Living Car Free - Need help talking with another board!

I am sure high gas prices are on every board, but I really don't want to lose this time, so could anyone here help me work on these people? I feel like the argument I am making is exactly correct and that this really is a matter of Black and White, as opposed to most controversies which are shaded gray. So, any help?



http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=17;t=155236

You ask how did kids get anywhere before the Suburban, well my Mom had a Ford station wagon back in the 70's, it had a 400, got about 5 mpg, and polluted like crazy. It was my first car.

There are people who legitimately need larger, high occupancy vehicles. My wife for example, during the day she drives to work alone, but 3 out of 5 weeknights, and on saturdays, all the seats are usually full of soccer teams, softball teams, and so forth. What would you have us do, buy another car to commute to work? It is easy to sit back and say most SUV/vans are unneeded, when it is YOU that does not need one.

You ask how did kids get anywhere before the Suburban, well my Mom had a Ford station wagon back in the 70's, it had a 400, got about 5 mpg, and polluted like crazy. It was my first car.

There are people who legitimately need larger, high occupancy vehicles. My wife for example, during the day she drives to work alone, but 3 out of 5 weeknights, and on saturdays, all the seats are usually full of soccer teams, softball teams, and so forth. What would you have us do, buy another car to commute to work? It is easy to sit back and say most SUV/vans are unneeded, when it is YOU that does not need one.

Could it not be that MOST SUV's and vans are not needed, but yours is?

I get a sense that those are the kind of sentiments that won't change easily. :)

There are a great deal of people that will change before change is necessary. There are others, perhaps your friends on that board, that won't change until someone is holding a gun to their head. Citizens for Global Warming? What a bunch of dumbsh1ts!

Could it not be that MOST SUV's and vans are not needed, but yours is?
More likely is that individuals decide for themselves what is needed for themselves, rather than allow uninformed strangers to smugly determine what are their Real needs.

More likely is that individuals decide for themselves what is needed for themselves, rather than allow uninformed strangers to smugly determine what are their Real needs.

Fair enough, the market will decide. When gas prices are truly high people will stop just complaining and acutally change their behavior. I just hope our economy doesn't go into the absolute crapper as a result.

More likely is that individuals decide for themselves what is needed for themselves, rather than allow uninformed strangers to smugly determine what are their Real needs.
;)

It may be black and white... to someone who's mind is already made up and uninformed.

Fair enough, the market will decide. When gas prices are truly high people will stop just complaining and acutally change their behavior. I just hope our economy doesn't go into the absolute crapper as a result.
They said the same thing at $1.50 a gallon and at $2.00 a gallon, and at $3.00 a gallon.

Could it not be that MOST SUV's and vans are not needed, but yours is?

Most of the vans/Suv I see are loaded with kids/work equipment and such. Sure if you only watch a parking lot where you work, you'll see alot of one passenger vans/suvs, but most people don't take their kids to work, or runs their lawnscape, or roofing, or home improvement buisness from the parking lot of your work. Go to a soccer field on a weekend, or a softball field on a week night, or anywhere that manual work is being done, and you'll see heavily loaded, heavily used vans/suvs.

I almost always see SUVs with just one person in there, and they are usually commuting to work or going to the store. There are also a lot of Hummers around here, and only twice have I seen it with more than one person in it (1 driver, 1 passenger). And believe me, I look, because they are usually passing me on my bike.
And why would someone argue that a parking lot at WORK where you spend the majority of your waking hours is not a good indicator of who is driving these vehicles?
The *real* soccer moms have VANS, because they seat the 8 kids. And trucks are everywhere, but few people are hauling anything.
I live in the midwest though, maybe it's different in your neck of the woods. But here, people buy the big vehicles because they are cool, or whatever. MANY MANY MANY of them don't do it for utility's sake.

Maddyfish, I'm sure some people do much of their hauling and carpooling on the weekends. But why they choose to commute in this utility vehicle everywhere else (the majority of travel for many), is because ? For the price of a shiny new big truck, one can get a nice sedan for commuting and an older truck for hauling, instead of having his and hers F250's. I do know that many families have SUV's and vans to travel/sports/hauling in and that is one thing. But all of these SUV's and trucks on the road with one passenger is something else entirely.

OP, it was a nice post you had. These people will never shift their paradigm from a forum entry. But planting the seeds of change may pay off in the future, so hats off to you!

You ask how did kids get anywhere before the Suburban, well my Mom had a Ford station wagon back in the 70's, it had a 400, got about 5 mpg, and polluted like crazy. It was my first car.

There are people who legitimately need larger, high occupancy vehicles. My wife for example, during the day she drives to work alone, but 3 out of 5 weeknights, and on saturdays, all the seats are usually full of soccer teams, softball teams, and so forth. What would you have us do, buy another car to commute to work? It is easy to sit back and say most SUV/vans are unneeded, when it is YOU that does not need one.

Why not simply combine soccer practice with cycle training?

More likely is that individuals decide for themselves what is needed for themselves, rather than allow uninformed strangers to smugly determine what are their Real needs.

In this society it is difficult for anyone to decipher NEEDS from WANTS. I think some 'uninformed strangers' are just trying to differentiate between the two.

A sedan with a hitch also makes for good hauling. Hauling is just another of the reasons why someone CAN'T let go of their precious truck. Like I said, one day people will be forced to make these adaptations but it may be too late.

In this society it is difficult for anyone to decipher NEEDS from WANTS. I think some 'uninformed strangers' are just trying to differentiate between the two.
More like the uninformed strangers are tying to decide, without information, if other people's NEEDS match their own, and if the answer is no, then the NEEDS become unnecessary WANTS.

More like the uninformed strangers are tying to decide, without information, if other people's NEEDS match their own, and if the answer is no, then the NEEDS become unnecessary WANTS.

I would never claim that someone, for example driving an SUV, is doing it as a WANT simply because I don't think it's a NEED for myself. It will require introspection from the SUV driver, to determine what is a need or not. But what I would suggest is that many WANTS masquerade as NEEDS in today's society especially.
And furthermore, which NEED is greater? For example the need for everyone to breathe clean air, or the need to get your kids to soccer practice? If they all have asthma soccer practice will basically suck.

You're right, let's live in bubbles.

We do, it's called THE EARTH and we all have to share it.

But the tone of the conversation there illustrates why it's going to take strong measures to get people driving less, and diving more efficient vehicles. Like maybe CAFE laws, higher taxes or gas rationing. It's our job to start convincing the people that these laws are needed and "for your own good." So it isn't really a waste of time to keep on talking on that forum, kc9eoq. Maybe somebody will actually think about what you're saying.

Off topic, I don't get why ham radio people have an internet forum. Can't they talk to each other on the radio?

But the tone of the conversation there illustrates why it's going to take strong measures to get people driving less, and diving more efficient vehicles. Like maybe CAFE laws, higher taxes or gas rationing. It's our job to start convincing the people that these laws are needed and "for your own good." So it isn't really a waste of time to keep on talking on that forum, kc9eoq. Maybe somebody will actually think about what you're saying.

Off topic, I don't get why ham radio people have an internet forum. Can't they talk to each other on the radio?
Sometimes their ham radios break, and they have to find someone to trade a steak radio for it. The internet is good for that.:p

More like the uninformed strangers are tying to decide, without information, if other people's NEEDS match their own, and if the answer is no, then the NEEDS become unnecessary WANTS.
A pretty simplistic opinion here. You should realize that whether they're needs or wants, the behavior of one person usually has some effect on his/her neighbors. At some point others have the right (duty, even) to step in and point out the destructiveness of a neighbor's behavior. If the neighbor doesn't understand, or doesn't want to change, then we have the option of trying to get laws passed to force better behavior.

Another aspect is that "needs" are shaped by the environment one lives in. As some of the people in the other forum said, they need a private motor vehicle because they live in an area that doesn't have public transit. IOW, their environment is lacking in one need, forcing them to turn to another need. If they're concerned about their forced dependence on gasoline, they should try to get public transit in their area. At the very least, they should try to use the most efficient vehicle, and avoid unnecessary trips with it.

Sometimes their ham radios break, and they have to find someone to trade a steak radio for it. The internet is good for that.:p
I just hope their ham radios are organic and locally grown.

At the very least, they should try to use the most efficient vehicle, and avoid unnecessary trips with it.
OK. But it is those individuals' decision to make about what is a necessary trip and what is the most efficient and/or practical means of accomplishment given the resources/priorities at hand (including time, weather, comfort levels, etc.) Not a decision to be made by someone who has read a book/article somewhere or taken Soc 101 and decides he/she knows what is best for everyone else.

I almost always see SUVs with just one person in there, and they are usually commuting to work or going to the store. There are also a lot of Hummers around here, and only twice have I seen it with more than one person in it (1 driver, 1 passenger). And believe me, I look, because they are usually passing me on my bike.
And why would someone argue that a parking lot at WORK where you spend the majority of your waking hours is not a good indicator of who is driving these vehicles?
The *real* soccer moms have VANS, because they seat the 8 kids. And trucks are everywhere, but few people are hauling anything.
I live in the midwest though, maybe it's different in your neck of the woods. But here, people buy the big vehicles because they are cool, or whatever. MANY MANY MANY of them don't do it for utility's sake.

Maddyfish, I'm sure some people do much of their hauling and carpooling on the weekends. But why they choose to commute in this utility vehicle everywhere else (the majority of travel for many), is because ? For the price of a shiny new big truck, one can get a nice sedan for commuting and an older truck for hauling, instead of having his and hers F250's. I do know that many families have SUV's and vans to travel/sports/hauling in and that is one thing. But all of these SUV's and trucks on the road with one passenger is something else entirely.

OP, it was a nice post you had. These people will never shift their paradigm from a forum entry. But planting the seeds of change may pay off in the future, so hats off to you!


For a cyclist, you can have a MTB for trail riding, a road or touring bike for those longer trips, a commuter bike for those short, in town trips, maybe rigged up for some serious hauling with a trailer. Maybe you have spent $3,000 for the whole setup (including the trailer). Your annual maintenance cost, is maybe $400, for all of them, so the incentives of low cost, and low maintenance costs, mean that specialization is easy. Heck for an extra $2500 throw in a Honda Jazz for those times you want to go a little further or are feeling too tired to try and tackle the hill-from-hell on 4th Street..... Maybe add an extra $500 a year for maintenance on the Honda, and the rare gas purchase..... So maybe you spend $900 a year on maintenance, the average motorist is spending more then that on insurance alone.... I wonder how a Jazz would do in snow??????

For motorists, vehicles are much more expensive, maintenance, insurance, etc. mean that most people are limited to a single vehicle. So they must get the most utiliitarian vehicle they can afford. Car companies have incentives to go larger, leasing is one, financing is out to 72 months, yes that is six years of slavery for a motor vehicle. The bright side is that you can buy a $30,000 one instead of a $25,000 one, for only $100 a month more, and join the wannabe rich:D You never do know, maybe the guy with the SUV needs to haul a drum kit, or a double bass around, drives the kids to soccer practise, and several people to church on Sunday...... They can't afford multiple vehicles like cyclists can......

What I find interesting is that some people are using bicycles for some trips and small motorcycles for others....

[QUOTE=kc9eog]I am sure high gas prices are on every board, but I really don't want to lose this time, so could anyone here help me work on these people? I feel like the argument I am making is exactly correct and that this really is a matter of Black and White, as opposed to most controversies which are shaded gray. So, any help?


The fellow's mind is made up. He's not going to buy your arguments.

You are being logical. DOH! You are arguing against him. How do you make your point emotionally, sympathising with him?

I am sure high gas prices are on every board, but I really don't want to lose this time, so could anyone here help me work on these people? I feel like the argument I am making is exactly correct and that this really is a matter of Black and White, as opposed to most controversies which are shaded gray. So, any help?


Don't bother. Even if people weren't already hardwired to rationalize every selfish decision they make, there are billions of dollars spent every year on the most skillfully crafted propaganda ever, the sole purpose of which is to convince them that their lives are meaningless and empty and they can only find happiness by buying more crap. It's called marketing. Some people actually believe that it only informs people of how they may satisfy their wants rather than creating want.


Sure.

They said the same thing at $1.50 a gallon and at $2.00 a gallon, and at $3.00 a gallon.

In Europe, gas is about $7.50 a gallon, and, at that price, people do change their behavior. Cars over there are getting tiny -not an SUV anywhere in sight- and average, middle class families are discovering that, at least in large cities, driving isn't even the best way to get around. Here in the US, change will come more slowly, but it will come. We can be stupid beyond belief (Pearl Harbor, re-electing W, watching American Idol), but when the sh** hits the fan, most Americans tend to be fairly adaptable. (Well, I hope that's still true...)

In Europe, gas is about $7.50 a gallon, and, at that price, people do change their behavior. Cars over there are getting tiny -not an SUV anywhere in sight
Cars have been tiny in Europe for over 50 years. When did Europeans get rid of their SUVs? When I left Germany in 2002 there were lots of them, not as many as the U.S., but still a significant slice of the newer cars on the road were SUV's. What were never seen were pickup trucks, unless it had US military issued license plates.

For a cyclist, you can have a MTB for trail riding, a road or touring bike for those longer trips, a commuter bike for those short, in town trips, maybe rigged up for some serious hauling with a trailer. Maybe you have spent $3,000 for the whole setup (including the trailer). Your annual maintenance cost, is maybe $400, for all of them, so the incentives of low cost, and low maintenance costs, mean that specialization is easy. Heck for an extra $2500 throw in a Honda Jazz for those times you want to go a little further or are feeling too tired to try and tackle the hill-from-hell on 4th Street..... Maybe add an extra $500 a year for maintenance on the Honda, and the rare gas purchase..... So maybe you spend $900 a year on maintenance, the average motorist is spending more then that on insurance alone.... I wonder how a Jazz would do in snow??????

For motorists, vehicles are much more expensive, maintenance, insurance, etc. mean that most people are limited to a single vehicle. So they must get the most utiliitarian vehicle they can afford. Car companies have incentives to go larger, leasing is one, financing is out to 72 months, yes that is six years of slavery for a motor vehicle. The bright side is that you can buy a $30,000 one instead of a $25,000 one, for only $100 a month more, and join the wannabe rich:D You never do know, maybe the guy with the SUV needs to haul a drum kit, or a double bass around, drives the kids to soccer practise, and several people to church on Sunday...... They can't afford multiple vehicles like cyclists can......

What I find interesting is that some people are using bicycles for some trips and small motorcycles for others....

Excellent and logical post. I definately agree, that is in many cases why they buy what they do. Of course, for the price they are paying they could buy a whole fleet of earlier model cars. But I don't think it's about money. The safety ratings are higher, they are told that you are safer in a bigger vehicle, and that is true because you are shielded by tons of metal. They are told it will handle well in snow. And yet California is drowning in them. It looks rugged, and slick, a beautiful mean machine.
They think they need it. Really they just want it. Why wouldn't a larger hatchback fit the bill? Like AverageCommuter said, we have big-vehicle campaign shoved down our throat. Then we WANT to have the SUV because it is a cool design and will be great in case we need to haul stuff, when really we just end up commuting in it every day. And errands on the weekends. Now I'm excluding all those hockey moms and builders, etc etc who use the capacity. What you are left with is still a vast number of those heavy vehicles on the road. Maybe they load it up with camping stuff twice a year, when they could have just borrowed the neighbor's van or rented.
When is the last time they really thought about the consequences of the SUV, or its horrid fuel economy and the 'real price of oil', or realized that they don't need to drive it to the library 7 blocks away? They don't, because they aren't conditioned to do so. They will never give it a second thought, it's their vehicle, it looks cool, and there are a ton of them on the road so they do not feel out of place. Using it is a habit. I used to be the same way. Need to pick up the pizza? Hop in the car and go. Never a second thought.
When will awareness kick in to combat the habit/detachment/addiction/advertising/media/big oil/car company influence and actually take some responsibility for our actions? When gas is $20 a gallon? When tsnuamis hit Illinois? :eek: When they or their children get asthma and medication doesn't work? Unfortunately ignorance is bliss, and many people don't like change. We have difficulty realizing the impact of our decisions because They make everything as disconnected and sugarcoated as possible.
Let's face it, a huge amount of those SUV's, trucks, and Hummers out there were only bought for one thing: driving. And it's overkill. You don't normally use a sledgehammer every time you need to put a thumbtack in the wall. And if you do need a sledgehammer, you can always borrow one or find another way, or just decide the project isn't worth doing. But you probably enjoy using the sledgehammer. You feel safer, and more powerful, and you enjoy using it. And it sure gets that tack smashed right in there. But you'll wind up with a big hole in your wall eventually. :(

OK. But it is those individuals' decision to make about what is a necessary trip and what is the most efficient and/or practical means of accomplishment given the resources/priorities at hand (including time, weather, comfort levels, etc.) Not a decision to be made by someone who has read a book/article somewhere or taken Soc 101 and decides he/she knows what is best for everyone else.
If the current wasteful use of gasoline is threatening ME and my descendants, do I have no right to protest it and try to end it?

If the current wasteful use of gasoline is threatening ME and my descendants, do I have no right to protest it and try to end it?
Sure, but if you want to do more than just make a "wasteful" protest with no effect, you better figure out how you are going to convince anybody else to accept your definition of "wasteful use of gasoline", which appears to be using a car for any reason that you do not approve.

But the tone of the conversation there illustrates why it's going to take strong measures to get people driving less, and diving more efficient vehicles. Like maybe CAFE laws, higher taxes or gas rationing. It's our job to start convincing the people that these laws are needed and "for your own good." So it isn't really a waste of time to keep on talking on that forum, kc9eoq. Maybe somebody will actually think about what you're saying.

Off topic, I don't get why ham radio people have an internet forum. Can't they talk to each other on the radio?

CAFE standards were what got the SUV craze started. SUVs were treated as "light trucks" and permitted lower MPG than station wagons, which were classed as regular automobiles. A classic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and a perfect example of why I'm dubious of government officials trying to coerce peoples' economic choices.

If the current wasteful use of gasoline is threatening ME and my descendants, do I have no right to protest it and try to end it?

Protest, yes. Convince, yes. Coerce, no.

CAFE standards were what got the SUV craze started. SUVs were treated as "light trucks" and permitted lower MPG than station wagons, which were classed as regular automobiles. A classic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and a perfect example of why I'm dubious of government officials trying to coerce peoples' economic choices.

You're wrong about the government's motives here - the lower mileage standards were to appease the big automakers in Detroit. This is NOT an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences at all. The consequences were fully intended - sell more profitable trucks and SUVs. After all, Detroit has never been competitive in the economy car market.

CAFE standards were what got the SUV craze started. SUVs were treated as "light trucks" and permitted lower MPG than station wagons, which were classed as regular automobiles. A classic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and a perfect example of why I'm dubious of government officials trying to coerce peoples' economic choices.
You might be a little naive if you think loopholes in the CAFE standards were "unintended." My Michigan senators and representatives made sure these standards would look good to enironmentalists while really benefiting the Big 3 and the UAW.

Protest, yes. Convince, yes. Coerce, no.
Who said anything about coercion? Laws passed by a democrati government are not coercive, even if some people feel constrained. I've stated before that I don't think rationing would work without the consent of the people, so that's where protest and convincing come in.

OK. But it is those individuals' decision to make about what is a necessary trip and what is the most efficient and/or practical means of accomplishment given the resources/priorities at hand (including time, weather, comfort levels, etc.) Not a decision to be made by someone who has read a book/article somewhere or taken Soc 101 and decides he/she knows what is best for everyone else.

The problem is that many decisions that people make have negative externalities, so they can make a choice, and force others to pay a portion of that choice. Take the decision to drive an SUV for example. SUVs a taller, allowing the driver a better view of the road. But, his higher vantage point make it harder for other cars to see around him, leading to increased following distances and lower traffic throughput and greater congestion. SUVs have greater mass, giving their occupants an advantage in a crash, but the corollary is that the occupants of other cars are more likely to die if they are involved in a crash with an SUV. SUVs have lower fuel economy, and thus emit more CO2, and have a greater proportional impact on climate change.

None of the costs of these externalities are paid for by the person who makes the choice to drive an SUV, so there is a breakdown in the market.

They said the same thing at $1.50 a gallon and at $2.00 a gallon, and at $3.00 a gallon.
How about 6 dollars, think that'll do it?

How about 6 dollars, think that'll do it?
Do what?

For motorists, vehicles are much more expensive, maintenance, insurance, etc. mean that most people are limited to a single vehicle. So they must get the most utiliitarian vehicle they can afford. Car companies have incentives to go larger, leasing is one, financing is out to 72 months, yes that is six years of slavery for a motor vehicle. The bright side is that you can buy a $30,000 one instead of a $25,000 one, for only $100 a month more, and join the wannabe rich:D You never do know, maybe the guy with the SUV needs to haul a drum kit, or a double bass around, drives the kids to soccer practise, and several people to church on Sunday...... They can't afford multiple vehicles like cyclists can......

What I find interesting is that some people are using bicycles for some trips and small motorcycles for others....

Agree with this, but to take it a bit further: These folks aren't thinking globally. They are thinking with their own individual pocketbook. Say you've got that SUV that gets 16-18 MPG. You need it to haul the kids around, whatever, after work and on the weekends. You already own this truck/car. So, you drive 200 miles a week to work. That costs you about 40 buck a week for gas. Now, can you go out and buy another little car that uses half as much gas for your commute and better the bottom line in your own billfold? Car = 10 to 15 grand. Plus another 600 or 700 every year for insurance. Plus upkeep on the extra car. Let's say you trade every 5 years.

Call the car price 12,500 (I won't count interest) / 5 years = 2500 year. add in the price of insurance at 700 and you've got 3200 a year already and we all know there's a bunch of costs beyond this yet.

The 200 miles a week spent commuting cost about 40 bucks each week for gas or 2080 bucks a year. There ain't no way the second or extra car pencils out cheaper.

Yes, I'd agree the second car would lessen the amount of gallons used. It would not however, save each individual owner any money. Good for the planet or good for the pocket book?? The average guy will vote with his pocketbook everytime.

Rik

How about 6 dollars, think that'll do it?

Nope, I don't think in the United States $12 would do it.... Although it's not so much the price, but the change in price, for example if the price goes from $2.50 to $3.50 over a period of a year, people will put up with it a lot easier, then they will if it is $2.50 on Thursday and $3.50 on Friday of the same week.

Nope, I don't think in the United States $12 would do it.... Although it's not so much the price, but the change in price, for example if the price goes from $2.50 to $3.50 over a period of a year, people will put up with it a lot easier, then they will if it is $2.50 on Thursday and $3.50 on Friday of the same week.
Credit availability seems to affect a person's attitude about gas prices. Easy consumer credit delays responses to price signals.

I suspect a person who operates on a cash-only basis will respond fastest to a change in gas prices. A hypothetical person with unlimited credit and future expectations of income probably wouldn't notice gas prices at all, until the point where a credit limit is encountered.

I am sure high gas prices are on every board, but I really don't want to lose this time, so could anyone here help me work on these people? I feel like the argument I am making is exactly correct and that this really is a matter of Black and White, as opposed to most controversies which are shaded gray. So, any help?



http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=17;t=155236
Sounds like a thread in P&R on this board!

How about 6 dollars, think that'll do it?
Nope.