STUPID UNNECESSARY VEHICLES

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Don Quijote, Apr 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car carries four
    > that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the environuts use for
    > public transportation. ;)
    >
    > mike hunt

    Wow, the SUVs in your area must see much different use than the ones in my area.

    Around here, the average SUV carries about 1.1 passengers - including the driver. My impression was
    that this is typical nationwide.

    --
    Frank Krygowski [email protected]
     


  2. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o
    r p . c o m> says...
    > "archer" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > > > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car carries
    > > > four that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the environuts
    > > > use for public transportation. ;)
    > >
    > > Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of miles are done with either 1
    > > or 2 people in the vehicle.
    >
    > And how is that any different than most forms of public transportation? Have you looked at
    > ridership for buses and trains?

    Yes, I have, and I have ridden them, especially the trains. The ones I've been on have often been so
    full I couldn't even sit with my wife. The buses vary hugely over the course of the day. In RI, the
    ones which run around rush hour are often standing room only.

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  3. Buck wrote:
    >
    >
    > And how is that any different than most forms of public transportation? Have you looked at
    > ridership for buses and trains?
    >
    > I know, you will argue that we can make the people switch! This is not a viable solution because
    > of how our cities have developed. We cannot provide enough transportation routes to cover all of
    > the places a person might go and certainly cannot meet the schedule most people follow!

    To me, this looks like a desparate attempt to change the subject.

    Buses, trains, tractor-trailer rigs and personal vehicles all have different uses and different
    limitations. Let's stick to discussing personal vehicles.

    --
    Frank Krygowski [email protected]
     
  4. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0304071656100.25495-100000 @alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
    [email protected] says...
    > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, archer wrote:
    >
    > > [email protected] says...
    > > > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car carries
    > > > four that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the environuts
    > > > use for public transportation. ;)
    > >
    > > Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of miles are done with either 1
    > > or 2 people in the vehicle.
    >
    > Fair enough. Now, what are we going to do about all these giant, smoke-belching, diesel-gulping
    > buses carrying four or five people?

    Well, a bus with five people in it is using less fuel per passenger-mile than any SUV with only one
    person in it (and better than most cars, too).

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  5. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    >
    > "Peter Gardner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:p[email protected]...
    > | > > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car
    > | > > carries four that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the
    > | > > environuts use for public transportation. ;)
    > | >
    > | > Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of
    > miles
    > | > are done with either 1 or 2 people in the vehicle.
    > | >
    > | > ....
    > |
    > | Also, I'll have to look into it, but I'm pretty sure that many of these SUVs are not rated to
    > | carry the weight of more than a couple of passengers.
    >
    > Yes, do check back with that info when you find it.
    >
    > I'm interested in seeing which SUVs aren't rated to carry an additional 500-600 lbs.

    I hope he meant it as a joke; the larger ones can easily handle the weight of a few more people;
    their towing capacities are often 5000lb or more.

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  6. Kilodelta

    Kilodelta Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]_ids.net says...
    > In article <[email protected]>, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c
    > o r p . c o m> says...
    > > "archer" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > > > > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car
    > > > > carries four that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the
    > > > > environuts use for public transportation. ;)
    > > >
    > > > Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of miles are done with either 1
    > > > or 2 people in the vehicle.
    > >
    > > And how is that any different than most forms of public transportation? Have you looked at
    > > ridership for buses and trains?
    >
    > Yes, I have, and I have ridden them, especially the trains. The ones I've been on have often been
    > so full I couldn't even sit with my wife. The buses vary hugely over the course of the day. In RI,
    > the ones which run around rush hour are often standing room only.

    They are? Well perhaps the 11, 27, 28 and such but I know the 26 isn't exactly chock full. I suppose
    that's because the Ggeen line service snarfs what riders were available. I use the green line all
    the time and there's usually 8 to 20 people on a trolley.
     
  7. Kilodelta

    Kilodelta Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > Daniel J Stern wrote:
    > >
    > > Fair enough. Now, what are we going to do about all these giant, smoke-belching, diesel-gulping
    > > buses carrying four or five people?
    > >
    >
    > I'm in favor of replacing them with smaller vehicles. One city I lived in had "buses" with, oh,
    > maybe 12 seats. Those would be better. For many routes, an 8 passenger van would be better yet.
    >
    > However, even in that service, an SUV wouldn't make the grade. Not enough carrying capacity.
    >
    > So, we should be done changing the subject. Back to the subject at hand: personal vehicles.

    For cross city trips we have Providence Link, separated into gold line (North/South) and green line
    (East/West). Costs a buck a ride, or $40 a month for a pass, or if you're a JWU student your pass
    lets you ride for the bubble.

    The vehicles are Chance Coach trolleys that run on CNG and carry about 30 people.
     
  8. "Mike S." wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    > >
    > > Insurance rates began to rise for the things some time ago, due to their being inherently unsafe
    > > for other drivers not in them. Now, they'll probably begin to rise now that it has been shown
    > > they're more unsafe to their occupants. And if the good guys

    > > skyrocket.
    > >
    > > In a perfect world, the things would be legal, but the states would (legitimately) make the cost
    > > of owning one prohibitive.
    > >
    > So where does that line of reasoning stop?
    >
    > Limiting the horsepower of all cars because cars with big engines/high horsepower pollute more?
    >
    > Limit the size of cars, because cars over a certain size take more material to build? because
    > they're "more dangerous" to smaller cars because they outweigh them?
    >
    > How 'bout racing? No more racing because it wastes fuel? Regardless of what engineering comes out
    > of racing.
    >
    > Hell, I don't think that the majority of the people that own SUVs need them, but I'll defend their
    > right to own one because the alternative scares the shit out of me! Just where do the laws that
    > limit freedom stop?

    In fact, you and everyone else support myriad laws that limit freedom. That isn't the issue.

    There can be no doubt that large powerful cars and trucks pose a safety risk to smaller vehicles.
    Right now, that risk is a cost that is completely external in the cost-benefit calculations of
    people who own monster SUVs. Some kind of "danger" tax will make the owners of such vehicles
    internalize the cost somewhat.

    I'm not talking about making the things illegal. I'm talking about making them much more expensive
    than they already are, in order to discourage their use. Think of it as a negative subsidy. I'm sure
    I can find some instances of positive subsidies from which you benefit.
     
  9. Brent P wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>, Mike S. wrote:
    >
    > > Limiting the horsepower of all cars because cars with big engines/high horsepower pollute more?
    >
    > All passenger cars regardless of power output must meet the same standards with regard to
    > emissions. Light trucks have a lesser standard last I checked.

    They also are not held to the same fuel economy and safety standards.

    >
    > > Limit the size of cars, because cars over a certain size take more material to build? because
    > > they're "more dangerous" to smaller cars because they outweigh them?
    >
    > Passenger car CAFE already effectively limits the size of passenger cars. That's why people
    > started buying SUVs. Light truck CAFE is significantly less and easily met by sales of ordinary
    > 4cyl compact pickups and minivans to offset the large ones. The higher passenger car CAFE requires
    > the sale of geo-metro sized vehicles to offset something like a full-size station wagon. There are
    > too few buyers of mini-cars in the USA.
    >
    > > Hell, I don't think that the majority of the people that own SUVs need them, but I'll defend
    > > their right to own one because the alternative scares the shit out of me! Just where do the laws
    > > that limit freedom stop?
    >
    > Then act to remove CAFE and other regulations that encourage SUVs and discourage passenger cars
    > instead of defending the SUV regulatory advantage.
     
  10. Chris Neary wrote:
    >
    > >> In a perfect world, the things would be legal, but the states would (legitimately) make the
    > >> cost of owning one prohibitive.
    > >>
    > >So where does that line of reasoning stop?
    > >
    > >Limiting the horsepower of all cars because cars with big engines/high horsepower pollute more?
    > >
    > >Limit the size of cars, because cars over a certain size take more material to build? because
    > >they're "more dangerous" to smaller cars because they outweigh them?
    >
    > In Taiwan automobile registration costs are based on engine displacement.
    >
    > Just a data point.

    I don't know if it is still the case, but that was true in many countries in Europe when I lived
    there on two occasions in the 1970s and 1980s.
     
  11. Brent P

    Brent P Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Jonathan Ball wrote:

    > I don't know if it is still the case, but that was true in many countries in Europe when I lived
    > there on two occasions in the 1970s and 1980s.

    I believe that still is the case, or was a few years ago. I asked a if there was a displacement tax
    due to the huge number of 1.6L badges I was seeing on cars and sure enough anything bigger had a
    jump in taxes.
     
  12. Marc

    Marc Guest

    Jonathan Ball <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Brent P wrote:
    >>
    >> In article <[email protected]>, Mike S. wrote:
    >>
    >> > Limiting the horsepower of all cars because cars with big engines/high horsepower pollute more?
    >>
    >> All passenger cars regardless of power output must meet the same standards with regard to
    >> emissions. Light trucks have a lesser standard last I checked.
    >
    >They also are not held to the same fuel economy and safety standards.

    I've seen light trucks purchased new without rear bumpers. Have you seen the same from a car? There
    are light trucks (the heavier ones, 8500 GVWR or so, IIRC) that do not have to meet the same
    requirements as the lighter light trucks.

    Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
     
  13. Tim McTeague

    Tim McTeague Guest

    Tim wrote:

    Most studies, of which I am aware,
    > > rate rollover as one of the most deadly accidents a vehicle can have.

    Chris responded:
    >
    > And yet, it's one of the least common resulting in death.
    > --
    > _________________________
    > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

    What? Are you saying that ALL other accidents, including fender benders, have a higher death rate
    than rollover? Where are you getting your facts?

    Tim
     
  14. MelvinGibson

    MelvinGibson Guest

    Since larger vehicles are definitely safer for properly belted passengers, according to the NHTSA,
    shouldn't the government ban smaller vehicles in the name of safety rather than attempting to ban
    the large safer vehicles because of fuel consumption? Particularly when the owners are more than
    willing to pay the cost of operating their larger safer vehicles?

    mike hunt

    Jonathan Ball wrote:
    >
    > "Mike S." wrote:
    > >
    > > <snip>
    > > >
    > > > Insurance rates began to rise for the things some time ago, due to their being inherently
    > > > unsafe for other drivers not in them. Now, they'll probably begin to rise now that it has been
    > > > shown they're more unsafe to their occupants. And if the good guys

    > > > skyrocket.
    > > >
    > > > In a perfect world, the things would be legal, but the states would (legitimately) make the
    > > > cost of owning one prohibitive.
    > > >
    > > So where does that line of reasoning stop?
    > >
    > > Limiting the horsepower of all cars because cars with big engines/high horsepower pollute more?
    > >
    > > Limit the size of cars, because cars over a certain size take more material to build? because
    > > they're "more dangerous" to smaller cars because they outweigh them?
    > >
    > > How 'bout racing? No more racing because it wastes fuel? Regardless of what engineering comes
    > > out of racing.
    > >
    > > Hell, I don't think that the majority of the people that own SUVs need them, but I'll defend
    > > their right to own one because the alternative scares the shit out of me! Just where do the laws
    > > that limit freedom stop?
    >
    > In fact, you and everyone else support myriad laws that limit freedom. That isn't the issue.
    >
    > There can be no doubt that large powerful cars and trucks pose a safety risk to smaller vehicles.
    > Right now, that risk is a cost that is completely external in the cost-benefit calculations of
    > people who own monster SUVs. Some kind of "danger" tax will make the owners of such vehicles
    > internalize the cost somewhat.
    >
    > I'm not talking about making the things illegal. I'm talking about making them much more expensive
    > than they already are, in order to discourage their use. Think of it as a negative subsidy. I'm
    > sure I can find some instances of positive subsidies from which you benefit.
     
  15. On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:50:48 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

    >AN SUV with eight people use less gas than two cars with eight people, what's your point?

    And what percentage of SUVs actually carry 8 people?
    --
    Brandon Sommerville remove ".gov" to e-mail

    Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
     
  16. MelvinGibson

    MelvinGibson Guest

    Some SUV's have 4 cy engines and some cars have V8 engines, so what your point?

    mike hunt

    archer wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car carries
    > > four that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the environuts use
    > > for public transportation. ;)
    >
    > Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of miles are done with either 1 or
    > 2 people in the vehicle.
    >
    > ....
    >
    > --
    > David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord, it's
    > morning".
    >
    > Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.
     
  17. MelvinGibson

    MelvinGibson Guest

    AN SUV with eight people use less gas than two cars with eight people, what's your point?

    mike hunt

    David Kerber wrote:
    >
    > In article <Pine.SOL.4.44.0304071656100.25495-100000 @alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
    > [email protected] says...
    > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, archer wrote:
    > >
    > > > [email protected] says...
    > > > > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car
    > > > > carries four that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the
    > > > > environuts use for public transportation. ;)
    > > >
    > > > Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of miles are done with either 1
    > > > or 2 people in the vehicle.
    > >
    > > Fair enough. Now, what are we going to do about all these giant, smoke-belching, diesel-gulping
    > > buses carrying four or five people?
    >
    > Well, a bus with five people in it is using less fuel per passenger-mile than any SUV with only
    > one person in it (and better than most cars, too).
    >
    > --
    > Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
    >
    > REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  18. MelvinGibson

    MelvinGibson Guest

    In the end doesn't it all come down to the fact that, in a free society, we should all be able to
    buy what we want, need and can afford? Should it be somebody else right to make you buy what they
    think you want, need and can afford? I think not.

    mike hunt

    Frank Krygowski wrote:
    >
    > Buck wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > And how is that any different than most forms of public transportation? Have you looked at
    > > ridership for buses and trains?
    > >
    > > I know, you will argue that we can make the people switch! This is not a viable solution because
    > > of how our cities have developed. We cannot provide enough transportation routes to cover all of
    > > the places a person might go and certainly cannot meet the schedule most people follow!
    >
    > To me, this looks like a desparate attempt to change the subject.
    >
    > Buses, trains, tractor-trailer rigs and personal vehicles all have different uses and different
    > limitations. Let's stick to discussing personal vehicles.
    >
    > --
    > Frank Krygowski [email protected]
     
  19. MelvinGibson

    MelvinGibson Guest

    Then you better check again. All cars and light trucks must meet the same EPA standards. Many SUV
    even use the same engines as cars.

    mike hunt

    > All passenger cars regardless of power output must meet the same standards with regard to
    > emissions. Light trucks have a > lesser standard last I checked.
     
  20. Mike S.

    Mike S. Guest

    "KiloDelta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]_ids.net says...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y
    > > c o r p . c o m> says...
    > > > "archer" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected]
    > > > > says...
    > > > > > When one considers that the average SUV carries six passengers versus the average car
    > > > > > carries four that is a plus for the SUV's since passenger miles is the same argument the
    > > > > > environuts use for public transportation. ;)
    > > > >
    > > > > Except that hardly ever is the vehicle full. The vast majority of
    miles
    > > > > are done with either 1 or 2 people in the vehicle.
    > > >
    > > > And how is that any different than most forms of public
    transportation? Have
    > > > you looked at ridership for buses and trains?
    > >
    > > Yes, I have, and I have ridden them, especially the trains. The ones I've been on have often
    > > been so full I couldn't even sit with my wife. The buses vary hugely over the course of the day.
    > > In RI, the ones which run around rush hour are often standing room only.
    >
    > They are? Well perhaps the 11, 27, 28 and such but I know the 26 isn't exactly chock full. I
    > suppose that's because the Ggeen line service snarfs what riders were available. I use the green
    > line all the time and there's usually 8 to 20 people on a trolley.
    >

    In my definitely unscientific study of busses in San Diego, I've seen an average of 3 people riding
    each bus. Its easy to see in when the busses are lit up like Christmas trees on the inside... I
    don't know about ALL the time, just when I've been out riding/driving.

    I don't know about your town, but San Diego is definitely NOT set up for mass transit. Too many
    different places to work to have a system like DC's Metro.

    Mike
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...