 |
 | 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? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message