Are you the kind of cockfarmer who drives an SUV?

in fact i drive two, one with each hand

But ... the first year that we moved upstate, our road was barely paved and not always ploughed in the winter. So of course everyone along our stretch had big, massive fuckoff SUVs and cars with 4WD, through sheer necessity.

About six months after we moved in, the road was widened, properly paved, and became such a major artery that it had to be ploughed with the first sight of snow. But everyone kept their SUV's and 4WD's anyway, cause, you know, they still had half mile long unpaved driveways and all.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1818/3_1suv.htm

But enough about the human race, but what SUV drivers specifically?

Like what?

"It's not going to fit into the standard garage," said Mark Oberle, a spokesman for Navistar, based in Warrenville, Ill., outside Chicago. "We can see it as a vehicle for business people who want to make a distinct impression. For personal use, it's for people who want to make a statement."

i drive an suv and i am all of these things

I drive the safest when I'm in my Blazer. I'm more intimately aware of how much pressure to apply on the accelerator and the brakes. I can "read" the vehicle, respond to it on a semi-subconscious level. I know how slow I must go while turning. For that reason and for so much more, I'm not giving my SUV up.

"The stickers TerraPass sends its customers do nothing to stop pollutants from coming out of a car's tailpipe. Instead, the company offers its customers the chance to reduce pollutants from other sources, like power plants, in an amount equivalent to that produced by their car.
...

Not surprisingly, few SUV drivers have been buying them. Most have gone to owners of fuel-efficient cars that produce relatively few pollutants."

There's a nice guy on my German course who drives an SUV, but I think he needs it for work and stuff. He is a landscape gardener. Err.... I'm not entirely sure why landscape gardeners can't just drive minis... maybe they need to go up 45 degree slopes all the time or something. In their car.

the statement being that if you are a man, you have undersize genitals, and if a woman you are a secret vegetarian.

xpost

Lots of anguished gnashing of teeth by rich people, with one on Sky News accusing the Lib-Dem council of "class warfare".

The details [PDF Link]

http://nefac.net/files/2_1_antiwar1.jpeg

Shell Oil President John Hofmeister on Monday dismissed any suggestion that oil prices have dropped to improve Republicans’ lot in November.

Speaking at the National Press Club, he said, “I really respond with a smile on that conspiracy theory. We would not talk to the White House about pricing. The prices are determined by the market. Do prices go back up after the election? We don’t predict prices.�

When asked “In 15 years ... what kind of gas will fuel your car?� Hofmeister spared no time in responding jokingly, “Why not a bicycle?�

It being a hybrid gets it the gas milage of an inefficient saloon or estate car (sedan or wagon)

and guess what, hysterical masses, IT COMES IN A HYBRID. are you still going to throw steely self righteous glares and chicken eggs at me?
No, but I'd key it. Hybrid != cuddles fluffy bunnies and kisses children. Hybrid = still burns gas, and the creation of those batteries that run it is an environmental disaster, not to mention that they need replacing within four years. Total environmental impact of a hybrid is often worse than the same model running on diesel/petrol alone.

tipping over on corners WTF? SUVs != those dodgy suzuki jeeps that hairdressers used to drive in like 1990

i mean

http://www.supanet.com/media/00/07/64/honda_crv.jpg

it's quite sturdy

So I hope that lady in her mini-van,
Turns on her radio and hears this from me.
As she picks up her kids,
From their private school,
An' drives home safely on our city streets.
Or to the building where her church group meets:
Yeah, that's why I've got a sticker for the US Marines,
On the bumper of my S.U.V.

but then apparently i'm more likely to kill other people, so it all evens out

the top gear dude would probably join in to make a joke about it :((

'They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors.'

haha

pick ups are supposed to tip over easiest but im not sure why

but anyway so what are the dodgy ones then? i mean even leviathans like those BMW jobs seem fairly well centred

I just want to know why anyone who lives in Richmond would need a boody great 4x4.

The Mariner, btw, has a 25% of tipping in a single-vehicle crash (which is a "tip" rating compared to CRV's "no-tip" 18% figure.)

pick-ups tip over easiest because they sit very high, and the cab is basically perched on top of the chassis. It's like standing on a bike saddle instead of sitting on it.

xpost: worst of all the seriously big Fords, like the Explorer (38% tip) and the GMC Yukon. All the US ones, ha. BMW 5 series is clever -- a lot of the weight is really low, including the engine. Which makes it not-great off-road, like that matters.

i was under the impression that a hybrid has a battery that recharges itself while you drive it so it snags the energy from acceleration as well as braking. you dont actually 'plug it in', right?

Like the original poster?

I drive a '98 Ford Explorer. Since I live alone, the extra space is unnecessary, but I got a really great deal. It's surprisingly fuel-efficient.

Like the original poster?

Yes, but the original poster didn't write a song about how it's wong to make all kinds of assumptions about another driver based on what she's driving and doing.

and yes actually the electricity does "come out of thin air" - as has been pointed out the battery is charged by the acceleration of the car, ie, the axles act as a turbine. No plug in necessary. And I dunno where that "batteries have to be replaced every four years" stat comes from, the hybrid owners I know have never had to replace their batteries, and one is at least 6 years old.

(for the record I don't own a car and never will if I can avoid it)

Honda and Toyota provide their cars with an 8-year warranty. A Prius battery costs $3000 and an Insight battery is $3600. And your old battery makes a filthy mess in the landfill.

I totally concur that avoiding filling up toxic landfills is desirable, but I'm not convinced a hybrid is in any way MORE damaging to the environment than a regular car, as has been suggested.

you have to read at least until the headline that contains the word 'worms'

When you stop to think about what kind of person would buy a Hummer, you begin to worry about the future of our country. This is a person who feels so inadequate inside that he has to drive around pretending the 82nd Airborne will be backing him up in his next argument over a parking space. On the environmental side, the Hummer burns through resources like there's no tomorrow. And if enough idiots keep driving them, there won't be.

well why aren't I receiving them?

Thumbs down. Drove one for a couple days and hated the hell out of it.

you used to drive a BMW. ultimate zing.

This coming from someone who drove a New Beetle. Zing back.

It's a "dust-to-dust" figure that, which includes the creation of the batteries, which is an environmental horror, even compared to the refining of crude oil. There are three or four independent studies due to be published next month, actually, but the talk is they'll back the previous findings up. The serious defences of hybrid technology, on the other hand, have come mostly from -- yep! -- oil companies and car makers.

Hydrogen, now, that's the way of the future. An exhaust that's pure water vapour! BMW have announced a hydrogen 7-series limo (they virtually had to: Euro emissions regulations are now so stringent there are no conventional limos the parliament can buy for MEPs!). Only problem with that is ... it "evaporates" in your tank.

I don't think anyone is arguing against people using utility vehicles for any kind of utility (although for fuck sake get them with a diesel engine).

As for the Hybrid aren't hat great debate. They are a big improvement on petrol cars but similar efficiencies can be had with modern diesels. Diesels don't have the the batteries so have a better total lifecycle impact than hybrids. Renault an PSA (Peugeot/Citroën) are both proposing diesel hybrids which should offer efficiencies over straight diesels (possibly getting into the 70s mpg) and put the hybrid argument fully to bed. Diesel engines are particularly suited to styles of hybrids where the transmission is electric (i.e. the engine drives a generator which drives electric motors at each hug or axle, this keeps the engine working in its narrow power band, this is how most diesel railway locomotives operate). Batteries can store braking energy and deploy it for acceleration. Hitachi is currently fitting this system to two locomotives in the UK to test and refine the system.

Electricity in hybrids comes from the fuel in the end.

Remember Hydrogen is not a fuel it is an energy store it is only as good as the electricity that went into making it.

1) Demand is rising, on the roads worldwide and it is also similar to or used directly as marine fuels and shipping is growing strongly right now.

2) It is better than it was, more time effort and money is put into it so that sulphur is removed and so it is less likely to create particulate pollutants (soot) so that engines run better, require less funding and last longer and people get less respiratory illnesses.

3) Crude oil is not as light or as sweet as it used to be (we've had all the good stuff) so it is getting progressively more expensive to refine and undertake the steps to achieve part 2 above

A Renault Megane 1.6 VVT petrol engine produces 110 horsepower (82kW) gets 40.9 mpg (6.9l/100km) and produces 164 g/km of CO2

A Renault Megane 1.5 dCi diesel engine produces 105 horsepower (78kW) gets 62.8 mpg (4.5l/100km) and produces 120 g/km of CO2

The diesel also produces a lot more torque making it more suitable for heavy loads.

4.4l V8 petrol engine produces 306 horsepower (225kW) gets 18.9 mpg (14.9l/100km) and produces 352 g/km of CO2

3.6l V8 diesel engine produces 105 horsepower (271kW) gets 25.1 mpg (11.3l/100km) and produces 299 g/km of CO2

They both have a top speed of 124 mph and both go from 0-60mph in a similar amountof time (8.3s for the petrol 8.6s for the diesel). One of the complaints about diesel in the past was that the performance was poor compared to the equivalent petrol.

crossposts

Combined economy figures used throughout, UK gallons etc.

crossposts

I drive a Yaris! Only if I have a lot to carry or if I'd have to change bus/train to get to my destination though. I use it so rarely I can spend as little as a tenner a month on petrol (but it's still worth having for convenience and also adventures).

The Daily Mail was suitably enraged this morning, good use of underlining, the underlining being the spittle flecking of tabloid headlines

I have faith in the BOFFINS.

Steps towards non-gasoline burning cars are totally the right direction.

"or applauding them because they're being spun as green steps is equally useless"

Applauding anything is usually fairly useless and beside the point, when it comes to actually accomplishing things.

Walk/bicycle >> Mass Transit >> European modern diesel hatch/wagon >> hybrid hatch wagon >> SUV of any kind (unleass you are a farmer or other person who needs one for work)

Hybrids are good especially in the US market where diesel is poorly distributed to consumers. Hybrid diesels, when they hit in a couple of ideas time will slot in above non hybrid diesel although the chances of them getting to the states is slim as only the french manufacturers (PSA And renault) seem to be interested at present, Honda has actively said no, Nissan might of course being part owned by renault.

The Germans seem to be looking to Hydrogen internal combustion (and fuel cell) as the future, but this is not short term and hydrogen is only as environmentally friendly as the electricity you make it from.

Hybrids are not a bad step, people should be aware of the costs and the other options though. I'm renting a car in couple of weeks time and I am renting a prius because it intrigues me (and will save me £8 in congestion charge)

Nuclear power stations cause a lot of indirect Co2 emissions in fuel processing, mining power plant construction, waste transport etc. They are not co2 free but do produce less co2 for a given amount of electricity. It's all about the total lifecycle.

xposts etc.

Steps towards non-gasoline burning cars are totally the right direction.
Right, so if we could work out a way to run a car on crushed baby guts, that'd be the right direction? Don't be a fool: if we create a car that appears to damage the atmosphere a bit less when you're standing next to it, but actually damages it a lot more over its lifetime -- how the fuck is that the right direction?

Also, you might note, that hybrids are in no way, at all, a step towards a non-gasoline burning car. Without a power-generation source, they're effectively uncharged electric cars. This is why oil companies love them. They in no way address a new power source for vehicles.

That's true, but environmentally friendly electricity generation is strides ahead of environmentally friendly motor vehicle power generation, and benefits from not having to zoom about the place at 70mph.

hmm. the report you cited above only talks about this slightly amorphous notion of "energy usage" - the lede being "driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed". as shakey mo points out, energy consumption != greenhouse gas emissions; i'm no physicist but i'm not sure we can simply say "energy consumption damages the environment". (that said, maybe we can. i dunno.)

still, i remain unconvinced by hybrid technology and yr arguments about why the oil companies love it ring very true.

ed OTM, really: the best thing to do is not use a car unless you have to. which i'm not great at putting into practice, i admit.

Yes. I hate babies and I'm sick of them running the world! Always having their every need catered to while being dumb as a brick, who do they think they are...

"Don't be a fool: if we create a car that appears to damage the atmosphere a bit less when you're standing next to it, but actually damages it a lot more over its lifetime -- how the fuck is that the right direction?"

Because the danger of further damage to the atmosphere is immediate (ie, potential destruction of civilization within a couple generations) and the damage of toxic landfills is less immediate and less global (ie, toxic trash impacts its immediate environment, it doesn't get spread all over the world as easily shit in the air, which also impacts global ecosystems, etc).

"Also, you might note, that hybrids are in no way, at all, a step towards a non-gasoline burning car."

They are in the sense that they are the first major technology to successfully break into the market with the specific intention of reducing gasoline consumption, which is their main selling point. In terms of changing people's mindsets about what a car needs to be and how they can be run, I think that's a positive shift in the marketplace.

"Without a power-generation source, they're effectively uncharged electric cars."

This is basically an empty statement. You could say that about anything that isn't plugged in (omg it needs power to run!) I agree that optimally the power-generation source wouldn't be fossil fuels and hopefully future models and designs will incorporate that, perhaps integrating a a more "plug-in" electric model.

pretty sensible to me. but yes, for us 'Mericans, there ain't a lot of Euro diesel options on the market for us.

They are in the sense that they are the first major technology to successfully break into the market with the specific intention of reducing gasoline consumption, which is their main selling point.

I had thought you were britishes, sorry. Here that's been a selling point for so long, and economy is so much higher than in the US, that it hasn't been a selling point nearly as much as "ooh! green!"

In terms of changing people's mindsets about what a car needs to be and how they can be run, I think that's a positive shift in the marketplace.
Yes, it's good to get over a need for more efficient cars. But I fear that hybrids are being used a sop towards that -- convincing consumers that these things will both help save the planet and reduce our reliance on oil when neither is true.

This is basically an empty statement. You could say that about anything that isn't plugged in (omg it needs power to run!)
You were saying that hybrids were a step away from cars that run on gas. I was trying to demonstrate that they're no such thing: without gas they're inert, and none of the millions being poured into their development is taking us one step away from cars that run on gas.

"Hoping" that one day future models will suddenly switch the combustion-engine part of the mix for something else is fairly useless and besides the point, when it comes to accomplishing something. Especially when that's not the focus of their research.

Say they did switch the oil bit for something non-polluting, what then would be the point of the hybrid technology and its toxic batteries? Hybrid is a keep-using-oil dead end, which delivers diesel-equivalent economy + feel-good factor.

Which is another thing worth mentioning you can run diesels on vegetable oils such as canola, soya or corn oils with little modification (and some processing on the oils). That reduces the CO2 load even more, gives you security of energy supply and allows you to stop subsidising your farmers as well.

sorry I left out regular petrol sedans but they are better than SUVs of course

and, most importantly, we need people to get trained to recycle/be efficient etc

this is absolutely the key. and, once they're trained to a certain extent ("oh, you mean i shouldn't just chuck everything in the one bin? okay, that's easy"), we need to keep up the pressure and ensure they don't become complacent; to explain, slowly and gently, that there's so much more they could be doing.

the problem is that the carrot is always going to be more effective than the stick: if the ultimate aim is to get people to behave like environmentally responsible citizens, that involves giving them incentives to do so. like it or not, people respond much better to that kind of thing than to whacking great parking charges; there is, of course, a case for the latter, but i think persuasion first (tax rebates for low mileage?), punishment later, is a better approach.

Trucks come off really bad in terms of energy/load compared to trains, too. But planes best everything in terms of fucking the world up to move people about a bit.

I just hate the environment and our country so much I lease six SUV's and hire Mexicans to drive them around. It's very expensive. But, I have particular tastes.

i find that hard to believe. although i fucking loathe the fact firstbus are so bloody inept that some routes have empty double-deckers zooming round glasgow all day, while mrs fiendish's trip to work inevitably involves millions of people crammed onto a tiny single-decker. (i go to work at odd times, so the service just about works for me.)

that said: having been away in yorkshire last week, i'm beginning to realise that glasgow/central-belt scotland is pretty damn lucky where public transport's concerned. and this weekend i'm in the teeming metropolis that is the UK capital, so i'll be able to wax lyrical about the tube ... until i get stuck on the fucking central line again.

I will try and find some better data later

ambrose to thread I think.

we're doomed

this was a good thread. nice to have it back.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/06/06/SUV.owners/index.html

why do these assholes always moan that they need to keep their SUVs because their kids need rides to soccer practice or piano recitals? how fucking big are these horrible monster kids?

http://i29.tinypic.com/11ab9xf.png

Stephanie Torgerson, 32, of Pataskala, Ohio, said she simply can't put her three boys in her husband's Mazda 626. The 1-year-old needs a car seat, the 5-year-old needs a booster chair and she doesn't feel comfortable wedging her 8-year-old between the two.

Sure, she could probably get better mileage in a minivan, but she doesn't like the stigma.

"I don't want to be labeled as a soccer mom," she said.

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/5107/imageuploadimagecd4.gif

i still drive an suv and it is completely ridiculous and unnecessary now that i live in the city, commute by train and don't frequently have to move lots of equipment. basically i bought it because my sister was getting rid of it very cheaply and it runs well. i'm sure it will die soon (it has almost 200,000 miles on it) and i won't be able to afford another car and i'll deal.

If I need to haul stuff, it's easy enough (and far less expensive) to rent a big car/truck for a couple days.

if i have kids one day i will rent an suv to haul the lil tykes off to their soccer game~

I drive a godforsaken 1995 Buick Park Avenue (hand-me down from Mom) that probably doesn't get any better gas mileage than lots of mid-size to large SUV's. But it's paid for so I'm going to keep driving it, albeit as little as possible. I dream of the day I can afford like a Civic hybrid or something.

well i used to need to haul stuff 1-3 times a week so renting a truck everytime wasn't really less expensive.

maybe i could rent my car out for ppl to haul stuff. it has passenger side climate control and lighters in the back seat arm rest!

yah i barely drive it now. like once a month i have to go back and forth to pennsylvania, but mostly i just move it from one side of the street to the other to avoid parking tickets. oh yeah and it costs $60 to fill up my tank.

wouldn't fat kids and a car seat fit pretty well in a station wagon or mini-SUV like an Element?

Oh, it's just a bullshit excuse. Though, as much as I like to rag on the SUV-drivin' bourgoisie, buying a new car is fucking expensive, and if you can't afford to do it (even if you'll lose money in the long run), it's excusable that they'd come up with some reasons why they're not just an Earthhating evil suburbanite.

Yeah, but there are like crazy low- or nothing-down lease deals for sizeable vehicles for less than $250 per month all the time. And if you can get a decent mileage deal you're in a much better position than if you buy a new vehicle.

Are you the kind of cockfarmer who has no idea what you're actually talking about?

Public Agenda survey on energy issues
Discussion of Waxman-Markey legislation + said survey

One thing that is clear from this survey is that Americans are not very knowledgeable about the issues.

When asked to name a fossil fuel, 7% gave a wrong answer, and 32% said they did not know, making a total of 39% who did not know.

When asked to name a renewable energy source, 21% gave a wrong answer, and 30% said they did not know, making a total of 51% who did not know.

With respect to climate change, 52 percent said that reducing smog the United States has gone “a long way” in reducing global warming; another 12 percent were unsure if this was true or false. Since reducing smog has nothing to do with reducing global warming (if anything, it has the opposite effect, by removing "global dimming"), a total of 64% were incorrect on this answer.

How the fuck can we get the public to push for replacing fossil fuels with renewables when 39% don't understand what fossil fuels are and 51% don't know what renewables are?

dude americans are stupid `\(°_°)/´

I fear that this is only the first consequence wave of decades of declining math and science competence in the the U.S. education system, with the full brunt of it yet to come.

With respect to climate change, 52 percent said that reducing smog the United States has gone “a long way” in reducing global warming; another 12 percent were unsure if this was true or false. Since reducing smog has nothing to do with reducing global warming (if anything, it has the opposite effect, by removing "global dimming"), a total of 64% were incorrect on this answer.

^^ Not sure if this is exactly true - a lot of the measures used to reduce smog (newer, cleaner engines) also reduce CO2 emissions. And it's kind of weird to argue that we need smog to prevent global warming, much less argue that it's stupid of people to think that the two are totally opposed.

I am not a cockfarmer, but I drive a '74 jaguar and feel okay about it mainly because I walk to work and use it sparingly.

yeah i'm not gonna knock ppl for thinking that one byproduct of car exhaust is somehow related to another

guess what I own a Prius now. had a baby, baby requires car. car is used mostly for baby-related errands (I take public transit to and from work)

no need to apologize

for car ownership

what's so bad about farming cocks

Not sure if this is exactly true - a lot of the measures used to reduce smog (newer, cleaner engines) also reduce CO2 emissions.

whaaaaa? I'm not sure where you got that information. Every gallon of gasoline you use puts 19.6 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Are you saying that there is a way to sequester the carbon in the car somehow? Now if you're talking about cars that get more mpg than that's another thing, but I'm pretty sure the measures to reduce smog (which were literally end-of-the-tailpipe-solutions) didn't improve fuel economy.

Well, are you?

No. I am the kind of cockfarmer who drives a 1994 Honda Civic DX 4-dr. sedan. Iit's gray, even -- because the nicer colors cost more and who wants to pay $600 for the same fucking car in a different part of the spectrum? Not me, that's who.

Btw, we paid $11,000 for it, new in December, 1993.

How the fuck can we get the public to push for replacing fossil fuels with renewables when 39% don't understand what fossil fuels are and 51% don't know what renewables are?

Because many of these are the same 50% who don't vote?

what's so bad about farming cocks

haven't you seen those battery farming methods, cages and cages of cocks all in a row, it's terrible

Stephanie Torgerson, 32, of Pataskala, Ohio, said she simply can't put her three boys in her husband's Mazda 626. The 1-year-old needs a car seat, the 5-year-old needs a booster chair FASTENED SEAT BELT and she doesn't feel comfortable wedging her 8-year-old between the two. ANOTHER FASTENED SEAT BELT

fixed

the other fastened seat belt being for the 8-year-old.

but i'm weird... i was raised mostly as an only child, my parents were a one-car household (and the car was always normal-size), and i don't remember ever being driven to a lesson or after-school activity, although i had many of those. my parents let me start taking the bus by myself when i was young. somehow i was never abducted and turned into pet food.

must not have been much of a market for pet food that year

A five year old might be legally required to be in a booster seat depending on what state he is in.

(hmm, in OH, it seems to be ages 4-8)

in KS, not exactly a nanny state fortress, kids through age 7 must be in booster seats, unless they're lol more than 80 pounds or taller than 4'9".