Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"George Conklin" wrote in message
...

"DougC" wrote in message
...

Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions
that
people won't arrive at on their own?
~

Well, technically that is called normative behavior. Like preachers of
all types (religious or secular), planners think we don't live like we
should and they are there to tell us what to do.

And there it is!

Now, come on, George. Couldn't you have squeezed in "revanchist"?

:-D



No, planning is normative, but the outcomes are revanchist. Actually the
term which should be used is reductionistic, but that way, way way beyond
you.

"George Conklin" wrote in message
...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"George Conklin" wrote in message
...

"DougC" wrote in message
...

Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions
that
people won't arrive at on their own?
~

Well, technically that is called normative behavior. Like preachers
of
all types (religious or secular), planners think we don't live like we
should and they are there to tell us what to do.

And there it is!

Now, come on, George. Couldn't you have squeezed in "revanchist"?

:-D



No, planning is normative, but the outcomes are revanchist. Actually the
term which should be used is reductionistic, but that way, way way beyond
you.

Oh, George. You're just sooo smart.

Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing
decisions that people won't arrive at on their own?

=v= People's decisions are largely influenced by the work
of *past* urban planning, so you've got a self-destructing
presumption in your strident rhetoric there.
_Jym_

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.
_Jym_

On Dec 17, 5:55 pm, 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.

For the record, I don't think front wheel drive is just as good as 4WD
for driving in off-road conditions - i.e., where people shouldn't be
driving anyway.

But on-road? Exactly how "good" does your drive system have to be?
My front wheel drive was good enough to get me where I was going, on a
night when the vast majority of drivers stayed home.

If 4WD were anywhere close to a necessity, I'd have noticed it
sometime between 1964 and now. Yet, if I'd had it continuously since
then, it might have helped me slightly in, oh, ten situations max.

That's ten situation is 43 years. In all of those, I was never
inconvenienced for more than five minutes. And if I'd had 4WD (even
on little cars) I'd have paid thousands of extra dollars in gas, due
to the inevitably lower mileage caused by 4WD.


.....
But if you're really afraid of jamming your head into the roof when
your vehicle flips, it doesn't make much sense to drive the type of
vehicle that's most prone to flipping!

Yes it does, if the only vehicles that can satisfy both the requirements
I have are SUV's.

That's a big "if."

I think what you've done is to purposely state your requirements so
you believe only SUVs can meet them. And, having stated them, I think
you haven't looked very hard at non-SUV alternatives.

There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom,
but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought.

Got data?

No, do you? We'd be considering 1995-2000 year US models here, since
that was the era mine was made in...

Hmm. Well, you're the one who searched for vehicles. My research
project would necessarily be starting from scratch.

But instead of requiring 4" head room in case your vehicle flips, why
not just get 2" head room and a vehicle that's less prone to
overturning than an SUV?

One could also grow enough to know that some choices are simply
wrong. And that freedom to choose has always needed to be restricted
by the effect of one's choice on others.

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.

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!

Awww, poor boy!

- Frank Krygowski

"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...
Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing
decisions that people won't arrive at on their own?

=v= People's decisions are largely influenced by the work
of *past* urban planning, so you've got a self-destructing
presumption in your strident rhetoric there.
_Jym_




The prescriptions of planners do not change much or at all over time.
1920 seems to be the so-called ideal time, with happy peasants riding
transit and living in apartments, while the rich had large private houses
and servants living in the basements.

"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.
_Jym_


The normative prescriptions by planners of how we ought to live have
changed very little over the years.

"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 :-)

On Dec 17, 11:06 pm, wrote:
On Dec 17, 5:55 pm, 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.

For the record, I don't think front wheel drive is just as good as 4WD
for driving in off-road conditions - i.e., where people shouldn't be
driving anyway.

But on-road? Exactly how "good" does your drive system have to be?
My front wheel drive was good enough to get me where I was going, on a
night when the vast majority of drivers stayed home.

If 4WD were anywhere close to a necessity, I'd have noticed it
sometime between 1964 and now. Yet, if I'd had it continuously since
then, it might have helped me slightly in, oh, ten situations max.

That's ten situation is 43 years. In all of those, I was never
inconvenienced for more than five minutes. And if I'd had 4WD (even
on little cars) I'd have paid thousands of extra dollars in gas, due
to the inevitably lower mileage caused by 4WD.



.....
But if you're really afraid of jamming your head into the roof when
your vehicle flips, it doesn't make much sense to drive the type of
vehicle that's most prone to flipping!

Yes it does, if the only vehicles that can satisfy both the requirements
I have are SUV's.

That's a big "if."

I think what you've done is to purposely state your requirements so
you believe only SUVs can meet them. And, having stated them, I think
you haven't looked very hard at non-SUV alternatives.

There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom,
but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought.

Got data?

No, do you? We'd be considering 1995-2000 year US models here, since
that was the era mine was made in...

Hmm. Well, you're the one who searched for vehicles. My research
project would necessarily be starting from scratch.

But instead of requiring 4" head room in case your vehicle flips, why
not just get 2" head room and a vehicle that's less prone to
overturning than an SUV?

One could also grow enough to know that some choices are simply
wrong. And that freedom to choose has always needed to be restricted
by the effect of one's choice on others.

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.

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!

Awww, poor boy!

- Frank Krygowski

Wow, where do I start in responding to posts such as this.

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.

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

- 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.

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

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

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.

"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.