Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

[[email protected]]

On Dec 17, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What is interesting is how many people who post on Usenet do nothing
> practical themselves. Thus a vehicle will will allow you to carry home a 4
> x 8 piece of plywood is called "Unnecessary" by those who always have to let
> someone else do anything other than blab.

I carry 4x8 plywood in a 1990 Honda Civic station wagon. The car was
apparently designed with that in mind. A 4x8 lays flat with the rear
seats folded down. It sticks out the back, but that's no big deal.
Lowes is only 1.5 miles from my house. BTW, the Civic gets not-
quite-40 mpg.

What would I do without the Civic - say, if I had to use a less
versatile small car? I'd just hitch up the utility trailer I built a
few decades ago. It's tiny, just 4' x 6', but it's hauled loads of
landscaping rock, so plywood would be no problem. But I use the
trailer only rarely. It's just not needed much.

You don't need to build your own utility trailer, of course. They're
for sale, cheap. Some even fold for more compact storage.

Of course, for every person with an economical car and a trailer,
there are about a million SUV owners who say "Oh, I've _GOT_ to have
my SUV! Some day, I might have to haul an entire sack of potatoes!"

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Jym Dyer]

George Conklin's latest idiocy:

> Thus a vehicle [that] will allow you to carry home a 4 x 8
> piece of plywood is called "Unnecessary" by those who always
> have to let someone else do anything other than blab.

=v= Unless you're a carpenter, carrying home a 4 x 8 piece of
plywood is not a daily activity, so using that as an excuse for
dragging around an extra ton or so of steel on a more-than-daily
basis is kind of stupid.

=v= My own vehicle has hauled plywood of that size (and larger!)
when I've attached a trailer to it. So your argument simply
doesn't hold water (something else I've hauled).
<_Jym_>

 

[John Kane]

On Dec 14, 12:24 pm, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:40 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > donquijote1954 WHO? wrote:
> > > On Dec 12, 9:01 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> True. What many women really want is a provider for their children.
>
> > > Not only that, women want their children not to be orphan. And with a
> > > father that rides bike in traffic, there's a high likelihood that
> > > they'll be in need of welfare. And Bush just denied healthcare to them.
>
> > Learn something about statistics. This slaughter of cyclists only exists
> > in your imagination.
>
> "Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average
> depth of six inches." ~W.I.E. Gates
>
Yes, it is clear that you need to learn some basic statistics.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 17, 11:48 am, "Seth Hammond" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> The very first instruction I received after car operation was "Keep to the
> right unless passing or turning left.". That seems pretty simple to me.
> What happened? Why are US highways becoming as cluttered with random lane
> use as city streets? Passing lane hogs won't move over even if you flash
> your lights. I just drove some 4800 miles of freeway, and I was amazed at
> the number of times I passed on the right. I've given up on trying to get
> road hogs to move over. I just pass on the right. At least I don't
> mindlessly join the parade of dullards who fall in behind the hog.

The problem is so pervasive that people don't even know by now that
they are doing anything wrong.

Some of them may even be want to kill you if you blow the horn to
remind them to get them out of the way.


>
> What's needed is better law enforcement. Blocking traffic is illegal, but
> cops can't be everywhere. CCTV cameras can. I'd welcome them, but only if
> citations are issued for *every* violation, not just speeding. All On ramps
> should have a camera to record all violations of MERGE. Entering a flow of
> traffic going 75 doesn't mean making others hopefully break while you enter
> at 45.-

What we need is better laws and the law enforcement will follow. Few
cops enforce passing on the left because there's no such laws. They
just concentrate on speeding and DUI's as if they were the only
problems out there.

I totally agree with the cameras though. You could put them to enforce
speed on the right lane in residential areas to 30MPH. Then bikes
would be safer, the speed differential being much smaller.

 

[DougC]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Of course, for every person with an economical car and a trailer,
> there are about a million SUV owners who say "Oh, I've _GOT_ to have
> my SUV! Some day, I might have to haul an entire sack of potatoes!"
>
> - Frank Krygowski

The minor reason I have an SUV is that I want the 4WD when I need it.

The /major/ reason is that I am tall enough that I won't fit properly in
many cars, only bigger truck/SUVs and luxury-size cars--and eco-freaks
don't like them either.

I want at least 3-4 inches between my head and the roof, with the seat
in the (proper) upright position. Having doctors in the family, I've
heard stories of what happens when the vehicle flips and there's not
enough headroom--and I've also heard what the seatbelt does when the
person has the seat halfway reclined and they get into a frontal collision.

There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom,
but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought.
--------
If there was a government subsidy available to offset the higher price
of a (probably newer) higher-MPG vehicle that had 4WD and could fit me,
we can talk.

Alternately, if you'd care to pretend that nobody ever hauls anything
and just assign "maximum vehicle sizes" based on the primary driver's
/height/, we can do that too--I'd still end up with a larger vehicle.

Or we could all just grow up a bit, and realize that "freedom to choose"
involves the possibility that other people will make choices that you
don't agree with.
..........

Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that
people won't arrive at on their own?
~

 

[Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)]

I don't knock anyone for owning whatever they want. As long as you
are paying for it then go ahead and drive.

I don't drive because I CHOOSE not to. I ride a bike/trike
exclusively. I don't see a need for a car. Yes, even in the winter.

However, I will throw this in. 4wd doesn't do much on packed snow and
ice. I hd a friend with a nice 4wd truck and I got around much better
with my front wheel drive at that time than he did. However, when he
went "muddin'" he was much better off.

Unless you do a lot of off-roading and/or hunting it's hard to justify
a HUGE 4wd vehicle. Especially if you are just running errands.



On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:40:12 -0600, DougC <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Of course, for every person with an economical car and a trailer,
>> there are about a million SUV owners who say "Oh, I've _GOT_ to have
>> my SUV! Some day, I might have to haul an entire sack of potatoes!"
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>The minor reason I have an SUV is that I want the 4WD when I need it.
>
>The /major/ reason is that I am tall enough that I won't fit properly in
>many cars, only bigger truck/SUVs and luxury-size cars--and eco-freaks
>don't like them either.
>
>I want at least 3-4 inches between my head and the roof, with the seat
>in the (proper) upright position. Having doctors in the family, I've
>heard stories of what happens when the vehicle flips and there's not
>enough headroom--and I've also heard what the seatbelt does when the
>person has the seat halfway reclined and they get into a frontal collision.
>
>There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom,
>but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought.
> --------
>If there was a government subsidy available to offset the higher price
>of a (probably newer) higher-MPG vehicle that had 4WD and could fit me,
>we can talk.
>
>Alternately, if you'd care to pretend that nobody ever hauls anything
>and just assign "maximum vehicle sizes" based on the primary driver's
>/height/, we can do that too--I'd still end up with a larger vehicle.
>
>Or we could all just grow up a bit, and realize that "freedom to choose"
>involves the possibility that other people will make choices that you
>don't agree with.
>.........
>
>Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that
>people won't arrive at on their own?
>~

 

[George Conklin]

"DougC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that
> people won't arrive at on their own?
> ~

Well, technically that is called normative behavior. Like preachers of
all types (religious or secular), planners think we don't live like we
should and they are there to tell us what to do.

 

[Amy Blankenship]

"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DougC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that
>> people won't arrive at on their own?
>> ~
>
> Well, technically that is called normative behavior. Like preachers of
> all types (religious or secular), planners think we don't live like we
> should and they are there to tell us what to do.

And there it is!

Now, come on, George. Couldn't you have squeezed in "revanchist"?

:-D

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 17, 1:40 pm, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Of course, for every person with an economical car and a trailer,
> > there are about a million SUV owners who say "Oh, I've _GOT_ to have
> > my SUV! Some day, I might have to haul an entire sack of potatoes!"
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> The minor reason I have an SUV is that I want the 4WD when I need it.

Uh huh. Like last night, when I drove to a place where I was
scheduled to play music. About 30 miles, IIRC. Winter storm in
progress. Blowing, drifting snow. Snowplows unable to keep up.

Were you the guy in the 4WD pickup driving at 20 mph on the rural
highway, with his flashers on, with the traffic piled up behind him?
Probably not, I guess. Still...

I was finally able to pass him. That's with my front wheel drive.
Within a couple minutes, he was out of sight behind me. He didn't
"need" 4WD. He needed to stay off the road.

I think the "need" for 4WD is just another artificially concocted
product of advertising. It's not like society ground to a halt when
it snowed in 1965.

> The /major/ reason is that I am tall enough that I won't fit properly in
> many cars, only bigger truck/SUVs and luxury-size cars--and eco-freaks
> don't like them either.
>
> I want at least 3-4 inches between my head and the roof, with the seat
> in the (proper) upright position. Having doctors in the family, I've
> heard stories of what happens when the vehicle flips and there's not
> enough headroom--and I've also heard what the seatbelt does when the
> person has the seat halfway reclined and they get into a frontal collision.

We've got an ER doctor in the family, so I've heard plenty of weird
horror stories.

If you let every horror story guide your decisions, you'll paralyze
yourself with fear. For example: I read recently that in Canada, more
people die by falling out of bed than from bike crashes. So what
should you do? Sleep on a mat on the floor? No, you should realize
that weird, regrettable accidents happen, no matter what you do.

But if you're really afraid of jamming your head into the roof when
your vehicle flips, it doesn't make much sense to drive the type of
vehicle that's most prone to flipping!

> There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom,
> but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought.

Got data?

> --------
> If there was a government subsidy available to offset the higher price
> of a (probably newer) higher-MPG vehicle that had 4WD and could fit me,
> we can talk.
>
> Alternately, if you'd care to pretend that nobody ever hauls anything
> and just assign "maximum vehicle sizes" based on the primary driver's
> /height/, we can do that too--I'd still end up with a larger vehicle.
>
> Or we could all just grow up a bit, and realize that "freedom to choose"
> involves the possibility that other people will make choices that you
> don't agree with.

One could also grow enough to know that some choices are simply
wrong. And that freedom to choose has always needed to be restricted
by the effect of one's choice on others.

Most reasons for choosing SUVs are illogical rationalization. Yet
every SUV driver is imposing added danger on other road users, by
their excessive mass, their high bumpers, their blocking of
visibility, and often, their aggressive or simply stupid driving.
They're also hurting our national security by contributing to to
excessive energy demand.

I be a lot less bothered by people choosing SUVs if they actually paid
the real cost of their choice. But that's not likely to happen soon.
What's your share of our latest war-for-oil?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)]

>
>Uh huh. Like last night, when I drove to a place where I was
>scheduled to play music. About 30 miles, IIRC. Winter storm in
>progress. Blowing, drifting snow. Snowplows unable to keep up.
>
>Were you the guy in the 4WD pickup driving at 20 mph on the rural
>highway, with his flashers on, with the traffic piled up behind him?
>Probably not, I guess. Still...

EXACTLY what I was talking about as well. A friend had a HUGE 4wd
truck and couldn't get around in the snow better than me with my
little 1982 Ford Escort and FRONT wheel drive. But, as stated, I
would NOT have gone against him when he went "Muddin'".

And if you ARE going to be afraid of everything you read or hear I
wonder what makes you think you can even get out of bed in the
morning????? You have a much better chance of getting hurt in your
OWN home than you do when you are out and about. So to try and
justify an SUV because you "HEARD" about something is just plain
ludicrous thinking.

Maybe you should stop being an Ostrich and get your head out of the
sand....take a LONG look around....and realize that things aren't all
THAT bad.

Or...you can sit in you own paranoid world and wonder if there is too
much bacteria in your carpet.

 

[DougC]

[email protected] wrote:
> .....
> I was finally able to pass him. That's with my front wheel drive.
> Within a couple minutes, he was out of sight behind me. He didn't
> "need" 4WD. He needed to stay off the road.
>

If you think that front wheel drive is "just as good" as 4-wheel drive,
then you aren't going anywhere you need 4-wheel drive.

> .....
> But if you're really afraid of jamming your head into the roof when
> your vehicle flips, it doesn't make much sense to drive the type of
> vehicle that's most prone to flipping!
>

Yes it does, if the only vehicles that can satisfy both the requirements
I have are SUV's.

>> There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom,
>> but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought.
>
> Got data?
>

No, do you? We'd be considering 1995-2000 year US models here, since
that was the era mine was made in...

> One could also grow enough to know that some choices are simply
> wrong. And that freedom to choose has always needed to be restricted
> by the effect of one's choice on others.

So if I cost other people money by driving a (larger) SUV, then how do
other people save me money by driving tiny cars? Because so far I
haven't seen a dime of that savings. Every time I fill up, it costs me
$45, $50 a tank, and somebody with a little car there is only paying $15
or $20! It's just unfair!

> I be a lot less bothered by people choosing SUVs if they actually paid
> the real cost of their choice. But that's not likely to happen soon.
> What's your share of our latest war-for-oil?
>

I pay more for gas, for what driving I do. What other costs were you
imagining?
~

 

[George Conklin]

"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "DougC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions
that
> >> people won't arrive at on their own?
> >> ~
> >
> > Well, technically that is called normative behavior. Like preachers of
> > all types (religious or secular), planners think we don't live like we
> > should and they are there to tell us what to do.
>
> And there it is!
>
> Now, come on, George. Couldn't you have squeezed in "revanchist"?
>
> :-D
>
>

No, planning is normative, but the outcomes are revanchist. Actually the
term which should be used is reductionistic, but that way, way way beyond
you.

 

[Amy Blankenship]

"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > "DougC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >> Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions
> that
>> >> people won't arrive at on their own?
>> >> ~
>> >
>> > Well, technically that is called normative behavior. Like preachers
>> > of
>> > all types (religious or secular), planners think we don't live like we
>> > should and they are there to tell us what to do.
>>
>> And there it is!
>>
>> Now, come on, George. Couldn't you have squeezed in "revanchist"?
>>
>> :-D
>>
>>
>
> No, planning is normative, but the outcomes are revanchist. Actually the
> term which should be used is reductionistic, but that way, way way beyond
> you.

Oh, George. You're just sooo smart.

 

[donquijote1954]

Here's an interesting article on lane hogging in the UK. No comparable
interest in America. Simply, it's not an issue, though you can imagine
how much worse it is...


Highway jams are down to lane hogs

New research reveals that one-third of all motorway capacity is wasted
at peak times, mainly by motorists who hog the middle lane and by
"tailgaters" who cause needless traffic jams by sudden braking.

....

Poor lane discipline and the tailbacks it causes are so acute that the
Highways Agency plans to use electronic signs to discourage lane-
hogging. It is considering two locations -- between junctions 18 and 19
on the M6 in Cheshire and a stretch of the M1 near Northampton -- for
autumn trials.

The variable message signs (VMSs) might simply urge drivers to stick
to the left-hand lane when not overtaking, as set out in the Highway
Code, or might bluntly state: "Don't hog the middle lane."

Those who stay in the middle lane are among the worst culprits for the
waste of road space, blocking faster vehicles behind them. Equally
culpable are drivers who use the outside lane, despite clear inside
lanes, and travel far below the speed limit. Drivers must wait for
them to move over or attempt the illegal manoeuvre of undertaking --
passing on the inside.

"The middle lane hog and outside lane blocker are selfish drivers,"
said Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation. He said
bad driving increased the likelihood of accidents and "road rage" by
infuriating other drivers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article472816.ece

 

[Jym Dyer]

> Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing
> decisions that people won't arrive at on their own?

=v= People's decisions are largely influenced by the work
of *past* urban planning, so you've got a self-destructing
presumption in your strident rhetoric there.
<_Jym_>

 

[Jym Dyer]

>> Well, technically that is called normative behavior.
> And there it is!

=v= And, as is usual for George Conklin, it is completely
wrong. Urban planning is actually a very fluid field --
quite literally so, given how some of its math is the same
as that used in fluid dynamics. To call it "normative"
makes absolutely no sense.
<_Jym_>

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 17, 5:55 pm, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > .....
> > I was finally able to pass him. That's with my front wheel drive.
> > Within a couple minutes, he was out of sight behind me. He didn't
> > "need" 4WD. He needed to stay off the road.
>
> If you think that front wheel drive is "just as good" as 4-wheel drive,
> then you aren't going anywhere you need 4-wheel drive.

For the record, I don't think front wheel drive is just as good as 4WD
for driving in off-road conditions - i.e., where people shouldn't be
driving anyway.

But on-road? Exactly how "good" does your drive system have to be?
My front wheel drive was good enough to get me where I was going, on a
night when the vast majority of drivers stayed home.

If 4WD were anywhere close to a necessity, I'd have noticed it
sometime between 1964 and now. Yet, if I'd had it continuously since
then, it might have helped me slightly in, oh, ten situations max.

That's ten situation is 43 years. In all of those, I was never
inconvenienced for more than five minutes. And if I'd had 4WD (even
on little cars) I'd have paid thousands of extra dollars in gas, due
to the inevitably lower mileage caused by 4WD.

>
> > .....
> > But if you're really afraid of jamming your head into the roof when
> > your vehicle flips, it doesn't make much sense to drive the type of
> > vehicle that's most prone to flipping!
>
> Yes it does, if the only vehicles that can satisfy both the requirements
> I have are SUV's.

That's a big "if."

I think what you've done is to purposely state your requirements so
you believe only SUVs can meet them. And, having stated them, I think
you haven't looked very hard at non-SUV alternatives.

> >> There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom,
> >> but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought.
>
> > Got data?
>
> No, do you? We'd be considering 1995-2000 year US models here, since
> that was the era mine was made in...

Hmm. Well, you're the one who searched for vehicles. My research
project would necessarily be starting from scratch.

But instead of requiring 4" head room in case your vehicle flips, why
not just get 2" head room and a vehicle that's less prone to
overturning than an SUV?

> > One could also grow enough to know that some choices are simply
> > wrong. And that freedom to choose has always needed to be restricted
> > by the effect of one's choice on others.
>
> So if I cost other people money by driving a (larger) SUV, then how do
> other people save me money by driving tiny cars?

It's not necessarily a mirror image situation. That is, it's possible
for you to cost others money without them saving you money. But: If
all the people getting 30+ mpg were in SUVs, Cheney would have had to
invade Iraq a lot sooner. The cost of that conquest would have been
going for a longer time. Therefore, those economy drivers did save
you money.

> Because so far I
> haven't seen a dime of that savings.

You just haven't noticed, because the "control" situation isn't
obvious.

> Every time I fill up, it costs me
> $45, $50 a tank, and somebody with a little car there is only paying $15
> or $20! It's just unfair!

Awww, poor boy!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 17, 10:09 pm, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver
(Hector Goldstein)" <drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> >Here's an interesting article on lane hogging in the UK. No comparable
> >interest in America. Simply, it's not an issue, though you can imagine
> >how much worse it is...
>
> >Highway jams are down to lane hogs
>
> >New research reveals that one-third of all motorway capacity is wasted
> >at peak times, mainly by motorists who hog the middle lane and by
> >"tailgaters" who cause needless traffic jams by sudden braking.
>
> No ****?
>
> Lane discipline issues aren't restricted to only SUV drivers, nor are
> they restricted to UK drivers.

Naturally the ones that rule in LANE CHAOS are the bigger ones, ie the
SUVs. You see them zigzagging all the time phone-in-hand. Well, that's
if you see them through their tinted windows.

In that article it says that such behavior is not an offense per se,
but that they may be cited for reckless driving. At least they are
taking action and having a democratic dialog...

"Driving too close and poor lane discipline are not specific offences,
but prosecutions for driving without due care or dangerous driving are
possible.

Earlier this year police revealed plans for automatic tailgating
cameras, similar to speed cameras, to catch offenders.

They would use lasers to record the gap between two vehicles over a
given distance, their speeds and the number plate of the offending
driver.

Evidence from the cameras could be submitted to courts, which would
decide on the offence and its severity.

...

Other forms of bad motorway driving highlighted by the RAC research
and which are irritants to motorists include drivers who fail to
indicate when carrying out manoeuvres and "swoopers" who zig-zag
between lanes with little regard for others.

The survey also found that some motorists were using hand-held mobile
phones at the wheel, even though that was banned last December.
Offenders can be fined £30, but ministers want to increase this to £60
and impose three penalty points on a licence."

 

[Stephen Harding]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Dec 17, 10:09 pm, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver
> (Hector Goldstein)" <drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote:
>
>>donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>>Here's an interesting article on lane hogging in the UK. No comparable
>>>interest in America. Simply, it's not an issue, though you can imagine
>>>how much worse it is...
>>
>>>Highway jams are down to lane hogs
>>
>>>New research reveals that one-third of all motorway capacity is wasted
>>>at peak times, mainly by motorists who hog the middle lane and by
>>>"tailgaters" who cause needless traffic jams by sudden braking.
>>
>>No ****?
>>
>>Lane discipline issues aren't restricted to only SUV drivers, nor are
>>they restricted to UK drivers.
>
> Naturally the ones that rule in LANE CHAOS are the bigger ones, ie the
> SUVs. You see them zigzagging all the time phone-in-hand. Well, that's
> if you see them through their tinted windows.

Well since about half the vehicles bought in the US over the past
few years are in the SUV /LT category, it should not be surprising
you see these vehicle types doing various sorts of bad things on
the road.

I see no shortage of non-SUV type vehicles, including very small
economy cars, driving poorly on our roads including lane hogging
and ***** weaving.


SMH

 

[Pat]

On Dec 17, 11:06 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 17, 5:55 pm, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > .....
> > > I was finally able to pass him. That's with my front wheel drive.
> > > Within a couple minutes, he was out of sight behind me. He didn't
> > > "need" 4WD. He needed to stay off the road.
>
> > If you think that front wheel drive is "just as good" as 4-wheel drive,
> > then you aren't going anywhere you need 4-wheel drive.
>
> For the record, I don't think front wheel drive is just as good as 4WD
> for driving in off-road conditions - i.e., where people shouldn't be
> driving anyway.
>
> But on-road? Exactly how "good" does your drive system have to be?
> My front wheel drive was good enough to get me where I was going, on a
> night when the vast majority of drivers stayed home.
>
> If 4WD were anywhere close to a necessity, I'd have noticed it
> sometime between 1964 and now. Yet, if I'd had it continuously since
> then, it might have helped me slightly in, oh, ten situations max.
>
> That's ten situation is 43 years. In all of those, I was never
> inconvenienced for more than five minutes. And if I'd had 4WD (even
> on little cars) I'd have paid thousands of extra dollars in gas, due
> to the inevitably lower mileage caused by 4WD.
>
>
>
> > > .....
> > > But if you're really afraid of jamming your head into the roof when
> > > your vehicle flips, it doesn't make much sense to drive the type of
> > > vehicle that's most prone to flipping!
>
> > Yes it does, if the only vehicles that can satisfy both the requirements
> > I have are SUV's.
>
> That's a big "if."
>
> I think what you've done is to purposely state your requirements so
> you believe only SUVs can meet them. And, having stated them, I think
> you haven't looked very hard at non-SUV alternatives.
>
> > >> There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom,
> > >> but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought.
>
> > > Got data?
>
> > No, do you? We'd be considering 1995-2000 year US models here, since
> > that was the era mine was made in...
>
> Hmm. Well, you're the one who searched for vehicles. My research
> project would necessarily be starting from scratch.
>
> But instead of requiring 4" head room in case your vehicle flips, why
> not just get 2" head room and a vehicle that's less prone to
> overturning than an SUV?
>
> > > One could also grow enough to know that some choices are simply
> > > wrong. And that freedom to choose has always needed to be restricted
> > > by the effect of one's choice on others.
>
> > So if I cost other people money by driving a (larger) SUV, then how do
> > other people save me money by driving tiny cars?
>
> It's not necessarily a mirror image situation. That is, it's possible
> for you to cost others money without them saving you money. But: If
> all the people getting 30+ mpg were in SUVs, Cheney would have had to
> invade Iraq a lot sooner. The cost of that conquest would have been
> going for a longer time. Therefore, those economy drivers did save
> you money.
>
> > Because so far I
> > haven't seen a dime of that savings.
>
> You just haven't noticed, because the "control" situation isn't
> obvious.
>
> > Every time I fill up, it costs me
> > $45, $50 a tank, and somebody with a little car there is only paying $15
> > or $20! It's just unfair!
>
> Awww, poor boy!
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Wow, where do I start in responding to posts such as this.

To start with, our anti-4wd friends live in their own little worlds
that is well away from where I live. While moms toting kids to soccer
games in Phoenix probably don't need 4WD, there are other times and
places it is necessary.

- if you are towing something, 4wd is extremely benefitials as it
redistributes the power because of redistributed weight. Also, if
you're towing a boat it is needed because you are pulling a boat out
while your back tires are underwater on slippery surfaces.

- if you have a pick-up truck you usually need 4wd. Back wd is
horrible in bad weather but is needed for a load.

- going off-road also usually necessitates 4wd. And for the record,
there are plenty of reason to go off road. Where do you think they
get the metal to make your sub-compact cars and bikes. Where do the
trees for your toilet paper come from.

- snow plowing either required 4wd for extremely heavy loads and
chains.

Plus, it ain't illegal so deal with it.

Given all of that, I live in the snow belt south of Buffalo and we've
had about 2 feet of snow already this year but I don't have 4wd. I
don't think I need it even though I drive about 25000 miles per year.
I'd like anti-lock breaks, though. Usually I figure that if I had
4wd, it would just get me stuck in a more inaccessible location. I
don't usually worry about going -- I worry about cornering and
stopping.

I also run the "winter mark" tires because they have superb traction
in snow.

I also don't like the "truck-ish" ride of most 4WDs.

So I tool around in my minivan and just drive carefully.

By the same token, though, I know a few people with 4wd for when I
need to borrow a truck.

Some 4wds, though, are quite foolish. For example, if the nameplate
is Cadillac, then you're not going anywhere that needs 4wd. Most city-
slickers don't need it and probably most suburbanites don't either.
But there's a definite need for it by some people.

So all of you, look at the broader picture and realize that everyone
should (nor would they want to) live like you or me or anyone else.
They need to chart their own paths.