Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.

Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.

His use of the vehicle sounds fine. What I don't like is the indignant attitude he purchased with it. He shares the road and the air with others. HIs choice in regards to what vehicle he wants to use effects everyone that shares the road with him and in a larger sense everyone that requires air to breathe or oil to do whatever it is they do with oil.

CptJake wrote:I guess I don't see the sense in limiting freedom and choice even more.

Sure, but why do you need a car that can do 9 million miles an hour when the limit is 70? Or a car that can go from 0-100 in 1 second when you will be stuck in town traffic for most of the time? Or a car that can carry 8 tonnes of rubble and still drive up vertical cliff faces when you only drive yourself to the corner shop and down the street to work?

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate nice cars and there are a fair few cars that I would love to have, that I would also be happy to see effectively banned from being made. German made cars are already limited to (a rather ridiculous) 155mph - why not go further, and limit the top speed to 100 (a reasonable top speed when most countries have a maximum speed limit of 70), a top engine capacity/fuel consumption, etc?

Hell, I can see the need for industrial/farm/etc users to have more powerful vehicles and there is nothing stopping this to be allowed - farming fuels are already taxed differently in the UK, as are farming vehicles (as I understand it).

I understand that the concept of governments "cracking down" on "freedoms" is not something everyone likes the sound of, but there are some things that you really have to wonder about.

Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.

To be fair have you seen some of those potholes?

Frazzled wrote:

Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.

To be fair have you seen some of those potholes?

They're the exact kind of thing that will cause an SUV to flip over like a coin. Most consumer SUVs are not particularly worthy of rough terrain.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Anbn3OYZ0I
Youtube won't let me embed this one, but it's pretty indicitive of why these vehicles are bad at offroad. They roll over like pencils.

Frazzled wrote:

Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.

To be fair have you seen some of those potholes?

Yep. My Civic dodges them just fine.

SilverMK2 wrote:Sure, but why do you need a car that can do 9 million miles an hour when the limit is 70? Or a car that can go from 0-100 in 1 second when you will be stuck in town traffic for most of the time? Or a car that can carry 8 tonnes of rubble and still drive up vertical cliff faces when you only drive yourself to the corner shop and down the street to work?

I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.

Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.

In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.

To be fair have you seen some of those potholes?

They're the exact kind of thing that will cause an SUV to flip over like a coin. Most consumer SUVs are not particularly worthy of rough terrain.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Anbn3OYZ0I
Youtube won't let me embed this one, but it's pretty indicitive of why these vehicles are bad at offroad. They roll over like pencils.

True that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Vulcan wrote:I think CptJake has demonstrated a legitimate need for his truck. Save your scorn for the 'suburban cowboy' whose SUV has never seen terrain rougher than a potholed city street.

To be fair have you seen some of those potholes?

Yep. My Civic dodges them just fine.

My teenage boy has found the secret is to just drive really fast and float over them. My wife is too busy hitting curbs and pedestrians with her van to notice a little thing like potholes.

biccat wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Sure, but why do you need a car that can do 9 million miles an hour when the limit is 70? Or a car that can go from 0-100 in 1 second when you will be stuck in town traffic for most of the time? Or a car that can carry 8 tonnes of rubble and still drive up vertical cliff faces when you only drive yourself to the corner shop and down the street to work?

I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.

Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.

In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?

Only if you're army men are two tonne soccer ball shaped fake-trucks that you endanger everyone with while you drive your 12 year old to soccer practice. That said, the new Tyrannofex model is pretty awesome.

biccat wrote:I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.

Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.

In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?

You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.

A car doesn't meet the minimum environmental requirements? It doesn't get to be sold. A car doesn't have a top speed limited to the appropriate limit? It doesn't get to be sold.

Pretty simple really.

You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.

We have energy star rated appliances, but it reeaaallly doesn't take much to be one. It's almost meaningless.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.

Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.

In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?

You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.

A car doesn't meet the minimum environmental requirements? It doesn't get to be sold. A car doesn't have a top speed limited to the appropriate limit? It doesn't get to be sold.

Pretty simple really.

Is it? Why? The rising price of gasoline will reduce demand for gas guzzlers, as it has done historically. If the law is to support some sort of "for the good of the group" does that mean we should go to war with China and India to keep them from using more oil? Thats the real price driver (well that and inflaction for US purchasers).

ShumaGorath wrote:We have energy star rated appliances, but it reeaaallly doesn't take much to be one. It's almost meaningless.

I'd say it is similar here - a tightening of the standards would be part of my drive to try and get energy and environmental efficiency as good as possible.

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.

Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.

In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?

You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.

A car doesn't meet the minimum environmental requirements? It doesn't get to be sold. A car doesn't have a top speed limited to the appropriate limit? It doesn't get to be sold.

Pretty simple really.

Is it? Why? The rising price of gasoline will reduce demand for gas guzzlers, as it has done historically. If the law is to support some sort of "for the good of the group" does that mean we should go to war with China and India to keep them from using more oil? Thats the real price driver (well that and inflaction for US purchasers).

I think it's easier just to have sane fuel economy standards than it is to wage war on a quarter of the earths population.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.

Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.

In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?

You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.

A car doesn't meet the minimum environmental requirements? It doesn't get to be sold. A car doesn't have a top speed limited to the appropriate limit? It doesn't get to be sold.

Pretty simple really.

Is it? Why? The rising price of gasoline will reduce demand for gas guzzlers, as it has done historically. If the law is to support some sort of "for the good of the group" does that mean we should go to war with China and India to keep them from using more oil? Thats the real price driver (well that and inflaction for US purchasers).

I think it's easier just to have sane fuel economy standards than it is to wage war on a quarter of the earths population.

Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.

Frazzled wrote:Is it? Why? The rising price of gasoline will reduce demand for gas guzzlers, as it has done historically. If the law is to support some sort of "for the good of the group" does that mean we should go to war with China and India to keep them from using more oil? Thats the real price driver (well that and inflaction for US purchasers).

We pay twice as much as you for petrol. I don't know about our road/car tax, but I bet it is substantially higher than yours and is based on various factors including how polluting a vehicle is. 4x4's and other "gas guzzlers" are still popular here.

China and India are a great opportunity for the West to step in and help them go down a better path - China are firing up vast numbers of coal fueled power stations; the US has a lot of experience with nuclear power generation, as do a number of other countries in the West - why not step in, give them some cut price reactor designs and contract out some nuclear experts? Win for everyone in terms of money, etc, and more coal which can be processed into oil, and significantly less pollution.

ShumaGorath wrote:I think it's easier just to have sane fuel economy standards than it is to wage war on a quarter of the earths population.

Not really, we've already paid for most of the military hardware, it would simply be a matter of using it effectively.

It's much simpler to wipe out a few billion people than trying to balance CAFE standards with economic growth.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:I don't need little plastic army men either, and I'll bet there's a not-insignificant effect on the environment due to plastic production.

Nor do I need a television (or TV programming for that matter), which also have a not-insignificant effect on the environment.

In fact, there's a lot of things I don't need that cause pollution. Should we ban them all too?

You don't need anything other than a little food and water when it comes down to it. However, if you want to go down the route of reductio ad absurdum knock yourself out. There is a great deal of difference between limiting how efficient/polluting something can be and banning it completely. I don't know if you have energy ratings for appliances in the US, but here in the UK they are graded based on how energy efficient they are (and possibly also how damaging they are to make and dispose of as well)- any appliance that does not score on the rating system cannot be sold. No difference here except now we are talking about a person's manhood... sorry, their car.

A car doesn't meet the minimum environmental requirements? It doesn't get to be sold. A car doesn't have a top speed limited to the appropriate limit? It doesn't get to be sold.

Pretty simple really.

Is it? Why? The rising price of gasoline will reduce demand for gas guzzlers, as it has done historically. If the law is to support some sort of "for the good of the group" does that mean we should go to war with China and India to keep them from using more oil? Thats the real price driver (well that and inflaction for US purchasers).

I think it's easier just to have sane fuel economy standards than it is to wage war on a quarter of the earths population.

Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.

Theres pretty strong correlation between U.S. vehicle fuel standards and those mandated in China. As the worlds largest traditional car market most companies base fuel economy in vehicles on our laws. You're also taking this into a ridiculous contrast, we can't make high fuel prices go away by mandating better fuel economy, but we can lessen the burden on our economy and citizens by doing so. This isn't a freedom of choice thing. Without better mandated standards than the choice is made for the consumer by the auto companies. Theres a reason combustion engine energy efficiency in autos as a technology was stagnant for almost 30 years. The carmakers have no incentive to improve without being coerced into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I think it's easier just to have sane fuel economy standards than it is to wage war on a quarter of the earths population.

Not really, we've already paid for most of the military hardware, it would simply be a matter of using it effectively.

It's much simpler to wipe out a few billion people than trying to balance CAFE standards with economic growth.

I'm going to assume you're being serious.

Frazzled wrote:Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.

So, having eeked out a little bit of extra resource capacity in the system is a bad thing for what is, essentially, virtually no effort or hardship for anyone?

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I think it's easier just to have sane fuel economy standards than it is to wage war on a quarter of the earths population.

Not really, we've already paid for most of the military hardware, it would simply be a matter of using it effectively.

It's much simpler to wipe out a few billion people than trying to balance CAFE standards with economic growth.

I always said, humanity can do anything, if it has the will.

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I think it's easier just to have sane fuel economy standards than it is to wage war on a quarter of the earths population.

Not really, we've already paid for most of the military hardware, it would simply be a matter of using it effectively.

It's much simpler to wipe out a few billion people than trying to balance CAFE standards with economic growth.

I'm going to assume you're being serious.

Quite serious.

Do you know how hard economic central planning is? Much more difficult than typing in "Shanghai" and pushing a button.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.

So, having eeked out a little bit of extra resource capacity in the system is a bad thing for what is, essentially, virtually no effort or hardship for anyone?

1. You didn't "eek" anything out.
2. High gas prices would do the same thing, but without the government telling everyone what to do. I don't drive a gas guzzler, not because of the government, but because I drive between cities and its too expensive. Inversely, I don't drive a hybrid because they are too expensive.

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.

So, having eeked out a little bit of extra resource capacity in the system is a bad thing for what is, essentially, virtually no effort or hardship for anyone?

1. You didn't "eek" anything out.
2. High gas prices would do the same thing, but without the government telling everyone what to do.

They'll do the same thing years after it becomes helpful. The "free market" isn't forward thinking and never has been, it's purely reactionary. It's not a tool for social engineering or environmental protection. It'll feth the future to make money today every single time.

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why? Your restriction is irrelevant. Decreased gasoline usage from CAFE standard changes are more than made up by growth in the BRIC countries almost immediately.

So, having eeked out a little bit of extra resource capacity in the system is a bad thing for what is, essentially, virtually no effort or hardship for anyone?

1. You didn't "eek" anything out.
2. High gas prices would do the same thing, but without the government telling everyone what to do.

1) You reduce consumption in one area while maintaining the same output, while another area increases output and also increases consumption, leading to a net stability in consumption for an increase in output. To me that is eeking out a bit of capacity in the system, as if you didn't increase efficiency in the first area, fuel consumption would have risen by an amount corresponding to the efficiency savings. Not entirely sure how you are failing to see that any saving, even offset by increased consumption in another area, is still a net saving if output remains the same or increases.

2) Really not - see my post above about UK fuel prices and road taxes.

ShumaGorath wrote:
You don't pay more taxes than I do and the old lady with the 4WD Diesel next door to me tears up the road a hell of a lot more than I do. Likely so do you. So no. It's not your "equal share".

Wrong. If we use more fuel, we pay more fuel taxes (state and federal) which are supposed to go for road maintenance.

Add in that diesel is taxed at a higher rate than gasoline at the federal and state levels...

On top of that every year I pay an Ad Valorem tax based on the make/model/year of each vehicle I own: http://motor.etax.dor.ga.gov/forms/pdf/motor/MV_2011_MV_Assessment_Man_Feb_Ed.pdf

My truck does incur a higher tax penalty to be able to drive the roads than other vehicles. Obviously the state and county consider that my 'equal share'. If they didn't they would adjust the rates.

Wrong. If we use more fuel, we pay more fuel taxes (state and federal) which are supposed to go for road maintenance.

They don't go for road maintenance in my state, but we don't live near eachother so our experience in that regard isn't going to be particularly similar. We have tolls and gakky roads. As for the property tax, well duh. Everyone pays those. Is my garage paying for the roads as well? Sure, I guess in some really grasping way. Is it a strawman? You betchya.

My truck does incur a higher tax penalty to be able to drive the roads than other vehicles. Obviously the state and county consider that my 'equal share'. If they didn't they would adjust the rates.

Well than we could learn something from you up here in the frozen north. We're well above that 33% number for truck class vehicles on road. It's hell to try and navigate in this city when half of it owns a durango.

i think some of the problem of trying to ween the US off of gas is the fact that there are really no alternatives in some parts of the country.

where i live i HAVE to drive to work, i cannot take a bus or a train. i have to get on the road with everyone else. places like the midwest are even worse. you really have no option other than drive and sure you could get away with a fuel sipper of a car in texas or oklahoma but try that in montana or wisconsin and you might as well not leave your house during the winter.

i think large cities should implement programs to encourage people to drive more efficient cars. the stop and go traffic and all of the congestion is what really contributes to the problem. granted large cities have mass transit options as well but people still drive thier big vehicles where they really do not belong.

Deathklaat wrote:i think some of the problem of trying to ween the US off of gas is the fact that there are really no alternatives in some parts of the country.

where i live i HAVE to drive to work, i cannot take a bus or a train. i have to get on the road with everyone else. places like the midwest are even worse. you really have no option other than drive and sure you could get away with a fuel sipper of a car in texas or oklahoma but try that in montana or wisconsin and you might as well not leave your house during the winter.

i think large cities should implement programs to encourage people to drive more efficient cars. the stop and go traffic and all of the congestion is what really contributes to the problem. granted large cities have mass transit options as well but people still drive thier big vehicles where they really do not belong.

Mostly agree with this.

I live in rural Maryland, but work in D.C.. D.C. has one of the highest commuter work forces in the nation; the vast majority of people who work in D.C. live in Virginia or Maryland, with people even coming as far as Pennsylvania or the New England states (CT, VT, NH, DE, etc.) D.C. also has a pretty awesome metro subway system that reaches into VA and MD pretty well; despite that it's still a 45 minute (roughly 25 mile) drive from my place to the metro, and another 45 minutes on the train itself for roughly 1.5 hours each way (assuming normal traffic and no train delays). Conversely, with moderate traffic the drive is only an hour each way.

Really the issue with most cities isn't even the efficiency of the vehicles, but rather the number. The vast majority of commuters simply prefer to drive their own vehicle rather than car pool, van pool or take other forms of mass transit. L.A. is notorious for this. You can implement things like High Occupancy Vehicle (H.O.V.) lanes where only cars with a certain number of people are allowed to use them, but even that doesn't really have any major impact on traffic. There's an intersection between the HOV-2 (meaning your car is allowed to use the road as long as there are 2 people in it) portion of I-95 (a major interstate) and VA-6400 (a major parkway for Virginia) where the cops literally just sit at a light, wait for it to turn red for HOVers and then just walk up the line ticketing people without the right number of people. They're there every single day and people get caught every single day, yet people would rather get the ticket than put another person in the car. Insanity, but there's really not much you can do to change people's minds.

Deathklaat wrote:i think some of the problem of trying to ween the US off of gas is the fact that there are really no alternatives in some parts of the country.

There's always alternatives. For example, you could pay a bit more in taxes and fund the creation of a mass transit system composed of Buses and Trains. The fact that you choose not to if no one's fault but your own. (Not you, the individual, but you, the collective society that has elected the legislators.)

Deathklaat wrote:where i live i HAVE to drive to work, i cannot take a bus or a train. i have to get on the road with everyone else. places like the midwest are even worse. you really have no option other than drive and sure you could get away with a fuel sipper of a car in texas or oklahoma but try that in montana or wisconsin and you might as well not leave your house during the winter.

Live closer to work and walk? Ride a bike? Why do you "HAVE" to drive?

Deathklaat wrote:i think large cities should implement programs to encourage people to drive more efficient cars. the stop and go traffic and all of the congestion is what really contributes to the problem. granted large cities have mass transit options as well but people still drive thier big vehicles where they really do not belong.

In large cities, they don't really need that policy, as people tend not to have the big SUVs or pickups. We tend to have smaller cars (so you can actually parallel park in a small space, or fit into your garage off the super-narrow alley) and take the train. It's all those suburban people who drive the SUVs and pickups.

Grakmar wrote:

Deathklaat wrote:i think some of the problem of trying to ween the US off of gas is the fact that there are really no alternatives in some parts of the country.

There's always alternatives. For example, you could pay a bit more in taxes and fund the creation of a mass transit system composed of Buses and Trains. The fact that you choose not to if no one's fault but your own. (Not you, the individual, but you, the collective society that has elected the legislators.)

Deathklaat wrote:where i live i HAVE to drive to work, i cannot take a bus or a train. i have to get on the road with everyone else. places like the midwest are even worse. you really have no option other than drive and sure you could get away with a fuel sipper of a car in texas or oklahoma but try that in montana or wisconsin and you might as well not leave your house during the winter.

Live closer to work and walk? Ride a bike? Why do you "HAVE" to drive?

Deathklaat wrote:i think large cities should implement programs to encourage people to drive more efficient cars. the stop and go traffic and all of the congestion is what really contributes to the problem. granted large cities have mass transit options as well but people still drive thier big vehicles where they really do not belong.

In large cities, they don't really need that policy, as people tend not to have the big SUVs or pickups. We tend to have smaller cars (so you can actually parallel park in a small space, or fit into your garage off the super-narrow alley) and take the train. It's all those suburban people who drive the SUVs and pickups.

What asinine comments. I live in rural Georgia. You couldn't put in effective mass transit at anything near an efficient amount of tax payer money. The population density just doesn't support it, and it is a lot higher than in many areas. When we lived near El Paso I worked up in MacGregor Range at the base camp, easily 50 miles each way and there wasn't an acceptable way to 'live closer' nor was ther ever going to be 'mass transit' to get there.