Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

[DougC]

[email protected] wrote:
>> 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.
>

So then, how is it so "obvious" that you know that other people driving
SUV's costs you money?
~

 

[Jack May]

"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8c51a781-ac75-4499-80e7-c6090d97cf93@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> 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).


A 4X8 sheet of plywood is not the main problem. We are constantly carrying
big loads home from places like CostCo and Home Depot. Families have to
carry a lot of stuff around when they have kids.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 18, 12:29 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Still, the consequences of their actions are not so catastrophic.

But if we introduce "rules of the road" everybody got to to stick to
them, I suppose.

 

[SMS 斯蒂文• 夏]

DougC 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.

4WD does allow you to drive in conditions that would otherwise cause you
to stay at home, when staying at home would be the more prudent thing to
do. I'm not talking about off-roading, just driving in heavy snow.

In California, it's the California Highway Patrol that has caused a lot
of drivers to purchase 4WD vehicles. They institute chain controls at
the slightest amount of snow, mainly as a way to get people to slow
down. Ask most SUV owners why they chose an SUV versus say a minivan,
and invariably the answer is "so I don't have to put on chains when I go
skiing." These people are not going off-roading. Going over Donner Pass
and on to Reno in a minor snow fall requires two chain
installations/removals, when in many cases no chains are really needed
if you drive slowly.

Around my area, I do notice that many people own SUVs that they use only
for longer trips and for hauling stuff, but not as a commute vehicle.
The price of fuel makes this a palatable option, though the extra cost
of insurance and registration, as well as the upfront cost, doesn't make
up for the fuel savings.

It's good to get an SUV that at least lets you turn off 4WD when it's
not needed, but preferably not one that turns it on only when it senses
that 4WD is necessary (like the system on Honda CR-V's and Honda Pilots).

I also like the higher clearance of SUVs. Earlier this year I was in
Oregon, and I was able to save considerable time and distance by being
able to use Forest Service Roads versus the paved road, plus the scenery
was much better.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 18, 1:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> America does it,,,, because America can.
> cuhulin

America can do anything because America can. She can invade a country
to appropriate its oil instead of diversifying transportation. And
America can finish the world tomorrow. America is not chosen by God,
America is God!

At least for the time being.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 18, 3:23 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
> > =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).
>
> A 4X8 sheet of plywood is not the main problem. We are constantly carrying
> big loads home from places like CostCo and Home Depot. Families have to
> carry a lot of stuff around when they have kids.

My wife and I have kids. Or rather, had kids - they're adults now.

We used mostly Honda Civics (wagons or hatchbacks) for family cars
since 1978, with the exception of a small Saturn wagon, and a Pontiac
Vibe. Using the Civics, we hauled everything we needed, including up
to four bicycles at a time, or a canoe, or two kayaks, or loads of
landscaping dirt, or landscaping rocks, or an entire dorm room full of
furniture, etc.

The last three items rode in the trailer. The rest were on or in the
car. (Come to think of it, one time the landscaping rocks were in the
car.)

It amazes me that, according to the SUV owners, we did the impossible
so many times, for so many years!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 18, 2:23 pm, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> So then, how is it so "obvious" that you know that other people driving
> SUV's costs you money?
> ~

Briefly, what's obvious to one person is totally incomprehensible to
another.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 18, 1:38 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Wow, where do I start in responding to posts such as this.

Well, you could start by arguing my points for me. But I see
that you saved that for the paragraph below starting with "Given all
of that," and those following it!

>
> 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.

Nobody has said it's _never_ necessary. And I'll grant you, a certain
percentage of 4WD owners really do need it often enough to make it a
logical choice. Trouble is, that "certain percentage" is probably
about 1%.

>
> - if you are towing something, 4wd is extremely benefitials as it
> redistributes the power because of redistributed weight.

And yet, I've towed camping trailers essentially coast to coast at
least three times, with a small front-wheel-drive car.

> 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.

Which is why nobody ever used boats before 1995? ;-)

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

Which is why my son used a rear-wheel-drive compact pickup for about
100,000 miles, then gave it to my daughter, who used it another 70,000
miles?

> - 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.

Which is why almost all the 4WD buyers work as lumberjacks or back-
country miners?

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

So most 4WD owners have snowplows permanently mounted?

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

Neither is farting in an elevator. But it's still obnoxious.

>
> 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.

Yep, that's the American way: "I'll chart my own path - destroying my
way through this forest, muddying my way through this creek, and if
anybody doesn't like it, my truck is big enough to run them over."
Real social responsibility, that!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[George Conklin]

"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:8c51a781-ac75-4499-80e7-c6090d97cf93@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > 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).
>
>
> A 4X8 sheet of plywood is not the main problem. We are constantly
carrying
> big loads home from places like CostCo and Home Depot. Families have to
> carry a lot of stuff around when they have kids.
>
>

Enviromentally friendly cars also cannot haul any kind of a trailer.

 

[George Conklin]

"SMS ???. ?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DougC 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.
>
> 4WD does allow you to drive in conditions that would otherwise cause you
> to stay at home, when staying at home would be the more prudent thing to
> do.
>
Funny. It is at home I need the 4WD, as in the driveway, downfront and
by the barn too.

 

[Stephen Harding]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 18, 3:23 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>>=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).
>>
>>A 4X8 sheet of plywood is not the main problem. We are constantly carrying
>>big loads home from places like CostCo and Home Depot. Families have to
>>carry a lot of stuff around when they have kids.
>
>
> My wife and I have kids. Or rather, had kids - they're adults now.
>
> We used mostly Honda Civics (wagons or hatchbacks) for family cars
> since 1978, with the exception of a small Saturn wagon, and a Pontiac
> Vibe. Using the Civics, we hauled everything we needed, including up
> to four bicycles at a time, or a canoe, or two kayaks, or loads of
> landscaping dirt, or landscaping rocks, or an entire dorm room full of
> furniture, etc.
>
> The last three items rode in the trailer. The rest were on or in the
> car. (Come to think of it, one time the landscaping rocks were in the
> car.)
>
> It amazes me that, according to the SUV owners, we did the impossible
> so many times, for so many years!

If you have any sort of towing requirement beyond 2000
pounds, you almost have to have an SUV/LT.

The towing capacities of modern, unibody cars is only
up to that amount, and quite often less than that.

Just because you can do something with a vehicle doesn't
mean you should. You can stick 20 people in a VW
beetle but I wouldn't recommend the vehicle as a mass
transit model (BTW, when I was young, our family did
have a VW beetle and we did use it for summer vacation
travel with two parents, four kids, the family Irish
Setter and "stuff" inside).

Sounds like you carried "bulk" cargo rather than heavy
cargo. Even though the Honda Civic or equivalent can
certainly handle 3-4 thousand pounds, it will never stop
very well, and you'll probably seriously shorten the
life of the drive train and engine in towing anything
more than 2000 pounds (a small power boat can weigh in
at 4-5 thousand; not certain about watercraft or snow
mobiles).

I have a 4WD pickup truck that I dearly love. I like
the ride height and the 4WD. Not to say I can't get off
road or tow a boat (which I no longer do but bought the
vehicle for) or go through snow in some other smaller
vehicle.

The pickup truck offers me a series of capabilities all
rolled up into one vehicle that fits my needs. I don't
need all those capabilities all the time. When I do need
them, they are there.

But of course there is now the $100/tank fillup cost
which has me thinking the next vehicle I buy will not be
a full sized pickup. I no longer need the size.

However, I'm fairly certain it will be some [smaller]
high stance, selectable 4WD vehicle with some cargo
carrying capacity; probably a smaller model pickup truck.


SMH

 

[George Conklin]

"Stephen Harding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hM8aj.21623$1R1.18622@trndny02...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 3:23 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>=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).
> >>
> >>A 4X8 sheet of plywood is not the main problem. We are constantly
carrying
> >>big loads home from places like CostCo and Home Depot. Families have to
> >>carry a lot of stuff around when they have kids.
> >
> >
> > My wife and I have kids. Or rather, had kids - they're adults now.
> >
> > We used mostly Honda Civics (wagons or hatchbacks) for family cars
> > since 1978, with the exception of a small Saturn wagon, and a Pontiac
> > Vibe. Using the Civics, we hauled everything we needed, including up
> > to four bicycles at a time, or a canoe, or two kayaks, or loads of
> > landscaping dirt, or landscaping rocks, or an entire dorm room full of
> > furniture, etc.
> >
> > The last three items rode in the trailer. The rest were on or in the
> > car. (Come to think of it, one time the landscaping rocks were in the
> > car.)
> >
> > It amazes me that, according to the SUV owners, we did the impossible
> > so many times, for so many years!
>
> If you have any sort of towing requirement beyond 2000
> pounds, you almost have to have an SUV/LT.
>
> The towing capacities of modern, unibody cars is only
> up to that amount, and quite often less than that.
>
> Just because you can do something with a vehicle doesn't
> mean you should. You can stick 20 people in a VW
> beetle but I wouldn't recommend the vehicle as a mass
> transit model (BTW, when I was young, our family did
> have a VW beetle and we did use it for summer vacation
> travel with two parents, four kids, the family Irish
> Setter and "stuff" inside).
>
> Sounds like you carried "bulk" cargo rather than heavy
> cargo. Even though the Honda Civic or equivalent can
> certainly handle 3-4 thousand pounds, it will never stop
> very well, and you'll probably seriously shorten the
> life of the drive train and engine in towing anything
> more than 2000 pounds (a small power boat can weigh in
> at 4-5 thousand; not certain about watercraft or snow
> mobiles).
>
> I have a 4WD pickup truck that I dearly love. I like
> the ride height and the 4WD. Not to say I can't get off
> road or tow a boat (which I no longer do but bought the
> vehicle for) or go through snow in some other smaller
> vehicle.
>
> The pickup truck offers me a series of capabilities all
> rolled up into one vehicle that fits my needs. I don't
> need all those capabilities all the time. When I do need
> them, they are there.
>
> But of course there is now the $100/tank fillup cost
> which has me thinking the next vehicle I buy will not be
> a full sized pickup. I no longer need the size.
>

I had a 1,500 lb travel trailer which was, in theory, designed to haul
behind a 4-cylinder British car. Guess what. It ruined any car which tried
to haul it without a trailer package, even if the car manufacturer said it
was ok to haul 2,000 lbs. It just was not true. We were not even able to
keep up with 18-wheelers on secondary roads. The cars would all overheat
too, even without AC. There was also a stability issue even with a strut
suspension on the trailer. And the life of each car was shortened even with
a "legal" trailer.
> However, I'm fairly certain it will be some [smaller]
> high stance, selectable 4WD vehicle with some cargo
> carrying capacity; probably a smaller model pickup truck.
>
>
> SMH

 

[donquijote1954]

On Dec 19, 10:59 am, [email protected] (Brent P)
wrote:

> Congestion is caused by poor driving habits. You only need a number of
> drivers equal to the number of lanes driving poorly to greatly reduce the
> capacity of a road.


All you say makes sense. But do we have any presidential candidate
who's making an issue out of it? Or they don't drive and know whats'
going on? Do they ever travel to Europe for anything other that
pleasure?

Europe
In some countries in Europe, traffic calming is gradually becoming a
regular part of urban traffic management, after a long evolution of
opinions and attitudes towards car use and vulnerable road users. From
1980 regulations for 30 km/h zones were enacted and have been widely
applied. New urban policies have been defined with a view to
encouraging a switch from car use to public transport and non-
motorised modes (cycling, walking), with the additional condition of
lower speeds to improve safety of vulnerable road users, for example
national policies such as "Sustainable Safety" in the Netherlands or
"Vision Zero" in Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against speed limits across the board.
Freeways can handle Autobahn speeds, provided drivers are certified,
and SUVs (trucks) have a speed limit of 70MPH. (Am I too lenient?)

"On all German roads, there are speed limits for trucks, buses, cars
towing trailers, and small motorised vehicles (Mopeds, etc.)"

(I don't see a reason to regulate mopeds, since their limited power
acts to set the limit)

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 18, 8:36 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Enviromentally friendly cars also cannot haul any kind of a trailer.

You're wrong. Again.

I've towed a utility trailer behind Honda Civics since 1978. That
includes trips from Georgia to New England and to Ohio.

I've towed a camping trailer from the Ohio to California, to Maine, to
Florida, to New Mexico, to Oregon, etc. with either a Civic or a
Pontiac Vibe.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Mark Shroyer]

In article <[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 was going to attempt some snarky mockery of this paragraph, but
really, I think it's better for me to just let it stand on its own.

You make a conscious decision to purchase a vehicle that consumes more
gas than a normal car, then you complain when confronted with the
economic consequences of choice? Surely you must realize how
off-the-charts childish and stupid this sounds?

> > 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?

Increased wear on the infrastructure, greater emissions, and (depending
on your usage) magnified effects on urban congestion due to navigating a
large vehicle through crowded city streets, to name a few.

--
Mark Shroyer
http://markshroyer.com/contact/

 

[DougC]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2:23 pm, DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> So then, how is it so "obvious" that you know that other people driving
>> SUV's costs you money?
>> ~
>
> Briefly, what's obvious to one person is totally incomprehensible to
> another.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

So then,,,, if I drive a SUV and you don't, then I either owe you an
obvious amount of money, or an incomprehensible amount of money. Which
is it?
~

 

[Tom Sherman]

George Conklin wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "smn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:HaD8j.32$hQ3.8@pd7urf3no...
>>>> bicycle crowd?
>>>>
>>>> Compared to bicycles, cars are not outnumbered but we do pay all your
>>> bills.
>>>> hope you don't hurt your finger tips banging out your BS
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How many dollars do you pay per mile to build and maintain roads for
>>> bicyles? Zero.
>> Local roads (in the US) are built with funds that do NOT come from motor
>> fuel taxes or other motor vehicle related fees. But one would not expect
>> a smug cager to have a clue.
>
> Our city streets get significant money from the gasolene tax, but I would
> not expect you to admit to that fact.

What is "gasolene" and what is the tax on it?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

 

[Tom Sherman]

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

Because people are selfish bastards who put their own greed ahead of the
welfare of the whole.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

 

[Stephen Harding]

Mark Shroyer wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DougC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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 was going to attempt some snarky mockery of this paragraph, but
> really, I think it's better for me to just let it stand on its own.
>
> You make a conscious decision to purchase a vehicle that consumes more
> gas than a normal car, then you complain when confronted with the
> economic consequences of choice? Surely you must realize how
> off-the-charts childish and stupid this sounds?

"Stupid" are the comments that somehow SUV's are a factor in
our foreign wars. We need to control Middle East oil to run
our SUVs; apparently there's a foreign oil market for SUVs
and one for fuel efficient vehicles. These wars then get
added to the "cost" of operating them.

Intellectual gymnastics of Olympic gold medal quality or dumb
as dirt stupidity? Can't say for certain.'

I pay more to run my pickup truck. Although I wasn't thinking
along the lines of $100/fillup, I did know it would be pricey
compared to a Civic, or even Buick LeSabre for that matter.

I accept the costs as a choice I made. When I no longer am
willing to accept those costs, a new vehicle will be in my
driveway that matches what I'm willing to pay to run it.

I *do* pay more to operate my truck than a Civic operator, which
includes state and federal taxes. I'm not getting a free ride.

>>>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?
>
> Increased wear on the infrastructure, greater emissions, and (depending
> on your usage) magnified effects on urban congestion due to navigating a
> large vehicle through crowded city streets, to name a few.

Infrastructure is designed to handle commercial vehicles
for the most part. I doubt SUV use is significant in the
scale of vehicle weight use of most of our roads.

I also doubt congested roads are significantly caused by
SUV use. It's too many vehicles due to our
"one-person-one-car" pardigm of transport in the US. If
you observe closely, you'll no doubt note *one* person
in the Prism, just like there is in the Escalade.

SUVs are large and demand some care in maneuvering in
tight quarters, primarily parking lots I'd think. It's
a reality of having that sort of vehicle.

But I've seen plenty of Geo Metro type cars in my area
that could use drivers exercising a little more care in
tight quarters as well.


SMH

 

[Tom Sherman]

Pat Who? wrote:
> ...
> 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.

We could debate the need for a boat. As for other towing, the trailer
puts more weight on the drive wheels of a RWD pickup. Most towing is
done by trucks that do not have front drive wheels.

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

Sheesh! When a teenager, I drove a full-size 2WD van with bald tires and
a left-rear brake that locked up early through several winters.

> - 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.

Are those tasks done with personal vehicles? Of course, for some
off-road applications, a typical SUV or 4WD pickup is not going very far
either - there is no substitute for the flotation and traction that
"caterpillar" tracks provide.

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

How many people plow snow? Less than 1% of full-size pickup owners?
Anyone ever see a plow on a compact pickup, much less an SUV (in
particular, a unibody "crossover" SUV)?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter