notbob wrote:
>
> On 2011-05-11, sf > wrote:
>
> > imagine that better passenger service will resume if our government
> > ever thinks it's worthwhile to subsidize at the same rate European
> > governments subsidize their passenger service.
>
> We don't. Shrub almost completely destroyed Amtrak by reducing
> subsidies year after year While increasing and bailing out airlines,
> repeatedly. Regardless, I'll take the train over a plane every time!
>
> nb

I tried taking Amtrak once and only once. I will never consider taking
it ever again it is such a horribly overpriced, inefficient and
miserable excuse for transit.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:49:22 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
> > My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He reads
> > and studies on the train.
>
> So your friend commutes by train to London. To my knowledge, the best
> places for train commuting in the US are on the East Coast (the NYC
> bridge and tunnel crowd) and for those who take CalTrain or BART into
> San Francisco. I understand Chicago has a good commute train system
> too, but I know nothing about it. Since this seems to be a score
> thing, it makes three for us and one for them.

Don't forget the trains in Atlanta, Dallas and others.

On May 11, 2:49*am, sf > wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:17:24 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
> > Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> > prices.
>
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>
> <shrug> *The article was pretty clear. *We have more daily commute
> distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do and everybody is
> looking for a deal. *For instance, I learned yesterday that the
> citizens of southern (Bavaria) Germany cross the boarder into Austria
> to buy their gas. *Why? *Because it's cheaper there.
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Bigger country, longer commutes, not as much public transportation/
rail service as they have in the UK. There are lots of reasons,
actually. I think in general, Brits do not have a realistic concept
of how big geographically the US really is....

N.

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >, says...
> >
> > That's true but a great many people like me, live in the suburbs. There is
> > no way we could have a train system to the suburbs. Could you imagine what
> > it would look like if we did?
>
> Just like suburban trains in Europe? Where they are still building new
> trainlines and tramways in and through urban areas.

Europe is *tiny* compared to the US. Those suburban routes you refer to
would be considered urban in the US. If you study detailed maps of the
US you will see that we already have trains in areas with Europe type
densities.

>
> If you don't like them aboveground, or have no space, why not build
> them underground, or on an overhead rail.

The issue *is* space, we actually have space between houses here, people
have yards that are multiple acres, the population density is vastly
lower then Europe. You simply couldn't build rail lines that would pass
within any reasonable distance of enough people. Any rail station needs
a large parking lot and needs to be within ~10 miles of a large
population who could viably use the rail, and with US population
densities, that simply isn't possible in most areas where we don't
already have rail.

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:17:24 +0200, "Giusi" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> > > prices.
> > >
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
> > >
> >
> > <shrug> The article was pretty clear. We have more daily commute
> > distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do
>
> What is the average commute distance in the USA? Or the average annual
> milage on a car?

Something like 50 miles round trip and 15,000 miles respectively I
think.

Giusi wrote:
>
> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> "Giusi" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Please. How is that different from any other country in the world?
> >> Other
> >> than, arguably, a country whose only product is petroleum?
> >
> > You brought up the subject as if we're not hurting too.
>
> I posted a link to a news story. But I gotta say, Americans whine about gas
> prices that are half what everyone else pays. Is anyone happy with this last
> round? Of course not. But it does sound strange to have the people who pay
> the least complain the most.

It isn't a function of how much you pay, it's the rate of change. Double
the price and people complain, regardless of what the actual price may
be. As for complaints around here, the complaint I hear the most is
about having to swipe your card twice to fill the tank due to the card
companies not keeping up with the drop in the value of the dollar (which
is the real issue, not fuel). Lately the card companies seem to have
caught up and I can again fill my tank in one transaction which is what
I care about. The cost is what it is, but the wasted time doing two
transactions or making fueling stops when your at half a tank is
idiotic.

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
> "Giusi" > wrote:
>
> >Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> >prices.
> >
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
> >
>
> We love our cars. We like 'em big, fast, and cheap.
>
> I love when the newsdroids interview someone at the pump whining about
> the price of gas, then they back up and the wide shot shows that they
> are all alone, driving a 4mile per gallon guzzler.

First off, what is this mythical 4 MPG guzzler? Class 8 semis get more
than 4 MPG. Second off, you are pointing out media distortion, since the
media deliberately finds such a single person in a large vehicle rather
than show the contractor fueling their heavily laden truck.

>
> Our problem is, that when gas went to $2 a gallon in the 70's, the PTB
> allowed them to go back down to below $1. Our cars got bigger in a
> hurry- we took gas for granted- and we're right back there again.
>
> I want sustained $5/gallon gas & maybe we'll all get off our asses and
> come up with a better solution. [well, I'd settle for $4]

And exactly what is your mythical better solution? Our vehicles are
already close to as efficient as they can get, there is no 100 MPG car
that can actually transport an adult and a load of groceries, that is
just fantasy and always will be. Big trucks are not in any way
inefficient, that is another fantasy, those trucks are every bit as
efficient as any economy car. Most people do not comprehend the
difference between efficiency and economy.

George wrote:
>
> On 5/11/2011 7:22 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> >> prices.
> >>
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
> >>
> >
> > We love our cars. We like 'em big, fast, and cheap.
> >
> > I love when the newsdroids interview someone at the pump whining about
> > the price of gas, then they back up and the wide shot shows that they
> > are all alone, driving a 4mile per gallon guzzler.
>
> But really I need my 4 ton fluffed up truck with 89,000 lbs towing
> capacity, 16 cup holders, 4 DVD players and a 7l V8 to haul myself and a
> large beverage around...

My truck weighs 4.5 tons empty, it regularly hauls 5 ton plus trailers
and carries a 1 ton camper. This same truck does also carry me and a
load of groceries the 6 miles round trip to the grocery store since it
would be very inefficient to own and maintain an additional smaller
vehicle for such tasks that account for a tiny percentage of my total
driving.

notbob wrote:
>
> On 2011-05-11, Jim Elbrecht > wrote:
>
> > We love our cars. We like 'em big, fast, and cheap.
>
> Nonsese. I've driven everything from tuna-boats to rollerskates and
> I'll take a small car. Besides, cars in the US havne't been "cheap"
> in over 20 yrs. A full size P/U or SUV cost more than a home, here.
>
> > hurry- we took gas for granted- and we're right back there again.
>
> It's the auto and petro industry screwing with us. We had gas
> efficient cars. We had BIG cars that were gas efficient. My ol'
> girlfriend's Cadillac DeVille got 24 mpg! So did my full size Ford
> van. My Lincoln Mk IV pimpmobile with a 460 CID V8 got 18 mpg. These
> roadhogs like the Ford Incursion and Exhibition get crappy mileage cuz
> they're designed to get crappy mileage. Even the little cars now get
> fer-crap mileage. My old Honda Civic h/b got 38 mpg. It was still
> getting 34 mpg when I sold it with 250K miles on it. Now, brand new
> Civics barely get 30 mpg. We're being jerked around.

You can blame the crappy mileage on government mandates, not on the auto
or petro industry. Mandates on emissions, safety and a host of other
things like the ethanol debacle have lowered MPG, not any industry
conspiracy.

On 5/11/2011 8:56 AM, Janet wrote:
> In >,
> says...
>>
>> On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:17:24 +0200, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>>> prices.
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>>>
>>
>> <shrug> The article was pretty clear. We have more daily commute
>> distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do
>
> What is the average commute distance in the USA? Or the average annual
> milage on a car?

Average US commute length is 16 miles one way. Average annual mileage
driven is approx. 13,500 miles. Since the average person works a
five-day workweek, that works out to about 8,000 miles per year spent
commuting, and 5,500 miles spent driving everywhere else.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On May 11, 12:17 am, "Giusi" > wrote:
> >> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> >> prices.
> >>
> >
> > Because it means we have to pay a lot more money each month. Our gas
> > has gone up a lot. The prices of food are going up again. The cost of
> > products are going up. The cost of heating the house in winter has
> > gone up.
> >
> All the more reason to drive an economy car. I seem to remember after the
> "gas crisis" of the 1970's the focus was on smaller economy cars. Now all I
> see Americans driving are weird modified Hummers (since when did driving
> what was designed as a military vehicle popular?) and huge "mini vans" (I
> use the word "mini" lightly) with seating for 8. Um, excuse me?

Perhaps you should investigate the MPG that those "huge" vehicles you
seem to hate actually get compared to a useable economy car (not some 2
door speck no real person can use). The difference isn't what you think,
and for people who don't drive a huge commute, the space, comfort,
visibility and safety easily justify the extra $50/mo in fuel cost.

> And since
> when did pickup trucks need back seats and 5 doors? Pickup trucks used to
> be work vehicles.

So work crews are limited to three people jammed into a regular cab
pickup? Get real, crew cabs are named for the work crew they hold safely
and comfortably. Perhaps you prefer the rest of the crew ride in the bed
of the truck along with the tools and materials and with no seatbelts?

On 5/11/2011 5:14 AM, Julie Bove wrote:

> That's true but a great many people like me, live in the suburbs. There is
> no way we could have a train system to the suburbs. Could you imagine what
> it would look like if we did? I can't even imagine where they would put it.

Here's a hint: express routes from selected suburbs into the city
centers, with park and ride lots near the train stops. You know, just
like many metropolitan areas currently do with buses.

"jmcquown" > wrote:

-snip-
>>
>All the more reason to drive an economy car. I seem to remember after the
>"gas crisis" of the 1970's the focus was on smaller economy cars. Now all I
>see Americans driving are weird modified Hummers (since when did driving
>what was designed as a military vehicle popular?)

I also think Hummers are ridiculous-- But by the mid 40's folks were
begging for more Jeeps. My dad plowed an acre or two with his. I
played with one for years.

Jim

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
> I love when the newsdroids interview someone at the pump whining about
> the price of gas, then they back up and the wide shot shows that they
> are all alone, driving a 4mile per gallon guzzler.
>
> Our problem is, that when gas went to $2 a gallon in the 70's, the PTB
> allowed them to go back down to below $1.

I've bought small cars that get okay mileage ever since the gas lines of
the 1970s. And yet I look around on the road around me and there are
tons of gigantic gas guzzlers.

People have extremely short memories. Like they can't remember what
they had for breakfast this morning.

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
> -snip-
> >>
> >All the more reason to drive an economy car. I seem to remember after the
> >"gas crisis" of the 1970's the focus was on smaller economy cars. Now all I
> >see Americans driving are weird modified Hummers (since when did driving
> >what was designed as a military vehicle popular?)
>
> I also think Hummers are ridiculous-- But by the mid 40's folks were
> begging for more Jeeps. My dad plowed an acre or two with his. I
> played with one for years.
>
> Jim

Realize that the "Hummers", specifically the H2 and H3 are little more
than mini vans with funky bodies. If you're going to bash a person
because of the body style of the vehicle they drive, you may as well
bash them on something equally meaningless like the paint color.

Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> Because our public transportation system is woefully inadequate,
> having been deliberately gutted by the automobile and gasoline
> industries.

That happened before most of us were born. It happened between WWI and
WWII. To this day it's more expensive to ride public transportation
than it is to drive. Check out Nancy Young's post:

> I can drive to the city and park my car for the day at Port Authority
> for the cost of two people taking the train from here. Expensive,
> and they're still struggling to avoid fare hikes. The trains are full
> during rush hour, it's not as if people don't patronize it.

When I took public transportation semi-regularly and I added up the
prices it was more than my car. I couldn't sell my car, drop all car
related expenses, and end up saving money. Worse, it took hours longer
on public transportation.

> Because the distances we travel are nearly unimaginable to most
> Europeans. One-way commutes to work of 100 kilometers are not the
> norm, but not unusual, either. I drive 250 Km to visit my daughter's
> family. That is considered "nearby". When I visited friends last
> summer, I drove 1900 Km, just over half way across the country. Once,
> in Utah, I asked a tourist from Germany what most impressed him about
> the USA. He threw his arms wide and said, "The extent!"

Cliche -

In the US a hundred years is a long time and a hundred miles is a short
distance.

I find the cliche hilarious because a hundred years ago was when Europe
was converting to metric. In the US I used metric when I was in the
military and my entire career doing computer work but i still see
antique road signs and such.

Nearby - I travel an hour to do events with my church group. If I can
get there and back again on a tank of gas that's "local". My threshold
for travel is high even for an American.

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> "Giusi" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> > Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We
> once
>> > had all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out
>> > in
>> > favor of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern
>> > situation. It can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix
>> > the
>> > situation which will also goose the economy.
>>
>> I don't see how we possibly could. It's just not feasible. The way the
>> streets are laid out here, people are just too spread out.
>
> Works in London, Paris, Tokyo.
>

Well 2 of those cities did have the benefit of being rebuilt from scratch 65
years ago.

Paul

On 11/05/2011 12:38 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:

>
> I've bought small cars that get okay mileage ever since the gas lines of
> the 1970s. And yet I look around on the road around me and there are
> tons of gigantic gas guzzlers.


Me too. I had a pickup truck for a while, but I was using it a lot for
hauling stuff around. The rest of the time I most often has a small,
fuel efficient car. I had a couple mid sized cars, but never had a big
gas guzzler. I don't feel sorry for the owners of those things when I
see them gassing up and paying 4-5 times what I am spending.

FWIW.... I had some errands to run in town today. I went by bicycle.

I am in a bit of a bind about grass mowing. I have more than an acre of
lawn to cut. I could let it grow longer and cut it less often.
Experience tells me that if I mow it before it gets too long I can scoot
along at a good clip (no pun intended) and there is no strain on the
engine and a good discharge of clippings. If I wait until it gets longer
I have to run the engine at a higher speed and mow at a slower speed. I
think the more efficient way is to do it more often.



> People have extremely short memories. Like they can't remember what
> they had for breakfast this morning.

Not me.... it's either Cream of Wheat or Shredded Wheat.... and a Latte.
It makes it easier to remember when you have the same thing all the time ;-)

On 11/05/2011 12:11 PM, Hell Toupee wrote:
> On 5/11/2011 5:14 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> That's true but a great many people like me, live in the suburbs.
>> There is
>> no way we could have a train system to the suburbs. Could you imagine
>> what
>> it would look like if we did? I can't even imagine where they would
>> put it.
>
> Here's a hint: express routes from selected suburbs into the city
> centers, with park and ride lots near the train stops. You know, just
> like many metropolitan areas currently do with buses.


Maybe intercity travel would be more efficient if the buses ran only
into the edge of town and passengers could transfer to subways or other
high speed mass transit. A lot of people work in the fringe areas and in
order for them to use mass transit they end up having to go all the way
downtown to the terminal and then hop on local transit to go back out.

On 11/05/2011 11:03 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

>> I was in the gym locker room a while back and someone was chastising
>> another member for having flown out to BC for a wedding and complaining
>> how such trips are no sustainable. Ironically, the complainer lives less
>> than a mile from the gym and drives to there for his workout. He could
>> walk or bicycle, but he chooses to drive. Not only does it seem to me to
>> be a lazy way to get to the gym for exercise, but it is less sustainable
>> than flying across the country for a vacation that involves a wedding.
>
> He may drive because he has to travel elsewhere after his workout...

I know this guy. He is not on his way to or from work. There are a lot
of retired guys going to that gym. It is part of their daily regimen.
They all drive. I friend of my brother's was going there for a while. He
lived two blocks away. I mentioned one day that it must be nice to be
able to walk to the gym. He had a strange look on his face and said he
should try it some day. Silly me. I just assumed that he was walking
because he was so close. Hell, I was riding my bicycle more than three
miles. Even my nephew, how as living 5 blocks away used to drive.



> many go to gyms before going to their place of employment, that's why
> so many gyms open at 5 AM. My neighbor is an OR nurse, she drives the
> short distance to the YMCA prior to beginning her shift at the
> hospital, that is a 20 mile drive.

When I was working I used had an athletic membership at my old
university, which was about a mile from work. I used to stop there on my
way to or from work. Later on I had a Y membership and was working out
of a different location and was in the habit of going for my swims
before or after work.

Years ago in Calif. I bicycled to
> the Jack LaLaine gym until one day an old Pasadena biddy turned into
> a parking lot but first ran into me, over her car I flew and
> fortunately I received only a few bruises and needed stitches on my
> shin, my bicycle was not so lucky, it went under her car... she never
> even stopped, she swore she didn't hit anything... moral is bicycling
> on city roads is not very safe, rural roads are far more dangerous
> (hillybillys don't drive under the speed limit and can't drive without
> guzzling beer). Unless there is a prescribed bicycle path I don't
> recommend peddling.


I got off easier than you when I got hit by a car. She was just
starting to pull out. Apparently it was all my fault because she had
stopped at the stop sign and yielded the right of way but the then I
pulled in front of her when she was executing her turn. She had a stop
sign. I did not. She didn't think she had done anything wrong. My front
wheel and forks were bent up pretty bad. I was lucky not to be hurt. I
had forgotten my helmet that day. I was amazed at how far I flew.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> >
> > I love when the newsdroids interview someone at the pump whining about
> > the price of gas, then they back up and the wide shot shows that they
> > are all alone, driving a 4mile per gallon guzzler.
> >
> > Our problem is, that when gas went to $2 a gallon in the 70's, the PTB
> > allowed them to go back down to below $1.
>
> I've bought small cars that get okay mileage ever since the gas lines of
> the 1970s. And yet I look around on the road around me and there are
> tons of gigantic gas guzzlers.
>
> People have extremely short memories. Like they can't remember what
> they had for breakfast this morning.

Nope, people do not have short memories, you are short sighted in what
you think is a "gas guzzler".

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 11/05/2011 12:38 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> >
> > I've bought small cars that get okay mileage ever since the gas lines of
> > the 1970s. And yet I look around on the road around me and there are
> > tons of gigantic gas guzzlers.
>
> Me too. I had a pickup truck for a while, but I was using it a lot for
> hauling stuff around. The rest of the time I most often has a small,
> fuel efficient car.

You are confusing efficiency and economy, that are not the same thing.

> I had a couple mid sized cars, but never had a big
> gas guzzler. I don't feel sorry for the owners of those things when I
> see them gassing up and paying 4-5 times what I am spending.

If it makes you feel any better, the folks driving the larger more
comfortable and more capable vehicles do feel sorry for you in your
little econo-box.

>
> FWIW.... I had some errands to run in town today. I went by bicycle.
>
> I am in a bit of a bind about grass mowing. I have more than an acre of
> lawn to cut. I could let it grow longer and cut it less often.
> Experience tells me that if I mow it before it gets too long I can scoot
> along at a good clip (no pun intended) and there is no strain on the
> engine and a good discharge of clippings. If I wait until it gets longer
> I have to run the engine at a higher speed and mow at a slower speed. I
> think the more efficient way is to do it more often.

If you are concerned about a difference of $5/mo in mower fuel, you have
far too much time on your hands.

>
> > People have extremely short memories. Like they can't remember what
> > they had for breakfast this morning.
>
> Not me.... it's either Cream of Wheat or Shredded Wheat.... and a Latte.
> It makes it easier to remember when you have the same thing all the time ;-)

Coffee, always coffee.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 02:53:22 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Giusi" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Julie Bove" > ha scritto nel messaggio >
>>>> "Giusi" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>>>>>> prices.
>>>>>>
>>>> My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He
>>>> reads and studies on the train.
>>>
>>> Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
>>> things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
>>> (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public transportation.
>>> In some areas you can take a bus and get to the city and back. But in
>>> some cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are taking a bus after
>>> hours, forget it.
>>
>> Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We once
>> had all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out in
>> favor of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern
>> situation. It can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix the
>> situation which will also goose the economy.
>
>I don't see how we possibly could. It's just not feasible. The way the
>streets are laid out here, people are just too spread out.

Subways. Check out DC Metro.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

On May 11, 3:17*am, "Giusi" > wrote:
> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> prices.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754

Added gas expense just might cut into the family beer and ciggy
budget.
Gee, maybe ppl will start to look into home cooking to stretch the
food dollar. Wouldn't hurt a lot of American waistlines, that's fer
sher.

On 5/11/2011 2:48 AM, Giusi wrote:
> > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
> On May 11, 12:17 am, > wrote:
>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>> prices.
>>
>

>
> For most of us, we can't cut out a lot of our driving, so that
> increased cost is something we must pay.

Americans are so spoiled and entitled. I am sure that many of us think
the U.S. is entitled to own and use all the oil left in the world.

It is crazy-making to me that when gas prices rise people begin to think
about buying cars with better gas mileage (i.e. smaller cars or hybrids)
but when the prices go down 50cents/gallon, the monster-mobiles
(mini-vans, SUVs, prestige sports cars) again fly off the car lots.

We were recently in Greece and Turkey where gas prices averaged
US$10/gallon. The car we most commonly saw was the tiny Smart Car.
It made a lot of sense.

gloria p

On Wed, 11 May 2011 16:38:44 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> wrote:

>Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>>
>> I love when the newsdroids interview someone at the pump whining about
>> the price of gas, then they back up and the wide shot shows that they
>> are all alone, driving a 4mile per gallon guzzler.
>>
>> Our problem is, that when gas went to $2 a gallon in the 70's, the PTB
>> allowed them to go back down to below $1.
>
>I've bought small cars that get okay mileage ever since the gas lines of
>the 1970s. And yet I look around on the road around me and there are
>tons of gigantic gas guzzlers.
>
>People have extremely short memories. Like they can't remember what
>they had for breakfast this morning.

Most of the people who are buying the guzzlers were children in 1973.
What are they supposed to remember from that time? Do you actually
remember rationing during WWII?
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

The Cook wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 02:53:22 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Giusi" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Julie Bove" > ha scritto nel messaggio >
> >>>> "Giusi" >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> >>>>>> prices.
> >>>>>>
> >>>> My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He
> >>>> reads and studies on the train.
> >>>
> >>> Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
> >>> things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
> >>> (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public transportation.
> >>> In some areas you can take a bus and get to the city and back. But in
> >>> some cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are taking a bus after
> >>> hours, forget it.
> >>
> >> Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We once
> >> had all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out in
> >> favor of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern
> >> situation. It can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix the
> >> situation which will also goose the economy.
> >
> >I don't see how we possibly could. It's just not feasible. The way the
> >streets are laid out here, people are just too spread out.
>
> Subways. Check out DC Metro.

You missed the point, underground or above ground, the population
density is too low to support rail transit.

> We were recently in Greece and Turkey where gas prices averaged
> US$10/gallon. The car we most commonly saw was the tiny Smart Car.
> It made a lot of sense.
>


most common that you recognized, yes.
most common that you saw, no.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
ster.com...
>
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On May 11, 12:17 am, "Giusi" > wrote:
>> >> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>> >> prices.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Because it means we have to pay a lot more money each month. Our gas
>> > has gone up a lot. The prices of food are going up again. The cost of
>> > products are going up. The cost of heating the house in winter has
>> > gone up.
>> >
>> All the more reason to drive an economy car. I seem to remember after
>> the
>> "gas crisis" of the 1970's the focus was on smaller economy cars. Now
>> all I
>> see Americans driving are weird modified Hummers (since when did driving
>> what was designed as a military vehicle popular?) and huge "mini vans" (I
>> use the word "mini" lightly) with seating for 8. Um, excuse me?
>
> Perhaps you should investigate the MPG that those "huge" vehicles you
> seem to hate actually get compared to a useable economy car (not some 2
> door speck no real person can use). The difference isn't what you think,
> and for people who don't drive a huge commute, the space, comfort,
> visibility and safety easily justify the extra $50/mo in fuel cost.
>
My two-door "speck" works just fine, thanks. It's a hatchback with a
fold-down back seat and can easily accomodate my monthly grocery shopping.
It gets 32MPG on the highway and 28 in stop & start "city" driving. It only
takes $20 to fill the tank and I only have to do that every couple of
months. I'll take my "speck" over a Humvee any day.

>> And since
>> when did pickup trucks need back seats and 5 doors? Pickup trucks used
>> to
>> be work vehicles.
>
> So work crews are limited to three people jammed into a regular cab
> pickup? Get real, crew cabs are named for the work crew they hold safely
> and comfortably. Perhaps you prefer the rest of the crew ride in the bed
> of the truck along with the tools and materials and with no seatbelts?

Work crews, huh? The only people I ever see driving those tricked-out
trucks aren't driving work crews around. Nope, always just a single driver.

Jill

"Jim Elbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
> -snip-
>>>
>>All the more reason to drive an economy car. I seem to remember after the
>>"gas crisis" of the 1970's the focus was on smaller economy cars. Now all
>>I
>>see Americans driving are weird modified Hummers (since when did driving
>>what was designed as a military vehicle popular?)
>
> I also think Hummers are ridiculous-- But by the mid 40's folks were
> begging for more Jeeps. My dad plowed an acre or two with his. I
> played with one for years.
>
> Jim


Jeeps are different People driving Hummers are out to prove something...
what, I don't know. Maybe that they can run the rest of us off the road.

Jill

"gloria.p" wrote:
>
> On 5/11/2011 2:48 AM, Giusi wrote:
> > > ha scritto nel messaggio
> > ...
> > On May 11, 12:17 am, > wrote:
> >> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> >> prices.
> >>
> >
>
> >
> > For most of us, we can't cut out a lot of our driving, so that
> > increased cost is something we must pay.
>
> Americans are so spoiled and entitled. I am sure that many of us think
> the U.S. is entitled to own and use all the oil left in the world.

Most of the oil is in countries hostile to the US, and most of those
countries have *no* economy other than oil. Once we have used up their
oil (and not our own), those enemies will implode.

>
> It is crazy-making to me that when gas prices rise people begin to think
> about buying cars with better gas mileage (i.e. smaller cars or hybrids)
> but when the prices go down 50cents/gallon, the monster-mobiles
> (mini-vans, SUVs, prestige sports cars) again fly off the car lots.

Funny, from what I see people buy vehicles that meet *their* needs, not
to satisfy the perceptions of others. New truck sales have been at very
high levels over the past couple years, and that's on top of used truck
sales. It seems that people's needs have not changed to suit your
perceptions, nor have higher fuel prices (in reality lower dollar value)
caused them to give up on life and go live in a cardboard box under a
bridge.

>
> We were recently in Greece and Turkey where gas prices averaged
> US$10/gallon. The car we most commonly saw was the tiny Smart Car.
> It made a lot of sense.

No, actually it didn't make a lot of sense. That tiny "Smart" car
doesn't get very good MPG, certainly not commensurate with it's lack of
capability, indeed it is far less fuel efficient than the big pickups in
the US.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:45:08 +0200, Giusi wrote:

> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> "Giusi" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please. How is that different from any other country in the world?
>>> Other
>>> than, arguably, a country whose only product is petroleum?
>>
>> You brought up the subject as if we're not hurting too.
>
> I posted a link to a news story. But I gotta say, Americans whine about gas
> prices that are half what everyone else pays. Is anyone happy with this last
> round? Of course not. But it does sound strange to have the people who pay
> the least complain the most.

it's the same way with taxes. people want goods and services but don't
think they should have to pay for them.

your pal,
blake

jmcquown wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ster.com...
> >
> > jmcquown wrote:
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On May 11, 12:17 am, "Giusi" > wrote:
> >> >> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> >> >> prices.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Because it means we have to pay a lot more money each month. Our gas
> >> > has gone up a lot. The prices of food are going up again. The cost of
> >> > products are going up. The cost of heating the house in winter has
> >> > gone up.
> >> >
> >> All the more reason to drive an economy car. I seem to remember after
> >> the
> >> "gas crisis" of the 1970's the focus was on smaller economy cars. Now
> >> all I
> >> see Americans driving are weird modified Hummers (since when did driving
> >> what was designed as a military vehicle popular?) and huge "mini vans" (I
> >> use the word "mini" lightly) with seating for 8. Um, excuse me?
> >
> > Perhaps you should investigate the MPG that those "huge" vehicles you
> > seem to hate actually get compared to a useable economy car (not some 2
> > door speck no real person can use). The difference isn't what you think,
> > and for people who don't drive a huge commute, the space, comfort,
> > visibility and safety easily justify the extra $50/mo in fuel cost.
> >
> My two-door "speck" works just fine, thanks. It's a hatchback with a
> fold-down back seat and can easily accomodate my monthly grocery shopping.
> It gets 32MPG on the highway and 28 in stop & start "city" driving. It only
> takes $20 to fill the tank and I only have to do that every couple of
> months. I'll take my "speck" over a Humvee any day.

Cost to fill the tank is irrelevant, tank sizes vary as does the amount
of driving you do.

You're two door speck gets 32 MPG, my huge truck gets 14 MPG. My truck
can and does routinely carry far more than double what your car carries,
indeed I could carry three or four of your entire cars, making my truck
more fuel efficient than your car.

>
> >> And since
> >> when did pickup trucks need back seats and 5 doors? Pickup trucks used
> >> to
> >> be work vehicles.
> >
> > So work crews are limited to three people jammed into a regular cab
> > pickup? Get real, crew cabs are named for the work crew they hold safely
> > and comfortably. Perhaps you prefer the rest of the crew ride in the bed
> > of the truck along with the tools and materials and with no seatbelts?
>
> Work crews, huh? The only people I ever see driving those tricked-out
> trucks aren't driving work crews around. Nope, always just a single driver.

Then you aren't paying attention and/or are seeing only what you want to
see. Around here I see a lot of large comfortable crew cab pickups on
the road and at least half of them have multiple passengers, and three
quarters of them are carrying notable amounts of cargo or pulling large
trailers.

Certainly you will see just me in my 9,000# pickup on the road, what you
don't see from the low position of your little car is the stack of
sheets of plywood or other materials in the bed which don't show above
the bed rail. You also don't notice the times I'm pulling my 24'
trailer, hauling my 2,000# camper, pulling a trailer with a tractor and
a bobcat on it, etc. And for the few times the truck is hauling nothing
but me, it's still efficient since that is a small percentage of my
total driving and the cost of a smaller vehicle just for that small
percentage of my driving would far exceed the extra fuel cost for those
trips. In fact, when I have a trip of more than 400 miles that doesn't
require cargo capacity, I rent a car.

On 5/11/2011 2:42 PM, Andy wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> I'll take my "speck" over a Humvee any day.
>
>
> Jill,
>
> The Hummer was discontinued two years ago.
>
> GM said "screw it!"
>
> I always admired them. They look great! I always wanted one but truthfully,
> it was overkill for general around the town purposes, imho.

Perhaps Hummers have rear view cameras but I wouldn't like to try
parallel parking one in a single space. Of course, that's also true of
Lamborghinis and Ferraris but their owners can afford to pay wallies to
do it for them.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*

jmcquown wrote:
>
> "Jim Elbrecht" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "jmcquown" > wrote:
> >
> > -snip-
> >>>
> >>All the more reason to drive an economy car. I seem to remember after the
> >>"gas crisis" of the 1970's the focus was on smaller economy cars. Now all
> >>I
> >>see Americans driving are weird modified Hummers (since when did driving
> >>what was designed as a military vehicle popular?)
> >
> > I also think Hummers are ridiculous-- But by the mid 40's folks were
> > begging for more Jeeps. My dad plowed an acre or two with his. I
> > played with one for years.
> >
> > Jim
>
> Jeeps are different People driving Hummers are out to prove something...
> what, I don't know. Maybe that they can run the rest of us off the road.
>
> Jill

People driving hummers (H2 and H3) are just driving mini vans with
different body styling. You shouldn't be bashing them for their choice
of styling any more than you should be bashing them for their choice of
paint color.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:35:24 -0400, jmcquown wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> For me, it means no profit for my business this year. If I cut back on
>> cat shows, I will lose the shows for future years.
>
> Cat shows?
>
> Jill

cat shows are the engine that drives american commerce.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:04:05 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> All the more reason to drive an economy car. I seem to remember after the
>> "gas crisis" of the 1970's the focus was on smaller economy cars. Now all I
>> see Americans driving are weird modified Hummers (since when did driving
>> what was designed as a military vehicle popular?) and huge "mini vans" (I
>> use the word "mini" lightly) with seating for 8. Um, excuse me?
>
> Perhaps you should investigate the MPG that those "huge" vehicles you
> seem to hate actually get compared to a useable economy car (not some 2
> door speck no real person can use). The difference isn't what you think,
> and for people who don't drive a huge commute, the space, comfort,
> visibility and safety easily justify the extra $50/mo in fuel cost.

and presumably the extra ****ing and moaning.

blake

On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:30:55 -0400, jmcquown wrote:

> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ster.com...
>>
>> So work crews are limited to three people jammed into a regular cab
>> pickup? Get real, crew cabs are named for the work crew they hold safely
>> and comfortably. Perhaps you prefer the rest of the crew ride in the bed
>> of the truck along with the tools and materials and with no seatbelts?
>
> Work crews, huh? The only people I ever see driving those tricked-out
> trucks aren't driving work crews around. Nope, always just a single driver.
>
> Jill

but the one time a year they need to ferry a work crew they are *ready*.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:45:08 +0200, Giusi wrote:
>
> > "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> > "Giusi" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Please. How is that different from any other country in the world?
> >>> Other
> >>> than, arguably, a country whose only product is petroleum?
> >>
> >> You brought up the subject as if we're not hurting too.
> >
> > I posted a link to a news story. But I gotta say, Americans whine about gas
> > prices that are half what everyone else pays. Is anyone happy with this last
> > round? Of course not. But it does sound strange to have the people who pay
> > the least complain the most.
>
> it's the same way with taxes. people want goods and services but don't
> think they should have to pay for them.

Most of what people in Europe pay for fuel *is* taxes. I'll also note
that there are many places that pay far less for fuel that we do in the
US. I also note that I don't find a lot of people around here
complaining about fuel prices, but perhaps that because we also have
jobs here.

James Silverton wrote:
>
> On 5/11/2011 2:42 PM, Andy wrote:
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> I'll take my "speck" over a Humvee any day.
> >
> >
> > Jill,
> >
> > The Hummer was discontinued two years ago.
> >
> > GM said "screw it!"
> >
> > I always admired them. They look great! I always wanted one but truthfully,
> > it was overkill for general around the town purposes, imho.
>
> Perhaps Hummers have rear view cameras but I wouldn't like to try
> parallel parking one in a single space. Of course, that's also true of
> Lamborghinis and Ferraris but their owners can afford to pay wallies to
> do it for them.

I certainly like the rear view camera on my current truck, however my
other truck is the same size and doesn't have a rear view camera and
I've never had an issue parking either of them in tight spaces.