JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable
light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers.
I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please
doesn't
work in this country.

Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't
belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let
the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl

Would you agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

It would certainly be a good goal, however it will not in any way solve
or reduce the problems that it helped to create. Indeed if we stop
buying oil from the ME it could make the situation there even worse.
Since China would likely buy whatever we don't that later issue may not
be as significant now.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. What if a family of four can get a 35%
improvement in gas mileage by owning a certain vehicle, without losing
any
of the REAL (as opposed to imaginary) advantages of an SUV?

Not a valid option as there is no vehicle I'm aware of that gets 35%
better MPG than a typical SUV and still has the same real advantages of
the SUV.

My kid's 4 cylinder 1996 Camry wagon gets 35% better gas mileage than the
typical 6 or 8 cylinder SUV. How about offering the car makers some sort of
incentive for bringing back wagons? There *is* a demand for them. He's found
3 notes stuck under his windshield wiper from people wondering if he wanted
to sell the car. These vehicles satisfy one of the needs fulfilled by SUVs:
Carrying lots of stuff without crowding the passengers.

Mini vans do the job as well if you don't need off road capability or
much cargo weight capability. I seem to recall soccer moms in min vans
being regularly disparaged before those mini vans were replaced with
SUVs and they were in turn disparaged. Seems more like the people are
the ones that are disliked, and the vehicle is just a convenient PC
target.


Just because you don't believe someone else needs the
capabilities of an SUV does not in any way make those capabilities
imaginary.

The glut of SUVs in used car lots would seem to contradict how well they
fulfilled the needs of their prior owners.

An unsubstantiated assumption. The fact that a person traded in an SUV
neither tells us that it didn't fulfill their needs, nor does it tell us
they didn't trade it in for another SUV.

For instance, SUVs are *not*
better in winter weather for the vast majority of drivers who never go off
road.

Again false. SUVs are not better under any conditions for drivers who
lack driving skills, they are indeed better for those of us who do
posses driving skills and understand their capabilities, limitations and
how to handle them. The failings of our driver education and licensing
in the US is not the fault of the vehicle.

They're often sold with off-road tires that are hideous in snow.

I haven't seen many SUVs on dealer lots with actual off road tires, all
terrain seem the most common and do just fine in snow.

Safety in accidents? Not really.

Yes, really. The SUV detractors try to hype up rollover deaths, but the
reality is that there are far more accidents involving SUVs where the
occupants are uninjured and the vehicle does not roll.

Rollover accidents are more deadly than
other types.

And less frequent.

According to the NY State Police, they see more fatalities with
SUVs in highway accidents where another vehicle wasn't directly involved
with the impact. Why? Upside down in the median.

Again poor driver education and licensing is the problem, not the
vehicle. Note that most every commercial vehicle, from step vans to box
trucks to semis have much higher CGs than any SUV and yet there isn't a
plague of rollover accidents with them. The difference is entirely
driver education and licensing. Not to say that thos commercial vehicles
don't ever roll, just that it is quite infrequent relative to the number
of such vehicle miles.


Is a 35%
improvement not worth thinking about, especially if multiplied by the
number
of SUVs in this country?

There are other ways to make a more significant improvement without any
change in vehicles. A substantial amount of our vehicle use is in
unnecessary commuting and solo commuting. The current fuel prices are
already improving the situation by triggering more carpooling and more
telecommuting.

There's a limit to how much of that can take place. Twice a week, I pass by
a park & ride lot. It's as empty as it's been for many years.

An advertising campaign would help that. Remind people of the carpooling
and mass transit options while they are receptive due to the increased
fuel prices.