Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"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.



But, as you have noted, transit riders tell us they are morally, culturally
and intellectually superior to people in cars, who are isolated, lonely and,
yes, as this thread says, basically drunk.

"John Everett" wrote in message
news
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.

No, it was assumed that trucks did different work from commuter cars.

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

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

Ah yes, the old law of unintended consequences.

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


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

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"George Conklin" wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"donquijote1954" wrote in message

...


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

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



This is done in NC at inspection time for an extra fee.

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

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


...

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

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



Scooters most certainly add to traffic congestion. They take up a slot
in the highway just like a car would, and they often go slower making
themselves a botheration.


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

1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.

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

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

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

In article ,
says...

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

...

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

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

But they COULD be a great solution for many people if their 2-stroke
engines didn't emit so much air pollution. If they had 4-stroke
engines, or more sophisticated 2-stroke ones, they would be a viable
option for many people for many months of the year.



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

1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.

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

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

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

Almost no food is shipped by air except in emergencies (famine relief,
etc). It's too expensive for the volumes needed.

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

On Dec 11, 1:21 pm, "Jack May" wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message

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

1- They are cheap, so they are DEMOCRATIC.

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

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

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

Oh? Well, show us the data, please.

Keep in mind, the bicycle is the most efficient means of
transportation on the planet. The increase in human metabolic energy
for riding (vs. just sitting is minimal. Take that into account when
you provide your numbers, please.

So again: Got data?

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 11, 12:13 pm, John Everett
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:43:57 -0800 (PST), donquijote1954

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

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

At least that's an smart and smaller SUV. I'm talking about Supersized
Unnecessary Vehicles here.

On Dec 11, 12:16 pm, John Everett
wrote:
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 skeptical would say it was intended. I'm one.

On Dec 11, 12:25 pm, Larry Bud wrote:
On Dec 10, 5:39 pm, donquijote1954
wrote:

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.

And yet a new SUV pollutes much less than any car that more than
probably 5 or 6 years old.

Apparently you think the height of a vehicle affects its emission
amount. Strange.

We are talking two issues: POLLUTION & SAFETY. And they are not any
safer to others with tinted windows, massive chassis, and raised
bumpers. Oh, and STUPID DRIVERS.