An Interesting Study

[Sip]

... Even if it's a bug SUV (sorry sip) like a Lincoln Navigator

No need to be sorry .... I am definitely not your normal SUV driver ... can't really get through this or go to a place like this, or even have fun like THIS with a honda ... not to mention situations like this. But I will admit that by far a large majority of "SUV" drivers only buy them for the awesome looks, power, and spacious interiors.

 

As much as I enjoy a really good walk ... yes, I actually do in fact walk a lot ... sometimes 45 minutes to an hour around UCLA at 3AM (my favorite times) ... I also tremendously enjoy driving. I really don't mind traffic jams at all. I usually watch a bit of TV, crank up the music a bit, or play around with the GPS, or the CB. When I get my 2meter HAM radio in a few months, that should add another dimension of vehicular entertainment!

 

By the way, some of the best ideas in my life have come to me while driving.

[vava]

... Even if it's a bug SUV (sorry sip) like a Lincoln Navigator

No need to be sorry .... I am definitely not your normal SUV driver ... can't really get through this or go to a place like this with a honda.

 

Oh no, don't get me wrong. Your machine is all rigged our for the 4x4 ing that you love so much. And you have the pictures to prove that you actually go off-roading. (I know it's not photoshop )

 

But many (errr.... most) SUV owners are definitely NOT off-roaders; they're unashamed petrol abusers to the detriment of everyone on the planet....

[Sip]

I was editing my previous message but decided it's porbably a good idea to post a new reply:

 

What I don't understand is why people sometimes blame traffic on "big" SUV"s ... sure some are bigger than normal sedans but they are not that much bigger.

 

But in terms of efficiency, most SUVs are not much worse than some sports cars. Especially the newer SUVs. I don't see people getting all choked up and crying about sporty cars ... so what I can't figure out is why all this "SUV" bashing that's going on???? (not talking about you vava! just in general). There is this huge anti-SUV movement while most people don't seem to understand what causes polution and what polution really means.

 

They equate "big" with bad. While most of the time, a "chipped" sports car or an unmaintained older mercedes (that is burning oil) can burn up more gas and dump more polutions in the air than some of the biggest SUVs. I am NOT saying SUVs in general are the most efficient things out there .. but they are definitely not as evil as some people make them sound to be ... at least not MORE evil than a whole bunch of other vehicles.

 

In terms of burning up gas, we are going to finish the reserves sooner or later so I don't see much problems with sooner rather than later. We HAVE to find alternative sources and I'm not convinced electrical is such a good thing either. What's so "clean" about electrical when it is coming from nuclear power plants? I always laugh at those who try to argue that electric vehicles are "better" for the environment. Idiots!!!!

[Sip]

By the way, here's something to ponder ... I do NOT believe carpooling will reduce traffic congestion in big cities (like Los Angeles) at all.

[Accelerated]

In defence of performance cars - LOL,

 

Most weight half of average SUV displacement and therefore are much less dangerous to other road users and pedestrians in case of accidents. Performance cars also have much better dynamics, road holding and brakes making them safer for the occupants.

[vava]

I'm not too sure that safety is one of the issues we were addressing... and I agree with your points, however, you're modified sports car is going to travel (on average) MUCH faster than the regular family sedan on the road. In the case of sudden impact, that extra speed could mean the difference between 'just another accident' and loss of life.

[vava]

What I don't understand is why people sometimes blame traffic on "big" SUV"s  ... sure some are bigger than normal sedans but they are not that much bigger.     

Nope, actually we're not blaming traffic/congestion on SUVs. We're blaming that on the North American mindset of "it's far more convenient to DRIVE somewhere, than actually think about the general consequences of my (and everyone else's) actions upon our planet."

 

But in terms of efficiency, most SUVs are not much worse than some sports cars. Especially the newer SUVs. I don't see people getting all choked up and crying about sporty cars ... so what I can't figure out is why all this "SUV" bashing that's going on???? (not talking about you vava! just in general). There is this huge anti-SUV movement while most people don't seem to understand what causes polution and what polution really means.

 

Again, it's not SUV bashing, don't get me wrong. It's 'over indulgence' bashing. I used to drive a late model minivan for my work. (yes, a minivan <_<) My fuel economy by myself was about 17L/100km. My ford focus now uses about half that. Already: a little bit of impact. And yes, SUVs aren't the worst evil-doers out there, but I'm not only concerned about SUVs, I'm concerned about the whole bunch of other 'evil' vehicles.

 

Actually the reason that SUVs are often the focus now is the proliferation of SUVs everywhere the last decade. Fastest growing vehicle category (sales) in NA the last few of years. Under most normal circumstances, they are not necessary - they could be replaced, by say, a much more efficient station wagon. That being said, my post wasn't targeting SUVs in particular, it's just that they're TOO common, and TOO obviously anti-conservation.

 

And Sip, you're absolutely right in that a poorly maintained 'old' car is much worse a polluter than a new SUV. But why should we be talking worst case scenarios here? We should be pro-actively trying to reduce pollutants in ALL aspects of out lives: from industrial components in manufacturing facilities, to the massively polluting (and most of the time poorly maintained) deisel trucks delivering the merchandise, to out own individual consumption (fertilizer for the lawn, cleaning products, etc...) But these are all baby steps.

 

We HAVE to find alternative sources and I'm not convinced electrical is such a good thing either. What's so "clean" about electrical when it is coming from nuclear power plants?  I always laugh at those who try to argue that electric vehicles are "better" for the environment. Idiots!!!!

 

Yes, Nuclear, isn't necessarily cleaner - no one said that, i don't think... But being able to harness electricity from more natural sources (wind generators, solar, etc.) and using that as an adjunct to 'clean' altenative fuels: ethanol, or even better a Hydrogen fuel cell - will contribute to a massive reduction of emissions. And that's what we should be setting a an objective.

[Accelerated]

I'm not too sure that safety is one of the issues we were addressing...

 

Well.....even in fuel consumption terms performance cars are ahead (hardcore supercars with large engine displacements: Ferraris, Porsches etc. are sold in very small numbers)

 

you're modified sports car is going to travel (on average) MUCH faster than the regular family sedan on the road.

 

I dont agree, in Australia thanks to quite strict speeding regulations/fines its not such a problem - I dont think I have ever seen someone gunning a sports car all out on public roads. True a performance car will travel faster on average, but not much more than 10km/h, that still doesnt make up for the SUV hefty weight.

 

And adressing nairis point on 'car culture'. I think its because people have less and less free time on their hands, cars are a relativelly rapid means of transport to save time. Also, many people (including myself) actually enjoy driving, since we got the Mazda, I actually look for excuses to drive, its been almost 4 months but I still love it I dont like being stuck in traffic though.............

[vava]

By the way, here's something to ponder ... I do NOT believe carpooling will reduce traffic congestion in big cities (like Los Angeles) at all.

Please elaborate.

[Sip]

By the way, here's something to ponder ... I do NOT believe carpooling will reduce traffic congestion in big cities (like Los Angeles) at all.

Please elaborate.

In a place like Los Angeles, there is a HUGE surplus of cars. What happens is, due to congestion (among other factors), people seek alternative transportations such as buses, carpool vans, telecomuting, or simply altering their commute schedule (such as me).

 

So now, if more people start to carpool, the congestion on the roads goes down. This creates enough incentive for those who had chosen not to commute, to actually switch back to the now much more convenient single-driver car scenario. It sounds paradoxical at first, but I have personally witnessed this phenomena over and over in LA when they add carpool lanes to a freeway. In certain cases, the addition of the carpool lane actually makes the congestion problem WORSE!

 

Now of course, it is rather trivial to see that with carpooling, the total throughput of the road increases (number of people passed per time unit). However, the problem of congestion, is NOT affected much by carpooling (and policies that encourage carpooling) in large metropolitan areas with a rather "infinite" pool of potential cars on the road, relative to the capacity of the roads themselves.

 

 

---

on a side note, I did take the bus for 2 years from home to UCLA and from UCLA to work. It was not uncommon for me to spend 4 - 6 hours commuting per day ... 1 hour from home to mid point to school to switch buses, 1 hour from the mid point to schoo, and 1 hour from school to work. These times do include waits at bus stops since as anyone who has ever taken a bus knows, you almost always get to the bus stop right after the previous bus left!

 

But that did allow me to save up enough to buy my first blazer!!!! I will admit, that I actually enjoyed the bus commute a lot and managed to get a lot done during the commute. That was back when I used to do homework!!! (freshman/sophomore in college).