Tis The Poaching Season

[xoxoxoBruce]

Now glatt, don't meddle in other people's sex lives.

[Undertoad]

Your roads are a lot better than mine man. One of the reasons I went truck this time was that I was dead tired of having my teeth rattled and getting bent rims from potholes.

Of course running low-profile tires and gas shocks/struts to feel more sporty was part of the problem. But what're ya gonna do?

[glatt]

SUVs and trucks are very popular, so you don't make many friends when you complain about them. Part of the problem is that most people get their egos all wrapped up in their cars. A car is a statement, so if I say I don't like your car, it's like saying I don't like you. Which is, of course, untrue. I probably also have my ego wrapped up in my car, but for different reasons.

I hadn't thought about potholes. I can see that as a reason to lean towards getting an SUV, since they have a higher clearance and beefier suspension. But I imagine the wheels of an SUV take the same beating that the wheels of a car take, all things being equal.

The bottom line is I wouldn't support taking SUVs away from people, or banning them. I just don't care for them. I wish there were fewer of them on the road.

Originally Posted by glatt

I thought I was pretty clear about that. "Crass consumerism."

All the vehicles you mention are ones I'm not fond of. They are all wasteful. Although the trucks do have a utilitarian purpose and I don't oppose them when they are used that way. Most people don't need SUVs. When virtually all of your driving is done on paved surfaces, why would you need an SUV? I'm not going to support a ban on any of those vehicles, but that doesn't mean I have to like them. They are dangerous to the other vehicles on the road because they have so much more mass, they block visibility, they use more oil than my car, and people buy them mostly for intangible reasons that relate to status and feelings, and have nothing to do with needs.

It is not up to you do decide that for people, now is it?
If someone is into buying and restoring antiques, going fishing on the weekends or camping, can you define "need" for the type of vehicle they should buy. In my father's case, our family is in the citrus industry. A puny little car does not quite cut it in sugar-sand, fit men our size, have a place for my wheelchair.
"Most people" means what when it comes to doing what about what when it comes to the vehicles you are talking about? Be specific, practical and realistic and perhaps people will listen.
Sounds to me, more often than not, "environmentalists" are about status... most hunters I know are more environmentally sound in practice than the hippies that use that term.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

It is not up to you do decide that for people, now is it?

I don't think he's saying that it is.
I see driving gas guzzlers as supportive of a pretty screwed up part of our national life. I do own and use a pickup in addition to my Echo. If we bore the cost at the pump of our enormous military subsidy of oil, I think folks would make different choices and would drag the Big Three kicking and screaming into a more responsible reality. As it is, we pay the subsidy through our income taxes and our children's income taxes, separating us from the reality of our decisions.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

--snip--
Sounds to me, more often than not, "environmentalists" are about status... most hunters I know are more environmentally sound in practice than the hippies that use that term.

You just need to run with a better class of hippies.

I'm just sayin.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Griff

snip~ I think folks would make different choices and would drag the Big Three kicking and screaming into a more responsible reality. ~snip

Nonsense, people send the Big 3 messages with their wallet, not with mobs, even metaphorically.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

It is not up to you do decide that for people, now is it?

I'm pretty sure that's what I just said.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Nonsense, people send the Big 3 messages with their wallet, not with mobs, even metaphorically.

True, but they are basing that message on the price of gasoline they see at the pump. The price of gasoline at the pump is not the cost of gasoline. It doesn't include the $100 Billion a year we spend in Iraq to keep teh oil flowing. (Nevermind that it isn't working.) If the price at the pump was the true cost of the gasoline, they might send a different message with their wallets.

Originally Posted by glatt

I'm pretty sure that's what I just said.

Just before your rant... riiiiiiiiht.

Originally Posted by Griff

I don't think he's saying that it is.
I see driving gas guzzlers as supportive of a pretty screwed up part of our national life. I do own and use a pickup in addition to my Echo. If we bore the cost at the pump of our enormous military subsidy of oil, I think folks would make different choices and would drag the Big Three kicking and screaming into a more responsible reality. As it is, we pay the subsidy through our income taxes and our children's income taxes, separating us from the reality of our decisions.

Big three? Gee... let's see what Nissan is selling lots of now.... hmmmmmm.
Trucks and SUVs are about choice and lifestyle. That you can afford two cars to burn fuel and hold twice the oil for one person is great, but not, exactly, saving the planet.
Soon they will be using alternative fuels and all this will be moot, have fun ranting.

[Undertoad]

Two two car solution is my dream G. Now that I have the truck I see how great it is to have one. But I also want something economical. The best answer, it seems to me, is to buy a smallish sedan and also a 10-year-old truck. Drive the car 2/3rds of the time, the truck when conditions are less than ideal and/or things need hauling.

[glatt]

The two car solution is my dream as well. Small car for 98% of our driving, and some sort of large passenger van that has removable seats for hauling stuff or lots of people.

You can only drive one at a time, so you aren't doing any more damage by having two.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Nonsense, people send the Big 3 messages with their wallet, not with mobs, even metaphorically.

basically what glatt said. If we had the wallet hit at the pump instead of in our income taxes or our children's income taxes vehicles would change.

rkzenrage- I'm not making an environmental argument. I'm saying, I'm tired of subsidizing other peoples vehicle/fuel choices. Between the tax $ cost and the body count in Iraq, you'd think glatt would get an amen on this. As long as we separate the cost at the pump from the real tax burden nobody is going to ask the automakers for a different rig.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The two car solution is my dream G.

I've been trying to find a way around it but at this point, loading firewood in my Echo seems counter-productive.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

True, but they are basing that message on the price of gasoline they see at the pump. The price of gasoline at the pump is not the cost of gasoline. It doesn't include the $100 Billion a year we spend in Iraq to keep the oil flowing. (Nevermind that it isn't working.) If the price at the pump was the true cost of the gasoline, they might send a different message with their wallets.

I don't buy it.
1. How is anything were doing in Iraq helping the oil to flow?
2. Our international escapades seem to be completely disconnected from anything the populace, say, do or feel.

Are you telling me if we didn't import oil we wouldn't be the world cop? I don't think that's remotely true.