On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:26:22 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote:

On 2008-03-15, Roger wrote:
Most mid size cars could be quite capable of getting 30 plus with fuel
efficient engines. There is no need to remove the large trucks. We
are talking "fleet average," not the mileage of every truck.

There are a nontrivial number of trucks, and 4-6 MPG is the rule rather than
the exception. It takes a lot of econoboxes to counterbalance that.

The fleet haulers are not currently or planned on future inclusion
into the overall transportation fleet.

You use common sense. Those that can do so, could use the hybrids.
Those that really need the larger vans and SUVs could still use them
and the trucks could still remain. IOW we use what we need , not what
we think we'd like.

That's not the way the American system works. The only person entitled to

It sure is. People have to learn to make the proper decision.

make a decision as to what vehicle they need to purchase is the buyer. Not
you, not me, not the government, and certainly not some enviro-wacko who
knows nothing about the buyer's needs.

And I said no differently.

snip for brevity

Let me guess: you were wearing the seat belt, and the SUV driver wasn't?

Both were wearing seatbelts.

That's not an indictment of the SUV, but of the idiot who wasn't wearing his

Wasn't meant to be. It was to show the smaller car is not always the
looser.

seat belt. (I'm a former paramedic. There are a few things I get rabid
about, and seat belts top the list.)


A hybrid SUV might be more fuel efficient than its conventional counterpart.
Then again, it might not be. I looked at the hybrid version of my SUV when I
was first considering buying it, but ruled it out for one simple reason: 95%
of my driving is at highway speed, where a hybrid provides no benefit. The
extra purchase cost, plus the battery replacement at 100K miles (and yes, I
do keep vehicles past that point), far outweighed any possible fuel savings
given my driving needs.

As a personal opinion and a far amount of time reading specs I doubt
many if any of the hybrid SUVs really provide any economic, or CO2
advantage over their lifetimes.



If that's the case, why is government raising the alarm? See, for example,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=7431198 .

That's not the government, two the government didn't raise an alarm
and three the woman who manages the EPA's Energy Star program says:
"She says that even though fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, using
them contributes less mercury to the environment than using regular
incandescent bulbs. That's because they use less electricity — and
coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of mercury emissions in
the air."


As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400
No one said use the electric car for long trips hauling heavy loads.

If that's the only car I have, I have no choice. I make those trips, so I
have to have a vehicle that will do the job.

Or are you suggesting that I be forced to buy two cars, one for the few
local trips I make and one for the missions the first won't handle?

I also allowed for that in the original note. "We drive what we need
to drive". IOW if you need an SUV you drive an SUV, if you need a
truck, you drive one, but those who don't absolutely need one should
take the responsibility and drive what they need, not what they would
like.

The average trip made by cars is short and typically round trip to
work, or in to see the kids play what ever sport. Car pooling could
take care of a lot this.

The average person's average trip, in a city, maybe. Ask someone living in a
small rural town what their average trip is.

Again you are ignoring what I said. People should take responsibility
and drive what they need. The electric car is nothing more than
another form of transportation and a short range one at that. Why
would I expect some one living in a rural town to drive one 30 to 40
miles to work. I used to drive 65 miles one way an for a guy who
hates to get up early that was torture. What did we do? We sold our
home in the country and moved about 60 miles closer to a rural
subdivision.

This kind of fallacious generalization is why government regulation of what
people buy is simply wrong.

I did not make that kind of generalization, you read it into what I
said.

However for those that need the extra room and load capacity they
could still have it. I reiterate, FLEET AVERAGE does not mean every
car and tuck has to get that mileage. It's expected that all of them
averaged together would get that. Big difference.

That does nothing for those of us who aren't average. Driving up the fleet

Those of us who aren't average ...aren't average. IOW as I said
before we drive what we need to drive (not what every one else does.
If you have 6 kids you don't try to haul them around in a Corvette.

average will require that the vehicles that will handle my mission be
unavailable, or else emasculated to the point they're unsafe.

Even the econoboxes are safer than the cars of old.


This is the typical "all or nothing" argument against better mileage
or conservation. When it comes to the cars on the road, most of us
don't need a big pickup truck, monster SUV or 5,000# luxury car.

I don't either. My small SUV does the job.

However, I REFUSE to try to tell someone else what they need or don't need.
I cannot make that judgment for them. They can only do that for themselves.
The alternative is central planning, comrade.

No one in this thread has either.

Of course the LEDs are far preferable over CFLs, but they are currently
very expensive. Give 'em a couple years and they just might be on par with
today's CFL, but far more efficient and almost indefinite life with very
little heat given off and no starter required.

And if they do that, I'll happily switch. (Assuming they don't flicker
annoyingly when fed 60 Hz AC.)

That's the real key to doing the environmentally correct thing: Make it
economically justifiable, too. I don't mean artificially raising the cost
through taxation or anything like that. (The same arguments that justify
doing that in other circumstances can be used to justify raising the cost of
fuel for your Debonair to $10 a gallon. How much does it burn an hour?) I
mean make it save real money.

The greatest impact on safety would be getting the public to quit
accepting a yearly highway death toll of between 40 and 50,000 as
acceptable.

No argument from me on this one.

Maybe the biggest at present would be to build a jamming device to prevent
cell phones being used while the car is in motion and education.

Got a 2-meter rig in your car, OM? I do, and have had ever since I owned a

2-meter and 440

car. (Well, sometimes it was just 440, but you get the idea.) Just because
some people can't talk and drive doesn't mean everyone can't.

Neglecting the ability to talk and walk, er... drive:-)) at the same
time there's a big difference between using a mike and holding a cell
phone up beside your face blocking the entire view from one side.


Today there seems to be an element in society that fights any change
to improve things.

When the suggested improvement is a drastic change in the way we live, and
where we live, and how we live, you bet your ass you're going to get
resistance, at least here in our free society. You see, the government isn't
supposed to treat us like the Chinese government treats its people, but
that's exactly what the enviro-wackos are calling for.

Nothing comes without some kind of cost including "business as usual"
which probably has the highest long term cost of any option.

That has yet to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a lot of Americans.

If you're so keen on saving the planet, why haven't you junked your Debonair
and bought something smaller?

I fly it far less and save energy in many other areas so in essence
I've cut my carbon foot print drastically. As I said before (in
another thread), if I get back to flying any where near what I used to
the Deb is going to get a different engine that uses far less fuel.
BUT even at its present 14 GPH, flying it to Denver uses less overall
energy than does driving my car (I'd not be driving the Prius that far
with the amount of stuff I haul with meg)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com