Would you support a lower speed limit to save on gas & oil? [Archive]

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 18:46

That's reasonable. If the study comes out big savings, it's hard to argue against. Frustrating, but livable. There are other paths to be exploited, but frankly this is a multiple solutions problem.

Nothing is stopping you from going slower on the roads a speed limit just limits how fast you are allowed to go, unless it is one of those speed limits that limit you as to how slow you can go. Now if you want to save money and think that going slower is going to do it than by all means do it, but I doubt by lowering the speed limit the price of world oil is going to go down, really does he believe this tripe or is he like most politicians saying something to make it seem to the general uninformed public that he is doing something. We had our PM do this he said he would hire somebody to watch the price of fuel, it was just to make idiots think that he was doing something when really it did nothing to lower the price of fuel, yeah lets sit back and watch the prices that will lower prices:rolleyes:

Rambhutan

04-07-2008, 18:54

I would have thought that people would start buying more efficient cars and driving in a more fuel efficient way simply because of the cost of fuel. Legislation seems rather silly.

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 18:56

I would have thought that people would start buying more efficient cars and driving in a more fuel efficient way simply because of the cost of fuel. Legislation seems rather silly.

No because that would require initiative we need a government to tell us what to do and when to do it screw freedom [/sarcasm] Or so a certain political mantra goes I don't know if you have it in the US

Thumbless Pete Crabbe

04-07-2008, 18:58

I would have thought that people would start buying more efficient cars and driving in a more fuel efficient way simply because of the cost of fuel. Legislation seems rather silly.

The used car lots near me are stocked with nothing but SUVs. I'm guessing a lot of people have already made the switch.

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 18:59

Well, im sure its just a bunch of political gobldygook, lol...that goes for prettymuch everything the government does...

But, honestly, speed limits should be left as they are, it wont solve the problem, hell, it wont even really treat the symptoms...i want real solutions not easy ways out, and political showboating....

Call to power

04-07-2008, 19:07

If Senators like Warren weren't wicked men who: maintained and added taxes to gas so the profits stations turned weren't worth selling gas versus car repair, refused to let fuel reserves be tapped, and formed cartels like OPEC fuel'd be better off.

1) only stations is Britain run perfectly fine not that I'd be against US consumers cutting your consumption

2) the reserves off the US coast plan is bunk and I can't beleive its still being echoed

3) OPEC does not include the US and the idea that its some vast evil conspiracy is also bunk

Ah yes, since the gas companies are gouging us, maybe the government should follow your suggestion and also aggravate us!

looking at your automotive industry this will do more than good

if people want to go slower they can.

but they don't and so the government is required to act

Nothing is stopping you from going slower on the roads a speed limit just limits how fast you are allowed to go

too bad people don't think and now the US government has decided to take action to finally reduce consumption of oil what with us not living in a world of infinite oil

Now if you want to save money and think that going slower is going to do it than by all means do it, but I doubt by lowering the speed limit the price of world oil is going to go down

yes how on Earth could cutting down on automotive oil consumption reduce supply cost issues!:p

The_pantless_hero

04-07-2008, 19:10

Sure. Increase fines on speeding tickets while you're at it.

Just to put salt in the wound I assume.

Call to power

04-07-2008, 19:13

No because that would require initiative we need a government to tell us what to do and when to do it screw freedom [/sarcasm] Or so a certain political mantra goes I don't know if you have it in the US

its just too bad that people are not good in large groups otherwise your sarcasm might actually make sense

But, honestly, speed limits should be left as they are, it wont solve the problem, hell, it wont even really treat the symptoms...i want real solutions not easy ways out, and political showboating....

if it gets USians using rail then it would get a great deal towards dealing with the issue of reducing consumption

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 19:15

if it gets USians using rail then it would get a great deal towards dealing with the issue of reducing consumption

...Well, besides the fact that there is no group called the USians...but thats another debate...

But, It wont get people using rail anymore than they are, itll make alot more money for the police departments cause more peoplell be speeding, itll be the only result...

As previously stated, when you dont live in an overly large city, Mass Transit isnt exactly at your doorstep, and isnt a feasible option...

New Wallonochia

04-07-2008, 19:23

As previously stated, when you dont live in an overly large city, Mass Transit isnt exactly at your doorstep, and isnt a feasible option...

Even when you do it isn't always available. *coughDetroitcough*

1010102

04-07-2008, 19:28

its just too bad that people are not good in large groups otherwise your sarcasm might actually make sense

if it gets Americans using rail then it would get a great deal towards dealing with the issue of reducing consumption

Fixed.

The problem is that most areas that this would affect have no rail system other than for frieght. America is much bigger than than the UK(My state alone is bigger) means that there are much greater distances between major cities, with britan, its maybe a 150km at the widest, but with America, from New York to Seatle, it is around 4000km.

Call to power

04-07-2008, 19:34

...Well, besides the fact that there is no group called the USians...but thats another debate...

*giggles*

But, It wont get people using rail anymore than they are, itll make alot more money for the police departments cause more peoplell be speeding, itll be the only result...

not really if you need to get somewhere quick you will have to use rail and so they will unless they want to be late

and then we can rename the USA London just to make it official :)

As previously stated, when you dont live in an overly large city, Mass Transit isnt exactly at your doorstep, and isnt a feasible option...

1) which is why this is a good time to be building up US rail
2) I think you will find that mass transit doesn't need to be on your doorstep
3) is there something you know about mass transit that nobody else does because whole cities around the world tend to function because of them :eek:

Even when you do it isn't always available. *coughDetroitcough*

yes but its not like anything that comes out of Detroit will get over 55

East Coast Federation

04-07-2008, 19:36

Lowering is to 55 is a stupid idea and isn't going to save gas.

Most cars made after 1990 are geared to get their best fuel economy at 65-70mph. Which is normally about 2200RPM

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 19:37

3) is there something you know about mass transit that nobody else does because whole cities around the world tend to function because of them :eek:

Something that seemingly noone in Europe does...Something about Size and Population Density.....

Call to power

04-07-2008, 19:38

Fixed.

:confused:

The problem is that most areas that this would affect have no rail system other than for frieght. America is much bigger than than the UK(My state alone is bigger) means that there are much greater distances between major cities, with britan, its maybe a 150km at the widest, but with America, from New York to Seatle, it is around 4000km.

1) which is why you should get building then no?
2) silly USian ignoring the outside world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway)

New Wallonochia

04-07-2008, 19:39

yes but its not like anything that comes out of Detroit will get over 55

Oh, I don't know about that. Most Detroiters drive locally built cars and going less than 90 on any of the highways in the city is a good way to commit suicide. Of course, the locals who can't quite get to that speed survive by weaving across all 4 lanes of traffic without turn signals in an attempt to confuse their pursuers.

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 19:41

1) which is why you should get building then no?
2) silly USian ignoring the outside world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway)

Yes...because Russia is going to set that up in the Many Many cities out in Siberia and its SO meant for daily travel and EVERYONE is going to pay the $250 price tag to go to the store...riiight...

Silly Limeys ignoring Logistics..

EDIT: and after some further reading...YOU HAVE TO PURCHASE A TICKET FOURTY FIVE DAYS IN ADVANCE!!!...thats REAL practical

Call to power

04-07-2008, 19:47

Most cars made after 1990 are geared to get their best fuel economy at 65-70mph. Which is normally about 2200RPM

and these happen to make up the bulk of US cars I hope?

Something that seemingly noone in Europe does...Something about Size and Population Density.....

its a good thing Europe is bigger than the US then :)

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 19:49

but they don't and so the government is required to act

too bad people don't think and now the US government has decided to take action to finally reduce consumption of oil what with us not living in a world of infinite oil

Really we don't live in a world of infinite oil, your powers of deduction today are outstanding :rolleyes: Now I know that people don't think which is why we have shitty speed limits in the first place but why would should the government act on reducing the speed limit? If people were concerned with their hip pocket and how much they pay at the bowser and are shown by scientific proof that driving slower will reduce their fuel bill they will slow down if they think it is going to help them.

yes how on Earth could cutting down on automotive oil consumption reduce supply cost issues!:p

The only thing that is funny is your belief that the US cutting down on some of their oil consumption will bring down world oil prices. I don't know if I should laugh and say typical tabloid reading easily influenced by the papers idiot who thinks that the Americans are the only ones dictating the world price of oil, or if I should shake my head at you because you think that this is a good idea which will lower the price of oil.

Neesika

04-07-2008, 19:49

Call to power

04-07-2008, 19:50

Oh, I don't know about that. Most Detroiters drive locally built cars and going less than 90 on any of the highways in the city is a good way to commit suicide. Of course, the locals who can't quite get to that speed survive by weaving across all 4 lanes of traffic without turn signals in an attempt to confuse their pursuers.

they should just use Detroit's bus service for safety

Yes...because Russia is going to set that up in the Many Many cities out in Siberia and its SO meant for daily travel and EVERYONE is going to pay the $250 price tag to go to the store...riiight.

no you have already done it :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/North_American_Rail.gif

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 19:51

its a good thing Europe is bigger than the US then :)

That may be true, but the individual Countries arent, and the people live MUCH closer together, its something like 20 Times the population Density...making Mass Transit alot more Practical than in the US...

not to mention, we've had them Russians beat for more than a Century...

http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/usa-maps/usa-rail-map.jpg

US Rail Lines

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 19:53

its just too bad that people are not good in large groups otherwise your sarcasm might actually make sense.

And this doesn't make sense if people want to reduce their fuel bill they will drive slower they don't need anybody else they just need their own initiative.

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 19:55

And this doesn't make sense if people want to reduce their fuel bill they will drive slower they don't need anybody else they just need their own initiative.

I hear its not necessarily the speed anyway you know...

Its the rapid changes in speed in stop and go traffic...like, if you stay continuously at say 70 youll use less gas than someone constantly stopping and going between 0 and 30...

East Coast Federation

04-07-2008, 19:56

And this doesn't make sense if people want to reduce their fuel bill they will drive slower they don't need anybody else they just need their own initiative.

What about people who don't actually care about how much it costs to fill up?

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 19:56

What about people who don't actually care about how much it costs to fill up?

then you make WAY too damn much money...

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 19:57

not really if you need to get somewhere quick you will have to use rail and so they will unless they want to be late

Depending on where they need to be they are not going to take their car if the location is a long way away. If it is a short distance than rather than waiting for a train if there is one near by the may take the car anyway.

3) is there something you know about mass transit that nobody else does because whole cities around the world tend to function because of them :eek:

He should have said not always a feasible option especially when they don't take you anywhere near where you want to go and are consistently late and unpredictable.

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 19:57

He should have said not always a feasible option especially when they don't take you anywhere near where you want to go and are consistently late and unpredictable.

Yeah, i thought that was implied...but, that was stupid of me, lol...

Call to power

04-07-2008, 19:58

Now I know that people don't think which is why we have shitty speed limits in the first place but why would should the government act on reducing the speed limit? If people were concerned with their hip pocket and how much they pay at the bowser and are shown by scientific proof that driving slower will reduce their fuel bill they will slow down if they think it is going to help them.

but they don't which goes onto why people don't think and why we have speed limits in the first place and round and round we go :)

The only thing that is funny is your belief that the US cutting down on some of their oil consumption will bring down world oil prices.

only its the current increase in fuel consumption that is causing strain

and the idea is that things add up like say me having a penny jar and such

I'm more annoyed with the idea of mandatory minimum drink prices as just approved by city council here in Edmonton to supposedly 'cut down on binge drinking'.

order larger drinks?

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 20:00

no you have already done it :)

Yeah, i posted a map too...and thats been great for freight, and great for showing up the Ruskies...still not practical for daily commute...for the aforementioned reasons...

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 20:03

I'm more annoyed with the idea of mandatory minimum drink prices as just approved by city council here in Edmonton to supposedly 'cut down on binge drinking'.

Jerkfaces. Drinking out was too expensive as it was. Happy hour was the only saving grace.

Your politicians too have been bitten by the tabloids and seem to think that this ridiculous ideas are going to cut binge drinking down. I don't know where they get these ideas from but some people really need to be shot. Our government increased the taxes on some alcohol products, they said it was to lessen binge drinking but their budget forecasts show that tax revenue from this will increase by a large amount and guess what people haven't slowed down their drinking they are now just drinking harder spirits rather than the lighter booze they increased.

My favourite plan to stop underage binge drinking is to raise the drinking age, good stuff people please you deserve to get a clip across the ear with that idiotic statement.

1010102

04-07-2008, 20:06

then you make WAY too damn much money...

No such thing. Its called capitalism. People should be able to make as much as they can.

Call to power

04-07-2008, 20:07

That may be true, but the individual Countries arent, and the people live MUCH closer together, its something like 20 Times the population Density...making Mass Transit alot more Practical than in the US...

and yet we have had these rail links since ye industrial revolution...

And this doesn't make sense if people want to reduce their fuel bill they will drive slower they don't need anybody else they just need their own initiative.

people rarely use scary concepts like initiative :(

Its the rapid changes in speed in stop and go traffic...like, if you stay continuously at say 70 youll use less gas than someone constantly stopping and going between 0 and 30...

:eek: you must have fun when your drive past schools

Depending on where they need to be they are not going to take their car if the location is a long way away. If it is a short distance than rather than waiting for a train if there is one near by the may take the car anyway.

and so they are clearly not in a massive need to be somewhere thus they can drive slower and save fuel yay!

He should have said not always a feasible option especially when they don't take you anywhere near where you want to go and are consistently late and unpredictable.

all the more reason to invest in them now

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 20:08

but they don't which goes onto why people don't think and why we have speed limits in the first place and round and round we go :)

Which is what I said, but whatever.

only its the current increase in fuel consumption that is causing strain

and the idea is that things add up like say me having a penny jar and such

Next you will tell me that it is only the Americans increase in fuel consumption has lead to the higher prices.

order larger drinks?

You don't go out much do you?

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 20:09

What about people who don't actually care about how much it costs to fill up?

What about them?

Call to power

04-07-2008, 20:09

Yeah, i posted a map too...and thats been great for freight, and great for showing up the Ruskies...still not practical for daily commute...for the aforementioned reasons...

however it does get you from New York to Seattle and so hurrah for me

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 20:10

I hear its not necessarily the speed anyway you know...

Its the rapid changes in speed in stop and go traffic...like, if you stay continuously at say 70 youll use less gas than someone constantly stopping and going between 0 and 30...

Well that's right because when you press on the accelerator you are injecting fuel into your engine to use so to stop and start does use a lot more fuel than someone travelling at a constant speed.

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 20:14

and so they are clearly not in a massive need to be somewhere thus they can drive slower and save fuel yay!

Yes they can slow down, if they need to be somewhere quick and buy using another form of transport will get them there sooner they will use it regardless of what the speed limit is, I wonder how many Americans when travelling long distance such as LA to NY will use a train many will use a plane which guess what uses fuel.

all the more reason to invest in them now

They should have been invested in decades ago and regardless of what the speed limit is they should be invested in now anyway.

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 20:14

:eek: you must have fun when your drive past schools

Its called the Interstate my friend http://www.onlineatlas.us/highway-map.gif

East Coast Federation

04-07-2008, 20:18

then you make WAY too damn much money...

Not really.

My 07 SI takes about 50 dollars to fill up.
My 95 T-bird ( MINT Condition ), is a 5 liter V8 and only takes 85 to fill on 93 octane
The volvo takes about 60.

Its not really that much.

Call to power

04-07-2008, 20:18

Which is what I said, but whatever.

so you agree that the government needs to enforce a lower speed limit :)

Next you will tell me that it is only the Americans increase in fuel consumption has lead to the higher prices.

and next you will tell me that things don't add up ergo unless we live in a world without math reducing consumption in as many ways as possible will start to add up

You don't go out much do you?

so you don't see the logic in instead of buying two separate pints (or whatever Canadians drink) buying a crazy two pint glass to negate the minimum drink price? oh right I've already noted your addition woes

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 20:20

Not really.

My 07 SI takes about 50 dollars to fill up.
My 95 T-bird ( MINT Condition ), is a 5 liter V8 and only takes 85 to fill on 93 octane
The volvo takes about 60.

Its not really that much.

My God:eek:

My $40 96 Accent fill up was hurting me...Glad i dont drive one of those gas guzzlers

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 20:23

so you agree that the government needs to enforce a lower speed limit :)

No, I agree that a lot of people are stupid.

and next you will tell me that things don't add up ergo unless we live in a world without math reducing consumption in as many ways as possible will start to add up

So you do think that Americans are the reason why we have an increase in oil prices, I thought so. What I am saying is that if Americans reduce a slight amount of their oil consumption we will not see a significant reduction in oil prices.

so you don't see the logic in instead of buying two separate pints (or whatever Canadians drink) buying a crazy two pint glass to negate the minimum drink price? oh right I've already noted your addition woes

So they charge you for say $5 a pint you take in a two pint glass (I wonder how many pubs actually allow this) and say fill this up and what will they charge you? Well as it is $5 a pint they will charge you $10 for two pints hard to see the math in that I know.

Call to power

04-07-2008, 20:24

Yes they can slow down, if they need to be somewhere quick and buy using another form of transport will get them there sooner they will use it regardless of what the speed limit is, I wonder how many Americans when travelling long distance such as LA to NY will use a train many will use a plane which guess what uses fuel.

and they will do this because high speed rail has not been developed sufficiently in the US to accommodate the travel which is faster and more efficient :)

but go on I'm sure if the govenrment just pisses its money away expanding airports instead nothing bad will come of it...

They should have been invested in decades ago and regardless of what the speed limit is they should be invested in now anyway.

exactly and they would be invested in all the more if people used them

Its called the Interstate my friend

your funny bone appears to be broken but on with the subject:

this is not some lunatic scientists claims it is proven that cars get better millage driving distances slower this is fairly public knowledge actually...

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 20:28

and they will do this because high speed rail has not been developed sufficiently in the US to accommodate the travel which is faster and more efficient :)

but go on I'm sure if the govenrment just pisses its money away expanding airports instead nothing bad will come of it...

Did I say that?

exactly and they would be invested in all the more if people used them

People would use them more if 1) they were invested more in so there are more services and more locations and 2)Public transport actually ran on time a bit more often than it does.

your funny bone appears to be broken but on with the subject:

this is not some lunatic scientists claims it is proven that cars get better millage driving distances slower this is fairly public knowledge actually...

And it is also fairly common knowledge that driving at a consistent speed uses less fuel than starting and stopping all the time, which is what he said.

Skalvia

04-07-2008, 20:29

your funny bone appears to be broken but on with the subject:

this is not some lunatic scientists claims it is proven that cars get better millage driving distances slower this is fairly public knowledge actually...

Sorry, i have to work on a National Holiday and ive had some tough debates lately(won two, bitterly lost one on a very depressing subject), not in a funny mood, lol...

But, Your right about that...i was talking more along the lines of Continuous Driving vs Stop and Go

And, more to the point...I think you should solve the problem, we need to change the Fuel we use...not, put a band aid on it by lowering speed limits...

It didnt work in the Seventies it wont work now...

Call to power

04-07-2008, 20:32

No, I agree that a lot of people are stupid.

*sigh* so people are both stupid and smart enough to reduce consumption by driving slower on their own accord you say?

So you do think that Americans are the reason why we have an increase in oil prices, I thought so. What I am saying is that if Americans reduce a slight amount of their oil consumption we will not see a significant reduction in oil prices.

I will explain it simply:

Timmy has a high electric bill because hes a dick who leaves all his lights on and prefers to turn his wind turbine on instead of opening a window on a hot day anyways he needs to cut back.

Now Timmy being smart decides to get energy efficient light bulbs and other nifty things which *gasp* added up starts to cut down his electric bill!

lets apply this to the world oil economy and see where it goes!

So they charge you for say $5 a pint you take in a two pint glass (I wonder how many pubs actually allow this) and say fill this up and what will they charge you? Well as it is $5 a pint they will charge you $10 for two pints hard to see the math in that I know.

no because the law only extends to a minimum cost and so the bar does not need to change the cost of drinks over this limit and makes a fortune on such deals (and there is certainly the industry of larger than pint glasses so no you do not need to bring in your own glass)

Call to power

04-07-2008, 20:40

Did I say that?

I'm sorry wasn't you just trumpeting the benefits of air travel

People would use them more if 1) they were invested more in so there are more services and more locations and 2)Public transport actually ran on time a bit more often than it does.

2 ties in with 1 and thus it appears that reducing speed if coupled with improving rail will create a wonderland of public transportation :)

Sorry, i have to work on a National Holiday and ive had some tough debates lately(won two, bitterly lost one on a very depressing subject), not in a funny mood, lol...

well you can always come back to our club if you ask us nicely...

And, more to the point...I think you should solve the problem, we need to change the Fuel we use...not, put a band aid on it by lowering speed limits...

however waiting around aimlessly waiting for a miracle is silly when you should be using what you have resourcefully and working on the meat engine

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 20:41

*sigh* so people are both stupid and smart enough to reduce consumption by driving slower on their own accord you say?!

:headbang: When did I say that, I said that they were stupid in regards to speed limits which is why we have them, they are not stupid to slow down if they are shown that by driving at a slower speed they will save on fuel and those that are stupid enough not to do this will be paying more while those that aren't will be paying less because they won't be using as much fuel.

I will explain it simply:

Timmy has a high electric bill because hes a dick who leaves all his lights on and prefers to turn his wind turbine on instead of opening a window on a hot day anyways he needs to cut back.

Now Timmy being smart decides to get energy efficient light bulbs and other nifty things which *gasp* added up starts to cut down his electric bill!

lets apply this to the world oil economy and see where it goes!

I wonder how many times I will have to tell you that if America slightly reduced the oil consumption by not using their cars we will not see a slight decrease in world oil prices. It would be like Timmy changing one light bulb to a more energy efficient light bulb. Now if everybody in the world cut their oil use by say 50% then use we would see a reduction in oil prices, but to reduce a small amount of world oil consumption which is what we are talking about will not see a reduction in world oil prices.

no because the law only extends to a minimum cost and so the bar does not need to change the cost of drinks over this limit and makes a fortune on such deals

Umm, if what you are saying is correct then it is a different way in which I have previously heard, perhaps you can tell me exactly what Nessika's minimum drink price is and how it works.

Blouman Empire

04-07-2008, 20:44

I'm sorry wasn't you just trumpeting the benefits of air travel

No I never did, except for the fact that it is faster than a car.

2 ties in with 1 and thus it appears that reducing speed if coupled with improving rail will create a wonderland of public transportation :)

No 2 does not tie in with 1, you could have a large number of services and a large number of locations but if they are late and inconsistent then people will still be less inclined to use them. So improving public transportation which is more than just rail btw, may see more people use public transport which is all you need.

Call to power

04-07-2008, 20:59

they are not stupid to slow down if they are shown that by driving at a slower speed they will save on fuel and those that are stupid enough not to do this will be paying more while those that aren't will be paying less because they won't be using as much fuel.

yes but this isn't just an individual issue is it

I wonder how many times I will have to tell you that if America slightly reduced the oil consumption by not using their cars we will not see a slight decrease in world oil prices. It would be like Timmy changing one light bulb to a more energy efficient light bulb. Now if everybody in the world cut their oil use by say 50% then use we would see a reduction in oil prices, but to reduce a small amount of world oil consumption which is what we are talking about will not see a reduction in world oil prices

actually reducing oil consumption is being done around the world and its time that a nation led the way into actually looking into account fuel efficiency when thinking of speed limits

this will only add on to other initiatives and such basically

Umm, if what you are saying is correct then it is a different way in which I have previously heard, perhaps you can tell me exactly what Nessika's minimum drink price is and how it works.

we should drag Nessika in and shout at her *nods*

No 2 does not tie in with 1, you could have a large number of services and a large number of locations but if they are late and inconsistent then people will still be less inclined to use them. So improving public transportation which is more than just rail btw, may see more people use public transport which is all you need.

most noticeable rail delays are caused due to issues with maintenance thus if you improve maintenance

and yes rail could cut consumption on its own however the years have clearly shown that a push needs to be made to get people using public transport again so that interest is taken in the first place

East Coast Federation

04-07-2008, 21:18

My God:eek:

My $40 96 Accent fill up was hurting me...Glad i dont drive one of those gas guzzlers

Hahaha, well.

My Civic SI 07 gets about 22 with the way I drive it.

The Thunderbird gets about 9 when I drive it hard, and about 19 when I go easy.

The Volvo gets about 15.

All require premium fuel.

Marrakech II

04-07-2008, 23:06

:confused:

Not the first time you have been. ;)

1) which is why you should get building then no?
2) silly USian ignoring the outside world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway)

Silly UKian thinking they know everything.

Calarca

05-07-2008, 00:15

Intangelon

05-07-2008, 01:31

FARK NO!!!

Put the limits UP. Speed limits were invented when cars were barges that would be lucky to manage 100MPH and steered like a drunk elephant. Just so they wouldn't go off the road because they couldn't turn the wheel fast enough to get around the corner.

Outside of the Plains, most roads were not built with the visibility/curve requirements needed for such high speeds. The cars aren't the main issue.

These days they can manage double the speed SAFELY and steer much better due to suspension improvements and power steering.

Many drivers don't own cars such as you describe. Many drivers aren't able to handle such speeds. The cars aren't the main issue.

If someone wants to go slow... feel free, but let us petrol heads scoot along as fast as we want when we want to. It's our wallets that have to buy extra fuel, so theres already a penalty there, why think up more.

Perhaps because it isn't a penalty?

Here in NZ I filled up the hilux, petrol is $2.17 a litre, 4 litres to the US gallon, thats $8 a gallon gas. stop blubberign about high gas prices! you ain't getting no sympathy from me.

Nobody asked you for sympathy. Reduced demand lowers prices for everyone. Selfishness has no place in a system designed to be used by all who can qualify with the basic skills needed. That doesn't make us all racers. You wanna race? Go to a track and burn all the rubber you want. On the freeway, it isn't all about you. Which is why higher limits won't work. The cars aren't the main issue.

Self-sacrifice

05-07-2008, 01:45

People are not too concerned about the price of petrol. If they were there would be a bigger push for fuel efficient cars. Cars that instead of requiring 15L/km only need 8L/km. The technology is out there. Many cars are on the market with great fuel efficiency. The problem is that people either want to hear the engine roar and therefor need to burn alot of fuel or they just dont see it as financially worth while

Instead of lowering the speed limit there could instead be a push for better cars that require less petrol. Who knows, a sole person may not need to drive a 4WD in the city? There could be a smaller car that travels just as well.

If you lower the speed limit the price of goods will rise as trucks will take longer to travel. There will also be longer travel times for motorist causing a push to build new roads. Getting a fuel efficient car is the best way if you wish to save the oil by cars

And whilst this is unthinkable it would also be good to consider the options of public transport, car pooling, bike riding, motorcycles or even walking. Whilst they may not be suited for all occasions do you really need to take a whole empty boot and 4 empty seats with you to work every day?

Calarca

05-07-2008, 03:43

Instead of lowering the speed limit there could instead be a push for better cars that require less petrol. Who knows, a sole person may not need to drive a 4WD in the city? There could be a smaller car that travels just as well.

Ever hear of CAFE standards?

do you really need to take a whole empty boot and 4 empty seats with you to work every day?

Me? Hell Yeah. only go to town once a week or less, which means a big boot is needed to haul the groceries, stock food, drenches and farm equipment, the VAN usually goes in empty and comes back full.

Around the farm the Hilux (4x4 SUV) has the back loaded with gear like the chainsaw, fencing spades, hammer and nails, and often has a trailer on behind.

Self-sacrifice

05-07-2008, 04:33

If your job needs a special veichle then fine you need it. But most 4WD users dont do any 4WDing.

If you are going to be taking an older vehicle that has not been designed to be fuel efficient and comprises of mainly empty space you are going to spend more on petrol.

Country users have a different life style then the city. They have different needs for the vehicle. They also have less options of public transport and in general higher costs. That is what happens in smaller communities.

Most people tho live in a city of sorts. They have the biggest ability to use different methods of transport. They also have the least need for a 4WD. There is always the option of renting for the rare trip into the true wilderness in a 4WD

And as for CAFE standard. CAFE standards are very low in America. Most other developed countries have far higher mileage standards. The petrol efficiency can for a personal car can always be increased if people keep on asking about them.

Im not saying that better cars are the only way. But it sure beats the purpose of a lower speed limit that may have more energy wasted in the long run as people will want more roads as at a particular time there will be more cars on the road blocking more traffic.

Anti-Social Darwinism

05-07-2008, 04:50

On the surface, it seems like a good idea. But, when has anyone ever obeyed the speed limit? Here, the limit is 75 mph (55 in the city) - no one observes the limit. Most people are going 85 to 90 - some are going faster. The few who are going the limit (or slower) generally are recipients of the one finger salute and in depth analyses of their parentage. Good luck enforcing a lower limit.

I figure it's political posturing.

Blouman Empire

05-07-2008, 07:17

yes but this isn't just an individual issue is it

Well yes and no, you can do much to reduce your own fuel bill such as driving slower if it is the case that driving slower means you use less fuel.

actually reducing oil consumption is being done around the world and its time that a nation led the way into actually looking into account fuel efficiency when thinking of speed limits

this will only add on to other initiatives and such basically

Except for China and India who are increasing the oil consumption considerably and is one of the main reasons why we have seen a large increase in the price of oil over the past few years. This is a much larger cause than American use and cutting their speed limit is not going to have any significant effect. I sound like a broken record here

we should drag Nessika in and shout at her *nods*

Who's shouting, Nessika said that in her home town the government had introduced a new law on price limits on alcohol, she can tell me what it is or you can tell me how this particular price limit works. Something I asked you to explain and are yet to do.

most noticeable rail delays are caused due to issues with maintenance thus if you improve maintenance

and yes rail could cut consumption on its own however the years have clearly shown that a push needs to be made to get people using public transport again so that interest is taken in the first place

So you suggest that lowering speed limits is the best way to get people to use railroads? What we should be doing to get people to use it will be to increase reliability and increase the amount of services and locations, by fixing these two problem areas this will encourage people to use public transport (again more than just rail) more than by lowering the speed limit, if people don't know what time they will get where using a train or their areas aren't serviced adequately than they won't use it no matter how much you lower the speed limit.

Blouman Empire

05-07-2008, 07:19

I figure it's political posturing.

Which is all it is either he really believes the tripe he is spouting or he is just saying something to make it seem like he knows what people are going through and is saying the first idea he hears so people think that he is doing something about it.

Intangelon

05-07-2008, 07:24

Me? Hell Yeah. only go to town once a week or less, which means a big boot is needed to haul the groceries, stock food, drenches and farm equipment, the VAN usually goes in empty and comes back full.

That's nice -- but the question was every day, not once a week or less. Many SUVs are bought for the erroneous reasons of "safety" for families, and that's how they were pitched. It ain't safe if Soccer Mom can't drive the thing worth a damn. People just wanted assloads of space to placate their kids and themselves. For hauling spawn, a four-door sedan works as well as an SUV and does it for much less gas and is perfectly safe. Unless you actually have eight passengers on a regular basis, an eight-passenger SUV is a conspicuous waste of resources.

Around the farm the Hilux (4x4 SUV) has the back loaded with gear like the chainsaw, fencing spades, hammer and nails, and often has a trailer on behind.

Congratulations -- you're one of those rare folks who actually use a 4x4 for its intended purpose. Many do not; they are the problem.

Dinaverg

05-07-2008, 08:45

Except for China and India who are increasing the oil consumption considerably and is one of the main reasons why we have seen a large increase in the price of oil over the past few years. This is a much larger cause than American use and cutting their speed limit is not going to have any significant effect. I sound like a broken record here

There's a very basic idea going here of making lots of small changes, y'know?

Cameroi

05-07-2008, 08:54

as long as railroads have to pay taxes that are used to build highways, while having to maintain their own tracks at their own expense also, i see nothing unfair in the turnabout of oil companies, which are the robber barronies of today, paying an additional tax on wind fall proffits to support public transportation.

as for speed limits on personal motor vehicules, i could care less either way. all of the costs of highway construction and maintainence ought to be born by those who bennifit from them directly.

decent public transportation, and people not being able to afford not to use it, is what would really save fuel and energy, and public transportation wouldn't have to be propelled by burning anything either. stored energy off a wind, solar, geothermal, et al fed grid, and or the nearly mythical fuel cell, in PUBLIC inter and intra village transit vehicules, mostly on rails and the like, and to however small a form factor it would take to make this attractive, to provide enough service often enough in enough directions that would attract people away from the headache children doen't yet seem to realize their cars are anyway, even the remaining few years that so many people seem to think they still can afford them.

i think the idea of a speed limit really make a signifigant solution sounds more like some kind of political appeasement to those of us who can see streight enough to recognize a real problem that needs to be seriously addressed.

not meaning to belittle what may be good intentions, i just don't feel as strongly about speed limits and what they might be expected to accomplish as i do about the real need for real and sufficient support for adiquite public transportation.

sure its not free, but if you add up every social program there ever was at the same time, the cost would still be chump change compared to what is being thrown away to murder hundreds of thousands of women, children and shop keepers for no good, or even publicly admited to, or that makes any kind of sense reason, at all.

we don't need to save oil, we don't need to replace it with ethanol, we don't NEED to BURN ANYthing to have an abundance of mechanical transportation and other more gratifying and sophisticated tecnologies.

for the question, to get done to it, i'm certainly in no way against the idea, entirely. i hear that airlines are slowing down to save on their own fuel costs. only adding minuetes to schedules but effecting really major savings by doing so.

how well this works for cars i don't know. but i do know the only safe place for fast transportation is not on paved roads with everybody and his cousin driving on them because the 'financial services industry' stabs a fat hog in the ass by keeping everyone indentured to owning a car and paying rent or a mortgage.

the safest place for fast transportation is in the hands of experienced proffessionals, either on rails, or perhapse in the air.

=^^=
.../\...

Lackadaisical2

05-07-2008, 08:58

See, why you go to other sources even when it's just an AP piece is for the way it's represented. Everyone else running that story headlines it like it is: Warner asking for the Energy dept. to do a study on optimal speed and what savings that might have in consumption and price. He cites earlier studies, but calls for a new one.

That's reasonable. If the study comes out big savings, it's hard to argue against. Frustrating, but livable. There are other paths to be exploited, but frankly this is a multiple solutions problem.

lol

and how much more or our lives will we spend driving instead of being where we're going? If someone thinks their time is worth driving faster, let them.

Neu Leonstein

05-07-2008, 09:02

A better idea: get rid of anything that slows down traffic to a standstill. Afterall, it's acceleration which uses a lot more fuel than simply maintaining some speed, even if that speed is very high.

So that's stop signs, pedestrian zones, traffic lights, and so on and so forth.

Or maybe there would be negatives associated with that which could be rather more important than savings in fuel burned or CO2 emitted. Funny that.

Calarca

05-07-2008, 11:15

Congratulations -- you're one of those rare folks who actually use a 4x4 for its intended purpose. Many do not; they are the problem.

heres the 4x4 with the canopy off and a kayak on the back, stuck in the river mud. I didn't quite make it across to the shingle bar I was aiming for and had to get hauled out with the tractor :P

the quagmire covered the front axle and the rear diff cover was sitting on the surface.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2349/2638859504_80f7b32096_o.jpg

Intangelon

05-07-2008, 18:19

heres the 4x4 with the canopy off and a kayak on the back, stuck in the river mud. I didn't quite make it across to the shingle bar I was aiming for and had to get hauled out with the tractor :P

the quagmire covered the front axle and the rear diff cover was sitting on the surface.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2349/2638859504_80f7b32096_o.jpg

Whoa! Dat dere's some deep muddy watta! Glad you got out okay.

Diezhoffen

05-07-2008, 21:01

Call to Power
cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080604c.html

If a man's selling less of his product he has to raise the price to maintain profits. If people buy gas rarer gas-sellers will raise prices so their profits hold out between sells.

Fuel being finite isn't a problem. Consuming devices become more efficient so they require less fuel, new fuel sources are found, and novel means of fuel extraction/reuse are implemented. Do you have an example of a society whose power source ran out and left them powerless?

Intangelon

05-07-2008, 22:01

Sel Appa

06-07-2008, 01:26

Sure why not. People don't obey it anyway, but for those who will obey it (if they can), why not...

Calarca

06-07-2008, 02:06

Whoa! Dat dere's some deep muddy watta! Glad you got out okay.

Have a look at the rear wheels of the tractor... I once got that stuck in a marsh up to the top of the white wheel rims.

and that was done while crossing the marsh to reach the beach where I had gotten the Quad bike stuck in the harbour mudflats.

I'm awfully prone to bogging down :D

The South Islands

06-07-2008, 02:22

Like people actually drive the speed limit...

You try driving 60 down I-75, you're going to get your ass run over.

In Michigan (and most other states, I think) the speed limit on the interstates is 70. That is just a suggestion. Optimum traffic speed is about 78 in the right hand lane. It is routine to get passed by a car going 80-85. I really think the police have better things to do besides cite soccer moms and commuter dads for exceeding an arbitrary speed limit.

Katganistan

06-07-2008, 02:49

I guess I agree with lowering the national speed limit (as long as it doesn't get crazy by including jets or something:p) in fact its a bloody good idea as long as funds are set aside to improve US rail as an alternative

on a side note you can also switch to driving on the correct side of the road because I think we can all agree that Napoleon is long dead now

Given that you're one of the few countries that thinks that driving on the left side of the road is a good thing, you can join the 21st century. ;)

Cars can do almost 200mph so have speedways where speed limits are based on performance maximums. If Senators like Warren weren't wicked men who: maintained and added taxes to gas so the profits stations turned weren't worth selling gas versus car repair, refused to let fuel reserves be tapped, and formed cartels like OPEC fuel'd be better off.
I hate these men. They make things worse w/their meddling and their propositions only punish us serfs more. I don't know if Warner's stupid and intends well or plans maliciously; either way he sucks.

Hmmm, yes, and I suppose Consumer Reports and the Department of Highway Safety are in his pocket when they show what happens at collisions at speeds that only lunatics and teenagers think are appropriate.

Lowering is to 55 is a stupid idea and isn't going to save gas.

Most cars made after 1990 are geared to get their best fuel economy at 65-70mph. Which is normally about 2200RPM

Source?

however it does get you from New York to Seattle and so hurrah for me

Not if there is no PASSENGER SERVICE.
Or should we be hobos and hitch a ride on freighters?
Railroad bulls will be pleased to have heads to break all over again.

Hahaha, well.

My Civic SI 07 gets about 22 with the way I drive it.

The Thunderbird gets about 9 when I drive it hard, and about 19 when I go easy.

The Volvo gets about 15.

All require premium fuel.

Must be nice to drive such gas guzzlers.
Mine gets 32-35 at highway speeds, and I'm thinking of trading it in for something more fuel efficient.

Capilatonia

06-07-2008, 02:52

Katganistan

06-07-2008, 02:54

Neo Art

06-07-2008, 03:01

Forgive my flawed science, but....

Let's assume you're going 10 miles at 10 MPH. You get there in 1 hour.

You're going 10 miles at 100 MPH. While in the 2nd scenario you burn 10 times as much gas, you also get there 10 times faster, or is everything not proportionate?

It's not proportionate exactly. While you're right that going 100 mph will get you there in half the time as 50mph, the gas you use per minute of driving at 100mph isn't exactly twice that you use per minute at 50mph. Engines decrease in efficiency after a certain point.

Capilatonia

06-07-2008, 03:04

It's not proportionate exactly. While you're right that going 100 mph will get you there in half the time as 50mph, the gas you use per minute of driving at 100mph isn't exactly twice that you use per minute at 50mph. Engines decrease in efficiency after a certain point.

Ah, thanks.

The South Islands

06-07-2008, 03:31

That's probably why on my trip to Wisconsin, I've already seen 20 cars pulled over in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Because the speed limit is just a suggestion.

I was wondering why I was the fastest one on the road going 74 down south...

Either way, I meant that the people driving take the speed limit as just a suggestion, if that. The job of the police is to enforce laws, and as much as I disagree with it, the speed limit is a law. So they naturally must enforce it. It's just what I've seen. I in no way purport myself to be an expert on traffic management and human psychology.

Vetalia

06-07-2008, 03:57

I can't say I see any distinct effects on oil demand before and after the speed limit was raised from 55 to 65 back in the 1990's or when it was set to 55 in the first place.

That being said, a better idea might be to lower the official speed limit but not enforce violations unless they are above 65 mph, effectively maintaining a real limit of 65 mph while simultaneously making it safe to go 55 mph without traffic problems.. A public-awareness campaign could inform people of the advantages of a reduced driving speed without having to waste the time or resources to enforce a lower speed limit. This would permit people to choose whether or not they wanted to go with the lower limit without unfairly penalizing them as speeders.

Self-sacrifice

06-07-2008, 05:05

If everyone is travelling slower there will be more cars on the road. This is because instead of taking half an hour you may take 45min depending on the speed limit (50% longer). If travel is taking 50% longer and people arnt cutting back on travelling at the average given time there will be 50% more cars on the road.

If there are more cars on the road you then will be more likely to be stuck at traffic lights, corners etc...

If people are extending their travel time longer due to waiting they will insist that more roads are built. If more roads are built is there any oil being saved at all?

It could be worse in the long run

Delator

06-07-2008, 07:11

Intangelon

06-07-2008, 10:56

Lowering is to 55 is a stupid idea and isn't going to save gas.

Most cars made after 1990 are geared to get their best fuel economy at 65-70mph. Which is normally about 2200RPM

Source?

My '02 Civic Si at 65-70 is around 3000 rpm. 4000 hits at about 78, which is as fast as I'll go when the limit's 75. I manage 30-35 mpg, depending on elevation (higher = better).

Intangelon

06-07-2008, 10:59

Rambhutan

06-07-2008, 12:40

I'm not sure that makes any sense. It's late and I've been drinking, so I'll try to read it again in the morning.

It doesn't make any sense to me and I am sober. I see no reason why driving slower would increase the number of cars on the roads.

Celtlund II

06-07-2008, 15:52

not really if you need to get somewhere quick you will have to use rail and so they will unless they want to be late

You can drive from Tulsa, OK to Boston in 24 hours. You can take a bus from Tulsa to Kansas then a train from Kansas to Boston and it takes 35 hours. That means I can drive to Boston in two days driving 12 hours a day. By train it still takes me two full days to get there. Also, by driving and staying overnight in a hotel I will spend a lot less than what it would cost in train fair. In this country, if you want to go someplace faster you fly commercial. If you want to go somewhere fast, you charter a plane. :eek:

Celtlund II

06-07-2008, 16:02

No such thing. Its called capitalism. People should be able to make as much as they can.

And keep much more than 1/2 of it.

Celtlund II

06-07-2008, 16:20

however it does get you from New York to Seattle and so hurrah for me

Amtrak NY to Chicago 18 hours 45 minutes. Chicago to Seattle 46 hours 5 minutes. :( http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak

Celtlund II

06-07-2008, 16:23

My God:eek:

My $40 96 Accent fill up was hurting me...Glad i dont drive one of those gas guzzlers

2002 Chevy 1500 PU, 30 gal tank. It was 3/4 full when I started to pump at $3.899 a gallon. Pump stopped pumping at $100.00. Tank was almost full. :(

Celtlund II

06-07-2008, 16:33

People would use them more if 1) they were invested more in so there are more services and more locations and 2)Public transport actually ran on time a bit more often than it does.

People used rail quit a bit up until the early to mid 60's especially in the Northeast. About that time they quit using rail especially for long trips and they would drive of fly. Railroad revenue went down and so the railroads quit investing in passenger service. Amtrak came along and with heavy government subsidies took over the passenger rail service. They have never made money, even in the heavily traveled Washington-NY-Boston routes. The government continues to heavily subsidize them. More investment will not mean more people will use them at least in the US. The European demographics make rail service much more practical than in the US.

Dalmatia Cisalpina

06-07-2008, 16:45

I don't know how much work it would take in the rest of the country to lower the speed limits again, but in North Dakota, most of our highways have a nighttime speed limit of 55 mph, and only I-29 and I-94 have speed limits of 75 mph. It would be a major change for our interstates, though; you can drive 75 mph on our interstates and have people riding your bumper the whole damn way.

Conserative Morality

06-07-2008, 19:13

And keep much more than 1/2 of it.

Agreed!

Mansuri

06-07-2008, 19:54

No I would not

Intestinal fluids

06-07-2008, 19:59

Whenever I type a post on the environment, i run 3 empty microwave ovens on high in the background to keep it fair and balanced.

New Limacon

06-07-2008, 20:26

Tell him to get fucked. *ahem* I am against speed limits on the open road as is I know why they have them short story people are stupid and don't really know what a speed limit means and so cannot be trusted without one. If people want me to explain further I will. I don't mind research going in to see if slower speed limits will save fuel and we are advised of the results and if people want to go slower they can.

Exactly my sentiments. I favor a libertarian driving system, where there are no restrictions and the market forces are allowed to allocate the limited driving space in the most efficient way possible. It is possible people will die, but that's just the market at work. Any government interference will only make things worse.

New Limacon

06-07-2008, 20:28

Amtrak NY to Chicago 18 hours 45 minutes. Chicago to Seattle 46 hours 5 minutes. :( http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak

The problem with Amtrak is that it is socialist, so the U.S. feels really, really bad about it. If we just sucked it up and admitted to ourselves, yes, we do have a train service owned by the GOVERNMENT (:eek:) and that doesn't make us bad people, maybe we would actually fund it and have an effective means of long distance mass transportation.

Vault 10

06-07-2008, 20:55

Hell no. If anything, we need a limit for minimum speed. A minimum of 50mph for outer lane and 90mph for all other lanes, I think, would be about right for highway.

Intestinal fluids

06-07-2008, 21:02

2002 Chevy 1500 PU, 30 gal tank. It was 3/4 full when I started to pump at $3.899 a gallon. Pump stopped pumping at $100.00. Tank was almost full. :(

Einstein called and he wants his math back. 3/4 full 30 gallon tank means it needed 7.5 gallons to fill. That 7 gallons of fuel would have cost $14 a gallon to almost fill to top and cost $100 roughly

Trans Fatty Acids

06-07-2008, 21:24

People used rail quit a bit up until the early to mid 60's especially in the Northeast. About that time they quit using rail especially for long trips and they would drive of fly. Railroad revenue went down and so the railroads quit investing in passenger service. Amtrak came along and with heavy government subsidies took over the passenger rail service. They have never made money, even in the heavily traveled Washington-NY-Boston routes. The government continues to heavily subsidize them. More investment will not mean more people will use them at least in the US. The European demographics make rail service much more practical than in the US.

To pick up on New Limacon's point, isn't every passenger-rail service everywhere government-subsidized to some degree? Even ones that are "privatized" like the UK's?

I sense a bit of regional myopia in this thread in general -- not that I don't suffer from it myself, but I wonder where the people live who insist that individuals can slow down on the highways if they want to conserve fuel. That would be mad foolishness pretty much anywhere on I-95, for example. Perhaps in less-populated parts of the world such an idea seems feasible.

Diezhoffen

06-07-2008, 23:35

Intangelon,
What happened in Haiti? I mean a scenario where Americans (for instance) were using coal -suddenly coal miners found all the mines tapped out, and coal power came to a surprise halt.

Katganistan,
If you decide what should be done based on danger then no one should drive. Cars only seem appropriately safe to you b/c you're used to them. Anyone driving, using a vehicle or tool, accepts the risks to health involved. Hindering folks to protect them is being an asshole. If a man's willing to risk injury w/out a seatbelt that's his body, vehicle, activity and business. The cop who stops him and demands he pay is a dick. So's the guy who cheers on oppression.

Self-sacrifice

07-07-2008, 04:20

If you decide what should be done based on danger then no one should drive. Cars only seem appropriately safe to you b/c you're used to them. Anyone driving, using a vehicle or tool, accepts the risks to health involved. Hindering folks to protect them is being an asshole. If a man's willing to risk injury w/out a seatbelt that's his body, vehicle, activity and business. The cop who stops him and demands he pay is a dick. So's the guy who cheers on oppression.

In principal I agree. Altho as soon as he is injured for not wearing a seatbelt he will insist that he gets free healthcare as that is what a caring society does.

Thats where the problem arises. What to do when someone injures themselves out of their own stupidity. I say that we should do nothing

Blouman Empire

07-07-2008, 04:34

Exactly my sentiments. I favor a libertarian driving system, where there are no restrictions and the market forces are allowed to allocate the limited driving space in the most efficient way possible. It is possible people will die, but that's just the market at work. Any government interference will only make things worse.

:rolleyes:

People die even with speed limits already, with out speed limits people can drive as fast as the conditions allow so if it is a clear sunny day a straight well maintained road with no other cars in sight and your car is of good quality with good tires and excellent brakes then why shouldn't you be allowed to go 200 km/hr, if it is a rainy day with fog you and a poor road you would go alot slower maybe 25 km/hr.

Does someone have the fatality rates of German roads?

Blouman Empire

07-07-2008, 04:37

People used rail quit a bit up until the early to mid 60's especially in the Northeast. About that time they quit using rail especially for long trips and they would drive of fly. Railroad revenue went down and so the railroads quit investing in passenger service. Amtrak came along and with heavy government subsidies took over the passenger rail service. They have never made money, even in the heavily traveled Washington-NY-Boston routes. The government continues to heavily subsidize them. More investment will not mean more people will use them at least in the US. The European demographics make rail service much more practical than in the US.

Yes ok, I was more along the lines of thinking rail within city areas rather than between cities, Call and power is from the UK and so may find it hard to be able to comprehend large distances between countries such as the US and Australia. Of course public transport would be used a lot more if the points I said were fixed on.

West Corinthia

07-07-2008, 05:08

I have a digital MPG readout on my car and I seem to get higher mileage at higher speed.

Blouman Empire

07-07-2008, 05:42

I have a digital MPG readout on my car and I seem to get higher mileage at higher speed.

Is that when you are accelerating thus increasing your speed or is it traveling at a constant speed?

Self-sacrifice

07-07-2008, 13:18

yeah people break the law currently so what to do with them
You could cause the roads to run slower by filling them with cars all day thus stopping the chance to speed but then people want more roads
You could put more speed cameras up but then people complain about getting fined
You could take away the car for people speeding as most are repeat offenders but then they complain that their life is harmed by this
Or you could just disallow anyone who was caught breaking the road rules any help after they harm themselves

I am personally in favour of the last 3

Risottia

07-07-2008, 13:37

I guess I agree with lowering the national speed limit (as long as it doesn't get crazy by including jets or something:p) in fact its a bloody good idea as long as funds are set aside to improve US rail as an alternative
Seconded.

on a side note you can also switch to driving on the correct side of the road because I think we can all agree that Napoleon is long dead now

from Merriam-Webster (bolds mine):
Main Entry: 1cor·rect
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈrekt\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin correctus, past participle of corrigere, from com- + regere to lead straight — more at right
Date: 14th century
1 a: to make or set right : amend <correct an error> b: counteract, neutralize <correct a harmful tendency> c: to alter or adjust so as to bring to some standard or required condition <correct a lens for spherical aberration>
2 a: to punish (as a child) with a view to reforming or improving b: to point out usually for amendment the errors or faults of <spent the day correcting tests>
— cor·rect·able \-ˈrek-tə-bəl\ adjective
— cor·rec·tor \-ˈrek-tər\ noun
synonyms correct, rectify, emend, remedy, redress, amend, reform, revise mean to make right what is wrong. correct implies taking action to remove errors, faults, deviations, defects <correct your spelling>. rectify implies a more essential changing to make something right, just, or properly controlled or directed <rectify a misguided policy>. ...blah,blah...

To sum it up, driving on the CORRECT side means driving on the RIGHT side.
Sometimes the English language can be quite lovely.;););)

Diezhoffen

09-07-2008, 18:54

Self-sacrifice,
Will you that folks be left alone (no speed limits or healthcare) or oppressed (cops watch and come to take cars away)?

UpwardThrust

09-07-2008, 19:38

Einstein called and he wants his math back. 3/4 full 30 gallon tank means it needed 7.5 gallons to fill. That 7 gallons of fuel would have cost $14 a gallon to almost fill to top and cost $100 roughly

Hopefully he ment about 3/4 empty ... at least it would be close (87 dollars)

Either way

As for the rail discussion it would be about as useless to me as any other public transit system would be ... oh well

Intangelon

09-07-2008, 20:37

You can drive from Tulsa, OK to Boston in 24 hours. You can take a bus from Tulsa to Kansas then a train from Kansas to Boston and it takes 35 hours. That means I can drive to Boston in two days driving 12 hours a day. By train it still takes me two full days to get there. Also, by driving and staying overnight in a hotel I will spend a lot less than what it would cost in train fare. In this country, if you want to go someplace faster you fly commercial. If you want to go somewhere fast, you charter a plane. :eek:

I don't think so.

1. Distance from Everett, WA to Bismarck, ND = 1260 miles.
2. Range on my car, full tank = 360+ miles. That's 3.5 tanks.
3. Average fill-up = 11 gallons. Average $/gal on route = $4.25.
4. 11gal x 3.5tanks = 38.5gal. 38.5gal x $4.25/gal = $163.63.
5. Roughly 19-20 hour trip demands overnight stay. Cheap motel = $50/night (or less, depending on what you're willing to endure).
6. Total for trip (not including food or other outside factors) = $213.63.
7. Amtrak train ticket from Everett to Bismarck = $128.00

Care to run your figures again? Now prices could be different on different routes, but I doubt the difference is more than the $85 difference here. When gas was cheaper, you'd have been right.

Intangelon,
What happened in Haiti? I mean a scenario where Americans (for instance) were using coal -suddenly coal miners found all the mines tapped out, and coal power came to a surprise heart.

Haiti has basically deforested the whole island as people cut trees not just to build shelter but also for fuel with which to cook.

If you decide what should be done based on danger then no one should drive. Cars only seem appropriately safe to you b/c you're used to them. Anyone driving, using a vehicle or tool, accepts the risks to health involved.

So far, okay.

Hindering folks to protect them is being an asshole. If a man's willing to risk injury w/out a seatbelt that's his body, vehicle, activity and business.

Here's where you lose me. The man isn't risking his own body, is he? He's risking the body of a husband, father, brother, son -- unless he's a complete hermit; there are damned few of them, and they usually don't drive. Also, if he sustains injuries that cause him to become medically indigent, guess who steps in? You and I do as taxpayers for government-funded health care for the indigent. They're gonna fix him up, no matter whether he can pay. The hospitals write it off, and there we are, paying for one asshole who wouldn't use his seat belt. The "personal freedom" argument is tired and long debunked.

The cop who stops him and demands he pay is doing the job he was hired to do.

Fixed. Seriously, there are other curtailments and assaults on your freedom that are actually consequential. Try looking into those instead of tilting at a straw windmill.

I have a digital MPG readout on my car and I seem to get higher mileage at higher speed.

What you're getting is the engine cruising versus accelerating. While getting TO that high speed, your mpg gauge will dip down (I'm visiting my mother for a few weeks and she's just get a new Honda CR-V as a gift from a relative in order to carry her dogs -- it's got an mpg monitor on it). Cruising is always a better use of mpg than accelerating. Check the gauge when you're coasting or decelerating. It skyrockets.

Intangelon

09-07-2008, 20:44

Self-sacrifice,
Will you that folks be left be (no speed limits or healthcare) or oppressed (cops watch and come to take cars away)?

I would rather that people realize that driving is effectively a communal task, no matter how the automakers have sold the car as a badge of individuality and distinction. Communal tasks and systems require rules and restrictions on behavior so that everyone can use the system with the optimal combination of safety, efficiency and convenience. Sometimes that tri-fold equation needs balancing. In 1987 or so, the US balanced convenience heavier than efficiency as gas prices sank to very low levels (repealing the National Speed Limit of 55 mph).

Now that gas is at high levels (for the US), it might be time to re-evaluate that tri-fold equation once more.

People who start shrieking about personal freedom are forgetting the simple point that driving is a communal right, not an individual one. If you can't "play nice", you don't get to drive. Hence the licenses.

Diezhoffen

09-07-2008, 21:06

Intangelon

09-07-2008, 21:11

Healthcare should be eliminated.

What I wrote about drivers accepting risk applies to every driver. So if you hit someone's car and he's injured he accepted the risk of such an event before going out.

A second time you've ignored one man's role in a pair's relationship. Men become cops voluntarily. If a law's an assault on freedom, who carries it out?

Communities do not drive cars. Single men do. To disregard drivers responsibility creates a hierarchy that hinders and is less efficient by its' imposition than innate systems of order.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html
Licenses are a form of taxation. Who has been driving and exclaimed "everyone out here's a great driver"?

What is it with Germanic people and absolutes? When did I say that we should disregard individual drivers' responsibility? And you're saying that people shouldn't become policemen because ONE law might be flawed? Extremist much? You need to relax and realize that seat belts and speed laws are not assaults on freedom.

Also, your article, while very interesting and full of good points, does nothing to support your argument.

Flammable Ice

09-07-2008, 21:13

Intangelon

09-07-2008, 21:16

I don't know how much difference that would make. Having a minimum number of miles per gallon would be better.

Ah, but that would involve imposing restrictions on car companies. We can't have that and still call ourselves good capitalists, can we? CAN WE, COMRADE?!?

Joking. I love this idea.

Trollgaard

09-07-2008, 22:39

I can't drive fifty-fiiiiiiiiiiiiive!

UpwardThrust

09-07-2008, 22:55

I don't know how much difference that would make. Having a minimum number of miles per gallon would be better.

So what sort of red tape and hoops do I have to jump through to get a vehicle that actually does what I need it too that I am sure will not qualify the limits set?

Intangelon

10-07-2008, 00:49

I can't drive fifty-fiiiiiiiiiiiiive!

I know. That's me behind you flashing my high-beams. Move right, dammit!

Celtlund II

10-07-2008, 01:59

Einstein called and he wants his math back. 3/4 full 30 gallon tank means it needed 7.5 gallons to fill. That 7 gallons of fuel would have cost $14 a gallon to almost fill to top and cost $100 roughly

Duhh! :( It was 1/4 full but in the future I guess we can expect $14.00 a gallon. :mad:

Celtlund II

10-07-2008, 02:09

The problem with Amtrak is that it is socialist, so the U.S. feels really, really bad about it. If we just sucked it up and admitted to ourselves, yes, we do have a train service owned by the GOVERNMENT (:eek:) and that doesn't make us bad people, maybe we would actually fund it and have an effective means of long distance mass transportation.

65 hours coast to coast is an "effective, means of long distance mass transportation?" Perhaps it was in the 1950's or 1960's but today. Also, go to the Amtrak web site and do the math for a one way or round trip ticket. Oh, don't forget to add the sleeper unless you want to sit in a seat for 65 hours. :(

Dakini

10-07-2008, 02:14

Hurtful Thoughts

10-07-2008, 03:53

Seems Senator Warner is proposing lowering of the national speed limit again to save on fuel and oil. In the 1970's the speed limit in the US was set at 55 MPH to save on fuel and as an added bonus also saved lives. So, is this a good idea, bad idea, or just a bunch of political golbdygook?

WARNING: AP story posted on .....Oh no...not them :eek:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376350,00.html

See, the funny thing is... there was a precedent to this idea.

During both world-wars, highway speeds were limited to 35 mph, and failure to carpool was viewed as treasonous to the boys fighting overseas. (It was a ticketable offense to drive without passengers or a waiver)

Though that was before the interstate system was developed, and the Autobahn was a rather new thing in Germany (in which case they simply rationed fuel and cars and encouraged using the train through subsidies).

I'm not sure if today's society is willing to "slow down" in any way whatsoever.

Intangelon

10-07-2008, 05:20

65 hours coast to coast is an "effective, means of long distance mass transportation?" Perhaps it was in the 1950's or 1960's but today. Also, go to the Amtrak web site and do the math for a one way or round trip ticket. Oh, don't forget to add the sleeper unless you want to sit in a seat for 65 hours. :(

Celt, I've already debunked your price argument.

Two days to cross the country (65 hours is stretching the truth a bit), when you don't have to do the driving, AND it's cheaper than driving anyway, and half the cost of airfare with FAR more comfortable seats (ever flown for more than 12 hours? They'd get more out of Gitmo detainees if they flew them coach to Hong Kong)? Yes, please.

No, it isn't as convenient or as fast as air travel, but it's not as expensive, either. I don't care if you dislike the train, but you don't need to artificially demonize it just to express your opinion.

Intangelon

10-07-2008, 05:23

See, the funny thing is... there was a precedent to this idea.

During both world-wars, highway speeds were limited to 35 mph, and failure to carpool was viewed as treasonous to the boys fighting overseas. (It was a ticketable offense to drive without passengers or a waiver)

Though that was before the interstate system was developed, and the Autobahn was a rather new thing in Germany (in which case they simply rationed fuel and cars and encouraged using the train through subsidies).

I'm not sure if today's society is willing to "slow down" in any way whatsoever.

Not even when pulling up to a red light or right up to the bumper of the car in front of them. I swear it's impossible to leave a safety space between me and the car in front of me without some vole-headed twat passing me to get into that space just to get one car up and go just as fast as he was going before passing me. That's the US driving mentality, and it's asinine.

Hurtful Thoughts

10-07-2008, 05:48

Yeah everybody wants to be in the passing lane.

Things get wierd on the highways during the winter in America though...
Everybody slows down because they're frightened of snow/ice/spinning, to 35 mph, on a highway rated for 65. Passing people on said highway when doing 40 in the right-hand lane is epic.

Then there's road construction on 75 mph super-highways brought to walking pace. Screw brake signals, just hand signal when the guy behind you should take his car out of 'park'.

The other neat thing is to 'draft' behind a semi doing 63 mph /w/ cruise control and see how many people you'll pass. Just remember that when a semi wants to draft another semi, get out of the way. The only things they'll slow down for are stop-signs, construction, food, and sleep, everything else they'll sidestep without warning.

In America "safety space" is gauged as just before the tires from the guy ahead of you dissapear under your hood. Anything greating is a signal to other motorists that "I'm available".

Neu Leonstein

10-07-2008, 09:01

Does someone have the fatality rates of German roads?
I can't give you overall figures, but I can tell you that the either the fatality rate or the rate of accidents (can't remember which) is not different between the parts of the Autobahn network that have speed limits and those that don't.

Fact of the matter is that on a highway at least, accidents are a matter of the "structure" of traffic, the way it flows and the differences in speed between people, rather than the absolute value. If everyone is keeping reasonable distances and driving with enough foresight and at roughly the same speed, it doesn't make a huge difference whether we're all going 130km/h or 300km/h. Except in the latter case we'll be there sooner.

Dephire

11-07-2008, 18:19

Great, now trips are gonna take even LONGER. Thanks a lot government. I mean, it isn't like driving cross-country was long enough, now I have to add another 3 days.

Lacadaemon

11-07-2008, 18:29

No I would not. I would however support a $2 gas tax. That way, less traffic and speed limits could be raised as well as saving oil.

UpwardThrust

11-07-2008, 18:37

No I would not. I would however support a $2 gas tax. That way, less traffic and speed limits could be raised as well as saving oil.
As well as unreasonably hurting a whole bunch of people including small business owners and farmers who have no choice in alternatives

I know creating a motivation for those that are being unreasonable about taking measures to conserve fuel seems to be a good idea but a blanket tax will put a hurting on a lot of people stuck between a rock and a hardplace

Lacadaemon

11-07-2008, 18:42

As well as unreasonably hurting a whole bunch of people including small business owners and farmers who have no choice in alternatives

I know creating a motivation for those that are being unreasonable about taking measures to conserve fuel seems to be a good idea but a blanket tax will put a hurting on a lot of people stuck between a rock and a hardplace

I'd exempt agricultural diesel of course. And probably, if pushed, would support some type of offset for business.

The point is that people really aren't serious about their stated goal - conservation - they just like to talk about it. So they need a short sharp shock so to speak, instead of talking up half assed ideas like reduced speed limits (which probably wouldn't make all that much difference because it wouldn't really effect driving habits and choice of vehicle).

Of course, if it turns out that people really don't care, then fine. I'm okay with no tax too. But there is no need to lower speed limits to justify what is really a revenue collection scheme for local government.

And just think, the $2 could be invested in that wonderful public transport stuff that everyone talks up all the time.

Myrgh Kernowes

11-07-2008, 18:56

Food for thought?

I live in the UK; 18 months ago we gave up our car and I won't say I *never* miss it, but we get on fine without it.

As a bonus I never get asked "Mum can you run me to school/my friend's house/town" either ;)

However, if I still had a car, I'd be happy to have the speed limits lowered.

Just my two credits ;)

Dephire

11-07-2008, 19:08

Only problem with the biodiesel is that it takes away from our food crops.

Intangelon

11-07-2008, 19:49

*snip*

And just think, the $2 could be invested in that wonderful public transport stuff that everyone talks up all the time.

Like I-35W in Minneapolis, and the like? Yeah. That infrastructure thing. It needs fixin'.

UpwardThrust

11-07-2008, 20:41

Like I-35W in Minneapolis, and the like? Yeah. That infrastructure thing. It needs fixin'.

Well at least here they are working on it ... our bridge of simmilar construction up here is undergoing a 2 year either fix or rebuild

Pain in the arse but necessary

East Coast Federation

11-07-2008, 21:06

Intangelon

11-07-2008, 21:35

What about people who can hardly afford to drive as it is?

Or Students who have to commute to school?

They'll do what they did before cheap fuel (and those profiting from that and cars and all car-related things) made suburbia possible. They'll move or they'll take public transportation, cycle, carpool. Driving is not a right. People will adjust. They always have. I haven't always been able to afford to drive. Guess what I did when I couldn't? I didn't drive.

Hurtful Thoughts

12-07-2008, 02:05

I'd exempt agricultural diesel of course. And probably, if pushed, would support some type of offset for business.

The point is that people really aren't serious about their stated goal - conservation - they just like to talk about it. So they need a short sharp shock so to speak, instead of talking up half assed ideas like reduced speed limits (which probably wouldn't make all that much difference because it wouldn't really effect driving habits and choice of vehicle).

Of course, if it turns out that people really don't care, then fine. I'm okay with no tax too. But there is no need to lower speed limits to justify what is really a revenue collection scheme for local government.

And just think, the $2 could be invested in that wonderful public transport stuff that everyone talks up all the time.

Except that just means everyone will switch to diesel to save a few dollars. Making the $2 price hike per month equally half-assed.

My suggestion, cap the oil price, limit the supply, and issue rations. Life would be hell, but it would most definately cut fuel consumption.

On top of that, encourage bicyclists by removing roundabouts and lowering the highway speed to roughly that of a moped at mid-throttle.
And all except one single lane would be a carpool/truckers-only lane. Motorcycles would not be exempt.

Not complying would be deemed a treasonable offense, which federally is still punishable by public hanging IIRC. Stealing gasoline would be deemed a terrorist act and thus a shootable offense according to the second installment of the Patriot act (It'd be paper-clipped to this idea). God bless the constitution and it's love for summary corpral punishment.

Suck on that, motorists.

Yeah, that's what this talk looks like from my POV, kick the motorists in the groin and expect him to do what you want him to and not simply retaliate or weasel his way out.

UpwardThrust

12-07-2008, 02:13

They'll do what they did before cheap fuel (and those profiting from that and cars and all car-related things) made suburbia possible. They'll move or they'll take public transportation, cycle, carpool. Driving is not a right. People will adjust. They always have. I haven't always been able to afford to drive. Guess what I did when I couldn't? I didn't drive.

Not always an option ... I pushing it to that limit when I was in school probably would have meant no collage for me as it would have for a lot of kids around here

Hurtful Thoughts

12-07-2008, 02:25

Not always an option ... I pushing it to that limit when I was in school probably would have meant no collage for me as it would have for a lot of kids around here
I walked. Which kinda encouraged me to "live" in the classroom for 16 hr shifts rather than spend the time walking home. In short, over 20 hours of my day were devoted to either school or going to school, the rest was sleeping and eating. It paid huge dividends to sleepwalk on the calm stretches.

The fact that this involved crossing a four-lane undivided highway while carrying 60 pounds of clothes (winter clothes, uniform, steel-toed boots, etc) and books need not go into great detail except that hardly any of it would fit in a standard backpack on some days.

Tie your shoes, Run fast, and pray to god you don't trip on a yellow-light or get caught on the snow-bank.

East Coast Federation

12-07-2008, 02:30

[QUOTE=Intangelon;13830245]They'll do what they did before cheap fuel (and those profiting from that and cars and all car-related things) made suburbia possible. They'll move or they'll take public transportation, cycle, carpool. Driving is not a right. People will adjust. They always have. I haven't always been able to afford to drive. Guess what I did when I drive.[/QUOTcouldn't? I didn't E]

I live about 35 miles from the school I go to.

How the fuck am I supposed to take public transit or ride a bike that far every day?

Fuck that, I'm keeping my car.

Most kids cant afford to move into the school or move near it.

If I didn't have a car ( 3 so far ), no college for me.

I love how Eco Terrorists love to ignore stuff like that.,

Hurtful Thoughts

12-07-2008, 02:40

I live about 35 miles from the school I go to.

How the fuck am I supposed to take public transit or ride a bike that far every day?

I love how Eco Terrorists love to ignore stuff like that.,

Petition for a subsidised bus route OR don't attend that school and look for something closer to home.

The thing about "adjusting" is that it is generaly a euphism for attempt to get used to something really unpleasant.

Cases in point, the Netherlands and South Korea.
They both have long-distance commuting issues that they resolved through a costly public transportation system.

So then the question is, have you even tried to use the bus system? Is there a bus route? Convienent set of railroad tracks?
If it means living in the classroom 40 hours at a time before going home (on wednesdays and weekends), that may end up being a way of life in the future.

East Coast Federation

12-07-2008, 02:52

Petition for a subsidised bus route OR don't attend that school and look for something closer to home.

The thing about "adjusting" is that it is generaly a euphism for something really unpleasant.

Cases in point, the Netherlands and South Korea.
They both have long-distance commuting issues that they resolved through a costly public transportation system.

So then the question is, have you even tried to use the bus system? Is there a bus route? Convienent set of railroad tracks?
If it means living in the classroom 40 hours at a time before going home (on wednesdays and weekends), that may end up being a way of life in the future.

It takes a good 45 minutes with traffic in a car.

There is NO public transit where I live, and no form of rail systems. Its called living in NOT the city.

Hurtful Thoughts

12-07-2008, 03:21

Well that utterly is one of the more difficult "adjustments".

The "Mountain Man" method of forgoing further schooling so you can save up enough money to send/move your kids to school comes to mind.
(Very unpleasant, considering how teenagers who know they're smarter than their parents act nowdays.)

That or live in the on-campus tenements otherwise known as dorms.
(You'd have to be insanely creative to get the necessary finances)

Essentially the only thing preventing your locallity from going to "hicksville" is modern private transportation options, with no safety net. Setting your [town?] in a pecarious position in the event that any of these ideas become a reality of life.

So that'd mean planning for a safety net/insurance/"Plan D" that is more desireable before it's "too late". If that means you get a single bus-stop in your entire community that feeds into an inner-city hub, and then transfers to school, then so be it (estimated trip-time of 2 hrs).

Intangelon

12-07-2008, 03:25

Not always an option ... I pushing it to that limit when I was in school probably would have meant no collage for me as it would have for a lot of kids around here

No collage? Was the art class too far away, too?

I live about 35 miles from the school I go to.

Then you live too far away.

How the fuck am I supposed to take public transit or ride a bike that far every day?

I don't know. That's your problem. However, most people who must manage to ride that far just fine. Some even farther. Some combine transit with other modes. When I worked at the University of Washington, I lived in Everett, some 25+ miles north. I cycled 5 miles to the park and ride because no route that connected to UW came close to my street. From there, one bus. Same in reverse on the way home. And it rains up here, if you hadn't heard that. That's why they make rain gear.

Fuck that, I'm keeping my car.

Hooray! That means you don't get to bitch about gas prices!

Most kids cant afford to move into the school or move near it.

Then they should pool their resources and live together. You type as if there are absolutely no solutions whatsoever to this problem, and it's simply not true. There are no solutions that are palatable to you. Well then, it seems that's why people are mentioning the word "adjustment". In order to maintain one standard, others will have to be compromised. People in this nation have been told they can have everything they want, regardless of their true costs, no matter what. That's over, and it's over for anyone who can't afford to maintain all of their previous standards. I gave up cable TV, sold my PS2, turned my thermostat down (no A/C so no need to adjust up in summer), and decided to walk everywhere under three miles and cycle everywhere under 15 unless time is a factor. That means waking up earlier and going to bed earlier. It also means I've lost 25 pounds over three years.

If I didn't have a car (3 so far), no college for me.

By your current, unadjusted standards. That would be your choice.

I love how Eco Terrorists love to ignore stuff like that.

I love how I'm suddenly an ecoterrorist for suggesting that we're none of us able to consume past sustainability anymore, and it wasn't our idea -- it was the market's. Prices have risen, and we have to suck it up just like those who've been through other economic downturns had to suck it up. We can't spend our way out of a recession, no matter what the Ghost of Reagan tells us.

If you catch me doing something stupid like spiking a tree to thwart loggers or burning down an encroaching housing development, you can call me an ecoterrorist. Until then, you can keep your ugly epithets to yourself.

Myrmidonisia

12-07-2008, 03:52

The Parthians

12-07-2008, 07:44

No, it actually would be better for efficency to make the speed limit about 70-75 and require all car transmissions to have a 6th gear. Fuel efficency of a car is dependent on RPMs and the size of the engine, not the speed at which a car travels at and it is certainly not equal for each car.

For that matter, banning automatic gearboxes would probably be better for fuel efficency than a silly low speed limit which belongs more on mid-grade suburban streets than motorways.

Except that just means everyone will switch to diesel to save a few dollars. Making the $2 price hike per month equally half-assed.

My suggestion, cap the oil price, limit the supply, and issue rations. Life would be hell, but it would most definately cut fuel consumption.

On top of that, encourage bicyclists by removing roundabouts and lowering the highway speed to roughly that of a moped at mid-throttle.
And all except one single lane would be a carpool/truckers-only lane. Motorcycles would not be exempt.

Not complying would be deemed a treasonable offense, which federally is still punishable by public hanging IIRC. Stealing gasoline would be deemed a terrorist act and thus a shootable offense according to the second installment of the Patriot act (It'd be paper-clipped to this idea). God bless the constitution and it's love for summary corpral punishment.

Suck on that, motorists.

Yeah, that's what this talk looks like from my POV, kick the motorists in the groin and expect him to do what you want him to and not simply retaliate or weasel his way out.

Aside from numerous Constitutional, legal, ethical, and moral issues I could raise with that, I should also simply point out that what you just proposed makes very little in the way of sense.

Simply put, higher prices means people are more inclined to buy more efficent cars and does exactly what you're trying to do, but without the rather Stalinist methods. In fact, this process seems to be working, seeing how much SUV sales have fallen in the last year and how much the sales of hybrids have risen. If we see the price go up to European levels, you can bet the Americans are going to start buying European cars which are smaller and more efficent once they are brought onto the market here in America.

On the other hand, letting the ELF run the country and turning sensible and reasonable motorways and roads into thruways for childrens' toys and motorscooters makes about as much sense as renouncing computers for the abacus.

Intangelon

12-07-2008, 09:46

Rising prices will do exactly what they need to do -- reduce consumption. In fact, it's already working. A speed limit reduction causes a 1-2 percent reduction in consumption at best. Just bring on the higher prices.

Of course, if you want to avoid both, just open up areas for drilling oil where no lengthy and expensive exploration is required.

Nope. You know we can't drill our way out of this mess. Hell, even T. Boone Pickens admits it via commercials he paid for himself, and he's a legendary oil man. If people like him are saying oil's on its way out, it's on its way out.

Intangelon

12-07-2008, 09:49

On the other hand, letting the ELF run the country and turning sensible and reasonable motorways and roads into thruways for childrens' toys and motorscooters makes about as much sense as renouncing computers for the abacus.

Spoken like a true addict.

I really hope you didn't mean bicycles when you said "children's toys". 'Cause that's just plain asinine.

Darkest Empires

12-07-2008, 09:56

hahaha England has to pay 9 dollars for gallon of petrol

Calarca

12-07-2008, 10:35

hahaha England has to pay 9 dollars for gallon of petrol

More like 13-14 USD

Here it's about 8 USD

I'm still planning on a fuel hog for a car. 8-9 MPG :D

Vault 10

12-07-2008, 10:38

I can suggest you a few 2 mpg ones.

Myrmidonisia

12-07-2008, 13:04

Nope. You know we can't drill our way out of this mess. Hell, even T. Boone Pickens admits it via commercials he paid for himself, and he's a legendary oil man. If people like him are saying oil's on its way out, it's on its way out.
That's a poor argument. He's invested heavily in wind farms, of course he's going to promote them. And they may fill gaps here and there, but they aren't going to provide power for 350,000,000 of us. They also won't fit on a car...

Drilling will take the pressure off for a while. Drilling where we know about the existence of oil would work better than exploring areas that aren't known to support production.

Maybe in 20 or 25 years, we will have suitable means of transportation that don't require petroleum, but we need it in the meantime.

Neu Leonstein

12-07-2008, 13:29

I love how I'm suddenly an ecoterrorist for suggesting that we're none of us able to consume past sustainability anymore, and it wasn't our idea -- it was the market's.
Next time you get a chance for a chat, tell him I said hi.

Prices have risen, and we have to suck it up just like those who've been through other economic downturns had to suck it up. We can't spend our way out of a recession, no matter what the Ghost of Reagan tells us.
No, it's the ghost of Keynes that tells us we can spend our way out of a recession.

If you catch me doing something stupid like spiking a tree to thwart loggers or burning down an encroaching housing development, you can call me an ecoterrorist. Until then, you can keep your ugly epithets to yourself.
Look, the problem is when people start yelling for laws to enforce their opinions. That's regardless of what those opinions are.

Driving private cars is not unsustainable. It may be so if we were to assume that the current situation is fixed, but it isn't. Just like after the first oil crisis, people adjusted their behaviour, car companies adjusted their offerings, and a new equilibrium of driving and petrol consumption was found. That process will continue, and there will be no point, ever, at which the optimal amount of driving will be zero, as long as someone still wants to do it.

It's difficult to stay reasonable when one talks to people for whom cars are unnecessary, evil things that represent everything that is wrong with the world. One would be happy enough to ignore such extremist opinions, if it wasn't for the fact that they're usually calling for government intervention (= violence) to make sure we all follow them. That's not a reasonable course of action, it's not optimisation given a set of circumstances and constraints, it's idealism. And when you put government and idealism together, that generally leads to trouble.

So if you like riding bikes, living healthy and losing lots of weight, that's fine. I congratulate you. But that doesn't make it your business what other people spend their money or time on. Riding a bike doesn't make anyone superior in any way to someone else. Next time someone with a big V8 drives past you and it annoys you, just imagine the world without that car. It would be no different of course, since there'll still be millions of other cars, thousands of power stations and a lot of farting cows, and that might help you direct your anger towards more beneficial projects.

New Limacon

12-07-2008, 14:47

Driving private cars is not unsustainable. It may be so if we were to assume that the current situation is fixed, but it isn't. Just like after the first oil crisis, people adjusted their behaviour, car companies adjusted their offerings, and a new equilibrium of driving and petrol consumption was found. That process will continue, and there will be no point, ever, at which the optimal amount of driving will be zero, as long as someone still wants to do it.
But that just doesn't make sense. Even if there is much more untapped petroleum, there's still a finite amount, which means that when it runs out, whether it be in fifty years, one-hundred years, or one-thousand years, people will have to stop driving gasoline-powered cars.
Maybe you were including "cars" to be vehicles that run on hydrogen, solar power, advanced alien technology, etc., in which case you're probably right, there will always be a way of getting from point A to point B without having to move one's legs. But it sounded like you meant good old-fashioned, gasoline-powered cars.

So if you like riding bikes, living healthy and losing lots of weight, that's fine. I congratulate you. But that doesn't make it your business what other people spend their money or time on.
If people only drove in the safety and comfort of their own home, I'd agree with you. But they don't. Drivers almost always drive in public places (as they should) and thus affect me and plenty of other people. Assuming the government represents the wishes of all its citizens equally, an assumption, I'll grant you, I don't see why it shouldn't at least monitor these large machines which have the potential to do great harm.

Neu Leonstein

12-07-2008, 15:29

But that just doesn't make sense. Even if there is much more untapped petroleum, there's still a finite amount, which means that when it runs out, whether it be in fifty years, one-hundred years, or one-thousand years, people will have to stop driving gasoline-powered cars.
Well, granted. But I suppose there's a difference between being able to choose an amount of driving equal to zero, and any driving at all being beyond the possibility frontier. In the latter case it's still "optimal", but not in the sense that you weigh up costs and benefits and come up with an answer.

Assuming the government represents the wishes of all its citizens equally, an assumption, I'll grant you, I don't see why it shouldn't at least monitor these large machines which have the potential to do great harm.
Monitoring is one thing - taxing to death or outlawing entirely is another. There are various arguments people use when they advance the latter, but none of them stand up to scrutiny. Properly priced petrol (which the market doesn't seem to provide by itself, but similarly isn't actually being honestly attempted by any government on the planet right now) means there is no need for any more public mentioning of car-related emissions. And the government's job can't be to remove all risk from our lives no matter the costs.

Yes, cars move in public space, yes, they use up scarce resources and yes, they emit negative externalities. But if these things are negatives, then they need to be weighed against the positives. And the best person to do this is still each and every one of us, by ourselves, knowing our own interests and situation. The government's job may be to make sure we face an undistorted choice, but it can't be to make it for us.

Diezhoffen

12-07-2008, 18:41

Neu Leinstein,
It's refreshing to read sense on this thread. :)

Intangelon,
The point I was using the article to illustrate is that synthesized systems aren't inherently better and regarding automotives', signs are worse. Where removal of signs was tried out less accidents occurred. People drive better when attentive. Reliance on a sign system conditions people to not rely on their own discretion. Human assessment -immediate and personal- tends to be more accurate than assessments imposed. Reasons like "to lower gas prices" are no good. Prices are one of the ways people communicate w/one another. By default, they're accurate signals of how difficult it is to produce something but government intervention (say a tax) distorts the signals so people (you and me) respond inappropriately. It's a macrocosmic version of a human body. If a receptor site is blocked or more of a hormone is ingested adjustments will be made in the production of other chemicals so it's best these adjustments be healthy (based on accurate data) not tampered. Otherwise we get bitch tits:p

Celtlund II

12-07-2008, 20:52

Celt, I've already debunked your price argument.

Two days to cross the country (65 hours is stretching the truth a bit), when you don't have to do the driving, AND it's cheaper than driving anyway, and half the cost of airfare with FAR more comfortable seats (ever flown for more than 12 hours? They'd get more out of Gitmo detainees if they flew them coach to Hong Kong)? Yes, please.

No, it isn't as convenient or as fast as air travel, but it's not as expensive, either. I don't care if you dislike the train, but you don't need to artificially demonize it just to express your opinion.

The times I gave were from the Amtrak web site and are quite valid. You can figure the price if you want, but don't forget to add a sleeper option for that trip.

Hurtful Thoughts

12-07-2008, 21:25

Driving private cars is not unsustainable. It may be so if we were to assume that the current situation is fixed, but it isn't. Just like after the first oil crisis, people adjusted their behaviour, car companies adjusted their offerings, and a new equilibrium of driving and petrol consumption was found. That process will continue, and there will be no point, ever, at which the optimal amount of driving will be zero, as long as someone still wants to do it.

I'll point out that the government rationed/limited the fuel supply to the public by imposing a price-cap. So there really wasn't any fuel you could just "Dig deeper into your pockets and go to the market", because the market was closed or had a 12 hour waiting list.

The cost of not having the uncertainty of whether you're car will fuel-starve itself is uncontroled gas prices. In which case you then risk stubborn poor people running themselves into financial debt.

When you're poor, you can't afford to be stubborn AND passive. But being stubborn is more likely to just get you into more trouble.

No, it actually would be better for efficency to make the speed limit about 70-75 and require all car transmissions to have a 6th gear. Fuel efficency of a car is dependent on RPMs and the size of the engine, not the speed at which a car travels at and it is certainly not equal for each car.
75 mph through the northern indian resservations? I think not... I'd rather not catapult my car into a tree because some jackass was humping my bumper in the dark... Passing on those roads is also known as assisted suicide by automobile.

Better explanation: When you redesign and dole out the money to straighten out all the roads and make them all uber-interstates/autobahns, then you can preach 75 mph universal speed limits. Till then, I'll kindly and lightheartedly ask you to STFU.

Some places you can go 120, others are only safe for about 45, and in a large number of these roads, it's too narrow and winded (no forward visability, hills, trees, cows, deer, childen, etc) to safely pass slow-goers on.

See post below
Then why are you posting?

East Coast Federation

12-07-2008, 21:25

No collage? Was the art class too far away, too?

Then you live too far away.

I don't know. That's your problem. However, most people who must manage to ride that far just fine. Some even farther. Some combine transit with other modes. When I worked at the University of Washington, I lived in Everett, some 25+ miles north. I cycled 5 miles to the park and ride because no route that connected to UW came close to my street. From there, one bus. Same in reverse on the way home. And it rains up here, if you hadn't heard that. That's why they make rain gear.

Hooray! That means you don't get to bitch about gas prices!

Then they should pool their resources and live together. You type as if there are absolutely no solutions whatsoever to this problem, and it's simply not true. There are no solutions that are palatable to you. Well then, it seems that's why people are mentioning the word "adjustment". In order to maintain one standard, others will have to be compromised. People in this nation have been told they can have everything they want, regardless of their true costs, no matter what. That's over, and it's over for anyone who can't afford to maintain all of their previous standards. I gave up cable TV, sold my PS2, turned my thermostat down (no A/C so no need to adjust up in summer), and decided to walk everywhere under three miles and cycle everywhere under 15 unless time is a factor. That means waking up earlier and going to bed earlier. It also means I've lost 25 pounds over three years.

By your current, unadjusted standards. That would be your choice.

I love how I'm suddenly an ecoterrorist for suggesting that we're none of us able to consume past sustainability anymore, and it wasn't our idea -- it was the market's. Prices have risen, and we have to suck it up just like those who've been through other economic downturns had to suck it up. We can't spend our way out of a recession, no matter what the Ghost of Reagan tells us.

If you catch me doing something stupid like spiking a tree to thwart loggers or burning down an encroaching housing development, you can call me an ecoterrorist. Until then, you can keep your ugly epithets to yourself.

Move?

No

Ride a bike down Interstates that far?

No

Bitch about gas prices?

No. I don't give a shit how much gas costs, it can cost 10 a gallon, and I'm still going to drive fast in places were its safe.

I do not feel like living with a bunch of other kids with no AC.

Nor do I feel like living in a classroom.

Intangelon

12-07-2008, 23:14

Move?

No

Ride a bike down Interstates that far?

No

Bitch about gas prices?

No. I don't give a shit how much gas costs, it can cost 10 a gallon, and I'm still going to drive fast in places were its safe.

I do not feel like living with a bunch of other kids with no AC.

Nor do I feel like living in a classroom.

Then you've got no problem. Although I'll wager you wouldn't have to ride on the Interstate, but you know your routes better than I do.

The times I gave were from the Amtrak web site and are quite valid. You can figure the price if you want, but don't forget to add a sleeper option for that trip.

Why? Amtrak coach seats make airline seats feel like Gitmo specials. If you can't sleep on an Amtrak cross-country coach seat, you might have more problems than just high gas prices.

NEU L: Who's angry? Only thing I get testy about is this selfish defense of waste. The car is not a right, period.

Neu Leonstein

13-07-2008, 00:16

NEU L: Who's angry? Only thing I get testy about is this selfish defense of waste. The car is not a right, period.
The point is that you don't get to decide what is and isn't waste.

Calarca

13-07-2008, 02:13

Assuming the government represents the wishes of all its citizens equally, an assumption, I'll grant you, I don't see why it shouldn't at least monitor these large machines which have the potential to do great harm.

But they do... traffic cops and smog tests and driver licencing...

theres plenty of Govt supervison.

Vault 10

13-07-2008, 02:39

But that just doesn't make sense. Even if there is much more untapped petroleum, there's still a finite amount, which means that when it runs out, whether it be in fifty years, one-hundred years, or one-thousand years, people will have to stop driving gasoline-powered cars.
So f-king what? We'll drive syngas, synjet, hydrogen or electric cars. Build more reactors to produce the fuel, and the problem is solved.

Drivers almost always drive in public places (as they should) and thus affect me and plenty of other people. I think we then may have separate "special" roads for clots and normal roads for normal people.

75 mph through the northern indian resservations?
Better explanation: When you redesign and dole out the money to straighten out all the roads and make them all uber-interstates/autobahns, then you can preach 75 mph universal speed limits. Till then, I'll kindly and lightheartedly ask you to STFU.
Good morning. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution can safely take hairpin turns at 85 mph without ever having grip problems. Nissan Skyline GT-R, at 110 mph. And the Evolution costs just $30,000 new, it's not like it's expensive.

Why should people who bought modern cars suffer because of idiots who bought SUVs without ever driving off-road, or lesser idiots who consider themselves entitled to go at the speed limit despite having a car not designed for that speed?

Hurtful Thoughts

13-07-2008, 05:36

I think we then may have separate "special" roads for clots and normal roads for normal people.

Good morning. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution can safely take hairpin turns at 85 mph without ever having grip problems. Nissan Skyline GT-R, at 110 mph. And the Evolution costs just $30,000 new, it's not like it's expensive.
It isn't the turns that make your car go airborne, that's what the slopes and hills do, all the turns do is make it so that the road isn't underneath you when the car lands.

Why should people who bought modern cars suffer because of idiots who bought SUVs without ever driving off-road, or lesser idiots who consider themselves entitled to go at the speed limit despite having a car not designed for that speed?
Single-lane highways through heavy forest and fear of being rear ended by a jackass in an SUV?

Intangelon

13-07-2008, 10:16

The point is that you don't get to decide what is and isn't waste.

Sure I do. We all do. We choose to waste as a society. Some are trying to change society's position on what constitutes a waste of resources, and the market, smelling the high cost of oil, will follow. Others are resisting that change, believing that they have a God-given right to drive whatever they want however they want because "that's the way it's always been". Thankfully, wiser heads are beginning to prevail.

So f-king what? We'll drive syngas, synjet, hydrogen or electric cars. Build more reactors to produce the fuel, and the problem is solved.

And what do we do in the intervening 50 years?

I think we then may have separate "special" roads for clots and normal roads for normal people.

Fine. I think we redefine what's normal and take the asinine individuality and "you are what you drive" out of transportation. I guess folks might have to just learn to develop personalities instead of imagining they come on four wheels and that they can buy them.

Good morning. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution can safely take hairpin turns at 85 mph without ever having grip problems. Nissan Skyline GT-R, at 110 mph. And the Evolution costs just $30,000 new, it's not like it's expensive.

"Just" $30k? And how many people have that lying around? How much does $30k grow into when most of it is financed? Also, "grip problems" are the province of the tires. No car handles well on bad rubber. What's more, the car isn't always the issue, is it? I'm glad you think you are a driving ace and master race driver. The vast majority are not. Since the public highways are built for the vast majority and race tracks built for the driving aces....

Why should people who bought modern cars suffer because of idiots who bought SUVs without ever driving off-road, or lesser idiots who consider themselves entitled to go at the speed limit despite having a car not designed for that speed?

"Entitled to go the speed limit" -- what does that even mean? "Required". SUV drivers who bought them without ever truly needing them are indeed idiots. But look around next time you're on the freeway. Idiots are not in short supply, no matter what they drive.

Calarca

13-07-2008, 10:34

Neu Leonstein

13-07-2008, 11:14

Sure I do. We all do. We choose to waste as a society.
Hardly.

"Waste" is defined as the use of a resource on something that it shouldn't have been used on because there was a better option. Looking at that it becomes clear that in a capitalist world at least, each of us gets to make that decision, not as a society but as an individual.

"The market" is in that case simply a tool that informs us of what others are deciding and how much of each is available. That's what enables us to choose what would be waste and what wouldn't be.

We can agree that there are problems in the market at this point that mean the information we're getting is flawed. We can also agree that the government's job in such a case is to make sure those problems are sorted out.

And that's where the social dimension ends. As I said, no one can be allowed to decide for someone else what constitutes waste. If petrol costs you 8$ a gallon, you may well decide that driving a V8 is waste. Or you may not, and that is just as valid. As long as you make the decision subject to the right constraints, no one should be sticking their noses in it.

Vault 10

13-07-2008, 15:01

And what do we do in the intervening 50 years?
Drive fuel efficient cars, natural gas powered cars (it's really easy to convert), improve plug-in hybrids (NOT Prius), gradually build up hydrogen and electric network, force luxury cars to switch much earlier - if you can afford a Rolls-Royce, you can afford a hydrogen powered Rolls-Royce.

"Just" $30k? And how many people have that lying around? How much does $30k grow into when most of it is financed?
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut11.shtm

According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, the average price of a new car sold in the United States is $28,400.

Most people who buy a new car pay about $30k anyway. Its price is just the average.

Also, "grip problems" are the province of the tires. No car handles well on bad rubber. There are laws on what rubber is road-legal. If we increase the limit, we can strengthen them.
If you can afford the fuel at today's prices, you can afford tires. Yokohama Avid V4s are good performance tires for just $100 each, change them each couple years and you'll be fine.

What's more, the car isn't always the issue, is it?
True.
So hpw about we require people who want to buy and drive fast cars (say, capable of 145+mph or with 270+hp), to have a few years of driving experience with good record, go to a performance driving school, unless they already have a racing license, and pass an exam confirming they can handle such a car?

It will be good for everyone. It will be good for safety, because there won't be seniors, rich kids and just poor drivers whizzing around in sports cars. It will be good for proper sports car owners, because now they won't be associated with speeding kids. It will even be good for poor drivers banned from fast cars, because they'll stop constantly dying in crashes.

Is this a great idea or what?

Vault 10

13-07-2008, 15:07

It isn't the turns that make your car go airborne, that's what the slopes and hills do, all the turns do is make it so that the road isn't underneath you when the car lands.
Have you seen rally tracks? Their hills and slopes beat any such road.
But this doesn't matter. German Autobahns have an effective speed limit of 150mph - does that mean you are forced to go 150mph? No. Speed limit isn't the speed you should go, it's the maximum you can.

If you go 100mph on such a road and crash, you're an idiot and it's your fault. Lower speed limit won't save such idiots, because they'll break it anyway. It's not like these roads are filled with cops.
Furthermore:
The phrase "reasonable and prudent" is found in the language of most state speed laws. This allows prosecution under non-ideal conditions such as rain or snow when the speed limit would be imprudently fast.
So even if we set the general limit at 120 or even 150, you'll still be breaking the law doing even 60mph on such a road, because it isn't reasonable and prudent.

Single-lane highways through heavy forest and fear of being rear ended by a jackass in an SUV?
Well, since people with Chelsea Cruisers love to call them trucks, how about we give it to them - subject them to some truck regulations and truck speed limit?

East Coast Federation

13-07-2008, 20:39

Sure I do. We all do. We choose to waste as a society. Some are trying to change society's position on what constitutes a waste of resources, and the market, smelling the high cost of oil, will follow. Others are resisting that change, believing that they have a God-given right to drive whatever they want however they want because "that's the way it's always been". Thankfully, wiser heads are beginning to prevail.

And what do we do in the intervening 50 years?

Fine. I think we redefine what's normal and take the asinine individuality and "you are what you drive" out of transportation. I guess folks might have to just learn to develop personalities instead of imagining they come on four wheels and that they can buy them.

"Just" $30k? And how many people have that lying around? How much does $30k grow into when most of it is financed? Also, "grip problems" are the province of the tires. No car handles well on bad rubber. What's more, the car isn't always the issue, is it? I'm glad you think you are a driving ace and master race driver. The vast majority are not. Since the public highways are built for the vast majority and race tracks built for the driving aces....

"Entitled to go the speed limit" -- what does that even mean? "Required". SUV drivers who bought them without ever truly needing them are indeed idiots. But look around next time you're on the freeway. Idiots are not in short supply, no matter what they drive.

Well, 30K isnt that much, my 07 SI was 24k when it was all said and done, with a 3.9% interest, so its really not that much. And it feels solid all the way up to its top speed of 140mph. The tires are rated for 160, so I'm pretty good on that.

I'm not a race driver, but I do run a drag car, and its good fun.

Hell, my GFs sister just got into a head on ( drunk driver ), already found a new car. A 2002 Oldsmobile Intriguie with 230hp, and its only 10k with 20,000 miles on it, and its safe up to 130mph.

Cars rule.

Intangelon

13-07-2008, 22:35

Drive fuel efficient cars, natural gas powered cars (it's really easy to convert), improve plug-in hybrids (NOT Prius), gradually build up hydrogen and electric network, force luxury cars to switch much earlier - if you can afford a Rolls-Royce, you can afford a hydrogen powered Rolls-Royce.

Natural gas is in the same straits oil is, so no go there. Hydrogen has been repeatedly shown as a markedly inefficient mode of energy storage, and dangerous to boot. Building the infrastructure will take more than 50 years. Electric networks in the US are most commonly powered by coal.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut11.shtm

According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, the average price of a new car sold in the United States is $28,400.

Most people who buy a new car pay about $30k anyway. Its price is just the average.

Uh, no. Most people finance that car. They wind up paying closer to $40k. That's the AVERAGE price, by the way. You do know what average means, right?

There are laws on what rubber is road-legal. If we increase the limit, we can strengthen them.
If you can afford the fuel at today's prices, you can afford tires. Yokohama Avid V4s are good performance tires for just $100 each, change them each couple years and you'll be fine.

What are tires made with? Oil. Next?

True.
So hpw about we require people who want to buy and drive fast cars (say, capable of 145+mph or with 270+hp), to have a few years of driving experience with good record, go to a performance driving school, unless they already have a racing license, and pass an exam confirming they can handle such a car?

Excellent idea. Are you sure the individualist anti-gov types won't strenuously object?[/QUOTE]

Wiser heads? you mean whinging idiots.

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

Thanks for both the observation and demonstration.

You idea of what is waste is your own INDIVIDUAL opinon. what is waste to you (2 mpg cars) is a fun drive for me.

I'm not going to ride a bike anywhere, and even if I lived in a city instead of a 1.5 hour drive from the nearest supermarket on a farm in rural nowheresville. Thats my choice, and as long as I can afford the petrol, it will stay that way.

Except that gas isn't something that only you purchase. Rising gas prices affect the cost of everything. The more we waste, the more everything costs. Your "fun ride" isn't worth it. But hey, you go on. Just make sure you have all your fun in the next 10 to 15 years.

Hardly.

"Waste" is defined as the use of a resource on something that it shouldn't have been used on because there was a better option. Looking at that it becomes clear that in a capitalist world at least, each of us gets to make that decision, not as a society but as an individual.

Understood, but oil isn't like any other resource. It's interwoven in the fabric of just about every part of life, which means that when it gets expensive, so does everything else. At some point, responsibility dictates that excess horsepower is a superfluous luxury. Or didn't we have gas rationing in WWII?

"The market" is in that case simply a tool that informs us of what others are deciding and how much of each is available. That's what enables us to choose what would be waste and what wouldn't be.

Unless those who benefit directly from market forces are benefitting too well to be arsed to change their ways until it's too late.

We can agree that there are problems in the market at this point that mean the information we're getting is flawed. We can also agree that the government's job in such a case is to make sure those problems are sorted out.

And if the government and those who benefit from the status quo are the same people?

And that's where the social dimension ends. As I said, no one can be allowed to decide for someone else what constitutes waste. If petrol costs you 8$ a gallon, you may well decide that driving a V8 is waste. Or you may not, and that is just as valid. As long as you make the decision subject to the right constraints, no one should be sticking their noses in it.

Fair enough. It just seems to me that motor boats and massive "commuter" engines are a sensible place to start scaling back.

Well, 30K isnt that much, my 07 SI was 24k when it was all said and done, with a 3.9% interest, so its really not that much. And it feels solid all the way up to its top speed of 140mph. The tires are rated for 160, so I'm pretty good on that.

Well, I'm glad you're swimming in cash. Most of us aren't. If $30k is close to your yearly salary, or even more than half of it, you're probably not in the position to buy that car at that price. You might be, if you've saved enough, but you're probably not (the general "you" not, "you personally").

I'm not a race driver, but I do run a drag car, and its good fun.

Good for you.

Hell, my GFs sister just got into a head on ( drunk driver ), already found a new car. A 2002 Oldsmobile Intriguie with 230hp, and its only 10k with 20,000 miles on it, and its safe up to 130mph.

Is she okay?

Cars rule.[/QUOTE]

Yes they do, and that's the problem.

Celtlund II

13-07-2008, 23:02

Well, 30K isnt that much, my 07 SI was 24k when it was all said and done, with a 3.9% interest, so its really not that much. SNIP
Cars rule.

The first house I bought for $25,000.00. It had two bedrooms, a living room, kitchen, huge den (family room), a laundry room, and one bath. How many rooms does you new car have?

The first new car I bought was a 1967 or 1968 VW Beetle. I bought it for $1,500.00. The most I ever paid for transportation was about $12,000.00 for my used pick up truck. I can think of better things to spend my money on other than a $24,000.00 go fast machine that depreciates the moment you drive it off the lot and end up owing more that it is worth 6 months later. :rolleyes:

Vault 10

13-07-2008, 23:04

Natural gas is in the same straits oil is, so no go there. Hydrogen has been repeatedly shown as a markedly inefficient mode of energy storage, and dangerous to boot. Building the infrastructure will take more than 50 years.
It didn't take 50 years to build gasoline networks. It took a decade or two. Yet it will take more than 50 years to simply upgrade them to handle an extra sort of fuel?

Hydrogen, in fact, costs today just $2,50 per kg. Each kg of hydrogen can be burned to produce more energy than a gallon of gasoline.
And it can be produced using high-temperature nuclear reactors as just a byproduct, using mostly heat, not electricity. At an even lower cost, that means.

What are tires made with? Oil. Next? There'll always be enough oil for polymers. Just not for burning.

Excellent idea. Are you sure the individualist anti-gov types won't strenuously object? If it allows them to drive at a higher limit?
I think some will, but then it means some have to STFU. If you need no education and age of 14+ to drive a motorbike, minimal education and age of 16+ to drive a Corolla, then it certainly makes sense that you need considerable education and age of 20+ to drive a 911.
We can install speed limiters for those failing the exams.

Actually, the manufacturers probably will, to be deactivated when accessed by a proper licensed driver or being on a track. They already do in Japan.

Uh, no. Most people finance that car. They wind up paying closer to $40k. That's the AVERAGE price, by the way. You do know what average means, right?
Average means the average. The percentage of luxury cars is very small. It's just what most people pay for their car.
The financing part doesn't mean anything. I repeat. Most people buy cars that cost around $28,400. So it's a normal price for a car in US.

Now, there are $28,400 cars which have leather seats, leather dashboard, electric bootlid, 50 other unnecessary electronic devices.
And there are $31,000 Evo and even a cheaper $25,000 Subaru Impreza WRX, which don't have leather dashboards, but which can handle any turn at speeds above the speed limit, which handle wet and dirty roads, which are fast, and which are very safe to drive.
Which you buy is a matter of choice.

Neu Leonstein

14-07-2008, 01:30

Understood, but oil isn't like any other resource. It's interwoven in the fabric of just about every part of life, which means that when it gets expensive, so does everything else.
Yeah, but the decision mechanism itself doesn't change.

And besides, there's a risk here that people overstate the influence higher oil prices have on inflation: they're not actually that great. They matter for small economies that have to print a lot of money to import the same amount of oil (and for those food prices are generally more worisome). The global recurrence of inflation has other reasons. If you're interested:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11409414
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11402856

Ultimately the effect isn't huge - it's the psychological consequence of the initial shock that makes things a problem. Ongoing inflation results when wages go up faster than productivity, which happens when businesses have to compete for labour and bid up salaries. When that pushes up prices and then the government prints more money to match the increased demand for it you get a vicious cycle with continuous price rises, meaning inflation.

Higher oil prices can be the thing that sets it off, but it's bad monetary policy that allows it.

At some point, responsibility dictates that excess horsepower is a superfluous luxury. Or didn't we have gas rationing in WWII?
There was gas rationing because the government wanted to waste lots of oil by using it to kill people. See what I did there?

Unless those who benefit directly from market forces are benefitting too well to be arsed to change their ways until it's too late...And if the government and those who benefit from the status quo are the same people?
Then write your local politician. The power of government intervention basically only exists for cases like this: if it's not handling it properly then we'd be better off without one at all.

But again, and I can't stress this enough, if this is a market failure, then it warrants something to repair the market - not to do without it at all and just tell people what to do.

Fair enough. It just seems to me that motor boats and massive "commuter" engines are a sensible place to start scaling back.
Yes, but part of the reason that you see it that way is that you're not someone who might enjoy these things. So of course you can't appreciate the positives and they look like waste. That's not new, and you're entitled to that opinion. But you have to at least keep it in the back of your head somewhere that not everyone shares your view and it's not a given that you have the right to assume superiority or enforce it.

Hurtful Thoughts

14-07-2008, 03:43

So even if we set the general limit at 120 or even 150, you'll still be breaking the law doing even 60mph on such a road, because it isn't reasonable and prudent.
That's good, I know a guy who managed to "Evil K-Neevil" his car into a tree when doing 65 on those roads...

The local driving instructors not only advocate but will come to full-stops at the crests of those hills, particularily because they know the fatality rates on those roads. (Which are posted with a speed limit of 15 to 35 mph for a reason, going 40 on those roads is a groin and/or gut churning experiance, which is why newly 'initiated' 16-18 yr old drivers like jumping their cars on those "ramps", initiation occassionally involves some bar-hopping as well)

Single-lane highways through heavy forest and fear of being rear ended by a jackass in an SUV?
Well, since people with Chelsea Cruisers love to call them trucks, how about we give it to them - subject them to some truck regulations and truck speed limit?Yeah, not sure if your definition of "truck" matches everyone else's... Over here it's short for Pickup-truck, we tend to call what you call "trucks" (tractors and semi-trailers) 18-wheelers, rigs, or simply semi's.

And it doesn't need to be in an SUV, it could be the little go-kart "hot rod" 16 year old after going on a bender and is using your headlights/tailights to see where he's going...

You may know the type, foot floored on gas, can't find the brake even if his life depended on it, and following those two red dots in front of him like it was his girlfriend leading him to bed.

And keep in mind this is on the same road I described above, at night, going 50, in a double-ought Geo Metro. The kind of car that only made one star in a five-star crash test and a spedometer that only goes up to 75. Though it avoids accidents quite well... Almost like people avoid driving near it.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you support a lower speed limit to save on gas & oil?