Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

What would Jesus drive?

0 helpful
93 replies

by Member 25348569 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Last night on the UK?s Channel 4 we had a TV documentary that was part of a series covering global warming. This particular hour covered the love of Americans for the car and, in particular, the current craze for "gas-guzzling" SUVs. During the program we had interviews with the committed on both extremes of the SUV-lovers spectrum but very little from those in the middle.

The programme pointed out that In the US, by the end of the 20th century, overall vehicle economy had dropped to its lowest level in 20 years. "Two decades of fuel-saving technologies, that could have helped curb carbon dioxide emissions, have instead gone into increasing vehicle weight and performance".

To my amazement, I learned that the US government waves them on with tax breaks. This is because SUVs are modelled on the frames of commercial vehicles. In other words, as far as the US taxman is concerned, they're really trucks.

They are unsafe ? at least to any car or pedestrian that they crash into. Like an arms race, as more drivers choose heavier and heavier SUVs, those who choose lighter cars are in more danger and, as SUVs are classed as trucks, they don?t have to pass the same safety checks as a normal car. The narrower SUVs roll over four times more easily than a normal car, for instance.

SUVs - 4WD over here - are getting popular here with the middle classes and are starting to cause resentment amongst some groups. London?s Mayor is trying to charge them extra to get into the centre of London (we already pay ?5 per day for driving in the city centre), Paris has declared them ?totally unacceptable? and Rome is to treble the permit rate for SUVs to enter the city. The only reason that we don?t have as many 4WDs as the US is that it costs $90 or more to fill a fuel tank on one.

Eleven percent of world oil consumption is to provide gas for US cars.

I know there are some people who regularly write on this forum who do not believe in Global Warming ? or at least in Man?s contribution to it. However, just in case they are wrong, isn?t there a good case for the US to try and reduce gas consumption as it would have a number of good effects:

Reduce your balance of payments.

Reduce your reliance on Middle East oil.

Reduce carbon emissions ? just in case!

Make the rest of the world like you a little more after Kyoto.

It?s generally believed in the UK that the US, generally, cares very little about the environment and global warming. However, I?m not after a flaming and I?m just asking for some input. Is our perception justified? Was the program right in its conclusion that US gas consumption is spiralling out of control ? possibly taking the Earth?s climate with it?

Thanks

Neil

93 replies

by jessie

As an American, I don't hate SUVs, they have their place. I just hate the people who drive them because they're the current status symbol. I'm not a "tree hugger" by nature, but I see no reason to purchase a vehicle that gets at best 20mpg on the highway, when all you're going to do with it is haul the kids to soccer practice and haul your groceries home.

As far as I'm concerned, it's like using a sledge hammer to pound in a thumbtack... it's overkill.

by jamesrl

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the cost of fuel in UK and the potential for that to be one of the deciding factors.

In Canada, despite the fact we are a net exporter of gas, we put a lot of taxes on gas, and its somewhat more expensive here than in the US. So while we have much of the same geographic drivers as the US, we tend to have more economy cars and minivans versus SUVs. This despite the fact that the "average" Canadian experiences more snow than the "average" American.

You will find that if you look at sales figures, the ultra guzzlers like the Expedition and the Suburban are descreasing in sales, while the smaller SUVs with 4 cylinders are increasing (Honda CRV, Toyota RAV 4 etc). Thats in response to the spike in prices due to the Iraq war, so its too early to see if its a long term trend.

And hybrids like the Prius also have very long waiting lists in the US and Canada.

So its not as bleak as that program portrays. But perhaps its not improving as fast as I might like.

James

by dennis.rhine

It is interesting to see how people are perceiving the American public with regards to the question of environmental protection and transportation. We get a lot of bad press - justifiable - for not signing on to the Kyoto Accords. We are known for driving SUV's that get terrible fuel economy. However, at this year's Detroit Auto Show there were more hybrids and alternative fuel cars than ever before. Trying to purchase a hybrid car often takes months due to the number of people waiting in line to buy.

Odd, isn't it? It seems that people gathering at the poles in this question of transportation. I would prefer to see us develop a better public transportation system for local transport. I would also like to see us sign on to the Kyoto accords (and a few other UN sponsored treaties).

Just remember when you are watching the news - there is a whole range of people in all countries, including the US :)

by Member 25348569

I merely wanted to find out if the program was showing the real picture or was slanted.

To borrow some more ammunition from channel 4, surely simple economics states that if you can't buy a hybrid/alternative car then you aren't making enough. Is is that (maybe) most of them are Japanese. Perhaps US manufacturers are not yet tooled up for this type of car and don't have the designs and don't perceive the need?

If I, as a dealer or manufacturer, were able to make/sell a hulking great Hummer or some sort of baby Honda car that ran on cooking oil then which would I choose?

by jamesrl

Its true that Japanese manufacturers are ahead in Hybrid technology. They tend to make the best conventional cars in terms of mileage as well.

Ford is selling an SUV hybrid - the Ford Escape - which gets good mileage. GM is selling "mild" hybrid pickups which get slightly better (10%) mileage - but if everyone got 10% better mileage the world would be a much better place.

There are alternatives to buying a new hybrid. A new Toyota Echo gets great mileage. The New Jeep Liberty Diesel will get outstanding mileage for an SUV.

And dealers will sell what the consumer is buying. Right now Hummers are not selling well at all.

James

by hal 9000

They would chose the one which made the most money for them.

All manufactures are greedy Bar stewards!

But the Japanese Hybrid cars are really nothing new as Dr Porsche developed this type of thing prior to WW11 to drive a lot of the German Military equipment around. Even today all the heavy earthmoving equipment used in Europe has to be electrically operated for pollution reduction purposes. But really they can have smaller motors that are more fuel efficient and still get the same job done.

If you like I can send you a picture of a machine that is used to remove earth in massive amounts it has 16 buckets on it which each pick up 20 cubic feet of soil at a time and the head spins at about 2,000 RPM's. The thing is truly massive and is used quite a lot in Europe. It has 4 little cranes on its sides which are only capable of lifting 40 tons each.

Col

by maxwell edison

.
Don't be silly. Of course you're judging those people in the United States. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comments that you did -- especially taken out of the full context.

You were especially judging with your self-righteous "abundance" comments.

by jdmercha

Here is what I think the general American perspective is. (Not necessariliy my opinions.) And yes it varires widely from one individual to the next.

"Reduce your balance of payments."
Wouldn't you drive a large car if you could afford it? There's nothing like the sound and power of a good old American V8.

"Reduce your reliance on Middle East oil."
We can buy gas 24 hours a day. We have some of the lowest gas prices in the world. By the time it becomes a serious problem here, we will just convert to natual gas or fuel cells.

Reduce carbon emissions ? just in case!
Can't see it, it doesn't exist.

by hal 9000

As somewhere in the Bible it is claimed that he tore across the desert in Triumph.

But seriously the on SUV side of things over here in AU they used to be treated the same way considered as trucks so they didn't have to pass the safety tests {which in my opinion are not worth much but I'm of the Old School when it comes to Mechanical Engining so I will not profess to know that much.}

But now the laws have been changed because of the number of serious crashes that these things have been involved in and most times caused. The basic design is inherently unsafe a high Center of Gravity mixed with a comparatively narrow wheel base means that they just have to roll over when driven hard or harder than they should be compared to a conventional car in certain circumstances. Like wet roads reverse camber corners and things like that. They also do not track as well at speed but this is again is in the basic design and when mixed with off road tires they are a recipe for disaster.

This is something that most people who drive these silly things do not realize that they require a different driving technique.

Unfortunately most people think that just because they have a license that can drive anything safely.

Col

by hal 9000

You really do not want to visit that topic again do you?

However these SUV's as they are called have the tendency to not only kill the driver but throw out the passengers as well before the roof collapses down on the driver.

Actually we had a funny collision over here recently at a set of traffic lights a girl driving her bosses Porsche 911 had a semi topple over onto it and she released the seatbelt and laid across the passengers seat. She survived the squashing and was promptly given a traffic ticket for not wearing a seat belt which would have killed her.

Who ever claimed that the Law made Sense needs a lot of treatment.

Col

by jamesrl

Especially during the first snow fall of the year. Its quite often that the vehicle in the ditch is an SUV. While in snow they have straight line traction, they can't stop as fast, are less stable, and most importantly seem to embue some of their drivers with a strange sense of invincibility.

I saw some convincing footage which tried to explain why SUV drivers were dying from rollovers. Many rollovers happen when the driver lets a wheel go onto the soft shoulder, panics then over corrects. The over correction often puts them into the next lane over, then they try to correct back into their original lane, overcorrect again, and voila they are on the shoulder, into the ditch and rolling - because the high centre of gravity makes lane changes much less stable than in most cars.

James

by montgomery gator

It was said that King David's Triumph was heard throughout the land. (Apparently it was a very loud motorcycle)

The Apostles believed in car pooling. It was recorded in the Acts of the Apostles that they were in one Accord. (apparently they liked Hondas).

It is also recorded that God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden in a Fury.

http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert.fs/trivia.htm

by hal 9000

As I have one unaltered since it left the factory, it is based on a 1965 Beetle and has all wheel disk brakes, a 5 speed gearbox and a 2.5 Lt motor. The flywheel has been carved down from its original 40 Pd's to 6 Pd's and currently I'm debating if I stick with the 48 mm Dual Thought Webber Cross Flow Carb or go with Fuel Injection. All the suspension is Sway Away and the motor is all new Scat except for the tin ware and Alternator Stand which is standard VW.

But maybe we should have saved this for the Friday Yuk.

Col :D

by maxwell edison

.
A pickup truck: When he wanted to help others with their heavy load.

A Mustang: When he wanted to remind himself of a magnificent beast created by his Father.

A Jeep Liberty: When he wanted to remind us that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

An Eagle: When he wanted to remind people of the heights to which they could reach -- if only they dared.

A Dodge Challenger: When he wanted to remind us that life may not be easy.

A Chevrolet Caprice: For all those impulsive moments.

A Land Rover: When he wanted to travel amongst the magnificence places of all the Earth.

A Ford Explorer: When he wanted to seek out new places.

A Chevrolet Corvette: To protect us from danger along the way.

A Buick Riviera: To go to his beach house.

A Cadillac Eldorado: To remind us that the Earth is a place of abundance and opportunity.

An Infiniti: When he wanted to remind us of the length of time we will spend in the "here-after".

A Chevrolet Avalanche: When he wanted to remind us of the power of nature.

A Toyota Corolla: When he wanted to remind us of the beauty of nature.

A Celebrity: When he wanted to flaunt his popularity.

A Trail Blazer: When he wanted us to follow His way.

A Lincoln Navigator: When he wanted to remind us that He will show us the way.

A Renault Alliance: When he wanted to show us that He is indeed on our side.

A Rolls-Royce Phantom: When he wanted to display His true presence -- as it appears to us.

A Pontiac Phoenix: When he wanted to show us that we can indeed rise up from our failures and start anew.

A Yugo: When he wanted to say, "You go forth and honor the Father by being the best you can be.

(Note: The various use of he versus He was intentional.)

by Member 25348569

to demonstrate that the Cadillac Eldorado is totally inappropriate when the abundance of the Earth is available to so few.

by maxwell edison

.
Think of the places on Earth where abundance and opportunity are denied to those living upon that particular parcel of the Earth. For the most part, those are places that are controlled by corrupt and oppressive regimes.

Your suggestion, by inference, that the USA is somehow responsible for that is absolute nonsense.

Abundance and opportunity are available to all those who live under systems that guarantee freedom and liberty for all. And yes, I will therefore suggest that abundance and opportunity are available to absolutely every person living in the United States. The problem is, too many people are out there trying to convince them otherwise.

by jdmercha

Well it has been documented that Jesus rode on a donkey.

I wish I could quote the source but I have heard that if cars were replaced with horses today:

1: there would be more deaths on our roadways.
2: there would be more pollution from the animals waste.

Since Jesus wasn't concerned about the ill effects of the donkey, why would he be concerned of the ill effects of an SUV. He is concernde with your soul not your health.

But then again, if he were around today he would probably be riding around in the pope-mobile.

by a_dangerous_mind

The primary source for what Jesus would do is in the four gospels. But the Bible is an ancient document, and the historical Jesus lived before automobiles and concerns about global warming. If you'll read the gospels, though, you'll notice that he had a way of re-framing the questions that were brought to him in a way that called the questioner to consider his own life. And in doing so, he had a way of dodging the dilemmas others made up for him and the loaded questions and bringing the discussion back to his real concerns.

In other words, we can't simply take something that we consider to be a positive value and say that Jesus would be for it. Jesus never allowed himself to be painted into those kinds of corners during his earthly life. I don't think that we can make up an answer for him on this one. I think that we would probably find another uncomfortable challenge to ourselves if he were to answer it for us.

by hal 9000

What you are saying is that Jesus was a Politician.

Never answered the questions asked went off on a tangent when pressed for an answer and generally left people wondering what had just happened.

That must mean that Tony Blair is the second coming and we should all bow down before him and treat him as God.

At least that way he would be sure of being reelected.

Col :D

by maxwell edison

.
You said, "Eleven percent of world oil consumption is to provide gas for US cars."

Okay, I'll take your word on that, however:

The United States produces nearly 20 percent of the world's output of coal, copper, and crude petroleum.

The United States produces 50 percent of the world's corn.

The United States produces 20 percent of the world's beef, pork, mutton, and lamb.

The United States produces more than 10 percent of the world's wheat.

The United States produces about 60 percent of the world's soybeans.

The United States produces about 20 percent of the world's cotton.

The United States produces approximately 75 percent of the world's almonds.

The United States produces approximately 80 percent of the world's pecans.

US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computer technology, medical and aerospace.

I could go on and on and on. But all-in-all, the United States economy produces about 25 percent of the world?s goods and services, but only uses 11 percent of the world's gas. Hey, the U.S. is 14 percent BETTER than the world's average.

If the United States "produces more", it certainly stands to reason the United States might "consume more" of the resources that make such production possible. One should always consider the entire picture when throwing around such statistics.

by fonken monken uk

to add to that 'entire picture' some more there.
The United STates also produces vast amounts of pollution to go along with that high production.

One thing the I think said program was getting at, and could be what pains many non-US people is that yes, you produce this vast amount of stuff, but if you're so cutting edge in your approaches, can you not do it without producing so much crap and waste and without polluting water tables etc?

If the US is so cutting edge (I realise as I wrote that that it sounds as if heckles are up - not intended), why is Kyoto not worth it? Surely you can take it in your stride?! Just another challenge to overcome!

by jamesrl

I wouldn't hold up the US as the paragon of low pollution production, but in relative terms when compared to factories in China, Russia, Eastern Europe, they produce much less pollution per unit of output.

And I say that as someone who is downwind from the Ohio Valley coal plants that provide acid rain to my part of Canada. (50% of Smog in Toronto originates south of the border).

Yes, they could do more, but if they had the same kind of coal plants that China does, it would be much much worse.

James

by jessie

Just because Kyoto is "not worth it" to our current administration does not mean that we're all against Kyoto. I think that most Americans (even the Republicans :0) ) if you asked them directly would say that preserving our natural resources is very important to us... Unfortunately, our government is in bed with Big Business and it all comes down to the bottom line. Kyoto is going to be EXPENSIVE and Big Business is only interested in making a buck.

by maxwell edison

.
Among the most polluted cities in the world are Bangkok, Bombay, Calcutta, and Mexico City, none of which are in the USA, and where 68% of the population have pulmonary complaints. In Cracovie, Poland breathing is equivalent to smoking two packets of cigarettes per day. Delhi, Djakarta, Le Caire, Los Angeles, Manille and Mexico are the biggest cities which are the most polluted in the world. (Only one of which in in the USA.)

According to the World Resources Institute, nine out of the ten most polluted cities in the world, in fact, are reported to be in China (the other is in India). Soot caused by coal combustion, a highly pollutive method of producing energy, is a major cause of this pollution. China is the second largest energy consumer in the world, after the United States, but only 20% of the population is hooked up to the electrical grid, and they are a much worse pollutor. Reportedly, only about 30 percent or less of the 27 billion metric tons of waste water discharged in China each year is treated in some fashion and air pollution exceeds environmental standards by hundreds of percent. The central city of Lanzhou, for example, a hub of petro-chemical and machine production, is recognized as one of the planet's most polluted cities with the least breathable air in the world.

Kyoto is grossly unfair to the USA, while it exempts much worse offenders.

by Member 25348569

because I just don't know - yet.

This wasn't intended as a US-bashing exercise but you do react so vigorously to inferred criticism!

However, taking your population into account and, if your figures about oil production are true then why the hell are you a huge net oil importer?

You don't produce *that* much for export else your Deficit wouldn't be so high!

As for the data on pecans and almonds - your nuts!

by maxwell edison

.
All of my figures are accurate. Even the nutty ones.

And our deficit is so high, not because of the producers of this country, but because of the non-producers. Over 60 percent of every dollar the US government spends, is a dollar taken from a producer of something and given to a non-producer. Moreover, production in the USA is not controlled by the government, per se, but rather by private enterprise. And the deficit spending of the federal government is not related to the national GDP -- the total output of our production.

by Member 25348569

and 200 million of them are in the USA. I just think that a little bit less conspicuous comsumption might not do any of us any harm.

I don't see that the government of India is necessarily corrupt and oppressive but they sure as hell don't have access to the resources that you - and we - take for granted.

Watch out, though. If they get their act together they and the Chinese will bury us all.

by maxwell edison

You said that you "think that a little bit less conspicuous comsumption might not do any of us any harm."

And that's not "judging"?

by jessie

I wouldn't consider such a PC statement with words like "think", "a little" and "might not" as judging at all... I think maybe you might, perhaps, be a little thin-skinned. America is not a perfect country... it's a damn site better than a lot of other places you could live... but we are by no means perfect. Just because someone from another country points out our imperfections (and we can point out that they've got Tony Blair)doesn't mean that person is attacking you or the country you live in. If you told your CSO that next time they went to the store, perhaps they could spend a little less... would that be a personal attack?

by hal 9000

India is one of the most technically advanced countries outside of the USA.

I can remember a long time ago when I was asked to run a medical cyclotron and just how great it was all this "New Technology" coming to AU my best straight faced reply was well India has 3 of these things and has done so for over 30 years now so when do we see the "New Technology?"

Of course there are some massive differences in the area between the haves and have nots but that is just India's way of soughing out the wheat from the chaff something that the USA has been unable to as yet perform.

Col :D

by Member 25348569

I've been to India and the place is buzzing - as is China although I've not been there. Why is all the outsourcing going to India if not that they can DO it? The "advanced" areas are growing out from selected cities, Mumbai, Shanghai, but there is a huge amount of ignorance and poverty in both countries but that must change.

What I was attempting to indicate is that as their economies develop and wealth trickles down both populations will likely move towards the particular conspicuous consumption that they see in all the imported movies and TV shows.

First it will be the "necessities" of fridge and electric stove and then they'll move on. Bigger, newer, faster, more buttons.

I don't think the planet can stand that but how can we, the West, deny anything to them if we do absolutely nothing ourselves?

Neil

by fonken monken uk

How right you are Jessie, I was nearly falling into a 'Governor of California' thing by making such a broad statement ; )

But your right. I guess my point was if your so damn good at producing stuff, why cant you be so damn good at cutting pollution to? Sadly it appears the pollution is at the top and works down...and out...and to the right a bit.

I used the word 'damn' twice in this post - I saw a John Wayne film once and he said 'damn' a lot; I hope my usage helps support what I'm saying, in the way it supported what John Wayne said (on film)!
; )

by jessie

We import a DAMN site more than we export... which doesn't seem at all right considering all the natural resources we hold... but it's cheaper to have our products made overseas and then bring them in... same thing with pollution... it's cheaper (short term) to pollute than it is to clean up our act... what's REALLY stupid is some of the so-called "fines" for pollution... it's STILL cheaper than getting rid of waste legally/ethically. The fine for companies that do illegal dumping is about a quarter of what it costs to take their waste to a land fill!!! What kind of damn sense does THAT make!?!?!?!

I like damn... it's a good word!

by Member 25348569

The Chinese factories are, I suspect, making things that we in the West would consider essential and that they don't have. Perhaps a refrigerator that may prevent some child deaths from food poisoning.

The much "lower polluting" western factory makes mp3 players or X-boxes. I'm not suggesting that there's such a thing as "righteous pollution" but you have to get the big picture.

That will - and is - changing and they'll ramp up their production of the sort of stuff that we have and they really don't need.

I think, however, that the example presented by the West is what is the real problem. Why should the Chinese and Indians cut back on oil consumption and emissions generally if the US doesn't seem to want to lift a finger?

by Member 25348569

The program that I saw - and the thread title is the title of the piece and not an atheist's dig at Fundamental America - came over as very one-sided and I wanted to know what Americans really think about Global Warming.

Max, however, bit hook, line, sinker, rod, reel and copy of Angling Times - to use an English expression for over-reaction.

by jessie

... just get along? You guys are both seemingly well educated, intelligent people... seemingly...

by maxwell edison

.
But our friend from across the Atlantic is.

Am I passionate about some subjects? Absolutely. You can call it thin-skinned if you want. But that's your description, not mine.

And I'm "getting along" just fine. I've attacked no one or no country, just some silly assertions. Unfortunately, others can't say the same thing.

And actually, my very first post (my Jesus is driving message) was intended to be rather light-hearted, but it was answered with a quasi attack.

by maxwell edison

.
It was my intention, although I can't really say for sure, to post only that one message and no more. The last thing I wanted to do was to get into yet another "global warming" discussion with someone. I've had too many in recent months, and I'm kinda' burned out on it. One person thinks the sky is falling, I don't, so we can agree to disagree -- end of story. So it wasn't my intention to "get into it" with anyone.

You'll notice that in my "What Jesus Drives" message (the first message I posted), that absolutely every one of my chosen vehicles gives a reason that is directly related to the "real" definition of that vehicle's name (Caprice = impulsive, Phoenix = rise up again, etc.), while still showing some reverence towards Jesus. It was supposed to be a humorous (and hopefully clever) play-on-words. But our friend from the UK, for whatever reason, decided to tear into one of them and exploit it, presumably to satisfy his "bash the USA" agenda. And his subsequent postings only serve to reinforce such a suspicion.

The guy was looking for an excuse to show intolerance for Americans, and/or to yet again "blame America" for all the world's problems, either real or percieved. Was he trying to "bait" someone, as you could certainly surmise from his "got me hook line and sinker" comment? Well, if he was, he did indeed get me to bite. But that would cast even more doubt on his real intentions -- anything but what he claimed.

Nonetheless, I've had my say, and, quite frankly, I've had it with people who show such mean-spirited intolerance towards me and my country.

by maxwell edison

.
You said you were looking for information, but I suppose mine wasn't the kind of information you were looking for. I guess you weren't looking for balance.

You go from bashing the USA to bashing me. I suppose we now know what your agenda is.

by Member 25348569

while you burn it up at 15 miles per gallon and that's why they use coal. They are where we were a hundred years ago. We were pretty bad then.

Oil should not just be burnt. It's far too crucial in load s of other industries.

Anyway, whatever the other countries do has nothing to do with this argument. Catalytic converters and the industrial equivalents remove all the really nasties in the West but it's not pollution that is going to kill us - it's carbon dioxide. Unfortunately - judging from a post I read in another thread - you don't believe that, do you?

by maxwell edison

.
Yes, they can indeed "afford" oil. In fact, China is leading the way in oil consumption, and their growth in oil imports has been greater than any other nation by huge margins. And no, they aren't where we were 100 years ago. We now have technologies where coal can be used in a cleaner manner. We now have nuclear power capability, where none existed 100 years ago. France, in fact, gets 80-90 percent of its power from nuclear sources. And China has no excuse for releasing 70 percent of its waste water without treatment. That technology is indeed available where it wasn't 100 years ago.

And no, I suppose you don't want to talk about other countries. That wouldn't allow you to continue on your "bash the USA" tirade.

And no, I do not believe that "global warming" (if the globe is actually warming) is caused by humans. And I have some pretty good company. In fact, if you were to research the opinion of all of the world's "scientists", you would find that 83 percent of them do not believe that human activities are causing global warming, while only 17 percent do. And then you might consider how much money that 17 percent is getting from various government agencies to "study" the "problem".

But you do think, by your own admission, that "carbon dioxide......is going to kill us."

Now what was that we were saying about "nuts"?

by hal 9000

The main byproduct of combustion with the new unleaded fuels is H2SO2 Hydrogen Sulfur Di-Oxide and it is greater in cars with catalytic converters.

I remember a Porsche which was sent to the USA which exceeded the proposed 1996 CA emission laws which every US Auto maker claimed was impossible to do. SO the Powers that Be sent it on a tour around the US until someone realized that it didn't have a catalytic converter fitted.

It just goes to show if you design something properly in the first place you do not need all the added junk which is the accepted manner of making emissions less by some of the big Auto Makers. After all it is a lot cheaper for them to tack on another bit which they can make money on as a spare part rather than to do a complete redesign and retool.

Col

by Member 25348569

As I said in the first couple of posts, I wanted to get a view from the "middle ground" about a programme I watched the previous evening. The program, part of a series about Global Warming, *did* indirectly and directly criticise the US and the trend hera and there towards gas-guzzling cars and I wanted to find out if it was a balanced view.

The problem we have, however, is that you took it as some sort of attack on the US in the same manner that you reacted to posts on the US elections from TR's Canadian coterie.

As for the Jesus stuff, well, I'm an atheist and I can only recognise religious "light-heartedness" if it's so obvious that it chews off my leg so sorry about that one.

Let us take the premise of Global Warming, which I reluctantly accept and you vehemently deny.

Say we all - who have a bigger car - switch to a 1.4l or smaller Ford Focus, maximum one per household.

If you are right, all that happens is US/UK road safety improves as there are far fewer 4x4s to tip over or run into the back of normal cars because they can't brake. With the speed limits you have you certainly wont go any slower and there will be fewer jams with more room on the roads. You save money on gas and we save lots of money on gas.

If I'm right then it lowers dangerous emissions and slows down the greenhouse effect while we work out something more effective. It sends out a message that the West, especially the US, is trying. It sets the social climate for more effective energy savings AND I get all of the benefits that you have.

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll accept any advice so we?ll wait. Not enough people dying yet, and not enough property destroyed. We?ll keep our heads in the blazing hot sand until we actually feel the flames of a full-fledged catastrophe.

by jdmercha

"Say we all - who have a bigger car - switch to a 1.4l or smaller Ford Focus, maximum one per household"

I currently drive a 15mpg vehicle. So if I switch to 30MPG vehicle, guess what, my family won't fit in it. So I'd need 2 30mpg vehicles.
- I'd burn the same amount of gas
- I'd get stuck in the snow without AWD
- my insurance rates would go up because those small cars are not as safe
- There'd be an extra car on the road clogging up the roadways

I could go on and on.....

by Member 25348569

But most could do this, surely. If even *some* of the 4WD posers switched then it would help.

How much snow in LA or Florida? They can switch, surely? I've driven long-distance in California, Florida, Arizona and New Mexico and didn't feel any need for 4WD.

How many in your family? Five or more and I accept your point. However, if you had 2x30mpg cars you would still use less gas as when there is a journey for four or fewer people then you'd only use one car and then there would be a smaller road footprint.

I have a Focus and I can get 5 in it easily and drove 1200 miles across Europe in 2 comfortable days at an average speed greater than the US speed limit and got over 30mpg even across the mountains. Well-engineered small cars are safer than 4WDs for the driver and passengers except, unfortunately, when hit by a 4WD!

We could all go on and on...

by jessie

My family of 7 wouldn't fit in a Ford Focus either (or anything else built for 4 small people) but going for better gas mileage doesn't mean you HAVE to go for a smaller car. There are hybrids out there that offer better mileage... and there's always diesel, which burns cleaner. There are also PLENTY of smaller cars that get decent mileage that have AWD. AWD doesn't require a V8.

by hal 9000

They are far more stable on the road, behave far better than things like SUV's and are more survivable in a crash.

That is one of the idiot things as SUV's are considered as trucks they do not have to meet the safety regulations that cars need to meet but because of their size they tend to have more people crammed into them and it is these people who get hurt.

The drivers are under the mistaken impression that because they are higher they are safer when in actual fact they are far more likely to be up close and personal with either the road or what is on the edge when the thing turns turtle and in the process throwing out the kids to die while the driver gets crushed by the weight of the vehicle slowly as the body work collapses around them.

Col

by fonken monken uk

Insurance goes up becuase 'those' small cars are not as safe?

What?!

Having worked for an insurance company, and having driven and been insured on both big and small cars, as have many others, I can promise you that the insurance in less....much less on a small car, hence why you dont see new drivers charging around in Land Rovers.

And as for not as safe....I think there's a MIRA (Motor Industry Research Authority) report out there somewhere that'd blow that idea out the water!

by Member 25348569

but never dreamed it was *that* bad.

My knowledge of Aussie climate comes from Billy. The BBC turn each of his foreign tours into a combined travelogue/comedy series and, except for round the coast, it seemed that he was tracking across desert or near-desert for most of the time.

Hmmmm - posted this one in an alternate time-line.

by jamesrl

And I have 3 kids.

There have only been a couple of times in 4 years when the trunk has been completely full.

I get much closer to 30 MPG than 15.

I live in Canada, and used to drive to remote parts of Northern Ontario. Have seen lots of AWD vehicles stuck. If you use snow tires and have traction control, and drive "reasonably" you don't need 4WD. The best car I've ever driven in the snow was a Toyota Tercel. And I have rented 4WD SUVs like the Grand Cherokee and the Ford Escape.

James

by Member 25348569

I have an agenda: I don't like SUVs on UK roads and I think the resources that they use are generally not appropriate for the uses to which they are put.

I really did start this thread asking for input other nationals (especially the US where they are so popular) who drive SUVs to see if it would be the same b0ll0cks that we get from SUV drivers here.

Along with the obvious stuff - wider roads, for one - I got some real answers about weather, family size, tax-breaks and such that makes driving them more sensible in the US although I suspect that anyone who drives an SUV for pose value has maybe kept quiet.

All of a sudden I get accused with telling US citizens what to do and how to live your lives.

How could I DARE to do that with the Guardian Eagle ready to shield you from all criticism - real, indirect, implied or imaginary! I was asking for justification - I don't think that's unfair. Some of you answered - thank you - and some of you screamed "How DARE you?!".

I'm not alone in questioning the behaviour of other countries and their citizens across the World.

Take a look at yourself before you accuse me.

Neil

by hal 9000

Was it the City that had the EverReady company making products there that where far too expensive to make safely in the US?

Col

by Member 25348569

Max, me and Global Warming

You are right and we just run out of oil and the World's economy goes down the toilet.

I'm right and our children or grandchildren are probably dead before their time.

Maybe we can all do something about it. That's not anti-American unless YOU make it so.

Nuff said.

by Member 25348569

Mine's pretty bad but I don't think I'd really swap him for yours - or Max's!

As for Global Warming and Climate Change, I suspect that the climate in most of Oz wouldn't hurt from a bit of change? We are worrying about malarial mosquitos colonising the South of England in future years but I don't reckon you Aussies give a monkey's as you've more than your fair share of killer species already.

Please feel free to correct me as the only TV scenes we see from Oz lately seem to be forest fires.

An Aussie friend tells me that Brisbane is pretty nice but - what the hell - I can't miss a chance to further my evil commie agenda and rubbish some more of the English-speaking world.

by hal 9000

Show that I went to quite a few years ago. I particuarly loved the one about the "Box Jelly fish" up north they kill a lot of people and Billy comment was "MY God they come Gift Wrapped!"

Actually it's the hole in the Ozone layer that is more important down here lets in a lot of nasty UV and since when I was young it was considered as healthy to get sun burnt and eventually a tan I like most of those my age have skin cancer. Just a fact of life down here though I would prefer a different quack to remove the bloody things he's a very old friend and I never actually knew what he did other than he is a surgeon and the local Ballistics expert the latter is only because I've been at his house when the Police have come and taken him away after a shooting "I keep hoping against hope they will not bring him back" particuarly after the last time he attacked me.

It is more than a bit unnerving to have someone standing over you with a very sharp object saying something about being so worried about his work computers that he hopes his hand doesn't slip! Of course he never considered doing this when I couldn't see what he was doing only when it was in plain sight. So I yielded to the "BLACKMAIL" and did all of his work computers even though I no longer do any Government or Medical work, just sometimes you have to make an exception.

Of course once that was finished I again refused to even consider looking at his work computers and his response was to say "I don't like the look of that on your face I'll make an appointment next week to have it removed!"

I just laughed and asked had his eye sight improved as now he could see through my beard, while he is a good friend he is an "Evil Little Chinese Bastard as well" good thing that is his description of himself as I could get into trouble for saying it.

Col :D

by jdmercha

I have three large (over 6' - 200lbs) boys. I also have two small cars, besides my 15mpg truck. In small cars I have to tilt the driver's seat back or I hit my head on the roof. Thus I prefer to drive the larger truck.

by jdmercha

Tall SUV's do have a tendancy to roll over more. Not to mention, most people think that because they have 4WD they can drive faster in the snow.

by jdmercha

Small cars most often cost less to insure because they are less expensive. If you take similarly priced vehicles, the larger ones are often cheaper to insure.

I checked out http://insurance.yahoo.com/a/a1.html. A 2004 Dodge Dakota in NY has the same rate as a 2004 Subaru Outback.

by jdmercha

Yes, it seems that every winter everyone here forgets how to dirve.

The best car I've driven in the snow is my wife's Subaru Outback. With two boys in college it won't move their stuff in one trip.

by maxwell edison

.
The whole point of his argument is that another person (or other people), even if separated by thousands of miles of ocean, have a right to dictate how you live your life. Don't you see? You're not capable of making decisions that you deem are in the best interest of your own family, but other people should be able to make those decisions for you. At least that's what they presume.

by nd_it

Right now, we have about 17" of snow on the ground, and I get along just fine in my Alero. The traction control does awesome for both going and stopping on snow and ice, never had a problem and I don't have to take out a loan to fill it when we travel. Plus the payments are half of what a SUV or Truck would be.

by jamesrl

I really don't consider the Outback a traditional SUV. Its in most cases a four cylinder engine, has low centre of gravity, car based platform, narrow wheel base - its a car with AWD. If the people driving the bigger ones switched to smaller ones, we'd have fewer problems.

Would a minivan with AWD get better mileage than your truck?

James

by a_dangerous_mind

No, nothing I said hinted that Jesus was a dodge the issue politician. He turned hostile and loaded questions back on the questioner, and since these questioners were often politicians themselves, they did not take kindly to it. Remember that his crucifixion was a political execution by the authorities of the time. But my main point is that it is illogical to put 'Jesus would be in favor of' in front of something that we think is positive. His actual reaction would probably be much different than we expect.

by hal 9000

But had a politician doing exactly the same thing on TV at the time and couldn't resist the temptation.

Col :D

by montgomery gator

Neil wrote "How much snow in LA or Florida?"
...
I know something about this, having grown up in Florida and visited Louisiana on many occasions. True, not much snow in those states, but both are known for having large areas of swampland and dirt roads. You need 4WD if you do not want to get stuck in the swamps. Plenty of people use 4WDs when they go hunting so they can get to their hunting land. Same in Alabama, where I now live, which also has plenty of swampland. I don't hunt or own a 4WD myself, but I know plenty of people who do. My next car, though, may be a 4WD, since I am interested in getting one of those gas-electric hybrids, and the only one made in the United States is the Ford Escape, a 4WD SUV. Since where I live there is a lot of stop and go traffic, a 4WD SUV (Ford Escape hybrid) may actually be the best environmental choice, even if I don't drive in the swamps or snow. The Ford Escape hybrid does about 38 mpg, better than your Focus.

by jamesrl

Lets face it, the vast majority of SUVs that I see in urban centres never travel down a dirt road, let alone a swamp. They are strictly highway cruisers. They have less room than a minivan, they handle poorly compared to a minivan and they get worse mileage. Even a minivan with 4 wheel drive gets better mileage than and SUV because its lower and has less wind resistance(makes a big difference on the highway, less in the city).

And I grew up in the country, before 4x4 pickups became popular, and we never seemed to have a problem with dirt roads in our 2 wheel drive vehciles.

James

by hal 9000

You could say equally as well you are currently being dictated what you drive by the manufacturers only supplying certain types of vehicles and them promoting them to such an extent that they become "Sexy" to own or drive.

In Melbourne the home of the Turack Tractor "Range Rover" for the non Aussies here the only time that these things are taken off road is when they turn into the driveways of the houses where the people live. They are only brought as a status symbol nothing more nothing less.

Col

by jdmercha

According to www.fueleconomy.gov a 6cyl AWD 2002 Astro gets the same mpg as a Dakota 8cyl. 16mpg combined. But it appears the the 2004 Chevy venture AWD does get 20mpg. As does the Toyota Sienna.

by jdmercha

I'm not offended.

Least Efficient Two Seaters
Lamborghini L-147 Murcielago, 12 cyl, 6.2 L, Man(6) 9 13

Least Efficient Minicompact Cars
Aston Martin V12 Vanquish S, 12cyl, 5.9 L, Auto(S6) 11 17

Least Efficient Subcompact Cars
Maserati Coupe & Gransport, 8 cyl, 4.2 L, Man(6) 12 17
Maserati Coupe & Gransport, 8 cyl, 4.2 L, Auto(S6)

Least Efficient Compact Cars
Bentley Continental GT, 12cyl, 6L, Auto(S6) 11 18

Least Efficient Midsize Cars
Bentley Arnage, 8 cyl, 6.8 L, Auto(4) 10 14

Least Efficient Large Cars
Bentley Arnage LWB, 8 cyl, 6.8 L, Auto(4) 10 14

Least Efficient Small Station Wagons
Audi S4 Avant 4WD, 8 cyl, 4.2 L, Man(6) 15 21

Least Efficient Midsize Station Wagons
Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG Wagon, 8 cyl, 5.4 L, Auto(S5) 14 21

by jamesrl

The list of least efficient cars is pretty pedantic. With the exception of the MB station wagon, and the Audi, these are all high end speciality cars owned by very few people. Take them all off the road and you still wont make a huge dent in pollution or save a heck of a lot of gas - because they are built in the hundreds not the millions.

But make every F150 or Silverado(pickup trucks) sold in America 10% more fuel efficient and thats a big impact. If you bought the V6 Dakota instead of the V8 and everyone else did - big difference.

As for Neil's point. I'm afraid that what cars Americans drive does impact me in Toronto. Cause half of my smog comes from the US, and a great deal of that comes from automobiles. But some of that smog isn't based on the types of cars - the efficiency of the car is also impacted by the maintenance. In Ontario, and in many states, there are programs to try and identify the cars that are polluting more than their share. A poorly tuned old heap can generate as much pollution as 4 well tuned vehicles.

James

by sleepin'dawg

The original SUV was a little item put out by British Leyland at the time called the Range Rover, a type of vehicle that wasn't in demand but an item which was geared for export and which the foundering Brit economy needed loads of to save its diseased unionized social-wealfare system. Its interesting to note that British automotive technology of that time couldn't produce a proper engine for this beast and bought the tooling for a 3.5 liter aluminum engine from General Motors that had originally been designed for the compact Buick Skylark circa 1963. Unfortunately they built the thing with Lucas electronics and anyone who has ever driven an English vehicle,on this side of the Atlantic at least, with Lucas electronics knows just how unreliable they are. At one time English cars lead the way in imported vehicles and it is my sincere belief that because of Lucas electrical systems they lost that position to first the Germans and then the Japanese. It is noteworthy that most British vehicles now use Bosch electronics. Even the vaunted Jaguar and Rolls Royce makes acquired a reputation of unreliability due to faulty electronic and electrical systems.
But back to the Range Rover. Prior to the Range Rover, Rover built a really great go anywhere type vehicle called the Land Rover, sort of a British Jeep but far superior. I know because I own one, a 1967 LWB model with a 6 cylinder motor that is still going strong, not burning any oil and gives milage in the upper twenties. Of course the whole electrical and heating systems were replaced long ago but the old thing just keeps going. Its not fast, in fact you need a tail wind to get it over sixty but it goes and usually when nothing else is on the road except snowplows and salt trucks and often even before them. My only complaint is the lack of power and if this motor ever gives up I'm toying with the idea of shoving a GM or Ford six into it. Its becoming like the original shovel your grandfather gave you, you know the one that you replaced the handle on one year and the blade the next? :)
As for English or should I say Lucas electronics. Several years ago some guy scaled the walls of Buckingham Palace and strolled through the joint until he found Her Majesty in bed. It seems he had set out to inforn the old girl about what he thought would be a better way of running the country. Queenie, needless to say, was none too pleased and rang an alarm button. Nothing happened. Quite a bit of time went by and it wasn't until some servant strolled in with her tea that matters were put right. It gratified me to know that our 'sovereign' now knew what everybody else knew,at least those of us who had ever driven a Triumph or MG and knew what happened when you tried to blow the horn; absolutely nothing thanks to Lucas electronics. So now you know the origin of the SUV and why if it's anything to do with electronics, don't buy British.
I have a 2003 Range Rover and thankfully it seems the electrical and heating systems aren't English but German. Its a pretty good car but I doubt it will last as long as its grandpappy. :D

by sleepin'dawg

The 401, Don Valley, Gardner and 427 parking lot that you guys run Monday to Friday, between the hours of 06:30 - 09:30 and then repeat it from 16:00 - 19:00hrs sure doesn't help matters. In fact on Friday nights in the summer that can extend to almost midnight. Then of course you have a command performance on Sundays that commences about 15:00 and often runs well past midnight. Even driving in L.A. or New York isn't that bad. I especially love the SUVs being driven by some affluent newcomers, who drive in the same manner as where they came from. Unfortunately where they came from, the normal mode of transport was either a moped or bicycle. Someone should make it understood that 2 - 3 tons of minivan or SUV cannot be driven like a bicycle.

by hal 9000

Car bit I build the most poorly efficient road cars currently I have a 1965 based VW Beetle which I think will be very fuel efficient if I get 4 MPG out of it on a long run. Granted it has a 2.5 Lt motor with 220 degrees of valve overlap so most of th incoming charge is blown straight out the exhaust pipe. However I do get very good cylinder filling but at the expense of fuel efficiency and it is a "Road Car" not one of those restricted to the race track.

My only excuse is it goes great! On a previous motor a Chevy owner described it "As A Freak Of Nature" and thought that the speedo was actually a tacho. He is currently attempting to get his Cameo to go as well as the previous incarnation of the VW, I just do not have the heart to tell him of the modifications that I've made since he last rode in it.

Col :D

by sunplayer

Hi Neil, as a fellow Brit who has also travelled to many countries and experienced driving in most of those travelled, I think I could be in a pretty good position to comment. Regarding the conditions in the USA, I experienced on the whole, very careful drivers, long wide roads, clear signs, few incidences of road damage, a keen awarenes of safety and a pretty relaxed attitude where common sense prevailed. Compare that to the UK. driving through towns and cities can be a nightmare - one is confronted with more signs than any one person can possibly absorb, speed humps, road restrictions, obstructions, pot holes, unhelpful police, rude drivers, speed cameras and self righteous local authority traffic planners who don't even drive. I feel sure that this adds up to more noise and air pollution generated by traffic restrictions per vehicle than is ever generated in the USA. Have you ever seen fire and ambulance vehicles negotiate speed bumps in an emergency? Have you ever travelled in an ambulance on a dialysis run over those wretched speed bumps? I have and the pain and suffering that these poor people have to endure is enough to make one weep.

Now I am not sure if the number of SUV's or 4x4?s in the UK, USA and Canada etc. is a major factor to world pollution or not or whether it's the dwindling worlds resources that are a worry, and I am not sure why they have generated such protests ? maybe it?s that there is a correlation with the pro-hunt lobby in the UK or the gun toting lobby in the USA - but one things is for sure ? whether this is horse riders on a hunt, or 4x4s outside a school gate - if it is noticeable ? protest against it.

by hal 9000

You should attempt to drive in Rome.

It has been the only time I've truly been scared senseless. In most countries Orange or Red lights mean slow down and stop but in Rome that just mean go faster and if the road is blocked then the footpath works quite well.

Col

by Member 25348569

I *love* driving in the USA. The only traffic jam I've hit in 20 years is driving into San Francisco in the rush hour. That was a ten minute hold-up. The rest of the time it's huge roads going straight where you want. The last time a straight road was built in the UK was in 35 AD when Cladius conquered us.

Compare that to London - ?5 just to sit in a jam for an hour and ?25 to park for the day. Paris has the Peripherique ring-road - it's not a road, it's a jigsaw puzzle crossed with a racetrack.

Rome! I agree fully with Col, it is the worst place I've ever driven and then I went the wrong way down a one-way street...

They tell me that Cairo is pretty manic, though.

Neil

by sunplayer

In my own experience and in the order of the best (safest)places to drive (where I have actually driven) are:-
Canada
Oman
UAE
USA
Spain
Germany
New Zealand
Australia
France (even the periphique is nothing compared to London)

....and the most exciting (dangerous)
India (Bombay and Delhi - Bangalore is not so bad but the cars suck all over)
Turkey (Istanbul only)
Cairo (manic decribes it well)
Thailand
Italy

But without doubt the most frustrating place to drive is in the UK because you know you can get there somehow but how.....

by sunplayer

In my own experience and in the order of the best (safest)places to drive (where I have actually driven) are:-
Canada
Oman
UAE
USA
Spain
Germany
New Zealand
Australia
France (even the periphique is nothing compared to London)

....and the most exciting (dangerous)
India (Bombay and Delhi - Bangalore is not so bad but the cars suck all over)
Turkey (Istanbul only)
Cairo (manic decribes it well)
Thailand
Italy

But without doubt the most frustrating place to drive is in the UK because you know you can get there somehow but how.....

by sleepin'dawg

Tokyo - they call their taxis kamikazis and I don't think they're joking
Mexico City - Pass someone and you'll have challenged his masculinity, ditto Rome, Florence and Madrid.
Paris - Drive on the outside or you might backend some Parisian stud who has just slammed on his brakes to chat up some young lovely he has just happened to spy and taken a fancy to.
Montreal - My home town. The only city in the world (so far) where they find it necessary to post signs at the intersections, "Wait for the green light." I kid you - not. Yellow lights mean go faster; red lights mean go like hell.
Toronto - Where they run 12 - 16 lane parking lots twice daily and have special performances on the weekends. Its on record that it sometimes takes three hours to go half a mile.
Boston - Where once more the latin temperment kicks in and they run like rats through a maze on some of the most poorly marked roads in existance.
There are many others but these are the ones that instantly come to mind. The only defensive course you can take is drive like the natives or bring ear plugs because if you don't get run over you are going to hear a lot of horns.

by sunplayer

Good choice Dawg, I know Montreal and Boston well - lived in Montreal for two years back in 95/96 and worked for a Boston company for many years. I have to agree with Boston - the North End can be like an obstacle course - are they still building that major underpass at the exit of the Sumner Tunnel - anyone know? and are there still a bunch of potholes in on the Metropolitan? I have to say though that I felt a hell of a lot safer on the roads in Canada than anywhere else. The run from Montreal to Quebec City is a pleasure.

I guess my most memorable experience was driving in Cairo when I stopped at a set of red lights - the guy behind ran into me. He got out and asked me why I stopped. I said "because the light was red", he said "so? why did you stop?"

interesting topic...

by sleepin'dawg

Been there, avoided that. You should be aware that you should never pull in too close behind a camel. What do you do with a load of camel dung on the hood of your car??? Also watch out for donkeys; bad tempered little buggers which have been known to kick in a panel while you are stopped at a light, or whatever. Its definitely no fun when the car is a rental; it seems donkey kicks aren't covered (What cruel thing did you do to annoy the donkey, sir?) and they definitely are not going to be very pleased with camel crap (it burns marks into the paint).
Greatest place in the world though, to catch a haircut and shave. Last time I was there I didn't drag a razor across my own mug for three weeks. Next time you're there, give it a try; you won't be disappointed.

by sunplayer

I'll be there week after next - but no bloody driving mate. Just want to peddle some software.

This discussion is closed to new replies.