Gas Prices -- What would it take to get you out of your SUV?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: greatfool66
Ive gotten used to this kind of self righteous argument

I drive an SUV but its a family car I need to move my stuff to college in.

Even though I get a shocking (24/16-1) 33% worse gas mileage than an Accord or Camry, I probably use way less gas because I drive as little as possible.

I ride my bike everywhere or get rides and use less than a tank a month on average (20/30=.66 gals/day)

I know lots of people in little cars who drive them all the time... the problem today isn't the vehicles as much as the American driving culture. I hate the fact that our cities are made on a driving scale so that you can't really walk anywhere.

I realize everyone doesn't live withing a few miles of school or work and can't do what I do, but lots of people make no effort to cut back on driving.

That being said, when I buy myself a vehicle it will probably be a car.

Agreed with the bolded part...and I applaud your decision to try and NOT drive when you have the chance. Personally I wish our cities were set up better so you could walk places or take mass transit. I always love visiting Europe because the big cities there are a lot more friendly to people who don't want to drive.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: greatfool66


I know lots of people in little cars who drive them all the time... the problem today isn't the vehicles as much as the American driving culture. I hate the fact that our cities are made on a driving scale so that you can't really walk anywhere.

Because that's what most Americans want, a suburban house with a yard. Not many people want to raise their families in the middle of NYC or San Francisco.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

One thing I never see mentioned is state road funding.

Let's say we go from an average 20MPG to 40MPG while driving distances remain the same. There would be a 50% cut in tax revenue in gasoline sales while roadways are still being used the same amount. Don't think the states would raise their gasoline tax rates to make up for the deficiency? Negates any cost savings by getting better gas mileage.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
One thing I never see mentioned is state road funding.

Let's say we go from an average 20MPG to 40MPG while driving distances remain the same. There would be a 50% cut in tax revenue in gasoline sales while roadways are still being used the same amount. Don't think the states would raise their gasoline tax rates to make up for the deficiency? Negates any cost savings by getting better gas mileage.

B........I.........N...........G........O

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
One thing I never see mentioned is state road funding.

Let's say we go from an average 20MPG to 40MPG while driving distances remain the same. There would be a 50% cut in tax revenue in gasoline sales while roadways are still being used the same amount. Don't think the states would raise their gasoline tax rates to make up for the deficiency? Negates any cost savings by getting better gas mileage.

Thats a very good point. There are some here who think we should get off oil, and I quote, "At any cost" even though they would starve their own families to do so due to the higher cost of everything else associated with oil, and the argument "take the difference out of oil companies profits!" which of course is absolutely idiotic, not to mention the lashback of shareholders.

Very good point though.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
One thing I never see mentioned is state road funding.

Let's say we go from an average 20MPG to 40MPG while driving distances remain the same. There would be a 50% cut in tax revenue in gasoline sales while roadways are still being used the same amount. Don't think the states would raise their gasoline tax rates to make up for the deficiency? Negates any cost savings by getting better gas mileage.

B........I.........N...........G........O

So are you finally admitting it isnt fiscally plausible to get off oil completely? Like it or hate it, fossil fuel is about the most efficient fuel we have in terms of overall cost (not price)...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
One thing I never see mentioned is state road funding.

Let's say we go from an average 20MPG to 40MPG while driving distances remain the same. There would be a 50% cut in tax revenue in gasoline sales while roadways are still being used the same amount. Don't think the states would raise their gasoline tax rates to make up for the deficiency? Negates any cost savings by getting better gas mileage.

Thats a very good point. There are some here who think we should get off oil, and I quote, "At any cost" even though they would starve their own families to do so due to the higher cost of everything else associated with oil, and the argument "take the difference out of oil companies profits!" which of course is absolutely idiotic, not to mention the lashback of shareholders.

Not only starve many Americans but starve the bastard "shareholders" which I consider to be criminals.

Anyone doing business with the Oil Compnaies are traitors and should be tried as Treasoners under the Patritic Act for doing business with Al Qaida.

Every Oil exec, employees and families should be shipped to Gitmo immediately.

We should take over all Oil and Gas operations.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
One thing I never see mentioned is state road funding.

Let's say we go from an average 20MPG to 40MPG while driving distances remain the same. There would be a 50% cut in tax revenue in gasoline sales while roadways are still being used the same amount. Don't think the states would raise their gasoline tax rates to make up for the deficiency? Negates any cost savings by getting better gas mileage.

Thats a very good point. There are some here who think we should get off oil, and I quote, "At any cost" even though they would starve their own families to do so due to the higher cost of everything else associated with oil, and the argument "take the difference out of oil companies profits!" which of course is absolutely idiotic, not to mention the lashback of shareholders.

Not only starve many Americans but starve the bastard "shareholders" which I consider to be criminals.

Anyone doing business with the Oil Compnaies are traitors and should be tried as Treasoners under the Patritic Act for doing business with Al Qaida.

Every Oil exec, employees and families should be shipped to Gitmo immediately.

We should take over all Oil and Gas operations.

lol you really are a piece of work

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Not only starve many Americans but starve the bastard "shareholders" which I consider to be criminals.

Anyone doing business with the Oil Compnaies are traitors and should be tried as Treasoners under the Patritic Act for doing business with Al Qaida.

Every Oil exec, employees and families should be shipped to Gitmo immediately.

We should take over all Oil and Gas operations.

Hugo? Is that you?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Working in the ER, I've seen many car accidents. Whenever there was an SUV vs. car, the dudes in the car were usually completely wrecked while the people in the SUV barely had a scratch or some other minor trauma. Since I'm smart enough to not roll over my SUV on my own, the SUV is my vehicle of choice.

Ah I see, so you're part of the "I'm safer, screw everyone else" mentality I was complaining about earlier? How do you justify putting everyone else's life in greater danger, simply to make yourself more safe?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Not only starve many Americans but starve the bastard "shareholders" which I consider to be criminals.

Anyone doing business with the Oil Compnaies are traitors and should be tried as Treasoners under the Patritic Act for doing business with Al Qaida.

Every Oil exec, employees and families should be shipped to Gitmo immediately.

We should take over all Oil and Gas operations.

Hugo? Is that you?

I lol'd

 

[Aimster]

It cost me $75 to fill up..

I get 15/20.
Mine is old.

I think the newer of the same model get 17/23.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
One thing I never see mentioned is state road funding.

Let's say we go from an average 20MPG to 40MPG while driving distances remain the same. There would be a 50% cut in tax revenue in gasoline sales while roadways are still being used the same amount. Don't think the states would raise their gasoline tax rates to make up for the deficiency? Negates any cost savings by getting better gas mileage.

Thats a very good point. There are some here who think we should get off oil, and I quote, "At any cost" even though they would starve their own families to do so due to the higher cost of everything else associated with oil, and the argument "take the difference out of oil companies profits!" which of course is absolutely idiotic, not to mention the lashback of shareholders.

Not only starve many Americans but starve the bastard "shareholders" which I consider to be criminals.

Anyone doing business with the Oil Compnaies are traitors and should be tried as Treasoners under the Patritic Act for doing business with Al Qaida.

Every Oil exec, employees and families should be shipped to Gitmo immediately.

We should take over all Oil and Gas operations.

dmcowen674 is that you? Sounds familiar.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Not only starve many Americans but starve the bastard "shareholders" which I consider to be criminals.

Anyone doing business with the Oil Compnaies are traitors and should be tried as Treasoners under the Patritic Act for doing business with Al Qaida.

Every Oil exec, employees and families should be shipped to Gitmo immediately.

We should take over all Oil and Gas operations.

Hugo? Is that you?

I lol'd

He's laughing at us as well as the rest of the world.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Working in the ER, I've seen many car accidents. Whenever there was an SUV vs. car, the dudes in the car were usually completely wrecked while the people in the SUV barely had a scratch or some other minor trauma. Since I'm smart enough to not roll over my SUV on my own, the SUV is my vehicle of choice.

Ah I see, so you're part of the "I'm safer, screw everyone else" mentality I was complaining about earlier? How do you justify putting everyone else's life in greater danger, simply to make yourself more safe?

You say that like it's wrong. I certainly care more about the safety of my family than I do yours...that only makes sense. How is driving a SUV putting everyone elses life in greater danger? Because they drive an easily squashed sardine can? THAT is
THEIR problem, NOT MINE.
If the government would quit rolling over for the various car makers and their lobbyists & PACS, MAYBE we could get small cars that are actually safe in accidents...HOWEVER, (as you have mentioned) as long as 50% of the cars on the road are SUV'S and pick-up trucks, those little sardine can cars won't ever truly be safe in the event of a crash with a larger vehicle...
MAYBE the governments (state and federal) need to start requiring special licenses to buy both SUV's as well as pick-ups...Have to PROVE NEED for a pick-up, not just "want one", same for SUV's...not just to be "Mom's soccer wagon", or because you WANT one...

(BTW, I've always been a "pick-up truck kind of guy", and this is the first time in over 30 years I haven't owned one since selling my 96 Dakota last year.)

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Working in the ER, I've seen many car accidents. Whenever there was an SUV vs. car, the dudes in the car were usually completely wrecked while the people in the SUV barely had a scratch or some other minor trauma. Since I'm smart enough to not roll over my SUV on my own, the SUV is my vehicle of choice.

Ah I see, so you're part of the "I'm safer, screw everyone else" mentality I was complaining about earlier? How do you justify putting everyone else's life in greater danger, simply to make yourself more safe?

You say that like it's wrong. I certainly care more about the safety of my family than I do yours...that only makes sense. How is driving a SUV putting everyone elses life in greater danger? Because they drive an easily squashed sardine can? THAT is
THEIR problem, NOT MINE.
If the government would quit rolling over for the various car makers and their lobbyists & PACS, MAYBE we could get small cars that are actually safe in accidents...HOWEVER, (as you have mentioned) as long as 50% of the cars on the road are SUV'S and pick-up trucks, those little sardine can cars won't ever truly be safe in the event of a crash with a larger vehicle...
MAYBE the governments (state and federal) need to start requiring special licenses to buy both SUV's as well as pick-ups...Have to PROVE NEED for a pick-up, not just "want one", same for SUV's...not just to be "Mom's soccer wagon", or because you WANT one...

(BTW, I've always been a "pick-up truck kind of guy", and this is the first time in over 30 years I haven't owned one since selling my 96 Dakota last year.)

Well, if I had the same attitude as you, I'd simply go out and buy an even bigger SUV. Then when I demolish yours because I outweigh you by a ton, I'll just shrug like it's no big deal. See anything wrong yet? How about I also jack my 7k pound SUV way up so it sits nice and high. Then, when I hit you, you can smile and wave as you go under. No biggie, right? Too bad your vehicle was sliced in two just above the gas pedal. <Shrug> Oh well. Too bad for you.

 

[BoomerD]

Grow up...go stuff your strawman into a scarecrow in your garden or something...it doesn't belong here.
You act like that's NOT a common attitude.
EVERYONE puts their personal interests ahead of someone else's. That's totally normal, and might be considered ABNORMAL if we didn't.
If YOU want to drive a rolling sardine can, you're welcome to it, but not me.
Number one, I don't fit into MOST of them, and number 2, I don't want to HAVE TO buy a Japanese car. (American small cars aren't the best)

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

So, guys, what's it gonna take? $4/gallon (coming this summer or next summer)? $5/gallon? $6/gallon?

Well looking at all those Q7s, ML, GL, Tuaregs, X5 and what not driving around here and becoming more those numbers you posted are not gonna cut it - we are at 7.2/gal now.

Ppl will drive what they can afford and want - gas consumption is not the issue ppl are considering first when purchasing a vehicle. Instead of producing vehicles with less gas consumption cars are getting more powerful, SUV have top speeds and accelerations as sports(y) cars used to have - apparently that's what consumers want.

The millenia old mindset of bigger, faster, more power is not gonna change overnight. Look at it positive, the gas will be consumed anyway - the faster it runs out, the faster we need to bring about change. And the more is for us instead of sharing it with the Chinese

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Working in the ER, I've seen many car accidents. Whenever there was an SUV vs. car, the dudes in the car were usually completely wrecked while the people in the SUV barely had a scratch or some other minor trauma. Since I'm smart enough to not roll over my SUV on my own, the SUV is my vehicle of choice.

Ah I see, so you're part of the "I'm safer, screw everyone else" mentality I was complaining about earlier? How do you justify putting everyone else's life in greater danger, simply to make yourself more safe?

You say that like it's wrong. I certainly care more about the safety of my family than I do yours...that only makes sense. How is driving a SUV putting everyone elses life in greater danger? Because they drive an easily squashed sardine can? THAT is
THEIR problem, NOT MINE.
If the government would quit rolling over for the various car makers and their lobbyists & PACS, MAYBE we could get small cars that are actually safe in accidents...HOWEVER, (as you have mentioned) as long as 50% of the cars on the road are SUV'S and pick-up trucks, those little sardine can cars won't ever truly be safe in the event of a crash with a larger vehicle...
MAYBE the governments (state and federal) need to start requiring special licenses to buy both SUV's as well as pick-ups...Have to PROVE NEED for a pick-up, not just "want one", same for SUV's...not just to be "Mom's soccer wagon", or because you WANT one...

(BTW, I've always been a "pick-up truck kind of guy", and this is the first time in over 30 years I haven't owned one since selling my 96 Dakota last year.)

Well nobody expects you to CARE just as much about my safety as you do about your own, I'm just not sure you should be able to increase your safety while decreasing mine. Of course my safety is my own concern, and I think the best way for me to watch out for myself is to prevent you from getting a dangerous vehicle in the first place.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Grow up...go stuff your strawman into a scarecrow in your garden or something...it doesn't belong here.
You act like that's NOT a common attitude.
EVERYONE puts their personal interests ahead of someone else's. That's totally normal, and might be considered ABNORMAL if we didn't.
If YOU want to drive a rolling sardine can, you're welcome to it, but not me.
Number one, I don't fit into MOST of them, and number 2, I don't want to HAVE TO buy a Japanese car. (American small cars aren't the best)

There is a fine line between watching out for number one and acting like a complete jackass. For example, I have my own TV so I can watch what I want, when I want. That doesn't mean I blast action movies at 3 AM. Why? Because while *I* might want to do that, my neighbors might be trying to sleep. You want a safe car, buy a Volvo...you get a lot of safety without making ME less safe. The safety "problem" SUVs solve is contrived and largely to attract safety nuts. In most types of accidents you are likely to get into, an SUV is NOT safer.

But on the other hand, maybe you're on to something...look out for number one and who gives a damn about everyone else. Well, since I drive a smaller car, the biggest danger to me on the road is SUVs. Logically, the best solution is to slash the tires of every SUV I see, keep 'em off the road. Hey, as long as *I'm* safer...

Edit: By the way, I think you have every right to own an SUV...I just happen to think the safety argument is one of the stupider things about SUV owners.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
(American small cars aren't the best)

Not that American big cars would be any better

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Edit: By the way, I think you have every right to own an SUV...I just happen to think the safety argument is one of the stupider things about SUV owners.

It is. SUV owners rave about the safety of their vehicles, because they're so big, heavy and high off the ground. Unfortunately for them, they are less safe because they're so big, heavy and high off the ground. They'll show you a video of a compact car getting hit by a semi, and compare that to the damage when an SUV gets hit by a semi. However, they don't realize that you are much much much more likely to run into a semi or get in an accident while driving an SUV because they are not nearly as maneuverable. They are much much less likely to avoid an accident.

I also remember reading a statistic that because SUV drivers "feel" safer, they are much more likely to drive less safely. Speeding, talking on cell phones, etc. SUV's being much safer is a myth.

Edit: Here is a good article.

Big and Bad: How the SUV ran over automotive safety

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Grow up...go stuff your strawman into a scarecrow in your garden or something...it doesn't belong here.
You act like that's NOT a common attitude.
EVERYONE puts their personal interests ahead of someone else's. That's totally normal, and might be considered ABNORMAL if we didn't.
If YOU want to drive a rolling sardine can, you're welcome to it, but not me.
Number one, I don't fit into MOST of them, and number 2, I don't want to HAVE TO buy a Japanese car. (American small cars aren't the best)

How about I go buy an '07 Honda Civic and fit it with explosive reactive armor? That way, when you hit me in your gas-destroying land barge, you get blasted back into the emergency lane and I come out unscathed. Seems fair, given your point of view, right?

Or how about I build a car that's wedge-shaped and low to the ground, so when you weave out of your lane in your ginormous assmobile, your cell phone glued to your ear as you blather away, you flip over on the freeway and I continue on my merry way. Seems fair as well, considering it's every man for himself out there. Right?

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
One thing I never see mentioned is state road funding.

Let's say we go from an average 20MPG to 40MPG while driving distances remain the same. There would be a 50% cut in tax revenue in gasoline sales while roadways are still being used the same amount. Don't think the states would raise their gasoline tax rates to make up for the deficiency? Negates any cost savings by getting better gas mileage.

Who gives a crap!

If we could actually double the fuel efficiency of our domestic automotive fleet, worrying about what would happen gasoline taxes seems so very petty. I mean, c'mon, DOUBLE the efficiency = less pollution/CO2, less reliance on OPEC, more national security.

Gasoline taxes? Bueller???

 

[BoomerD]

Damn, you sure like strawmen...you drive whatever you want, I don't care.
Explosive reactive armor? WTF are you, in the 7th grade? If you don't fvck up, my "land barge" isn't likely to hit your sardine can...
I RARELY weave in/out of traffic, and nearly never drive with a cell phone glued to my ear...personally, I think driving while holding a cell phone should be illegal, with a STEEP fine.
You seem to ASS-U-ME that everyone who owns a SUV does so because of some illusion os safety. I got news for ya...not everyone does...I KNOW they can be more dangerous to me, but it comes down to driving safely, not driving like the average rice rocket out there. The smaller cars are built to be a bit more agile, and the vehicle, and it's inherent handling characterists should be taken into consideration when you drive ANYTHING, whether it be a little sardine can, or a 200K lb crane that's 11'11" wide and 90' long...(those you certainly don't weave in/out of traffic with either.)
I DO like the fact that in the average fender-bender, my Expedition (I mean environment killer) has more iron around me to protect me & my passengers than a small car. THAT is a safety feature of the larger vehicles, like it or not. Will it do more damage to a small car? Of course, but no matter how much you rave at me (and the rest of the SUV owners out there) that's YOUR problem, NOT mine.
If you really want to legislate safety, let's get rid of ALL large vehicles, take ALL trucks off the highways, and build them their own roadways, so there's no chance of ever having a collision with a semi, or work-truck like a 1 ton,etc. Make ALL pick-ups and SUV's subject to special permitted licencing, where you have to PROVE that you have a special need to own one...and it should be revokable...