HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Seriously, I don't understand why more people don't decide not to own cars.
The (quite rational*) decision not to own a car ought to be a possibility,
right?

I live in Philadelphia for that reason -- public transportation. But I
may end up leaving Philadelphia for a better job. The only places where
Americans can afford not to have cars are small towns with viable
downtowns and a handful of cities which have good enough public
transportation. Some employers (Comcast in Philadelphia for one) have
moved back into the cities (over a transportation interchange in
Comcast's case); a lot are still out where the trans doesn't reach.

The infrastructure of the US is auto-centric.

Laurence Payne wrote:

petrol famine. Somehow, everyone got most places they HAD to get. But
"convenience" trips were cut out, the roads were empty, and travel
became a pleasure. Even allowing for some necessary journeys being
postponed, there's obviously lots of scope for cutting down on car use
without life grinding to a halt.

People can make somewhat minor changes to their auto usage and have a
great impact on fuel consumption. Immediate convenience always triumphs
over thoughtfulness, however.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Laurence Payne wrote:

petrol famine. Somehow, everyone got most places they HAD to get. But
"convenience" trips were cut out, the roads were empty, and travel
became a pleasure. Even allowing for some necessary journeys being
postponed, there's obviously lots of scope for cutting down on car use
without life grinding to a halt.

People can make somewhat minor changes to their auto usage and have a
great impact on fuel consumption. Immediate convenience always triumphs
over thoughtfulness, however.

If we stop buying new cars and keep our present ones for an extra five
years, the automobile industry will grind to a halt and our governments will
find the needed petroleum.

Who wants to pay beaucoup bucks for a car, only to be unable to use it? I
think we squandered the 3 decades after the 70s Oil Embargo to have come up
with autos that used alternative fuels. I am told that Brazil runs their
cars on alcohol, which can be manufactured, rather than imported. How is it
that a third world country can put a big dent in the oil shortage problem,
while we cannot.

Instead we squander time worrying about things like Monica's stained dress,
and whether Hillary really will run for President in 2008.

jeremy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .

Laurence Payne wrote:


petrol famine. Somehow, everyone got most places they HAD to get. But
"convenience" trips were cut out, the roads were empty, and travel
became a pleasure. Even allowing for some necessary journeys being
postponed, there's obviously lots of scope for cutting down on car use
without life grinding to a halt.

People can make somewhat minor changes to their auto usage and have a
great impact on fuel consumption. Immediate convenience always triumphs
over thoughtfulness, however.


If we stop buying new cars and keep our present ones for an extra five
years, the automobile industry will grind to a halt and our governments will
find the needed petroleum.

Who wants to pay beaucoup bucks for a car, only to be unable to use it? I
think we squandered the 3 decades after the 70s Oil Embargo to have come up
with autos that used alternative fuels. I am told that Brazil runs their
cars on alcohol, which can be manufactured, rather than imported. How is it
that a third world country can put a big dent in the oil shortage problem,
while we cannot.

While I agree with your basic sentiments, by minor changes in automobile
use I simply mean using vehicles more efficiently. This includes
maintenance and driving habits. (Such as combining erands).

Brazil's automobile ethanol use is about 40 - 45%. Their feedstock is
sugar cane which gives a very high energy return (you need energy to
make ethanol).

The US auto industry has made (so far) over 6M vehicles capable of
burning E85 (85% ethanol; 15% gasoline). One issue is the price: you
pay almost the same for a gallon of E85 as you do for gasoline. But you
get 20 - 25% less miles per gallon when burning E85.

Using ethanol is part of a good substitution strategy, however the first
environmental tenant is "reduce".

As to finding more petrol, we have burned the easiest and cheapest to
find, easiest and cheapest to refine oils. Now we have to further,
spend more (money and energy) to get oil that needs more money and
energy to refine...

The Canadian lunacy of using relatively clean burning ( but CO2 emitting
) natural gas to extract oil from tarsands to sell to the US who are the
most prolifically wasteful energy users on the planet is personally
shaming to me as a Canadian.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:11:36 +0000, jeremy wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Laurence Payne wrote:

petrol famine. Somehow, everyone got most places they HAD to get. But
"convenience" trips were cut out, the roads were empty, and travel
became a pleasure. Even allowing for some necessary journeys being
postponed, there's obviously lots of scope for cutting down on car use
without life grinding to a halt.

People can make somewhat minor changes to their auto usage and have a
great impact on fuel consumption. Immediate convenience always triumphs
over thoughtfulness, however.

If we stop buying new cars and keep our present ones for an extra five
years, the automobile industry will grind to a halt and our governments will
find the needed petroleum.

Who wants to pay beaucoup bucks for a car, only to be unable to use it? I
think we squandered the 3 decades after the 70s Oil Embargo to have come up
with autos that used alternative fuels. I am told that Brazil runs their
cars on alcohol, which can be manufactured, rather than imported. How is it
that a third world country can put a big dent in the oil shortage problem,
while we cannot.

Instead we squander time worrying about things like Monica's stained dress,
and whether Hillary really will run for President in 2008.

You want to run your car on alcohol, find a drag racer and ask him to
rechip it for you.

No tricks, no massive government-funded research program, no new
principles of science, just change the damned chip.

You want everybody to run alcohol, double the price of gas and halve the
price of alcohol and you'll see it happen. The trick isn't making cars
run on it, which many high school kids know how to do, the trick is making
people want to buy it.

Lemme guess--everything you know about cars you learned from Ralph Nadir.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:03:39 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

I am impressed, however with these formula I cars that can hit the rails at
175 MPH, fly end over end a dozen times, completely come apart at the seams
until there is nothing left of them but the cage containing the driver,
which, after he unbelts himself, he walks away from without a scratch....Why
can't they do that with the family sedan?

Because the people who ride in that sedan will not put up with being
made to wear a helmet and suit that tend to keep all the various
internal parts where they are supposed to, along with a 5-point
harness and HANS device.
Then add the cost for the car itself.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:52:31 -0500, Roger
wrote:

I also fly high performance airplanes. The interesting comparison is
insurance rates and vehicle value. The more you drive the higher your
rates due to exposure, but the more you fly the lower your rates due
to time building competency.

Well, sort of.
The more you drive, the more experience you get, which lowers your
rate; try comparing an 18-year old with a 40-year old, bith driving
since age 16, both driving the same number of miles per year in the
same market.
As for the pilot, the real danger is on the ground; while any flight
might be any number of hours, there's only two ground contacts:
takeoff and landing (or crashing). So, the more you fly (the more
hours), it's reasonable to assume the number of grounds contacts
remain at two per flight, but the hours will go up with more
experience.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:57:15 GMT, Rebecca Ore
wrote:

The infrastructure of the US is auto-centric.

Yeah. It's going to come as an even bigger shock to you guys. But
you'll cope, as we all will have to.

In article , William
Graham wrote:

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On 21 Dec 2006 11:11:19 -0800, "acl"
wrote:


Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , acl
wrote:

jeremy wrote:
mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new
cars.
Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet
metal
and smaller overall size.

So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large
size?


Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just
some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take
high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever
start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue
for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I
want METAL around me. The more the better.

Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one?

Yes, I've been in one from which I was lucky to get out alive. Can't
say it changed my view (if anything, it enhanced my opinion that how a
car handles is more important than how robust it is). I agree that if a
tank hits me then it's better to be in another tank, though.

About 5 years ago I had one of those immortal teenagers in his
invincible SUV come shooting out of a driveway with all 4 burning. Two
solid lanes of oncoming traffic on the left and trees to the right.

I only left about 12 feet of skid marks before sticking the nose of my
Trans Am into the side of that GMC Jimmy. He was going fast enough
to spin me through the oncoming traffic and into a bank parking lot.
The GMC turned 90 degrees and stopped about 30 feed down the left turn
lane.

It put the right front tire almost into the seat on that side. The
firewall was back against the bottom of the dash all the way across
and I wrapped the steering wheel around the column. The car stopped so
quick all the antennas bent over flat against the body.

Even bending that steering wheel I was unhurt. Punchier than after a
6-pack on an empty stomach, but unhurt. The kid in the SUV ended up in
the hospital with a broken shoulder or collar bone. The only thing
that save his life was that massive door pillar on the Jimmy.

However the air bags, seat and shoulder harness and that car body
folding up (plus being missed by all that oncoming traffic) is the
only reason I'm alive.

I also fly high performance airplanes. The interesting comparison is
insurance rates and vehicle value. The more you drive the higher your
rates due to exposure, but the more you fly the lower your rates due
to time building competency.



From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in
Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a
firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the
difference in outcomes.

Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on
the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor
vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles
(and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a
tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle
with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle
in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength
(literally).


If gas would get up to $5 a gallon we might be able to do something
about that.

We worry about the dangers of all kinds of devices and demand
protection. Then we go out and kill off between 40,000 and 50,000 a
year on the highways and chalk it up to the cost of doing business.

Well, we have very different priorities in cars, I must admit.

Any time you take a car out it's a risk. There is a calculated risk
associated with virtually every action we take. I'm willing to take
the higher risk associated with the smaller car, or flying an
airplane.

I drive a 4WD SUV for a lot of things and my wife's Hybrid when it's
available. I doubt I'm any safer in the SUV with all the *stuff* I
throw in back. Plus in either car I usually have a couple of cameras
in the right front seat. One with a Short to medium wide range zoom
and the other with a 200 to 500 zoom.

My first wife (many, many years ago in another life) lived because she
was thrown out of a car in a wreck. You would never get her to wear a
seat belt, even though the odds are far in favor for doing so. Had I
not had a seat belt on when I hit that SUV it would have been quite a
ride. One deputy with a kind of lop sided grin asked, "did you have
your seat belt on". I replied "I sure wouldn't be walking around like
this if I hadn't".

But I had a friend who walked away from an accident where his engine ended
up where his lap would have been had he been wearing his seat belt......He
didn't think much of them either....

I am impressed, however with these formula I cars that can hit the rails at
175 MPH, fly end over end a dozen times, completely come apart at the seams
until there is nothing left of them but the cage containing the driver,
which, after he unbelts himself, he walks away from without a scratch....Why
can't they do that with the family sedan?


Because a) those cars are designed that way intentionally. b) the cost
would make the average buyer shudder, and c) how many people could you
get to wear a 5-point (or more) racing harness to drive to the local
supermarket?

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

Alan Browne wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:

petrol famine. Somehow, everyone got most places they HAD to get.
But "convenience" trips were cut out, the roads were empty, and
travel became a pleasure. Even allowing for some necessary
journeys being postponed, there's obviously lots of scope for
cutting down on car use without life grinding to a halt.

People can make somewhat minor changes to their auto usage and have
a
great impact on fuel consumption. Immediate convenience always
triumphs over thoughtfulness, however.

At the beginning of the last few years of my employed life my company
paid 80% of a public transportation pass for anyone who wanted to use
it. It turned my 20-minute one-way freeway commute into a two-hour
four-bus ordeal. That would be a forty-minute round trip versus a
four-hour trip, daily. I know many people do that kind of thing as a
matter of choice, but I'm not sure I can understand them. I understand
even less the ones who live in suburbs of places like Los Angeles, and
spend that much time in their cars, in traffic. Fifty percent or more
of your time dedicated to work and getting to and from it doesn't make
much sense to me. But remember, I'm a softie.

A couple years before the end of work as I knew it, I helped institute
telecommute: one or two days in the office, the remainder at home. I
felt a lot less guilty about one or two car-commutes a week than about
five, and the attraction of public transport diminished significantly.
It worked good for everyone concerned, actually increasing the amount
of production for the same money. Insurance premiums went down
significantly, too.

Now that my family-home unit doesn't have _any_ must-drive pressures,
every excursion is a pleasant adventure. Barring the occasional photo
sortie, we probably don't average 50 miles per month. I bought a nice
third-childhood plaything car* two months ago, and have put only a
couple hundred non-recreational miles on it in that time. Once the
novelty wears off, it's certain to drop from that level.

I always tell people: "Photography and driving the fun car are my
golf; a near-total waste of money and time, except for the pleasure
they afford me while I'm doing them". And that can't be all bad.

*http://farm1.static.flickr.com/129/3...225a6e77_o.jpg
Into the clouds on the road to Mt Palomar.

--
Frank ess