Can we come to an agreement about who deserves to suffer due to rising gas prices?

[taterguy]

We can start with SUV owners. That's easy. Or is it?
Should it be all SUVs or just the really big ones?
Are Honda CRVs SUVs? They're certainly sporty and utilitarian.

Suburban dwellers. They should suffer. I guess. But should it depend on the real estate market? Suppose they really do live in a place where no conveniently located housing is affordable? Or is that just an excuse for "I don't want to live near people who aren't like me?"

So it's Friday. We're having a few drinks. Let it all hang out.

Who do you think deserves to suffer due to rising fuel costs?

Be honest.

That's one of the beauties of a quasi-anonymous message board.

[Fumesucker]

1. Bush's base?

But they won't.

[taterguy]

4. Some of them will

Obviously a lot of people who aren't rich voted for Bush.

[Fumesucker]

14. Nah, I meant Bush's *real* base..

You know, the "haves" and the "have mores"..

They aren't going to miss any meals due to high gas prices.

[canetoad]

2. Tailgaters, speeders

people who weave in and out, revving then braking. They deserve to suffer very badly for not driving smoothly and sensibly.

[Fumesucker]

17. Tailgating can increase fuel milage..

Get close behind a semi and it's quite possible to increase your mileage by fifteen percent or more, the pocket of "dead air" behind a semi is unmistakably obvious on a motorcycle.

My daughter's Expedition SUV has a real time mpg readout.. It gets identical mileage at 55 mph and 65 mph, I've confirmed this over many trips now.

My little pocket rocket Suzuki mini car gets over 35 mpg at 80 plus MPH.. Turbo diesels in a small car do even better than that.

My Yamaha FZR400 will get over 55 mpg at highly illegal speeds with two up.

Even my son in law's Road King gets over 40 mpg.

[canetoad]

26. Yep

And being dead in a cemetery with the imprint of a rear bumper on your face saves a hell of a lot of fuel.

[Fumesucker]

28. Not everyone is as innatentive a driver

As yourself..

If you can't outstop a semi, you need driving lessons..

[Mugweed]

31. Thank you!

I tailgate the semis whenever I can. If your brakes don't work or you pay more attention to the phone or music, that's your loss. I have good tires and brakes for a reason.

[HughMoran]

40. "I tailgate the semis whenever I can"

:freak:

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. Since the semi you're tailgating may be empty

or with a load weighing very little, and its brakes are designed to stop it with a heavy load, I'd think twice about this, if I were you.

I'd love to hear the comments of a driving teacher about your driving style ...

[Fumesucker]

54. The maximum coefficient of friction is reached

Well before the tire locks up.. Unloaded semis lock the tires and take a long time to stop since the coefficient of friction of the sliding tires is considerably lower than it would be if they weren't locked up.

That is why ABS controls keep the wheels from locking up, not only do you maintain control of the vehicle, you stop faster too.

Not to mention that truck tires are made from a very hard rubber compound for maximum mileage. They aren't made for great adhesion properties, if they were they would only last a few thousand miles like high performance tires for cars and motorcycles.

It doesn't matter whether the semi is loaded or unloaded.. A car or motorcycle will stop considerably faster than a semi.

This stuff is very basic physics..

A decent sport bike will handily outstop just about any car..

You can't do this in a car..



On edit: I just thought I'd point out that I've had a "safe driver" rate on my insurance for about three decades now.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. Do American trucks not have ABS, then?

:scared: It's compulsory on all new tractors and trailers in the EU.

Are you saying that a driving/riding instructor would say it's safe to tailgate behind trucks?

[Fumesucker]

61. Even with ABS a semi cannot stop nearly as fast as a car or motorcycle..

Nothing in life is completely safe, it's all a matter of tradeoffs..

Tailgating trucks is not as safe as not tailgating them, all else being equal.. Which it never is.

One of the prime causes of fatal motorcycle accidents is people going the other way taking a left in front of you because they "didn't see you". Tailgating a truck helps keep that from happening, you use the larger vehicle as a kind of "blocker" to keep other vehicles from turning in front of you.

A good way to look at it is this: Which would you rather hit, a car going 25 mph in the other direction, or a truck going 10 mph slower than you in the same direction? In the first case the impact could easily be 75 mph or more and in the second it is 10 mph.. There is a a huge difference in the amount of potential damage that can happen.

A lot of my riding is done in heavy traffic, leaving too big a gap just invites others to squeeze in and you end up getting cut off a lot which has its own dangers.

There is far more to being a really safe driver than just mindlessly following certain rules. Driving situations are dynamically changing on an instant to instant basis and what is quite safe right this moment may well be suicidal five seconds later.

FWIW, we are about to get Mexican trucks on the road here which make American trucks look like paragons of maintenance and responsible operations. If you have ever driven in Mexico you'll have some idea what I'm talking about.

[CRF450]

62. I think most of them do now, hell it comes standard in....

pretty much any new automobile. A few motorcycles also have ABS too like the newer Honda Goldwings.

[ileus]

56. one of our local bikers hit a turck broad side at 134mph thursday.

he hit with such force he knocked it up on it's side. A friend went by and didn't even realize a bike had hit the truck...his riding buddies confirmed the 134mph speed since they were there...

[brentspeak]

59. Is the biker still alive?

[MercutioATC]

3. Viewing this from a completely different perspective:

The U.S. is fantastic at innovating...but we only innovate when there's a financial benefit.

I realize that gas seems expensive at $3.50/gallon, but it's still too cheap to force innovation.


Depending on your perspective, $6/gallon gas would be one of the best things that could happen to this country.

[taterguy]

6. We've been known to innovate when it helps win a war

And why energy independence isn't treated as a national security issue is the subject of another rant altogether.

[MercutioATC]

9. True....money or nationalism.

The problem is that we have neither with this gas issue. Tax holidays, windfall profits taxes...they're all treating the symptoms, not the cause. We need to find a way to actually innovate...and I don't think it'll happen with gas under $6/gallon.

[Fumesucker]

18. Jimmy Carter tried that..

Reagan took the solar panels off the White House.

"The moral equivalent of war" was Carter's term I believe.

[Mugweed]

32. from what standpoint?

Are you saying that the guy who had a job 3 miles away from his workplace, but then lost that job due to super-patriotic americans outsourcing those jobs to Mexico, India, or China, who now has to drive 50-60 miles to the new job is the problem? $6 a gallon is a great way to punish those who are already suffering at the hands of the corporate assholes (who, by the way, are not patriots because they do everything they can to not pay taxes and help fund that same government they claim is so great, flag pin and all), and make sure all wealth is transferred not only to the already super-rich, but those who never supported your government in the first place.

[uppityperson]

43. In the meantime food costs are going up up up. It's not just personal driving, but food.

[Captain Angry]

5. Nobody deserves it.

If you want to pin pain onto somebody, perhaps it can be the people who chose to drive monstrous SUVs / Pickups without using them for their function.

I know a guy driving a massive diesel. He gets 14 mpg if he drives with no cargo. He gets 14 mpg if he's towing several tons. It's his daily driver. It makes no sense.

How many people do you see in a Tahoe that has no passengers? Nothing like somebody driving one of those to buy $30 in groceries.

[taterguy]

7. $30 in groceries can be carried on a bicycle

Especially at today's prices.

So why does the Tahoe owner deserve pain more than the person who drives a car to pick a few things?

[Captain Angry]

12. I still don't think anybody deserves the pain.

I was just throwing out hypotheticals.

But using a massively heavy Tahoe to move a few pounds of groceries is a little worse than using a 1500 pound vehicle to do it.

Gas prices are hurting everybody. In other countries, those high prices include funding for mass transit that reduces the use of gasoline. We don't have that problem here. (grumble...)

[Scribe]

8. All of us ... equally.

[taterguy]

20. Should someone who conserves suffer as much as someone who wastes?

Person X drives an SUV 150 miles a day.

Person Y drives a small car 100 miles a month.

Why should person Y deserve to suffer as much as person X?

[Mountainman]

10. No one.

It has nothing to do with what you drive but everything to do with how much gas you use.

I have a SUV and fill it up about every other week. I ride a bus to work and ride a motorcycle when I can.

I really don't understand the intelligence level of people who don't understand the difference between your MPG and the amount of gas you burn.

Here it is for you DUer PC types who hate SUV's. I work 70 miles from where I live. I ride the bus 5 days a week. I drive about 1/2 mile to and from the bus. I get 18 MPG. Another guy works with me. He lives where I do and drives to work. He gets 35 MPG. He burns 5 x (70/35) gal. I burn 5 x (1/18)gal. Do the math. He burns 10 gal a week I burn .27.

[lutefisk]

34. Very good point. It's not as simple as "SUV" at all. n/t

[CRF450]

42. Thats a very good point, and I'm sure a big number of SUV owners....

Live close to their jobs. Hell, I wouldn't complain niether about owning one, but I wouldn't, they're just not my type of vehicle. I dont see SUV/trucks as the sole purpose of increased gas usage as so many here put it. Just the fact that theirs many, many more drivers on the road now compared to 15 years ago is what the problem is. Even if most of the SUV and truck owners were driving cars, total gas consumption probably wont be that much lower, as most cars on the road get between 20 and 25mpg. Mine averages around 22mpg, and has reached 31mpg on the highway. My Dodge Dakota 4x4 gets around 16mpg.

[ileus]

58. My jeep gets 6 months to a tank...10 years of ownership = 20k miles.

[Bluebear]

11. Everybody, and nobody.

[Sweet Pea]

13. Nobody.

Why should anyone have to suffer?

[dchill]

15. Anybody with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker.

OK - anybody who ever voted for him.

[B Calm]

16. I still remember republicans telling me to watch the price of gas drop, now that

we have Texas Oil Man as president. They were the same stupid fools that were griping when gas reached $1.30 a gallon under President Clinton's watch. Clinton doesn't have an energy plan. Clinton closed down refineries, blah blah blah!

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Hummer drivers

I really can't stand those ugly ass gas guzzlers.

[taterguy]

21. Why just Hummer drivers?

I'm not being snarky.

Lots of people guzzle gas when they don't have to.

How do we come up with a consensus about what constitutes acceptable gas consumption?

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. First thing that came to mind

:shrug:

[krispos42]

41. AM General made less than 12,000 civilian Hummers

The H1 kind, in their total production run.

No matter how low their mileage is, the H1 not a global-warming problem..

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. But it is

a but ass ugly vehicle. That's reason enough for me to hate them. lol

[krispos42]

53. I'd argue with you...

...but you're right! :-)

<on edit: you're, not your :banghead: >

[Codedonkey]

22. Canadians.

teehee teehee... I say let those who wish to suffer, suffer. In other words, if you wish to drive some gas guzzling monster then so be it... Of course that isn't really fair to those who require such vehicles for cargo.

[taterguy]

24. So how do we define who wishes to suffer?

I hear a lot of complaints about gas prices.

I don't know the life story of the people making those complaints but couldn't a lot of them make changes that would alleviate their suffering?

[Codedonkey]

27. Well, I pretty much meant anyone who doesn't require such a vehicle

So if you're using a one of those giant SUVs that gets 11 MPG so that you could pickup little Sally from her soccer game, then the suffering is your own fault... But anyways, I agree with you that people who are feeling it really bad could make changes to make it less harsh...

However, truckers or people who require larger work vehicles may not have a choice in the matter.

[magellan]

23. Anyone who voted for Bush**

That goes double for the dumbasses who voted for him twice.

[flvegan]

25. Those that "deserve" to suffer, won't.

Big oil CEOs will never care what a gallon costs. Bush's war...he rides in a limo, and the gas is paid by the taxpayers. Cheney, too.

Nobody else "deserves" to suffer. I try not to judge SUV drivers as much. We don't know who they are, what they do, why they have them. That Expedition driver may have gone completely solar, but tows a boat. That Hemi owner may be a vegetarian.

[CRF450]

30. Well, as long as I have my pool cleaning job, and my dirtbike...

I'll be keeping my 16mpg truck. I drive my car when I dont need the truck, it averages around 22mpg, and gets around 30mpg HWY.

[readmoreoften]

33. People with Hummers. And Dick Cheney.

All the people who never suffer. Anyone who is suffering is probably someone who doesn't deserve it. There are people who need large vehicles. My partner's folks live on a farm 15 minutes down a dirt road with 6 golden retrievers and they have to haul their own trash to the dump. My fuel efficient car gets trashed driving down that rocky dirt road every time we visit. But there is no reason for a Hummer. No one needs a Hummer. Not even the soldiers in Iraq. They just need planes to bring them back here.

[shadowknows69]

35. Oil company executives should pay 15 dollars a gallon

20 on Sundays

[brentspeak]

60. .

:applause:

[-..__...]

36. Bicyclists.

Because despite all their spandex clad sanctimonious/gleeful mewlings and raised fists that higher gas prices don't affect them; at some point they'll come down from their oxygen buzz and realize that it really does throw a monkey wrench in their gears.

[JANdad]

48. Took the words right

off my keyboard...thanks

[unkachuck]

37. "Who....

....do you think deserves to suffer due to rising fuel costs?"

....everyone but me.

[Lorien]

38. Well, those driving huge vehicles who don't need them for work

did help to CAUSE the higher fuel prices by increasing demand for the product. That karma is simple.

[tyedyeto]

39. So my 1999 Jeep Cherokee

is considered an SUV to be hated by DU?

I won't give it up.

[-..__...]

49. I've never considered a Cherokee to be an SUV.

(I have a 2001).

It's not big by any means... I find it rather cramped and have been in compact cars that are a lot roomier.

[uppityperson]

44. Rising gas prices are driving food costs up. Who deserves to suffer?

Those who are rich enough to not have to consider the cost of having a decent healthy diet. I mean those who really never ever have to consider the cost of food. Tax the shit out of them, use the taxes to help get food to people who are suffering.

Yes, I drive less and yes, can drive even less. I commute and cannot stop doing that, no public transit and too far to bike and yes, have tried to figure out how/when to quit commuting, but I need to eat. Cutting back and watching what I buy, eating more local food, having a garden all help, but rising gas prices are cutting wayyyy into my food budget by driving food costs up.

So, who deserves to suffer? I'd pick hose who can afford to first, but it doesn't happen that way.

[orangerevolution]

45. How about nobody

everyone should be treated fairly. Those who have, should be ordered to give to those who are in need. I see gas as no different than water or electricity, we all need it.

[taterguy]

46. The sticky wicket is what's the definition of "need."

I don't need to use gas to go to the grocery store, but I generally choose to drive.

Should I suffer due to my reluctance to have to deal with scapular misidentity syndrome again?

[orangerevolution]

63. Then define "need"

as to who should suffer? Should we use your def.? All very arrogant for us to decide the needs of others.

[taterguy]

64. I don't have a definition of need

There's too many variables involved.

That's why I asked for clarification when you said:

"Those who have, should be ordered to give to those who are in need"

[KillCapitalism]

51. Large SUV drivers won't suffer, but the working poor will.

Most large SUV drivers are wealthy. How else could they afford a $65,000 Navigator, Hummer, or Escalade? Gas could go to $10/gal. and the price wouldn't hurt these people one bit.

The working poor are the ones getting shafted here. They often have to drive vehicles from the 80's that get bad gas mileage, but it's all they can afford.

[The2ndWheel]

52. Most of us wouldn't be here if it weren't for cheap concentrated non-human energy

And if not for cheap concentrated non-human energy, most of us would be slaves, because the job would still have to get done.

The cheaper the non-human energy, the more human economic activity, the more our habitat suffers. The more expensive the non-human energy, we have to keep human economic activity going(I guess), so the more human suffering.

Most of us are a burden on the ecological system no matter how much we consume. I don't own a car, and I try(and mostly succeed) to walk everywhere I go, but I still buy food from who knows where, and my clothes were probably made by a 7 year old girl, whom I will never meet, in SE Asia.

We can't win. No matter what we do, there will be consequences for our actions. Some might be positive(depending on your defintion), some might be negative(depending on your definition), but we can't escape. We could all live in caves and hunt with sticks, with a much smaller population, and we'll have problems. We could all live in a windy solar paradise, with a much larger population, and we'll have problems. We can't win.

[Initech]

57. ME!!!

I'm a courier. I make a few bucks an hour above minimum wage and depend on getting mileage reimbursements as part of my salary (it works similar to tips), but the fuel costs are just eating into my profit margins.

[Vektor]

65. Bush's base, period. Nobody else.

Someone's choice of vehicle or location is irrelevant. It is one tiny fragment of the person as a whole.

The only people responsible for this are those who continue to support the Republican agenda. Anyone who votes against Republicans is doing right.

[Marrah_G]

66. I live in the suburbs

My working class salary doesn't allow for me to live close to the city.