprevention.org/news/news.php?iss=18#207 >>> Yep, but they have done a fantastic job at distracting the people >>> from the real issues, like the lack of lane discipline. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No, the real issue is SAFETY ON THE ROADS, and we are very far from > achieving that. Drunk driving is only one of the factors in it. From your initial use above of 'real issues', it appears that you agree the the issue of SAFETY ON THE ROADS is actually a set of issues. Divide and conquer. Drunk driving is one of those issues that isn't going to go away anytime soon so it will need to be dealt with for a very long time. MADD has signed on to support methods that help deal with drunk driving and no more because drunk driving is such a big and long lasting problem. Other organizations can support methods for dealing with other issues that you have lumped into SAFETY ON THE ROADS. Don't put off an organization for knowing how much it can handle and choosing not to try and handle more. > The Partnership for Safe Driving > The Partnership is now an independent grassroots organization whose [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > driving, road rage, operating a vehicle with faulty equipment, > improperly loading vehicles, and unsafe towing practices. Yes and there are probably only a few people who act and speak for the Partnership as a whole. Everybody else is probably divided into different divisions which deal with any one or two of the listed (and unlisted) items. Divide and conquer almost always works better when dealing with big problems. Signature--Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways -------------------------------------------------- > > Unlike other organizations that tend to focus on a single cause of > > crashing, the Partnership for Safe Driving seeks to be a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > unlisted) items. Divide and conquer almost always works better when > dealing with big problems. See, you go with the lion, not because it's fair, but because it's bigger. Partnership sees the whole picture, and tells the truth. And the truth is, THERE'S BIG MONEY IN ACCIDENTS. Because, you know, it's all for profit... Hey, this would be an interesting book to check out... 'Researched and written by the founder and executive director of the Partnership for Safe Driving, "It's No Accident" documents outrageous policies and practices in both the government and private sector that are now largely responsible for the more than 11 million crashes, 3 million injuries, and 40,000 deaths on our nation's roads each year. The book reveals that, far from simply choosing to ignore dangerous driving, the government has decided to look the other way while companies large and small promote and encourage dangerous driving behavior; all for profit. The results have been disastrous. "It's No Accident" includes the heart-wrenching real-life stories of victims of all different forms of dangerous driving. The book also takes a candid look at the fragmented, ineffective approach to grassroots activism that has so far defined the crash prevention movement, and offers an alternative model. Carefully researched and documented, with more than 270 footnotes, this book is a must-read for anyone concerned about violent death and injury on our roads and how to stop it. For purchasing information see our online bookseller at www.lulu.com' >>> In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] ><real-issue-of-choice> here. You're only preaching to the choir, not >the problem. Good point, a drunk is more likely to think his shoe is a cell phone and try to call someone on it. That can be really distracting. :-) > Good point, a drunk is more likely to think his shoe is a cell phone and try to > call someone on it. That can be really distracting. :-) And so is keeping people busy with MADD while the carnage keeps on... >> Good point, a drunk is more likely to think his shoe is a cell phone and try to >> call someone on it. That can be really distracting. :-) > >And so is keeping people busy with MADD while the carnage keeps on... American Heart Association versus Cancer Care. > >> Good point, a drunk is more likely to think his shoe is a cell phone and try to > >> call someone on it. That can be really distracting. :-) > > > >And so is keeping people busy with MADD while the carnage keeps on... > > American Heart Association versus Cancer Care. We got a system dying with cancer and you worry about the heart? >> In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/aa082797.htm Let's go after the American Heart Association for distracting people about all those other nasty diseases. ;-) Ben > >http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/aa082797.htm > > Let's go after the American Heart Association for distracting people about all > those other nasty diseases. ;-) > > Ben Not quite. Other diseases are spoken about, not silenced. Who's talking about the #1 killer on American roads? Well, nobody's talking about LANE DISCIPLINE. >> >http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/aa082797.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >about the #1 killer on American roads? Well, nobody's talking about >LANE DISCIPLINE. The fact that fairly recent laws have been passed to restrict cell phone usage while driving is clear evidence that the issue is being addressed. > >> >http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/aa082797.htm > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The fact that fairly recent laws have been passed to restrict cell phone > usage while driving is clear evidence that the issue is being addressed. Only in a few states. How about the rest of us? How about lane discipline, or is it indiscipline good for the hungry system? >> >> >http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/aa082797.htm >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Only in a few states. How about the rest of us? How about lane >discipline, or is it indiscipline good for the hungry system? I suggest you do a little more research. While some states already have laws on the books over 40 states are considering cell phone usage regulations, which proves that the issue is being addressed. http://www.rfsafe.com/state_cell_phone_laws.htm "...The board recommended states prohibit holders of learner's permits and intermediate licenses from using interactive wireless communication devices while driving. Maine and New Jersey have similar laws already in place, according to the AP. The board also urged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a media campaign stressing the dangers of distracted driving, and that it work with the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association to develop driver training curricula that emphasize the risks of distracted driving. The board cited a study showing that drivers engaged in phone conversations were unaware of traffic movements around them...." http://safety.blr.com/display.cfm/id/88849 American Driver Traffic and Safety Education http://www.adtsea.iup.edu/adtsea/100007.aspx National conference of State Legislatures, "Along for the ride - reducing Driver Distratctions" http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/drivdistract.htm Ben > >> >> >http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/aa082797.htm > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Ben Doesn't do a damn thing about the problem of people driving like a-holes when they *aren't* distracted, however, which is near universal around here. Really, I can't tell the difference between a driver on the phone and one not. We need: 1) tougher lane discipline laws in states that don't currently have good ones 2) enforcement of above 3) enforcement of other existing rules of the road, like use of signals etc. this would go a lot farther to make the roads safer than some ban on cell phones, and truth be told most of the people who shouldn't talk and drive, i.e. those unable to multitask well and/or prioritize their attention, are probably also breaking one or more existing laws at the same time (not signalling, failure to stay in lane, etc.) nate This is crazy. It might be more dangerous to be on the phone then drunk off your a.s, but if traffic gets bad or hairy, you can hang up the phone! You can't just become sober whenever you feel like it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As far as enforcement, it seems like the only thing that is not allowed on Baltimore metro highways (97, 95, 83, 695, 795) is speeding 15-20+ mph over the limit. I go 75 or 80 every day and never once have I ever been stopped, in 8 years of driving here. The speed limits are usually 65 or 55. You can not signal, cross solid white no passing lines, pass on the right, be aggressive, back up on the shoulder, or just about anything you want, and not have to worry. They only seem to go after the speeders. Doug wrote: > > Doesn't do a damn thing about the problem of people driving like > > a-holes when they *aren't* distracted, however, which is near [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > able to stay in your lane, signal properly to change lanes, and KRETP? Or > is there something more I'm missing. I think all of the above. But even more than that. We need to overhaul the system, fire the bureaucrats at the Department of Motor Vehicles (or make them earn their money, particularly when giving away driver's licenses), provide public transportation, crack down on those who don't know --or care-- left from right, ban cell phones in cars, and retire MADD for being too old and blind toward other issues other than having a few drinks. 'It's a cynical, corrupt system that has turned police into "revenue collectors" who "harass and collect" rather than "serve and protect."... It's a lot like Prohibition in the 1920s. Everyone knows the law is absurd -- and many routinely do their best to evade it. Few respect it. But there's so much money and political power at stake that changing the way things are done is about as likely as the Redskins or Falcons making the Super Bowl this year.' Unsafe at Any Speed American Spectator ^ | 12/10/2003 12:05:58 AM | Eric Peters Posted on 12/10/2003 12:52:43 AM PST by swilhelm73 Speed Kills? Sure, if you're a nation of incompetent drivers. Ask the Germans. Lack of skill -- not "speeding" -- is the fountainhead of America's traffic problems. If you disagree, then you've got to explain how it is that the Germans routinely drive much faster than we do -- yet miraculously have lower overall accident and fatality rates. If "speed kills," how come it's less deadly if you're German? Is it the water? Or is the skill level of the average German driver higher? And if it is higher, how come? Are Germans truly the Master Race -- on the road, at least -- or do the German authorities simply expect more, in terms of demonstrated skill and experience behind the wheel, before they turn 'em loose on the Autobahn? Go to the head of the class if you guessed it's more demanding licensing requirements and skills testing -- not anything special about the Germans themselves. It takes a lot to get a first-time driver's license in Germany -- as much as 25-45 hours of Fahrschule instruction, on the road, in a real car -- culminating in an extensive written and practical test. The cost to pay for the necessary schooling (at an approved Fahrschule) and so forth costs about $1,500-$2,000. They don't mess around. As a result, the road competence of the average German driver is much higher than that of the average American driver. For example, lane discipline is drilled into German drivers. They are taught to immediately move over to the right and yield to faster-moving traffic. The ubiquitous problem we have of drivers parking in the far left lane and refusing to budge is almost unheard of in Germany -- which is one reason why they can have Autobahns with cruising speeds of 100-mph-plus without problems -- while we have "road rage" and radar traps. Almost anyone (including a ten-year-old) can pull a lever from "park" into "drive" and get a vehicle rolling -- and that's about all we demand of people before issuing them a valid operator's permit. That and a quickie written test that even Forrest Gump could pass. The "road test" in most states typically consists of a few turns around some cones in the back of a DMV parking lot. No accident avoidance instruction, no imparting of how to merge onto a busy freeway -- no road test in multiple driving environments, including night time, close-in city driving, or high speed freeway, as in Germany. Get around those cones okay -- and answer 20-odd questions correctly -- and you're done. If we spent more time and energy on fostering better driving -- rather than licensing just about anyone who can walk unaided into a DMV office -- we'd almost certainly have fewer accidents; we'd definitely have a far less stressful, dangerous driving experience. An we could set highway limits at 75-85-mph, which is where they ought to be. But instead, we have a "dumbed down" driving pool -- and least common denominator traffic laws that assume people are too inept to handle driving faster than 55 or 65 mph on highways designed for safe travel at speeds of 75-85 mph back in the Eisenhower era. It's a cynical, corrupt system that has turned police into "revenue collectors" who "harass and collect" rather than "serve and protect." But there's so much money at stake (tickets, insurance "surcharges," etc.) and we've got so many marginal drivers already on the road that it's not likely we'll start emulating the Germans anytime soon. If stricter licensing requirements were laid down, probably 30-40 percent of currently licensed drivers would flunk and need to undergo remedial testing. The massive hullabaloo about people's "right" to drive that would ensue would put a quick end to any such reform. And the fact is that many states and counties have become so dependent upon the revenue generated by trumped-up speeding tickets that it would be financially ruinous for them to change the system to focus on improving the skill of the average driver -- rather than fleecing motorists. It's a lot like Prohibition in the 1920s. Everyone knows the law is absurd -- and many routinely do their best to evade it. Few respect it. But there's so much money and political power at stake that changing the way things are done is about as likely as the Redskins or Falcons making the Super Bowl this year. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1037478/posts > Doug wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > (or make them earn their money, particularly when giving away driver's > licenses), provide public transportation, ... On this point there are these two follow ups (same link above) and my question next... >>If stricter licensing requirements were laid down, probably 30-40 percent of >>currently licensed drivers would flunk and need to undergo remedial testing. >In Germany, as in most of Europe, public transportation is a realistic alternative for >those who don't drive or can't pass the test. The mind boggles at what it would cost >to build to the same level here. So how much, say 400 billion dollars (the same amount spent in Iraq) to do it? > But instead, we have a "dumbed down" driving pool -- and least common > denominator traffic laws that assume people are too inept to handle > driving faster than 55 or 65 mph on highways designed for safe travel > at speeds of 75-85 mph back in the Eisenhower era. For all those words, you still haven't said anything new. Not to rush a man going about his business, but I'm getting bored waiting. Here... start with this one, see if it brings you anywhere. The standard of performance is such that the driver is not impaired until her BAC reaches 0.08. > > But instead, we have a "dumbed down" driving pool -- and least common > > denominator traffic laws that assume people are too inept to handle [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The standard of performance is such that the driver is not impaired until > her BAC reaches 0.08. I'm all ears. Should we adopt the German limit along with their speed limits (fun) or the British one? "Germany has strict drink driving laws, only allowing 0.5 milligrams of alcohol per millilitre of blood - stricter than the UK where the limit is 0.8." http://driving.drive-alive.co.uk/driving-in-germany.htm MADD will be asking for capital punishment pretty soon. >> > But instead, we have a "dumbed down" driving pool -- and least common >> > denominator traffic laws that assume people are too inept to handle [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm all ears. Should we adopt the German limit along with their speed > limits (fun) or the British one? I'm not the one with the answers. Weren't you writing your manifesto? Or drafting new legislation? What's left to say that hasn't already been said? To some, it's rocket science worthy of much chest pounding and pontificating. To others, it's a birthright regardless of aptitude. In all cases, the terms incompetent, inept, and inattentive refer to someone else. Who, then, are the bad drivers, and why are they perpetually silent? Do they even know they're the bad drivers? How would you even know if you're one of *them*? > "Germany has strict drink driving laws, only allowing 0.5 milligrams of > alcohol per millilitre of blood - stricter than the UK where the limit > is 0.8." And predicate performance on someone else's arbitrary numbers and standards? An ideal world would have drivers sort themselves by ability, as we do at track days. Very few hold on to their delusions beyond the first, likely aborted, session. Why is it so much harder in the real world to make similarly honest and accurate assessments of our own abilities? I agree with you that education is the solution. But what would you teach to make the evening drive more bearable? Vehicle dynamics? Terminal ballistics? Evasive maneuvering? These all miss the point. In the real world, there isn't normally much difference between the guy really paying attention and the guy just holding the steering wheel, hoping for the best. Is it any wonder that no one admits to being the "bad driver"? OTOH, just how much fine motor control and how many working brain cells do you need to blunder successfully from stoplight to stoplight? We have our answer here in the US: BAC less than 0.08, and a minimally invasive skills "test" passed at some point in our youth. So now it's your turn. How do you get from here to your goosestepping, nazi ideal of strict lane discipline? "Mike Young" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com> wrote..... > Who, then, are the bad drivers, and why are they perpetually silent? Do they > even know they're the bad drivers? How would you even know if you're one of > *them*? In their hearts many do. That's why they choose "safe" vehicles rather than fast or fun vehicles. Watch out for Volvos (USA), SUVs and Minivans. > ...... Why is it so much harder in the real world to make > similarly honest and accurate assessments of our own abilities? I had a racer tell me he could lap as fast as a TZ250 on his GPZ 550 and had lap times to prove it. So I stopped by his scorer while he was racing. The scorer would stop the watch as he went by, record the time, then restart the watch. Sure enough his recorded times were 10 sec/lap faster than the guys ahead of him <grin>. > I agree with you that education is the solution. Naw, it's a matter of attitude. I know some extremely skilled drivers/riders who are unsafe on the street. >> I agree with you that education is the solution. > > Naw, it's a matter of attitude. I know some extremely skilled > drivers/riders > who are unsafe on the street. Simple platitudes give rise to inadequate answers. I agree with you about attitudes, but which "attitudes" do you speak of? Isn't education the only way to change attitudes? What exactly is "skilled"? And what definition of "skilled driver" makes one "unsafe" on the street? What do you mean by "unsafe"? Do you mean unsafe as in collision prone? Unsafe in the number of citations garnered? Unsafe in the eyes of some arbitrary observer? > Simple platitudes give rise to inadequate answers. I agree with you about > attitudes, but which "attitudes" do you speak of? Isn't education the only > way to change attitudes? What exactly is "skilled"? And what definition of > "skilled driver" makes one "unsafe" on the street? What do you mean by > "unsafe"? Do you mean unsafe as in collision prone? Unsafe in the number of > citations garnered? Unsafe in the eyes of some arbitrary observer? Skilled in the sense that they can win major races. Unsafe as in collision prone. Most racers I know - the winners for sure - are rather carefull on the street. They know that they can safely go 50% faster on the racetrack than on a public road so they have nothing to prove - a good attitude. The guy who doesn't actually race, or if he does finishes poorly, hasn't learned that yet so he tends to "practice" on the street and sometimes gets in over his head - a bad attitude. There are lots more examples of both. Nor is it just driving/riding. One of the best mechanics I ever knew made many mistakes in his regular job in a dealership because he didn't give customers' cars the same respect he gave race cars/motorcycles. > > Simple platitudes give rise to inadequate answers. I agree with you about > > attitudes, but which "attitudes" do you speak of? Isn't education the only [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Most racers I know - the winners for sure - are rather carefull on the street. In the category of most dangerous, these are the "most extreme," and they go happily unchecked on American roads, since I see it happening all the time... Notice that while drunk drivers are vilified, illegal street racers are glamorized by the media... "Young drivers today are surrounded by media messages that depict street racing as glamorous and OK," said Christopher J. Kersting, president and CEO of SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association, which administers RASR. He noted that it's a rare day when there isn't news about the unfortunate results of a street-racing incident in this country. "We want to get a head-start on educating new drivers about the dangers of street racing and aggressive driving stunts that put them, and others, at risk of serious injury and death," Kersting said. "SEMA is delighted that new drivers are embracing the opportunity to improve the performance and appearances of their vehicles. RASR is launching this program so that enthusiasts will take their racing activities to organized events at racetracks." http://www.shadetreemechanic.com/curtail%20illegal%20street%20racing.htm > illegal street racers are glamorized by the media... The hell they are. In spite of The Fast And The Furious, Philadelphia has been doing major crack downs on street racers. Major as in confiscating the cars of not just the racers, but also spectators. Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. > > illegal street racers are glamorized by the media... > > The hell they are. In spite of The Fast And The Furious, Philadelphia > has been doing major crack downs on street racers. Major as in > confiscating the cars of not just the racers, but also spectators. Lucky you. It ain't happening here. I mean the racing is happening but they turn a blind eye to it --until an accident happens and then the media is all over it. :( > > > illegal street racers are glamorized by the media... > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they turn a blind eye to it --until an accident happens and then the > media is all over it. :( Well it did take years of complaining by the people who lived in the area that was so popular with the racers. Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. > In the category of most dangerous, these are the "most extreme," and > they go happily unchecked on American roads, since I see it happening > all the time... Deja Vu. Back in the 1950's "hot rodders" were killing others and each other racing on public streets. So, the Long Beach, Ca Lions' Club (and many others) built a drag strip. It was great for while. You could get in a dozen or more runs against your buddies any saturday. But then some cars ceased to be street cars and these evolved into dragsters that drew butfuk spectators willing to pay just to watch. Pretty soon promotors bought the tracks and drag racing, like baseball, became a spectator event with only a few real participants. The kids? Oh, They are still racing and killing themselves on the streets again. The more things change .... > I agree with you that education is the solution. But what would you teach to > make the evening drive more bearable? Vehicle dynamics? Terminal ballistics? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "test" passed at some point in our youth. So now it's your turn. How do you > get from here to your goosestepping, nazi ideal of strict lane discipline? OK, I'll accept your term of "nazi ideal of strict lane discipline" and in exchange I'll apply you the term "anarchist ideal that chaos is good." Well, it's a simplification since I'm more anarchist than you, but it'll serve me good for the task at hand. Doing what you want illustrate the limits of anarchism. You can only do so much before you start stepping on someone else's rights. An SUV zigzagging among smaller vehicles, for example, is a potential criminal. Perhaps more so than a drunk driver in a little car. But nobody messes with the SUV, why? Firstly, because in the jungle we live BIGGER IS BETTER. People must buy bigger vehicles than necessary just to be "safe." Secondly, chaos is good so more accidents "happen" and more business is created. And to top it off tickets are handed down, not to bring any order, but to collect the juicy salaries of bureaucrats... The "nazi ideal of strict lane discipline" though works quite well. By agreeing to the common good, everybody travels faster and have fewer accidents. Gee, then if you don't agree to such a principle you get a ticket, fair enough, no? So your anarchism doesn't work for this jungle, since only the big beasts prevail. Then we need a constititution for peaceable roads... We the People (or drivers) are sick and tired of the chaotic anarchism on our roads and have decided that we need Lane Discipline... Lane Courtesy, also called Lane Discipline, has a powerful influence on highway safety, traffic flow, and congestion. Arguably, its effect is more important than speed limits, traffic enforcement, or any other attempt to control driver behavior. Ask almost any motorist what most raises their ire when using major highways and the answer will be "failure of slower traffic to keep right or yield to the right when faster traffic approaches." [...] The lane courtesy ethic must be reinvigorated, promoted, and recognized for the contribution it can make toward safer, faster and more enjoyable travel. We hope the NMA's "Do the RIGHT Thing!" campaign and declaring June as "Lane Courtesy Month" will reawaken interest and support for this incredibly important and positive traffic safety concept. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1416962/posts >> OTOH, just how much fine motor control and how many working brain cells >> do [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in exchange I'll apply you the term "anarchist ideal that chaos is > good." ... > The lane courtesy ethic... Anarchy? You have me confused with someone else. I'll buy in on the courtesy part. Run with it; forget everything else. How would you get from *here*, where waddling lard buckets and equally obese offspring think nothing of holding up traffic by meandering slowly down the middle of parking lot aisles, to the land where courtesy prevails? No fair moving. You have to take us all with you to this promised fairyland. > > The lane courtesy ethic... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > middle of parking lot aisles, to the land where courtesy prevails? No fair > moving. You have to take us all with you to this promised fairyland. You defend the status quo, which *is* chaotic anarchism on American roads. We need to move toward an autobahn not keep bureaucratic predators or moralizing mothers who keep better drivers in check. And we don't need a Hitler for that. We need good honest politicians and public officials. Not easy, ah? With higher speed limits, speeding decreases It may sound obvious, but as speed limits on equal roads increase, speeding decreases, according to new data released by Britain's Department of Transport. The data is interesting because those opposed to high speed limits have long argued that increasing the speed limit means drivers will just go even faster. For example, if they drive 15 over in a 30 mph zone, they're likely to drive 15 over in 40 mph area as well. However, according to the data, that is not the case. On roads with a 30 mph limit, half of passenger cars exceeded the speed limit. On similar roads with a 40 mph limit, just 25 percent of cars exceeded posted limit. This seems to suggest that drivers know a safe speed, and high speed limits would not lead to equally high speeding. Speed limits of 30 and 40 mph usually apply on roads within cities and towns. On high-speed motorways, it's clear drivers also think the speed limits are still too low. With 70 mph limits, between 50 and 60 percent of drivers exceed the speed limit. Perhaps more realistic speed limits would be a good idea both here in North America and in Britain. http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/07/with-higher-speed-limits-speeding-decreases/ > We need good honest politicians I'm sorry, but that phrase did not parse. Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. > > We need good honest politicians > > I'm sorry, but that phrase did not parse. Why, is it an OXYMORON? If the Mad Mothers saw this (see sexy lady at link) they would have a heart attack. Luckily for them, they are blind to it... "Redline Racing* the newest edition in the Street Racers line of videos contains the wildest street scenes ever! Watch these speedfreaks push their cars and bikes to the limit...and beyond. Blown engines, burnt tires, angry losers, and happy winners. See custom cars doing burnouts and racing for cash on city streets. Watch these modern day outlaws run from the cops and get away! This is the video they tried to stop us from making...We did it anyway! Get your copy today!" http://www.asseenontv.com/prod-pages/street_racers_redline_racing.html?gid= > > > We need good honest politicians > > > > I'm sorry, but that phrase did not parse. > > Why, is it an OXYMORON? Sadly, yes. The US political system guarantees that no honest person can hold any but the lowest office. > We the People (or drivers) are sick and tired of the chaotic anarchism > on our roads and have decided that we need Lane Discipline... It's cultural. Some cultures, most notably Germanic/Nazi cultures, prefer to stand in line and march in lockstep. The rest of the world does not, preferring the push and shove of chaos. A fast food place a friend managed had bars to channel customers up to the counter in an orderly manner til a new owner took them out. The resulting arguements between customers over who should be first was a pain for my buddy but guess what - sales jumped 30%. Germanic lane discipline will never happen in the USA. > > We the People (or drivers) are sick and tired of the chaotic anarchism > > on our roads and have decided that we need Lane Discipline... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Germanic lane discipline will never happen in the USA. I always thought that the Germans were the only ones that needed a Hitler, but now I see I see the same need in America. Well, you may as well use him for pushing for an autobahn not for conquering the world. Makes sense? Venture Rider wrote: > On 14 Apr 2006 11:46:17 -0700, donquijote1954 said: > > >Notice that while drunk drivers are vilified > > As they should be. The limit should be zero. Well, that makes you a prophet of abstention, but in the real world there are so many other problems that are just ignored. It's true that drunk drivers are a problem, but it's only a half truth. American roads, you know, remain a jungle... 'It's no Accident' This book is a very nuanced discussion of the problems of road safety. The author challenges the government, the insurance industry, the auto industry, the media, the motorists, and even Mothers Against Drunk Driving to defend the outrageous and immoral behavior that we're seeing on the roads today -- and the degree to which they are contributing to it. It is a no-holds barred expose that reveals the hard truths about behaviors and policies that put innocent people at risk on the roads. http://www.lulu.com/content/186268 Michael R. Kesti wrote: > Venture Rider wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > IOW, laws have to be practical in order to be enforceable. Regrettably, there are many laws out there that remain impractical so they can be predatory. Think of speed laws, for example. They seem designed more like traps. Welcome to the Jungle, I mean... Welcome to the Speed Trap Exchange. You see them everyday, Speed Traps. The police may be out in the open, hiding behind bridge abutments, or passing overhead in an airplane. As is obvious from the traffic flow, the speed limit is grossly under-posted and universally ignored. Traffic is moving safely and expeditiously, but not legally according to the posted speed limit. As fast as the pen can be applied to paper, driver after driver is issued a speeding ticket that results in exorbitant fines, points on their driver's licenses and insurance surcharges. http://www.speedtrap.org/ > Traffic is moving safely and expeditiously, but not legally according > to the posted speed limit. As fast as the pen can be applied to paper, > driver after driver is issued a speeding ticket that results in > exorbitant fines, points on their driver's licenses and insurance > surcharges. Why are you complaining? It keeps your taxes down. And the crashes caused by people bunching up in a speed zone help keep EMTs, ER staff, body shop employees, etc employed. Broken Glass Economics at its best. Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. > I always thought that the Germans were the only ones that needed a > Hitler, but now I see I see the same need in America. .... America is a mix of cultures - heavily German. > > We the People (or drivers) are sick and tired of the chaotic anarchism > > on our roads and have decided that we need Lane Discipline... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Germanic lane discipline will never happen in the USA. Sure it will, if we TRY. After all, that's how people were taught to drive years ago, and if you ask anyone over a "certain age" they will tell you that that is the correct way to drive and that that is how they drive. It's only people that weren't driving before the mid-70s that have a problem with it, and I think it's more education than anything else - most people don't even know that there's a passing lane and a driving lane, they've never been taught. nate >> Germanic lane discipline will never happen in the USA. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > anything else - most people don't even know that there's a passing lane > and a driving lane, they've never been taught. You're quite likely right, and I had never thought of it that way. OTOH, someone else brought up a magic word recently that seemed to hold the answer: courtesy. Courtesy, as in not blowing a fart in my face as I eat my lunch. Or standing off to the side in the hallway as you hold conference with a coworker. Or replacing the depleted TP roll in your own home when you take the last square. Here's a question that demands an answer: Why do we *not* press all the buttons as we get on an elevator? As for the "rules", I can give a flying hoot. Who cares if it's right or left? Just get out of the way. > Here's a question that demands an answer: Why do we *not* press all the > buttons as we get on an elevator? Cause we want to get where we are going... Now, pressing them all when we get OFF is another matter :o) Not that I've ever done something like that.... >> Here's a question that demands an answer: Why do we *not* press all the >> buttons as we get on an elevator? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not that I've ever done something like that.... But wouldn't it be great fun to stand there, look smug, and pass these words through your pie hole: "What's your goddamned hurry? Can't you leave a few minutes earlier?" Why do you not press those buttons? > > Here's a question that demands an answer: Why do we *not* press all > > the buttons as we get on an elevator? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not that I've ever done something like that.... Of course not. You are still able to operate a terminal and post here. Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. > > Germanic lane discipline will never happen in the USA. > > Sure it will, if we TRY. ... Perhaps, but we will never try. Virginia passed a law forbiding driving in the left lane of a multi-lane highway except to pass or when preparing to turn left. The States Atty promptly announced that it couldn't/ wouldn't be enforced. >> > Germanic lane discipline will never happen in the USA. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > left. > The States Atty promptly announced that it couldn't/ wouldn't be enforced. Several States have such laws, and enforce them quite well, thank you. In Utah, for instance, you notice drivers staying to the right hand lanes much more than you do in States that have no such law. Looks to me as if they not only tried, but have mostly succeeded. Pete > Several States have such laws, and enforce them quite well, thank you. In > Utah, for instance, you notice drivers staying to the right hand lanes much > more than you do in States that have no such law. I didn't notice it but wasn't really doing a survey either. > > > Germanic lane discipline will never happen in the USA. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > left lane of a multi-lane highway except to pass or when preparing to turn left. > The States Atty promptly announced that it couldn't/ wouldn't be enforced. If it doesn't make money, why change the system, why bring it into line with the rest of the world, why make it fair? Chaos is good business, it creates more need for bureaucrats, lawyers, nonprofit organizations and other leeches. And that's everywhere evident... "The more unstable Iraq is, the more the United States can justify having military bases to 'stabilize' the country ... even though the postwar chaos in Iraq may have given al-Qaida agents a new base to continue their campaign against the United States." Maybe so. I get the feeling that this administration wants more terrorism to justify more military action, too. If you're shilling for the Military/Industrial Complex, conflict is good for business. Terrorism is good for business. Chaos is good for business. War drives up arms sales, which is good for the arms and aerospace industries. War spending drives up the national debt, but stimulates the domestic economy less than practically any sort of spending, which is good for the banks and large corporations that wish to finance an increased national debt. War allows the oil companies to slip in under the radar, and make sweetheart deals for the Iraqi oil, without having to bid competitively for those oil exploitation contracts. War also creates instability in the world, and drives up the price of gold. This administration has turned away from the "new economy" of peace, technological expansion, and free trade, back to the old Military/Industrial Complex dominated economy of the Vietnam era. I believe that it was a conscious choice. There is, for example, a GAT exemption for national defense- governments can subsidize "national defense" to their hearts content, without running across the GAT restrictions. What this GAT exemption for national defense means is that the biggest arms producer on the planet (the U.S.) can subsidize and monopoloize the weapons business worldwide, to our profit- if there are lots of wars and countries buy lots of weapons. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=16470 > If it doesn't make money, why change the system, why bring it into line > with the rest of the world, why make it fair? Fair? What seems fair to you may be incomprehensible to many drivers. Not everybody is "allowed" to drive in Europe. Is that 'fair' to people like Jeb Bush's idiot brother let alone folks born to stupid to understand a "complicated" law? Remember, half the country voted for Bush TWICE. > .... I get the feeling that this administration wants more > terrorism to justify more military action, too.... Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere stupidity. > > If it doesn't make money, why change the system, why bring it into line > > with the rest of the world, why make it fair? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere stupidity. Between stupidity, malice and MONEY, I choose the last one. They stay with the system that produces the most money: DRIVING, everybody driving, everywhere, all the time. Not everybody is allowed to drive in Europe, but neither is driving a constitutional right. The dumb and dumber should stay out of the road. Or else we get the masses driving little automatic Toyotas, or worse, SUVs... For some reason I thought this thread would be about me. My opinion about alcohol is that a measurable amount is too much for riding and a tad more is too much for driving a car. Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. > For some reason I thought this thread would be about me. > > My opinion about alcohol is that a measurable amount is too much for > riding and a tad more is too much for driving a car. See, in Europe most people drink with alcohol, so MADD would move against the French drinking wine, say. To accomplish that "zero tolerance" though we could start by providing PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 24-7. > Doesn't do a damn thing about the problem of people driving like > a-holes when they *aren't* distracted, however, which is near [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1) tougher lane discipline laws in states that don't currently have > good ones Nate, forgive me for being a little dense here. I' heard this complaint many times. I just want to make sure of what it means. Is it just being able to stay in your lane, signal properly to change lanes, and KRETP? Or is there something more I'm missing. I think this also exhibits itself in lack of "intersection discipline". Failure to stop where you are suppose to, go when you are yielded right of way, etc. I am constantly making drivers back up because I can't complete my turn. They usually back up to the stop line and I can pass. Some are trying to force me to yield the right of way to them when it's not theirs to take. Doug >In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >about other things, just that with finite resources they focus on one >thing. Good for them. Unfortunately, they aren't actually only against drunk driving. They are against drinking full stop, as can be determined by their support for Texas cops arresting hotel guests in hotel bars for public intoxication. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > intoxication. > -- If they really wanted to help, and not simply punish people with stiffer fees, they would work on providing TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS, so that when people do drink they can, say, safely take a bus home. Regrettably, most people don't have that "luxury" in America. People drink and must take the chance. >> >In rec.motorcycles donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Regrettably, most people don't have that "luxury" in America. People >drink and must take the chance. Yes, people standing by an open window in a tall building with a pocket of pennies must take that chance. > >If they really wanted to help, and not simply punish people with > >stiffer fees, they would work on providing TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS, so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, people standing by an open window in a tall building with a pocket of > pennies must take that chance. We are taking a big chance by driving a small vehicle on American roads. Almost like jumping off the window of a tall building. >> >If they really wanted to help, and not simply punish people with >> >stiffer fees, they would work on providing TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS, so [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >We are taking a big chance by driving a small vehicle on American >roads. Almost like jumping off the window of a tall building. I will take my chances on an underpowered motorcycle with a bad carburetor over jumping out of a tall building any day. > >We are taking a big chance by driving a small vehicle on American > >roads. Almost like jumping off the window of a tall building. > > I will take my chances on an underpowered motorcycle with a bad carburetor over > jumping out of a tall building any day. Maybe I should have compared driving a small vehicle in America with bullfighting. The SUVs are the bulls and you the bullfighter, of course. >> >We are taking a big chance by driving a small vehicle on American >> >roads. Almost like jumping off the window of a tall building. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Maybe I should have compared driving a small vehicle in America with >bullfighting. The SUVs are the bulls and you the bullfighter, of course. That's an uncomfortable analogy. (I've just finished Hemingway's Death in the Afternoon. If you want to know about bullfighting, that's the place to start.) A good bullfighter actively looks for mean, agressive bulls. The more the bull wants to kill the bullfighter, and the closer the man gets to the bull, the better. Some cagers certainly _act_ like bulls, but I draw the line at egging them on. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer >> >We are taking a big chance by driving a small vehicle on American >> >roads. Almost like jumping off the window of a tall building. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Maybe I should have compared driving a small vehicle in America with >bullfighting. The SUVs are the bulls and you the bullfighter, of course. I don't think so. That poor bull has barbs stuck into his back and is tormented to make him angry. Should the bull get lucky the matador deserves what he gets. Ben >>> >We are taking a big chance by driving a small vehicle on American >>> >roads. Almost like jumping off the window of a tall building. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I don't think so. That poor bull has barbs stuck into his back and is tormented >to make him angry. Should the bull get lucky the matador deserves what he gets. No. The bull is bred to be angry. If he isn't angry when he enters the ring, he's worthless. The "barbs" are stuck into the shoulder muscle to correct tendencies, and to weaken him so the matador _can_ kill him. Without the pics, banderillas and passes, the bull would hold his head too high for the matador to be able to get the sword over the head and into the aorta. (FWIW, I think a bullring is a far more humane death than a slaughterhouse.) SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer > I'm adding my thoughts here to something I came across: "In a society > where truth is so camouflaged and avoided," the li-on hunter (read lie > hunter) is the most honest profession. A bit of a non sequitor here. But the best way to disguise a lie is to wrap it in the truth. Signaturehttp://www.david-steuber.com/ 1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport 2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F) It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off. > > I'm adding my thoughts here to something I came across: "In a society > > where truth is so camouflaged and avoided," the li-on hunter (read lie > > hunter) is the most honest profession. > > A bit of a non sequitor here. But the best way to disguise a lie is > to wrap it in the truth. There are truth, and half truths and outright lies. I think we are dealing here with half truths when they only pick on one issue. >> > I'm adding my thoughts here to something I came across: "In a society >> > where truth is so camouflaged and avoided," the li-on hunter (read lie [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >There are truth, and half truths and outright lies. I think we are >dealing here with half truths when they only pick on one issue. Get with the times. The word of the year is "truthiness." SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer >> I'm adding my thoughts here to something I came across: "In a society >> where truth is so camouflaged and avoided," the li-on hunter (read lie >> hunter) is the most honest profession. > >A bit of a non sequitor here. But the best way to disguise a lie is >to wrap it in the truth. Yes, that is one form of "intellectual dishonesty." <snip> > To find out, Adam and Kari head to a local raceway Oh man, I have a serious thing for Kari! > Mythbusters, on Discovery Channel, has recently proven that Distracted > Drivers on Cell Phones are more dangerous than Drunk Drivers by a long [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the issue. But, of course, you must understand it's all part of a > larger issue... I was having a similar conversation with a colleague yesterday after he sent me a video clip of a funny DUI stop. Given the fact I typically ride during the day, either commuting or for pleasure on weekends, I am far more worried about being taken out by someone on a cell phone than a drunk driver. And yet my local governments refuse to take action on the matter, and as a rider I feel like a sitting duck. > Dean: > > <snip> > > To find out, Adam and Kari head to a local raceway > > Oh man, I have a serious thing for Kari! I hear you there!!!! Damn, she's hot!!! > I was having a similar conversation with a colleague yesterday after he > sent me a video clip of a funny DUI stop. Given the fact I typically > ride during the day, either commuting or for pleasure on weekends, I am > far more worried about being taken out by someone on a cell phone than > a drunk driver. And yet my local governments refuse to take action on > the matter, and as a rider I feel like a sitting duck. They won't take action on cell phone drivers because then the cross hairs would be trained on them. > > Mythbusters, on Discovery Channel, has recently proven that Distracted > > Drivers on Cell Phones are more dangerous than Drunk Drivers by a long [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a drunk driver. And yet my local governments refuse to take action on > the matter, and as a rider I feel like a sitting duck. You should be because for one distracted drivers are far more numerous than drunk drivers. I tossed before the ratio 10:1 but I don't know what people think of it. > "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is > potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Drivers on Cell Phones are more dangerous than Drunk Drivers by a long > shot (even if it is straight rum), Proven? In what way? What's their objective measure? A "couple of rounds of beers" is hardly driving drunk. > > "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is > > potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > A "couple of rounds of beers" is hardly driving drunk. Agreed, it's subjective but they failed the test both drunk and on the phone. Even if you admit the phone is subjective though it's clearly a flunk. I'd put it on the list of MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING, along with the other issues that are totally ignored by the authorities... MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) (not in order of danger) -drunk driving -talking on phone -passing on the right -failure to use signal lights -driving too fast/too slow compared to traffic flow -eating at the wheel see for example... 'Though NHTSA doesn't track specific information on food-related distraction, it does track general distractions and distractions in cars were considered the cause in 25 percent of the more than 6.3 million auto crashes. According to NHTSA, "distraction was most likely to be involved in rear-end collisions in which the lead vehicle was stopped and in single-vehicle crashes." What makes distraction such a problem is the confluence of the distraction, such as eating, and the unexpected occurrence of events on the road, such as a sharp curve or a driver stopped ahead of you.' http://info.insure.com/auto/badfood402.html > MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -driving too fast/too slow compared to traffic flow > -eating at the wheel Picking up an attractive stranger in a bar and going "somewhere where it's quiet". SignatureCheers, Bev xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." -- T. Lehrer > > MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Picking up an attractive stranger in a bar and going "somewhere where it's > quiet". This is most dangerous: She may be a MADD agent. :( >>>MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > This is most dangerous: She may be a MADD agent. :( I'm a member of DAMM... > > This is most dangerous: She may be a MADD agent. :( > > > I'm a member of DAMM... Well, I'm DAMM GOOD! >>>This is most dangerous: She may be a MADD agent. :( >> >>I'm a member of DAMM... > > Well, I'm DAMM GOOD! Drunks against Mad Mothers. > >>>This is most dangerous: She may be a MADD agent. :( > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Drunks against Mad Mothers. Mad Mothers Anonymous... I think they are the similar to the Religious Fanatics bent on controlling people's lives. > I'm a member of DAMM... Thank you for your support, the members of Miffed Mothers Against Dyslexia appreciate it. and now back to the flamewars... Venture Rider wrote: > On 1 Apr 2006 13:56:20 -0800, donquijote1954 said: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I assume you are one of their regular drivers? Sure, why not? They can use that big money they are collecting and get a fleet of cars and hire some drivers. They could use some limo and advertise their name BIG so many more people take advantage of it. > Venture Rider wrote: > > On 1 Apr 2006 13:56:20 -0800, donquijote1954 said: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > They could use some limo and advertise their name BIG so many more > people take advantage of it. I just drove a friend home from a bar in his truck and the bar tender followed to give me a ride back. Friends don't let friends drive drunk may sound corny, but it's true. Bruce >> Venture Rider wrote: >> > On 1 Apr 2006 13:56:20 -0800, donquijote1954 said: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Bruce Local bar I hang out in has "SafeRide" posters. Call the number and a pair of reliable folks show up. One drives you and your car home while the other follows. No charge. SignatureCrunch ----------------- >> Venture Rider wrote: >> > On 1 Apr 2006 13:56:20 -0800, donquijote1954 said: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >followed to give me a ride back. Friends don't let friends drive drunk >may sound corny, but it's true. Only if they give a sh.t about friends dying. And other people. My thanks from afar to both you and the BT - pass it on to him for me. For sure. Sounds like at least two good guys and some good friends there. I've had a a few nights when friends said 'You're not going home, you're sleeping on the couch here', etc, and damned grateful to them for it. >Bruce SignatureClick here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/ > > They could use some limo and advertise their name BIG so many more > > people take advantage of it. > > I just drove a friend home from a bar in his truck and the bar tender > followed to give me a ride back. Friends don't let friends drive drunk > may sound corny, but it's true. Fair enough. But not everybody drunk got such a luck nor do they have the MADD limo waiting for them. > > > They could use some limo and advertise their name BIG so many more > > > people take advantage of it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Fair enough. But not everybody drunk got such a luck nor do they have > the MADD limo waiting for them. Never said I had the cure for all. But if we all look out for our friends it will be far better than not doing so. Getting back to the phones, half the problem is getting people to realize there is a problem. And I'm not talking about the turkey driving with one hand, looking at his phone and trying to key in a number with his thumb. He is an obvious problem. What is not so obvious is that most any conversation can take your attention away from driving. Next time you get on a bus look and you will see there is a sign that says "Do not talk to driver", or something like that. It is there for a reason. > Getting back to the phones, half the problem is getting people to > realize there is a problem. And I'm not talking about the turkey [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sign that says "Do not talk to driver", or something like that. It is > there for a reason. Kids fighting in the back seat, and having parents turn around to growl at them gives me the sh.ts...... To 'cure' phone users, swerve at them. >> Venture Rider wrote: >> > On 1 Apr 2006 13:56:20 -0800, donquijote1954 said: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> They could use some limo and advertise their name BIG so many more >> people take advantage of it. There is a local transit bus that is heavely subsidized by a local college to make sure students get back from town safely. I've never worked that shift. I hope the 'Body Fluids Cleanup Kit' is well stocked on that bus. Doug > > MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) > > -driving too fast/too slow compared to traffic flow YOU CAN'T DRIVE TOO SLOW. > > > MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) > > > > -driving too fast/too slow compared to traffic flow > > YOU CAN'T DRIVE TOO SLOW. The hell you can't. 55 MPH in the middle lane when everyone else is doing 65 or 70 is too slow. In some places you can get a ticket for impeding traffic. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml Copyright © 2006. Reposting this article on commercial web sites is forbidden. >> > > MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >In some places you can get a ticket for impeding traffic. In some places it'll get you killed. Last time I drove in Atlanta, traffic on the Beltline was running ~ 80, all lanes, in heavy traffic, and anything slower was a target. SignatureClick here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/ > Last time I drove in Atlanta, traffic on the Beltline was > running ~ 80, all lanes, in heavy traffic, and anything slower was a > target. It is funny how when I drove my 45' tandem axel motorhome though Hotlanta a few weeks back going 50 MPH, everyone was polite and got out of my way. One of those little sports cars going 80 would hardly even make a good-sized speed bump for me. -john- Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== > > Last time I drove in Atlanta, traffic on the Beltline was > > running ~ 80, all lanes, in heavy traffic, and anything slower was a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sports cars going 80 would hardly even make a good-sized > speed bump for me. Well, that's the Law of Gross Tonnage. (Anything heavier than you has the right of way.) And you were probably going that speed in the right lane. (It would be rude of me to assume you were driving that way in the so-called "fast" lane.) SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml Copyright © 2006. Reposting this article on commercial web sites is forbidden. > Timberwoof: > (It would be rude of me to assume you were driving that way > in the so-called "fast" lane.) No, that would be a rather accurate assumption. >> > > MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >In some places you can get a ticket for impeding traffic. The 4K RPM break-in period on my kawi, <ugh> > > > MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) > > > > -driving too fast/too slow compared to traffic flow > > YOU CAN'T DRIVE TOO SLOW. Yes, YOU CAN, going 40mph because on the highway, just because they are afraid to go faster or just because they are glued to the telephone, is reckless driving. >MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES >WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your >own) > (not in order of danger) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -driving too fast/too slow compared to traffic flow > -eating at the wheel >Picking up an attractive stranger in a bar and >going "somewhere where it's quiet". not bothering to go where it's quiet...just "doing it" in the car while driving!! >> MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Picking up an attractive stranger in a bar and going "somewhere where it's >quiet". And then discovering you were so drunk it was the wrong sex. > >Picking up an attractive stranger in a bar and going "somewhere where it's > >quiet". > > And then discovering you were so drunk it was the wrong sex. "Beauty is the eye of the beer holder" someone said. > donquijote1954: > MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -eating at the wheel Corrected your list. > > donquijote1954: > > MOST DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES WHILE DRIVING (tentative list, add your own) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Corrected your list. There are some minor ones, like failing to yield to signal lights. Well, it's part of "driver's courtesy." By the way, do you the story? ;) Driver Courtesy Hmm...let's see...you want to hear a story? It has to do with a persistent rumor that my driving skills are somewhat lacking. This story should put to rest all such idle gossip. Last Saturday morning, I needed to get coffee to lift that not-quite-awake-yet morning fog. I shuffled into my car, drove down my street, and had to make a left onto a busy cross street. I kept inching forward to see if there was a clearing in the traffic, when it occurred to me that I had drifted out too far. I threw the car into reverse, hit the gas, and slammed into something. I thought it was a signpost, and couldn't help imagining how silly I must have looked backing into a signpost. The traffic cleared, I made the left and, looking back toward the area I had just left, saw a guy angrily getting out of his car to check his bumper. It was only then that I realised that I had backed into the car behind me. It simply never occurred to me to check my rearview mirror. The next morning I was at the same intersection. The lady in front of me had also inched forward too far, and I saw her check her mirror, shift into reverse, and slowly backup. I thought to myself "you see that, you see how she checked her mirror before backing up, she's an excellent driver, I should reward such an excellent driver by making room for her." So I threw the car into reverse, hit the gas, and slammed into the car behind me. [A true story. Excerpted from private email with permission of the author, who probably should remain anonymous.] http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/97/Dec/courtesy.html > donquijote1954: > The next morning I was at the same intersection. The lady in front of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > room for her." So I threw the car into reverse, hit the gas, and > slammed into the car behind me. Been here, victim of this. I was in car #3 stopped behind pickup truck # 2 who was backing up to accomodate RV#1..... > > > "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is > > > potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > -eating at the wheel Was reminded today that getting a blow job while driving can be distracting :-) Bruce > Was reminded today that getting a blow job while driving can be > distracting :-) > > Bruce .....but it teaches you to come with your eyes open...... > > -eating at the wheel > > Was reminded today that getting a blow job while driving can be > distracting :-) > > Bruce Wouldn't do that though. Remember, Nanny is watching you! "Every policy maker and legislator needs to read this book. Every driver needs to read this book to become outraged enough to pressure policy makers and legislators to stop trying to simply reduce the injuries and damage of traffic crashes and start trying to prevent those crashes." Well, not that the politicians will ever do something about it, but I will have my own ideas how to tackle the problem if my revolution --the Banana Revolution-- ever triumphs in a far away land. ;) I already ordered the book and it sounds very, VERY INTERESTING. Here are some reviews of it... Lisa Lewis's total command of the issues surrounding traffic safety makes this a most credible book. She is at her best when she takes unconventional stances on matters that have long been somewhat sacrosanct in this country, such as pointing out the complicity of the insurance industry in undermining traffic safety, or the federal government's role in refusing to address traffic safety issues aside from seat belts and alcohol. Likewise, she points out any number of life-saving technologies already available that the powers-that-be refuse to even consider requiring on vehicles. It's No Accident is loaded with facts and statistics, but that's not its strong suit. Rather it's Ms. Lewis's passion for the subject -- and for the victims of the out-of-control driving culture in this country -- that leaves the reader convinced that we need to take every step possible to change our nation's attitudes toward driving. *** The power of this book is the totality of it--the impact that all the stories, all the statistics, all the exposure of misinterpreted statistics, all the ostrich behavior--has to be taken in as a package. There are no "sound bites" in this book. The book is written in a very readable style--not a research report or a textbook, but the written equivalent of a face-to-face discussion. Yet, it is full of documented facts. Every policy maker and legislator needs to read this book. Every driver needs to read this book to become outraged enough to pressure policy makers and legislators to stop trying to simply reduce the injuries and damage of traffic crashes and start trying to prevent those crashes. I can't find where on this site to rate the book but I give it the full six stars. *** I hope people read this book, think about how they drive, and then CHANGE the way they drive. Lisa Lewis uses facts, common sense and personal stories to bring home this "lost" message: Most car crashes are NOT accidents. I am saddened to tell you that my own daughter's death is one of the personal stories in this book. My Kristie was an innocent victim of an unnecessary police chase where the fleeing suspect went home with her mother while I watched Kristie die! After reading Chapter 9, I turned to the "Introduction" and kept on reading. Lisa writes with a great deal of passion and a boldness I've never seen before. Tears welled up in my eyes when I read about the victims: Morgan Lee, Andrew Evans, Katie and so many others. And then I became angry because of the lack of accountability and how these innocent people were summarily dismissed because they were killed in "car accidents." When I read Lisa's commentary about MADD, I knew just what she meant because I had had similar experiences with MADD representatives. Many innocent victims of pursuit are killed because of chases that involve drunk drivers, so I contacted MADD. First I tried MADD's Sacramento office and then their Texas office. I tried to find a representative who was interested enough in these types of police chases to answer one question: What is MADD's official recommendation regarding police chases to catch drunk drivers? Calls were not returned and after many attempts to contact someone who could help me, I finally realized that MADD was not interested. All I wanted to do was follow MADD's recommendation and post it on the KristiesLaw Web site. *** I ordered three books from the vendor and requested that my order be mailed by federal express (it was a cost of $14.00). They indicated that I would receive the books on the following Tuesday and I did. I was pleased with the service. I would like to compliment you for a book that is well written. I have not looked at car safety as much from the crash prevention but from crash mitigation. You are so on target. The book needs to be read by many, I am trying to encourage everyone I know to read it. I have about twenty pages left. I can feel your frustration....... and I really agreed at how you look at MADD it is not only drinking but it is speed,following too close and of course those cell phones users. I will be sending your organization more money by the end of the week ( I made a pledge of 50.00)./ MADD should listen to all of the accidents included fatal ones that happen everyday in the morning as people are going to work......... they are not drinking they are speeding if you could only get you a guest spot on the Oprah show or sixty minutes........ Lisa I really admire what you are doing and I agree with your book.......... it is great and it helps me to continue to articulate my position when it comes to highway safety and the creep factor.I always tell people about the 43,000 killed on the roads and that the real terrorists are these drivers out here. I also was surprise that someone has their love one killed in a car accident and receives a large settlement and does not want to use some of the money for organizations like yours. Please don't give up........... we need to get Bill Gates to throw a few crumbs your way... great job!!! *** that someone wrote about the MAJOR problems of the roads that have been killing people for many years, that has been overlooked because it was " JUST AN ACCIDENT" I found the book very interesting on ALL the facts, especially about how our GOVERMENT is turning their backs on the Victims that have been killed / hurt by Negligent driving, the hazardous drivers and vehicles, the laws and the facts that there needs to be more then MADD out there, for people that are MAD but have nobody to listen to them. Maybe now someone will ! Thank you for speaking on behalf of them! This book has opened my eyes to what has been swooped under the carpet for such a very long time. BRAVO! *** A much-needed, thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of public policy regarding traffic safety. Though Ralph Nader's UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED was useful in its day, the misguided pursuit of "safe crashing" since then has wasted resources and effort that would be better spent on technology, enforcement, and education to prevent crashes in the first place. I don't need anyone to buckle me up, rather, I need a policy that will slow others down. Safe crashing only saves crash dummies! more... http://www.crashprevention.org/ >> "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is >> potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >A "couple of rounds of beers" is hardly driving drunk. Are you Larry Budweiser? :-) Ben > "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is > potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the issue. But, of course, you must understand it's all part of a > larger issue... Real research has shown that use of cell phone in a car is dangerous. The solution though is not to ban use of cell phone in all cars but to allow the use of cell phones in cars with electronics that keeps the car from wandering out of the lane. The car should also have electronics that prevents the car from running into another a car. This technology is already in some model cars. Allowing cell phone use in cars with sufficient technology will lead to not only safe use of cell phones and other equipment, but it will also cut produce major cuts in automobile accidents and deaths. This will also drive up the demand for safety electronics in cars. The MADD approach of strict law is the usual approach of people that are ignorant of technology and does not lead to nearly as good results as using technology to let people do what they want to along with higher safety. >> "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is >> potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > results as using technology to let people do what they want to > along with higher safety. One problem. Drunk driving has been a problem for as long as there has been driving. The technology is only now being made available on a limited number of car models and in their first, buggy versions. It takes a while to get the technology right and available as standard equipment on all vehicles. Laws fill the immediate gap until the technology is ready and available. MADD attempts to make sure that the laws have enough bite to them to discourage the act until more reliable means become available. Signature--Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways -------------------------------------------------- > >> "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is > >> potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > the laws have enough bite to them to discourage the act until more > reliable means become available. MADD has ensured that the laws have MORE bite than necessary. It fulfulled its purpose long ago (namely, getting adequate drunk driving laws enacted and changing the perception of the general public from thinking that a drunk driver was someone amusing to be humored to an actual threat to be taken care of) and has become a drain on society rather than a help, and should go quietly into the night before any more damage is done. Not satisfied with across the board 0.10 BAC laws they successfully lobbied for 0.08 which is well below the actual threshold of intoxication and have also supported things like DUI checkpoints which are obviously unConstitutional and unAmerican and only exist because of the fear-mongering tactics of MADD. If MADD actually cared about safety they would have stopped at 0.10 and just lobbied for more enforcement. Because of MADD we have things like police arresting people in BARS ferchrissake if they blow over an 0.08 and half hour long lines on major roads and highways on weekend evenings so you can go through your papers check. If you think this is right your priorities are all kinds of messed up. nate >>> Real research has shown that use of cell phone in a car is >>> dangerous. The solution though is not to ban use of cell phone [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > your papers check. If you think this is right your priorities are > all kinds of messed up. This last paragraph I do have to agree with. Both of these do go too far (although we don't seem to do either of them here in OR). Signature--Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways -------------------------------------------------- > Because of MADD we have things like police arresting people in BARS > ferchrissake if they blow over an 0.08 and half hour long lines on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > nate I know you drink to forget, but always remember, BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU! ;) > > The MADD approach of strict law is the usual approach of people > > that are ignorant of technology and does not lead to nearly as good [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the laws have enough bite to them to discourage the act until more > reliable means become available. In the meantime there's Big Bucks in people BREAKING THE LAW, not in observing the law. And people keep drinking because they like it, and keep driving because they must. Why don't "they" (or is it "you") as good samaritans, and concerned citizens, offer a ride to those drunken bastards who had a drink too much? That would be nice, call 1-800-FOR-MADD and they pick you up... 'While MADD still regards itself as a victims' rights organization, critics contend that it has shifted its original goals from preventing drunk driving fatalities to preventing any drinking and driving. Even more controversially, MADD has moved to take positions on other alcohol-related issues with no clear link to drunk driving. Some, including the group's founder, call the current organization neo-prohibitionist. Common criticisms of the organization deem it as neo-prohibitionist, ageist, and in favor of the creation of a nanny state - all under the pretense of preventing deaths due to drunk driving.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving > donquijote1954: > 'While MADD still regards itself as a victims' rights organization, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > state - all under the pretense of preventing deaths due to drunk > driving.' Sort of a modern day WCTU? I guess people never learn. Prohibition failed miserablly once. Lets not do it again... >> donquijote1954: >> 'While MADD still regards itself as a victims' rights organization, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Sort of a modern day WCTU? The original WCTU never went away: http://www.wctu.org/ SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > 'While MADD still regards itself as a victims' rights organization, > critics contend that it has shifted its original goals from preventing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving A good reason to join DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers. Ed > > 'While MADD still regards itself as a victims' rights organization, > > critics contend that it has shifted its original goals from preventing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > A good reason to join DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers. I've done it, but it has been moderated while driving a vehicle and... heavy while riding a motorcycle. Well, only a few times. Now, neither drinking nor driving, but who knows for how long. I like the options you get in Key West, and perhaps that's why they are freest place in America. They can party and drink and simply walk or ride a bicycle home. Keeping the balance on it though wouldn't be easy task. ;) I guess like most other "nonprofit" organizations out there. The problem is they become vultures (or perhaps leeches) of this chaos some call "the jungle"... And I'm buying the book... The book, called "It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death and Injury on Our Roads," details the crisis in road safety. Chapter 5 - The MADD Fad This chapter takes a candid look at the only successful crash prevention movement in this country - the movement to eliminate drunk driving. The progress of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is duly noted, but we also learn about the unintended consequence of MADD's decision to define safe driving in terms of sobriety alone. Evidence is presented that drunk driving, though still a serious problem, is being exaggerated by both MADD and the federal government. Evidence is also presented that MADD is now encouraging government officials to ignore other serious problems, like distracted and drowsy driving, for fear of taking attention and resources away from the fight against drunk driving. Meanwhile, MADD appears to have lost its own will to battle drunk driving and is showing signs of corruption. One consequence of the organization's decline is the failure of government to take advantage of state-of-the-art technology now available that could effectively eliminate serial drunk driving. http://www.crashprevention.org/?go=no_accident#more jim rozen wrote: > In article <1144784366.990052.184050@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > donquijote1954 says... [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I think we need to put fear back into driving cars. Do something > dumb, you might die. I'd say that the relative safety-in-size of SUVs would incline them to ignore smaller vehicles and make them the most inclined to use cell phones and be distracted. So I'd start with BANNING CELL PHONES and cracking down on distracted driving. And SUV tickets would be doubled. But to roll back those safety features would be unrealistic --if not criminal. > "Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is > potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE > http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote Good information, thanks for posting it. I think that is a conclusion most experienced drivers would reach on their own, but it's always good to have your suspicions confirmed. The real problem is to convince more jurisdictions to ban cell phone use by a driver operating a car. donquijote1954 wrote: >"Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is >potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find >out, Adam and Kari head to a local raceway to try their hand at driving >a skills course, first, while being distracted on a cell phone, and >then after knocking back a couple of rounds of beers." >Mythbusters, on Discovery Channel, has recently proven that Distracted >Drivers on Cell Phones are more dangerous than Drunk Drivers by a long >shot (even if it is straight rum) A couple of things about the Mythbusters show; They had the drivers doing mental puzzles as they were talking on the cell phone, not just chit-chatting. They also kept their BAC under .08. It wasn't really DWI. Although it would have been DWAI in New York. I don't know about California. The other day I saw an NYPD officer driving one of those Cushman 3-wheel scooters and talking on his cell phone. I wondered if that is any more dangerous than talking on the police radio, something police officers have been doing for years. John Mara > donquijote1954 wrote: > The other day I saw an NYPD officer driving one of those Cushman 3-wheel > scooters and talking on his cell phone. I wondered if that is any more > dangerous than talking on the police radio, something police officers > have been doing for years. Of course they have. I was rear-ended by one, and still they produced "witnesses" out of the blue. He was pursuing someone and most likely was on the radio. > donquijote1954 wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > DWI. Although it would have been DWAI in New York. I don't know about > California. So you're saying nobody pays much attention to what they are saying on the phone? Or is it that drinking doesn't matter unless you are over .08? > The other day I saw an NYPD officer driving one of those Cushman 3-wheel > scooters and talking on his cell phone. I wondered if that is any more > dangerous than talking on the police radio, something police officers > have been doing for years. > > John Mara Most of their communication is short, to the point and requires little thought. Bruce Richmond Street racing is going on while I see Mothers not getting involved in it. Well, I got to find out whether they ignore the issue altogether. But if they do, it would be another case of selective, biased and stupid justice. Either they try to save *all* lives or none at all. This wholesale carnage just happened in the area where I live... Two weekend car crashes kill five young people Four died in Fort Lauderdale when their car collided with another and burned Sunday. Police are investigating whether they were racing. In Miami, a teen died in what police called a likely street race. Alma Escoffery visited her son in the hospital Sunday morning and then went to Easter services to give thanks. She prayed for her son, who was left with a bandaged left hand and stitches under his right eye from an early morning accident. And she prayed for the families of the four people who died in the fiery crash hours earlier. 'I said, `I'm going to church since the Lord saved his life,' '' Escoffery said from her North Lauderdale home. Her 17-year-old son, Bryan, sat on a couch nearby. ``You just have to give thanks to the Lord and pray for the other family that is grieving.'' Bryan's friend Johnathan Matthews, 19, was driving the two home from South Beach at around 5 a.m. Matthews' White Acura Integra was stopped at a light heading west on Cypress Creek Road next to another car, police said. The two cars took off from the light at Northwest 31st Avenue. A witness told police the cars were traveling at around 90 mph. At least one of the cars lost control, striking the other car near a curve in the road. A guardrail and tree were struck by at least one of the cars. ''Speed was definitely a factor,'' said Fort Lauderdale police Detective Katherine Collins. Police are investigating whether the two cars were street racing or if alcohol were a factor in the accident. Four people died inside a blue car that was so badly charred police could not identify the type of car. The victims were dead on the scene. A woman stopped to help a passenger in the car, and pulled him to a safer spot until rescuers arrived, police said. That woman did not give her identity to authorities and police are asking her to come forward because she might have information that could help in the investigation. Police did not release the names of the victims Sunday evening, but said the two women and two men who died appeared to be in their 20s. One of the women was driving the car, police said. The bodies were taken to the medical examiner's office to be identified. Bryan said he and his friend did not know the people in the other car. Speed was also a factor in the death of a 17-year-old in Miami early Saturday. Miami police said the teen was a passenger in a Nissan Maxima that likely was street racing when the car collided with a tractor-trailer. The truck's driver said he saw two cars speeding down Northwest Seventh Street near 23rd Avenue just before one of them smashed into the rear of his truck. The second vehicle left the scene. Also injured in the crash was the car's 19-year-old driver and a 7-year-old boy in the back seat. Both were taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital where they were in stable condition. The victim's name was not released. At the crash site in Fort Lauderdale, a charred cell phone and broken car parts littered the grass. A woman's sandal sat next to a tree that had been stripped of its bark. A dark patch of land was scorched and part of a guard rail smashed. People trickled by the site, where someone had left posters adorned with a picture of a Hindu god. Bryan said he was sleeping and only woke up a few minutes before the accident. ''The last thing I remember is the car hitting a tree, and their car on fire,'' Bryan said. ``I just thought get out of the car.'' The three survivors of the crash were taken to Broward General Medical Center. Matthews was expected to be released from the hospital Sunday. The man in the blue car had non-life-threatening injuries and was kept in the hospital overnight, police said. Bryan said his friend doesn't know what happened before the accident. Bryan didn't find out about the four people who died in the crash until he got to the hospital. ''I was shocked,'' he said. ``I was just involved in an accident where someone died.'' http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14358442.htm Well, a light browse of MADD.com shows references to street racing but only when it's mixed with alcohol. But if they do not drink, then it's OK. :( I came across though this very interesting debate elsewhere. Notice that this poster argues for the need for a MADD for Street Racing, in which case it could be known as MADD-SR following MADD-CP for cell phones, etc. Also notice how the defense argues that the street racers were "totally unaware" of the consequences, defensible since few make an issue out of it... 'Should a death during drag racing be charged and sentenced the same as a death during dui? Last year (I think) a Marine was sentenced to 10 years for killing a CHP officer while dui. The defense did not argue that his (self-inflicted) impaired mental state rendered him unaware of the danger of driving. Maybe he should have tried that. The defendants in the drag-racing case -- both adults, not "kids", killed two and maimed another. Yet, they stand a chance of a lighter sentence than the drunk driver. Maybe we need to form an action group, similar to MADD to help bring the word to the oblivious that drag racing on city streets is hazardous. The defense argued that these drivers were "totally unaware" that any risk to themselves or others was a possibility.' Greg http://forum.signonsandiego.com/archive/index.php/t-13460.html Venture Rider wrote: > On 17 Apr 2006 10:11:47 -0700, donquijote1954 said: > > >Street racing is going on while I see Mothers not getting involved in > >it. Well, I got to find out whether they ignore the issue altogether. > > Are you pissed at MADD because you like to drink and drive? I'm pissed at MADD because it's just another lie that holds the jungle together. I like much better Partnership for Safe Driving because they attack the whole Darwinian roads and even MADD itself. By they way, I said before I'm neither drinking nor driving at this point in time. But if did, I'd probably still be a safer driver than Mad Mothers. Yet I'm far from blaming them for the carnage out there. You know, my favorite slogan goes, "My struggle is not against the puppet, but against the puppeteer." And this is the puppeteer... I'm quoting here something from 'It's no Accident' that will give you a clue of what's going on in the jungle... ;) "By shifting most of the cost of car crashes onto the private sector and particularly to individual crash victims, the government does not have to confront the true economic impact of crashing on our society. People generally don't blame the government when their auto insurance rates go up year after year; they blame insurance companies. Likewise, crash victims usually don't direct their hostilities toward the government when the deadly driver's insurance policy fails even to cover the cost of their loved one's brief hospitalization and funeral. Their anger is directed toward the deadly driver and/or the driver's insurance company. As long as consumers and individual crash victims are footing the bill, government officials can easily pretend that the problem simply does not exist. That's exactly what they do. Far from doing everything within reason to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes, lawmakers choose to look the other way while some forms of dangerous driving, like speeding and talking on cell phones, are actively promoted in our culture, and others, like aggressive driving and drowsing driving, are stubbornly ignored." "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote .. > Far from doing everything within reason to reduce the frequency and > severity of crashes, lawmakers choose to look the other way while some > forms of dangerous driving, like speeding and talking on cell phones, > are actively promoted in our culture, and others, like aggressive > driving and drowsing driving, are stubbornly ignored." So, who wants the gummymint telling them how to drive? > So, who wants the gummymint telling them how to drive? Yeah !! Absolutely right. I just want them telling everybopdy else who pisses me off how to drive. My own driving is beyond reproach. > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote .. > > Far from doing everything within reason to reduce the frequency and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So, who wants the gummymint telling them how to drive? If they are already collecting big money in tickets, they may as well use to educate, or change the stupid laws that cause so much road rage, mayhem and death, no? > If they are already collecting big money in tickets, they may as well > use to educate, or change the stupid laws that cause so much road rage, > mayhem and death, no? You don't understand. Like most folk you cling to the myth that law enforcement is intended to deter crime and traffic deaths. It is not. Every police department is a bureaucracy and, like everybody else, police want promotions and raises. But there are only two ways to get promoted in a bureaucracy - wait for your boss to die or make your department grow. How? Nothing creates a cry for more cops than a nice crime wave, preferably a violent crime wave or a flock of child molestation's. And more cops means more sergeants and lieutenants and captains. So, to create the right conditions for their own promotion, police must do all they can to promote, not deter violent crime, and create the public perception of a threat. For example, consider the WOD. The USA got along just fine for 100s of years (until 1912 IIRC) with no drug laws at all, but now there are $billions being spent to catch, judge and imprison drug users, not to mention the $billions more spent on lawyers and the drugs themselves. But, in the meanwhile, police have to look busy and even be self supporting. No city council will turn down a plea for more cops if "more cops" also means more revenue. So police write tickets. Now there is no evidence to show that the amount of traffic law enforcement has any positive effect on the accident or death rate but it certainly has an effect on the size of the force. And that's the name of the game. > > If they are already collecting big money in tickets, they may as well > > use to educate, or change the stupid laws that cause so much road rage, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > child molestation's. And more cops means more sergeants and lieutenants and > captains. Well, if I weren't convinced before, I'm convinced now. But somewhere there got to be something like a bureaucracy that isn't corrupt. I mean, it seems to work in Germany and other countries, why not here? >> If they are already collecting big money in tickets, they may as well >> use to educate, or change the stupid laws that cause so much road rage, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >death rate but it certainly has an effect on the size of the force. And that's >the name of the game. Another perspective... Cops are put where the most crime is. And it's always the same neighborhoods. So, if the density of police is so effective, why aren't neighborhoods with less police, crime-ridden? The highest crime rate is where the most cops are. Which is the chicken and which is the egg? The answer should be obvious. If you want to stop crime, throwing more cops into the mix is not the answer. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer >>>If they are already collecting big money in tickets, they may as well >>>use to educate, or change the stupid laws that cause so much road rage, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > The answer should be obvious. If you want to stop crime, throwing more > cops into the mix is not the answer. Throwing their a.s in prison and keeping them there will. >> Another perspective... >> Cops are put where the most crime is. And it's always the same [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >Throwing their a.s in prison and keeping them there will. Except that our prisons are more crowded now than ever. The number of prisoners has increased exponentially, but the crime rate hasn't dropped anywhere near in proportion. The number of people we put in prison has little to do with the crime rate. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer >>>Another perspective... >>>Cops are put where the most crime is. And it's always the same [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > dropped anywhere near in proportion. The number of people we put in > prison has little to do with the crime rate. I disagree. The prison system hasn't expanded as fast as the population. The crime rate percentage hasn't gone up...the amount of crimes documented has as there are more people "available" to commit those crimes as the pop. increases. >>>Throwing their a.s in prison and keeping them there will. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >crimes documented has as there are more people "available" to commit >those crimes as the pop. increases. Actually anyone who says the crime rate has not been affected is an idiot. One can not tell. The crime rate has been dropping for a long time. Is that because we are sending more people to prison? Who knows. But to claim that there is proof prison does not work when the crime rate is declining is, well idiot logic. ************************* Dave >>>>Another perspective... >>>>Cops are put where the most crime is. And it's always the same [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >crimes documented has as there are more people "available" to commit >those crimes as the pop. increases. Sorry, the US Department of Justice says otherwise: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/incrttab.htm Since 1980, the _rate_ of incarceration has gone up 350%. (That takes into account the increase in population.) Between 1980 and 1990, when the incarceration rate doubled, most crime rates actually _increased._ Then in 1993, the DOJ decided to change the way it measured crime, and miraculously, crime rates started dropping. The incarceration rate keeps climbing, but crime rates have leveled off. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer > I disagree. The prison system hasn't expanded as fast as the > population. Faster, actually. The U.S. incarceration rate is now the highest on the planet. Cuba has a lower percentage of its People locked in cages than the U.S.. I wonder if that's because the U.S. has less freedom, or worse people than Cuba? http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html - http://911research.wtc7.net/ Ever wonder who benefits from the 200 MILLION U.S. taxpayer dollars spent EACH DAY in Iraq? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21 "They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of warfare or morality." -bu$h describing his own war crimes in Iraq. http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm >> I disagree. The prison system hasn't expanded as fast as the >> population. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html .......and four million ex cons don't have the right to vote.....ever! Now thats democracy! >>> I disagree. The prison system hasn't expanded as fast as the >>> population. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >.......and four million ex cons don't have the right to vote.....ever! >Now thats democracy! That's the law. If enough people want it changed, it will be changed. SignatureClick here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/ >>>> I disagree. The prison system hasn't expanded as fast as the >>>> population. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's the law. If enough people want it changed, it will be > changed. And the law will be changed by.....VOTING. Pretty hard to vote out a law when you aren't allowed to vote! >>>>> I disagree. The prison system hasn't expanded as fast as the >>>>> population. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Pretty hard to vote out a law when you aren't allowed to vote! I believe that's covered under USC section 22 :-) SignatureClick here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/ >>>>>> I disagree. The prison system hasn't expanded as fast as the >>>>>> population. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I believe that's covered under USC section 22 :-) Well thats OK then........( having no idea what USC section 22 is) >>>>>>> I disagree. The prison system hasn't expanded as fast as the >>>>>>> population. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Well thats OK then........( having no idea what USC section 22 is) Hint - Senator Vonnegut authored it :-) USC, BTW, being 'United State Code' aka Federal Law SignatureClick here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/ >>> Pretty hard to vote out a law when you aren't allowed to vote! >> >> I believe that's covered under USC section 22 :-) >> >Well thats OK then........( having no idea what USC section 22 is) It's where the alumni sits at the LA Colliseum. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer >>>>> I disagree. The prison system hasn't expanded as fast as the >>>>> population. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> .......and four million ex cons don't have the right to vote.....ever! >>> Now thats democracy! Interestingly in Canada, I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that being convicted of a crime and sent to jail does not deprive a person of the right to vote. I think prisoners are allowed to vote although I am not certain as to whether the prison is considered the address of residence for voting purposes. >> That's the law. If enough people want it changed, it will be >> changed. > >And the law will be changed by.....VOTING. > >Pretty hard to vote out a law when you aren't allowed to vote! > Interestingly in Canada, I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled > that being convicted of a crime and sent to jail does not deprive a > person of the right to vote. I think prisoners are allowed to vote > although I am not certain as to whether the prison is considered the > address of residence for voting purposes. Whereas in the U.S., they're not allowed to vote but they're considered "residents" of whatever districts the prosion is located in, meaning that they're counted for purposes of apportioning seats even though they're not able to vote. This leads to overrepresentation of any districts (usually rural) where there are prisons. Now on page 88, calling for speed governors... The book addresses all the right issues (say calling for PREVENTION) but makes too much emphasis on speed. If we are to change the system, we should make it safe but interesting. One thing I'd do is ISSUE A SPECIAL LICENSE FOR GOING FAST (say up to 100mph) Autobahn style. Of course special vehicles are required, not SUVs for example. Those drivers would be as well trained as the German --or British, who by the way got a safer record than Germany and still are able to go very fast. I'm quoting here from the book... "Another unintended [?] consequence of the nation's emphasis on trying to make crashing safer is the VEHICULAR ARMS RACE --the pressure consumers feel to buy ever larger ever-bigger vehicles in order to protect themselves in collisions with other motorists who are buying ever-bigger vehicles... The one thing that the vehicular arms race has achieved is an even greater dependence on foreign countries for oil." I suspect though it's all intentional so we can keep the dinosaur alive. The monkey with the banana is the best hope... ;) THE BANANA REVOLUTION http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 >>> I disagree. The prison system hasn't expanded as fast as the >>> population. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >.......and four million ex cons don't have the right to vote.....ever! >Now thats democracy! It's not like it's a secret. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer "The most common distraction found by researchers was drivers who dialed their phones while driving. Data show it increases the risk of a crash by three times." It's not DUIs, but distracted drivers that tops the list in the license to kill department. Cell phones are big business and so is catching DUIs, you know. Of course, MADD seems to be pretty distracted too in ignoring what's going on... Study Shows Distracted Drivers Pose Higher Risk DES MOINES, Iowa -- A new study recently released tracked drivers' distractions and the accident risks associated with their non-driving activity. Researchers placed cameras in 100 cars for more than a year and found that 80 percent of crashes involve not paying attention. Amy Boblit of West Des Moines knows all about the dangers of distracted drivers. "I tend to keep both hands on the wheel as much as I can. I've been in accidents before and drivers have hit me because they've been distracted so that kind of makes you learn your lesson," Boblit said. Those accidents involved cell phones. The most common distraction found by researchers was drivers who dialed their phones while driving. Data show it increases the risk of a crash by three times. "I get annoyed with drivers that talk on cell phones. I don't think they pay as much attention," said Tonia Pals of West Des Moines. Who else isn't paying attention? The study said drivers who read the newspaper or apply makeup are three times as likely to get into an accident. Reaching for a moving object increases the chances of a crash by nine-fold. The data for the study came from cameras in cars. A camera captured a driver looking away while the car ahead of her stops. She then swerved into a pole. Another camera caught a sleepy driver nodding off. Data show that fatigued drivers are twice as likely to get into an accident. Experts said that in more than 20 percent of crashes, and 16 percent of near-crashes, drowsy drivers took long glances away from road ahead of them. Katie Burns of Des Moines changed her driving habits after having baby, Sam. "I don't talk on my cell phone anymore because he's along. I don't want to jeopardize his safety," Burns said. Experts said they hope the new study will help drivers care as much about their own safety and start paying more attention to the road. (you may see video at link) http://www.kcci.com/news/8865560/detail.html >>>> I disagree. The prison system hasn't expanded as fast as the >>>> population. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >It's not like it's a secret. "If you can't do the time, don't do the >crime." It's curious, but the states vary in their policies in this matter. So, if you happen to be a felon, the question of whether or not you can vote depends on where you live, among other things. Even in national elections. Al Moore DoD 734 >> The answer should be obvious. If you want to stop crime, throwing more >> cops into the mix is not the answer. >> > Throwing their a.s in prison and keeping them there will. True. There are a *lot* of cops who *should* be doing hard time! (But I never thought that I'd hear a self-proclaimed cop admit it!) >>>The answer should be obvious. If you want to stop crime, throwing more >>>cops into the mix is not the answer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > True. There are a *lot* of cops who *should* be doing hard time! (But I > never thought that I'd hear a self-proclaimed cop admit it!) Heh...the wonders of cut and paste. There is a book about a former deputy...Michael Griffiths, who used to work for us. He moved to Houston and became a serial rapist and murderer. Doing hard time for life, may be on death row. Familiar with it? >>>>The answer should be obvious. If you want to stop crime, throwing more >>>>cops into the mix is not the answer. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> never thought that I'd hear a self-proclaimed cop admit it!) > Heh...the wonders of cut and paste. Uh, sorry, there was no "cut and paste" going on there. I simply sent back your post as it appeared on-screen and added my reply to your own comment. Did the same thing this time. "Cut and paste" implys that someone changed things around to make a series of posts appear to say something other than what was really said, and in case it hasn't occured to you, this can be easily checked just by reading the preceeding posts. Got it now? >>>>>The answer should be obvious. If you want to stop crime, throwing more >>>>>cops into the mix is not the answer. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Got it now? Okay...you know I was referring to the defendants being in prison??? Don't be a jerk. You know full well what I meant. > Okay...you know I was referring to the defendants being in prison??? No, I had no idea. > Don't be a jerk. You know full well what I meant. Not hardly. And as my high-school English teacher used to say: "If you can't express yourself clearly enough for an average reader to understand you, it's not the reader's fault; it's yours". She was correct. >>Okay...you know I was referring to the defendants being in prison??? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > She was correct. You need a reading comp teacher, not an english teacher. >>>The answer should be obvious. If you want to stop crime, throwing more >>>cops into the mix is not the answer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > True. There are a *lot* of cops who *should* be doing hard time! (But I > never thought that I'd hear a self-proclaimed cop admit it!) I guess dyslexia does exist!!! > Turby wrote: > >>You don't understand. ...... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Throwing their a.s in prison and keeping them there will. Throw who, speeders? You still don't understand - you still think the goal of the system is to stop crime. It is not! It is to provide comfortable jobs/incomes for as many LEOs, judges, prosecutors and jailers as possible. How many would show up to "fight crime" if they were not being paid? Brian wrote: > Venture Rider wrote: > > On 18 Apr 2006 08:10:35 -0700, donquijote1954 said: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > So I have a biased view....... The guy who hit will go to Heaven and you won't. Well, now you got to go Alcoholics Anonymous and find ecstasy... Wilson also discovered that some alcoholics were able to recover on a spiritual basis... Following one of Wilson's relapses, he returned to the hospital where he was sedated and detoxified. He prayed in bed during his recovery: "If there be a God, will He show himself! The result was instant, electric, beyond description. The place seemed to light up, blinding white. I knew only ecstasy and seemed on a mountain. A great wind blew, enveloping and penetrating me. To me, it was not of air, but of Spirit. Blazing, there came the tremendous thought. 'You are a free man.' Then the ecstasy subsided. I now found myself in a new world of consciousness which was suffused by a Presence. One with the universe, a great peace stole over me" (Three talks to medical societies by Bill W., co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. New York; Alcoholics Anonymous World Services; 1973, p.10). Wilson questioned whether he had a genuine religious experience (see also peak experiences)or was on the verge of madness. Dr. Silkworth advised him that "hopeless alcoholics" sometimes report conversion experiences before being "turned around" toward recovery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous > Brian wrote: >> Venture Rider wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > The guy who hit will go to Heaven and you won't. Bwaaahahaha.....IF there is a heaven and hell (which I strongly doubt), I will be with the devil (along with all the other non-believers and people who chose the 'wrong' god to worship) encouraging him to take heaven by force.........for democracy of course. Why should democracy be the nirvana on earth and not in the after life? > Well, now you got to go Alcoholics Anonymous and find ecstasy... I'm not really into party pills.....I don't have time for 'coming down' after staying up for a couple of days. Alcoholics Anonymous is for quitters........ > Wilson also discovered that some alcoholics were able to recover on a > spiritual basis... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous Wilson was on the verge of madness........ there is no need for me to 'turn my life around'....that would be going backwards! Yet another strategy to prevent accidents... ;) "Prevent accidents, put a condom on your car." http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?screen=PROD&category_code=fun ins&product_code=zbs1047 Hey, in no way I'm promoting drinking, but grab a cold one and enjoy this... ;) http://www.atomfilms.com/af/content/driving_test?mid=221719957 > Hey, in no way I'm promoting drinking, but grab a cold one and enjoy > this... ;) > > http://www.atomfilms.com/af/content/driving_test?mid=221719957 That's footage from when LBMHBF went for her driver's test. :)) donquijote1954 is a TROLL. "PLONK" > donquijote1954 is a TROLL. "PLONK" Go and watch TV. Fox News if you want to keep ignorant. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.