Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...
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.

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

"David L. Johnson" wrote in message
...
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

"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 7:42 pm, "Jack May" wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message

...
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.

Jack May wrote:
"David L. Johnson" wrote in message
...
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

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...
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.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
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.


--
jeverett3ATsbcglobalDOTnet (John V. Everett)

In article , jeverett3
@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
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).

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 11:03 am, Bawana wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:13 am, donquijote1954
wrote:

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

Tard.
Bicycles cannot replace the auto.
They certainly cannot replace trucks, buses, planes, and trains.
Do the math.

Only lib-tards celebrate stupidity.
You should toast yourself, you ignorant ****-wit.

What's wrong with the idea of HAVING OPTIONS? Or do you want an
America where all drive SUVs?

The problem with options is that Government often spends far more money than
can be justified to support those options.

Even after the California legislator gutted transit funds in the budget this
year, the Bay Area is still spending two thirds of it transportation funds
for four and a half percent of the travelers and only a third of its money
on the 90% plus of travelers using personal vehicle.

The increase of funds for personal vehicles if from the $40B bonds the
voters approved to partially repair the damage done to California by the
foolish spending on transit over the last decades.

Having options is the brain dead cliché used by people that don't understand
that funds are limited and options are often far more expensive than main
stream transportation. Options usually carry far too few people to be of
any real value.

"David Kerber" wrote in message
t...
In article , jeverett3
@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:04:13 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
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