Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

[donquijote1954]

Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
their isolation from others causes a lot of problems. I can never read
what they are up to, for one. And I feel terrorized in my bike or
scooter. I just know I better get out of their way, just as from drunk
drivers.

It's very fitting what this quote applies to frequent flyers...

"Such wanton disregard for the environment must become as socially
unacceptable as drunk driving."

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1152757.0.0.php

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

 

[Jack May]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
> misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
> their isolation from others causes a lot of problems. I can never read
> what they are up to, for one. And I feel terrorized in my bike or
> scooter. I just know I better get out of their way, just as from drunk
> drivers.

I have never had tinted windows, but I think they want them for privacy.
Maybe the built in TV sets and GPS screens need to block the light for the
best picture. I know the sunlight often makes it hard for me to read a GPS
screen.

There are regulations at least in California limiting the darkness of the
side front windows so that the police can look in. The last I saw, the
average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
introduction of SUV's. Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with
decent gas mileage.

> It's very fitting what this quote applies to frequent flyers...

Frequent flyers are usually doing it for business reasons. Almost all of
them would prefer to cut their amount of flying, but can't without losing
business.

Travel in general is a function of the strength of the economy. So to have
lots of jobs, travel is needed.

Trying to same energy with bike or what ever is a dead end non-solution
anyway. The oil will still run out even if you use less of it. The only
real solution is the development of new alternative energy sources.

 

[David L. Johnson]

Jack May wrote:


> The last I saw, the
> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> introduction of SUV's.

You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.

> Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with
> decent gas mileage.

So, with fancy technology a bigger-than-sane car can get half the
mileage as my old '94 Honda Civic CX (40 mpg -- really). Such advancement.

--

David L. Johnson

I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our
educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely,
if not entirely, the use of textbooks
-- Thomas Edison, 1922

 

[Pat]

On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
> > misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
> > their isolation from others causes a lot of problems. I can never read
> > what they are up to, for one. And I feel terrorized in my bike or
> > scooter. I just know I better get out of their way, just as from drunk
> > drivers.
>
> I have never had tinted windows, but I think they want them for privacy.
> Maybe the built in TV sets and GPS screens need to block the light for the
> best picture. I know the sunlight often makes it hard for me to read a GPS
> screen.
>
> There are regulations at least in California limiting the darkness of the
> side front windows so that the police can look in. The last I saw, the
> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> introduction of SUV's. Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with
> decent gas mileage.
>
> > It's very fitting what this quote applies to frequent flyers...
>
> Frequent flyers are usually doing it for business reasons. Almost all of
> them would prefer to cut their amount of flying, but can't without losing
> business.
>
> Travel in general is a function of the strength of the economy. So to have
> lots of jobs, travel is needed.
>
> Trying to same energy with bike or what ever is a dead end non-solution
> anyway.

The oil will still run out even if you use less of it. The only
> real solution is the development of new alternative energy
sources.

Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually it will
get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As prices get
higher, substitutes become economical. Then the substitutes take over
the demand.

As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more viable. At
some point they will take over and replace oil. It's just a matter of
time. Meanwhile, the last of the prohibitively expensive oil will sit
in the ground.

 

[Jack May]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack May wrote:
>
>
>> The last I saw, the average MPG did not change over the last couple of
>> decades with the introduction of SUV's.
>
> You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They are
> classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>
>> Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with decent gas mileage.
>
> So, with fancy technology a bigger-than-sane car can get half the mileage
> as my old '94 Honda Civic CX (40 mpg -- really). Such advancement.

It looks like the EPA adjusted MPG report includes SUVs (light trucks) and
the average fuel economy has been steady at about 20 MPG. I don't think it
is just reporting CAFE data

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r07008.pdf

See pages i and ii with a graph of cars, trucks, and both on page iii

 

[Jym Dyer]

> It looks like the EPA adjusted MPG report includes SUVs
> (light trucks) and the average fuel economy has been
> steady at about 20 MPG.

=v= Of course we've just gone though a decade and a half
of inaccurately-higher and misleadingly-improving ratings
along with marketing campaigns praising these SUVs to the
skies.
<_Jym_>

 

[Jack May]

"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Oil will NEVER run out. That is a common fallicy. Eventually it will
> get scare and with scarcity comes a higher price. As prices get
> higher, substitutes become economical. Then the substitutes take over
> the demand.
>
> As gas prices rise, bio-diesel, ethenol, etc. become more viable. At
> some point they will take over and replace oil. It's just a matter of
> time. Meanwhile, the last of the prohibitively expensive oil will sit
> in the ground.

Certainly true.

There are reports though that we are late already and the alternative energy
sources will not be ramped up in time. Of course shortages will cause a lot
of alternative fuel production to ramp up quickly. Maybe we will make the
transition by the thinnest of margins without shutting down the US economy.
It will be a cliff hanger.

 

[David L. Johnson]

Jack May wrote:
> "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The last I saw, the average MPG did not change over the last couple of
>>> decades with the introduction of SUV's.
>> You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
>> specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They are
>> classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>>
>>> Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with decent gas mileage.
>> So, with fancy technology a bigger-than-sane car can get half the mileage
>> as my old '94 Honda Civic CX (40 mpg -- really). Such advancement.
>
> It looks like the EPA adjusted MPG report includes SUVs (light trucks) and
> the average fuel economy has been steady at about 20 MPG. I don't think it
> is just reporting CAFE data

What the EPA report includes is one thing, the requirement was for the
CAFE to rise to something like 27mpg by the early years of this century
(or late in the previous one). The US car makers managed this by
classifying many cars as "light trucks", exempting them from the
requirements. And it's not just Hummers that were suddenly declared
trucks in order to help the CAFE numbers, but also the PT cruiser,
Subaru Outback, and a slew of other cars. That's why you see a rise of
% of light-duty vehicles being called "trucks", from 19% to 49%. It
ain't that we're all moving back to the farm. And to suggest that the
public just wanted these trucks rather than cars is also specious.
Marketing created the desire for suburbanites to suddenly want to drive
a truck to work.

I love the screaming headlines in the report, though: "Highlight #1:
Fuel Economy Increases in 2005 and 2006 Reverse the Long-Term Trend of
Declining Fuel Economy From 1987 Through 2004." According to their own
data, the average fuel economy from 1997 to 2007 increased from 20.1 to
20.2 mpg. Impressive.

To get back to the original point, indeed the average fuel economy,
among cars and trucks, has decreased since 1987. This is despite the
much-hyped hybrids, which caused only a minor bump, not close to
bringing us back to the conservation "peak" of the late 80s.

The data of the mid-70s is also skewed by the way in which Detroit dealt
with pollution requirements at that time. Engines were de-tuned to not
produce too much of the emissions that were being tested for. Looking a
the graph from this report you see a huge jump in fuel economy when
catalytic converters finally took over.

--

David L. Johnson

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[George Conklin]

"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
> > misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
> > their isolation from others causes a lot of problems. I can never read
> > what they are up to, for one. And I feel terrorized in my bike or
> > scooter. I just know I better get out of their way, just as from drunk
> > drivers.
>
> I have never had tinted windows, but I think they want them for privacy.
> Maybe the built in TV sets and GPS screens need to block the light for the
> best picture. I know the sunlight often makes it hard for me to read a
GPS
> screen.
>
> There are regulations at least in California limiting the darkness of the
> side front windows so that the police can look in. The last I saw, the
> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> introduction of SUV's. Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with
> decent gas mileage.
>
> > It's very fitting what this quote applies to frequent flyers...
>
> Frequent flyers are usually doing it for business reasons. Almost all of
> them would prefer to cut their amount of flying, but can't without losing
> business.
>
> Travel in general is a function of the strength of the economy. So to
have
> lots of jobs, travel is needed.
>
> Trying to same energy with bike or what ever is a dead end non-solution
> anyway. The oil will still run out even if you use less of it. The only
> real solution is the development of new alternative energy sources.
>
>

NC has laws on tinted windows and they must pass inspection, be they on cars
or trucks.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
> > misanthropism? I know their wanton disregard for the environment and
> > their isolation from others causes a lot of problems. I can never read
> > what they are up to, for one. And I feel terrorized in my bike or
> > scooter. I just know I better get out of their way, just as from drunk
> > drivers.
>
> I have never had tinted windows, but I think they want them for privacy.
> Maybe the built in TV sets and GPS screens need to block the light for the
> best picture. I know the sunlight often makes it hard for me to read a GPS
> screen.

Maybe they are watching movies while they drive. Who knows what's
going on in there besides the cell phones being permanently attached
to their ears.

>
> There are regulations at least in California limiting the darkness of the
> side front windows so that the police can look in. The last I saw, the
> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> introduction of SUV's. Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with
> decent gas mileage.

Decent gas mileage but still deadly to other people.

>
> > It's very fitting what this quote applies to frequent flyers...
>
> Frequent flyers are usually doing it for business reasons. Almost all of
> them would prefer to cut their amount of flying, but can't without losing
> business.

I'm not picking on them, but I think the article talks about those who
do it casually or unnecessarily.
-
>
> Travel in general is a function of the strength of the economy. So to have
> lots of jobs, travel is needed.

I'm sure some of that travel to China could be avoided if we kept our
jobs here. Merchant ships I'm sure are a problem.

BUT THIS IS "THE ISSUE"...

>
> Trying to same energy with bike or what ever is a dead end non-solution
> anyway. The oil will still run out even if you use less of it. The only
> real solution is the development of new alternative energy sources.

You are just repeating what the "Supreme Leader" says: The solution is
into high tech, which is coming soon...

Well, sorry to tell him we have the technology now and it's not high
tech.

Scooters get 80MPG, and don't add to traffic congestion.

Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
safer roads...

1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.

2- They are healthy, so we keep the Medical Industry on a diet.

3- They are here now, not sometime in the future.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 10, 10:21 pm, Jeff DeWitt <[email protected]> wrote:

> All right, I'll see your Republican member of the optomirists board and
> raise you one Ted (hic)Kennedy who killed a girl and then ran and hid,
> unlike Mr. Vellanoweth.-

He was a young man back then.

Anyway I do a Google search for "road safety" and all the returns are
from other countries, where they already have better safety.

I wonder when it will become an issue in the national elections.
Probably Republicans (and Democrats) will flunk the test...


Premier launches Christmas Road Safety Campaign

(Media-Newswire.com) - Premier Anna Bligh has urged all Queenslanders
to make staying alive their priority, as millions of people hit the
nation's roads over the Christmas holiday period.

Launching the Christmas Road Safety Campaign with police on the Gold
Coast yesterday, Ms Bligh said motorists must take responsibility for
their actions, if they are going to make it home safely in the New
Year.

"2007 has been a shocking year on Queensland roads, with 342 lives
already lost - 33 more than this time last year," Ms Bligh said.

"At this rate the annual road toll is likely to be the highest in a
decade, since the road toll reached 360 in 1997.

http://media-newswire.com/release_1058561.html

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 11, 12:54 am, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Jack May wrote:
> > "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Jack May wrote:
>
> >>> The last I saw, the average MPG did not change over the last couple of
> >>> decades with the introduction of SUV's.
> >> You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> >> specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They are
> >> classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>
> >>> Hybrid SUVs are now coming onto the market with decent gas mileage.
> >> So, with fancy technology a bigger-than-sane car can get half the mileage
> >> as my old '94 Honda Civic CX (40 mpg -- really). Such advancement.
>
> > It looks like the EPA adjusted MPG report includes SUVs (light trucks) and
> > the average fuel economy has been steady at about 20 MPG. I don't think it
> > is just reporting CAFE data
>
> What the EPA report includes is one thing, the requirement was for the
> CAFE to rise to something like 27mpg by the early years of this century
> (or late in the previous one). The US car makers managed this by
> classifying many cars as "light trucks", exempting them from the
> requirements.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but
what they conceal is vital." ~Aaron Levenstein

So the real issue is what's hidden behind that loophole. They
classified them as "light trucks" so the statistics showed what they
wanted to show.

So "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and
statistics."

 

[John Everett]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:43:57 -0800 (PST), donquijote1954
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
>misanthropism?

I find the tinted windows in my SUV (Mercedes-Benz ML 320) do a
pretty good job of hiding the fact that I'm hauling my bikes, which
are standing upright in the back courtesy of a Bike-Tight Glider
Board.


--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

 

[John Everett]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jack May wrote:
>
>
>> The last I saw, the
>> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
>> introduction of SUV's.
>
>You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
>specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
>are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.

Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.


--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, jeverett3
@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Jack May wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The last I saw, the
> >> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> >> introduction of SUV's.
> >
> >You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> >specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
> >are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>
> Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.

The other big reason there are so many SUV's on the road is the federal
tax break for "business" use of large vehicles. I put business in
quotes because the test you need to pass to call it business use on your
taxes doesn't amount to a whole lot more than driving it to work (a
little more, but not a lot).

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

 

[Jack May]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, jeverett3
> @sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Jack May wrote:

> The other big reason there are so many SUV's on the road is the federal
> tax break for "business" use of large vehicles. I put business in
> quotes because the test you need to pass to call it business use on your
> taxes doesn't amount to a whole lot more than driving it to work (a
> little more, but not a lot).

Yes, that tax break is very large. Just for the record I do not own or
drive an SUV

 

[Jack May]

"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>
> NC has laws on tinted windows and they must pass inspection, be they on
> cars
> or trucks.

So does California. The law is not enforced much because it requires the
police to measure the percent of light passing through the window. Police
seldom carry the measurement device.

 

[Jack May]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:68c91fbe-86ba-4673-82a1-d83c43d63ad8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ca441d31-d3f7-4f25-9c87-5b4813b695e3@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> Scooters get 80MPG, and don't add to traffic congestion.

Something is not a solution unless a lot of people use it. Scooters will
never be used by more than a very few people, Scooters are a non-solution.

>
> Bicycles though are the ultimate weapon against Climate Change and
> safer roads...
>
> 1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.
>
> 2- They are healthy, so we keep the Medical Industry on a diet.
>
> 3- They are here now, not sometime in the future.

Since the food used to power bikes is air shipped from all over the world,
it is an energy hog.

 

[George Conklin]

"John Everett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Jack May wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The last I saw, the
> >> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> >> introduction of SUV's.
> >
> >You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> >specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
> >are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
>
> Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.
>
No, it was assumed that trucks did different work from commuter cars.

 

[George Conklin]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, jeverett3
> @sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Jack May wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> The last I saw, the
> > >> average MPG did not change over the last couple of decades with the
> > >> introduction of SUV's.
> > >
> > >You weren't paying attention, then. The corporate MPG requirements
> > >specifically excluded "light trucks", which is why SUV's exist. They
> > >are classified as trucks, thus don't count in the CAFE statistics.
> >
> > Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.
>
> The other big reason there are so many SUV's on the road is the federal
> tax break for "business" use of large vehicles. I put business in
> quotes because the test you need to pass to call it business use on your
> taxes doesn't amount to a whole lot more than driving it to work (a
> little more, but not a lot).
>

People switched to SUVs because the small cars made by GM and Japan were
so damn miserable to drive people got sick of it.