Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

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?
~

"George Conklin" wrote in message
...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm just cheering his use of buzzwords. I wouldn't want to think he'd
forgotten any. I'm quite pleased to see he's added a new one this week
:-)



Your continued lack of vocabulary is pretty horrid to behold.

Horrid is in the eye of the beholder...

"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...
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.

DougC wrote:
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.

On Dec 18, 3:23 pm, "Jack May" wrote:
"Jym Dyer" 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

On Dec 18, 2:23 pm, DougC wrote:
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

On Dec 18, 1:38 pm, Pat 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

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...
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.

"SMS ???. ?" wrote in message
...
DougC wrote:
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.

wrote:
On Dec 18, 3:23 pm, "Jack May" wrote:

"Jym Dyer" 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