On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:49:22 +0200, Giusi wrote:

> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> "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.
>
> My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He reads
> and studies on the train.

public transportation lost out to the private automobile in the u.s. some
time ago. a shame, really.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:57:55 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "Janet" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>>
>>> 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

nothing like blowing shit up to goose the economy.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:14:11 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>
> I don't understand why all these people are going to Europe and
> complaining about gas prices here.

What's not to understand? It's all relative.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:49:32 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

> Ah! I see, it's the taxes there causing a great deal of the pain,
> I wondered why they paid so much more.

Oh, come on... you knew they paid more taxes, you just forgot.

> Hey, that free medical
> care has to be paid for somehow. And it would appear not everyone
> is taking the train there, either, or they wouldn't be screaming about
> the price of gas.

I asked a couple from England *today* about how easy it is to get
around there without a car. They looked at each other and laughed,
then said "not easy". I'll take it from those who know over those who
only claim to know.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:36:52 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

> Giusi wrote:
> > "Nancy Young"
> >
> >> I don't understand why all these people are going to Europe and
> >> complaining about gas prices here.
>
> > Who would that be?
>
> Just commenting on the people you mentioned wondering
> why we're irked about gas prices; while I can see reporting
> on the cost increase here, I don't see the newsworthiness of
> reporting how people feel about it.
>
It's the endless fascination with all things American, Nancy.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:57:55 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> > "Janet" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >, says...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
>
> nothing like blowing shit up to goose the economy.

Especially when someone else is paying for the rebuilding...

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:49:22 +0200, Giusi wrote:
>
> > "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> > "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.
> >
> > My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He reads
> > and studies on the train.
>
> public transportation lost out to the private automobile in the u.s. some
> time ago. a shame, really.

It did because ultimately it's more efficient. Public transit may use
less fuel, however it uses more of people's valuable time.

On 11 May 2011 14:11:17 GMT, 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!
>

Much as I'd like to blame The Shrub for it... the downward spiral
(unfortunately) started long before even his father was in office.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:24:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> 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.

Which is why it need to be improved.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 5/11/2011 1:53 PM, Pete C. wrote:

> 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.

Oh, bullshit. Hummers average 9-11 mpg, minivans average 22-28 mpg.
Minivans cost half or less what a Hummer costs, and Hummers were
designed to take advantage of the tax deduction for purchasing large
heavy vehicles. The price of the Hummers rose as more people bought
them to take advantage of the tax deduction for huge, heavy trucks.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:36:52 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
>
> > Giusi wrote:
> > > "Nancy Young"
> > >
> > >> I don't understand why all these people are going to Europe and
> > >> complaining about gas prices here.
> >
> > > Who would that be?
> >
> > Just commenting on the people you mentioned wondering
> > why we're irked about gas prices; while I can see reporting
> > on the cost increase here, I don't see the newsworthiness of
> > reporting how people feel about it.
> >
> It's the endless fascination with all things American, Nancy.

Yep, if things in Europe were as rosy as the propagandists claim, there
wouldn't be such a huge influx of Europeans immigrating to the US.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:09:13 +0100, Janet > wrote:

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

LOLOL! Spoken like someone who doesn't have clue about cost.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

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

>But I gotta say, Americans whine...<snip>

Like many people who allow themselves to be bigoted, you have just
shown your bigotry against Americans.

You've lumped 300 MILLION people into one convenient summation for
you.

Had you said something like "It seems to me that more Americans seem
to complain about gas prices than the same amount of people in some
other country", then I'd have no problem with your statement.

Plus, you use the word "whine". We "whine" no more than anyone in any
other country, you dolt. You just can't see past your bigoted nose to
understand that.

I've found that of the European people I hear or read opinions from,
most of them whine about Americans because they truly don't have a
clue about how Americans think as a society. The anti-American whining
done by Europeans is so common that any American knows of it now.

You're nothing but another whining European, whining about Americans.

You've shown your lack of intelligence, not the opposite.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:26:08 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> 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.

To be honest, I don't know anything about them. They could be like LA
and San Diego which are there on paper, but not very good.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> 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


Cat shows are full of funny little critters that meow and mew and love
feather wands Who doesn't love a cat show? I just never expected Marty
to be involved with them.

Jill

On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:26:40 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

> I think in general, Brits do not have a realistic concept
> of how big geographically the US really is....

I think you're right... even for those who claim to have visited here.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:24:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Which is why it need to be improved.

Yes, but I'm not sure how it could be improved. Certainly
technologically it could be improved, but it can't support itself
financially now, and improving the comfort and efficiency isn't going to
increase the potential ridership more than a few percent.

Rail such as Amtrack will always be a publically funded transport for a
very small subset of the public who can readily afford to pay the full
fare. Intercity and interstate rail just doesn't meet the general
public's transportation needs.
In-city rail works in high density cities for the small number of people
who live in them and general transport around the cities. For the large
number of workers who work in those cities and who reside outside the
cities, the rail provides little more than a shuttle from a remote
parking lot, and those people still have to drive their personal vehicle
o get to work.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:26:08 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> To be honest, I don't know anything about them. They could be like LA
> and San Diego which are there on paper, but not very good.

I've used them both and they definitely exist and work fine for their
limited role. I've also used the trains in Chicago and CA (both BART and
CalTrain). All of this really goes back to my point that public transit
already exists in the US to the extent that it is practical, and talk of
dramatically expanding it is just pie in the sky dreaming with no
practical basis.

"Pete C." wrote:
>
>Some of the highest population density areas in the world. Certainly not
>comparable to 90%+ of the US. The US cities that do have high population
>densities do have public transit, for the rest of the US public transit
>will never be viable.

It's way too late, before any major transportation system becomes
operational it will become obsolete, especially if based on fossil
fuel/electricity. The old technology won't work, at best there's
maybe 30 more years worth of oil remaining... amazingly petroleum only
took a little more than 150 years since it's discovery as an energy
source before it will be depleted. By about 2040 all air travel as we
know it will cease, and no private citizen will own a fossil fuel
driven automobile. I suggest all young folks start now to learn about
caring for a horse, and how to sail a ship. Won't be too very before
ye olde ice-a-box will be replacing the fridge.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 07:41:03 -0400, George >
wrote:

> 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...
>

Many Americans need a large vehicle to haul around their 300 pound
bodies. The rest need a large vehicle to feel "safe". I'm always
appalled to see a tiny woman who can barely see over the steering
wheel piloting a huge SUV with no passengers onboard. Fortunately
that is seen less and less now that gas prices have increased. It's a
good thing.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Landon wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:45:08 +0200, "Giusi" >
> wrote:
>
> >But I gotta say, Americans whine...<snip>
>
> Like many people who allow themselves to be bigoted, you have just
> shown your bigotry against Americans.
>
> You've lumped 300 MILLION people into one convenient summation for
> you.
>
> Had you said something like "It seems to me that more Americans seem
> to complain about gas prices than the same amount of people in some
> other country", then I'd have no problem with your statement.
>
> Plus, you use the word "whine". We "whine" no more than anyone in any
> other country, you dolt. You just can't see past your bigoted nose to
> understand that.
>
> I've found that of the European people I hear or read opinions from,
> most of them whine about Americans because they truly don't have a
> clue about how Americans think as a society. The anti-American whining
> done by Europeans is so common that any American knows of it now.
>
> You're nothing but another whining European, whining about Americans.
>
> You've shown your lack of intelligence, not the opposite.

It's a combination of lack of knowledge of the US (especially the size
and low population density), along with some jealousy of our higher
standard of living. I've met and worked with quite a few Europeans who
moved to the US and not a single one had any intention of every going
back. Curiously enough none I met were here illegally, and most were
working to get permanent resident status. Most indicated that the
citizenship route was too much work and they were happy with permanent
resident.

On May 11, 3:36*pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> Cat shows are full of funny little critters that meow and mew and love
> feather wands *Who doesn't love a cat show? *

I can't resist answering a rhetorical question.

My husband has no use for cats. If he catches one in the
havahart trap, he urinates on it and lets it go home.
(He'd prefer to kill it, but that's against the law.)

Cindy Hamilton

On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:11:13 -0500, 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.

Many surburban areas within a hundred miles of large cities already
have mass transit rail/bus systems... it's rural areas where it's not
economically feasable, and most of the US is rural, most very rural.

Hell Toupee wrote:
>
> On 5/11/2011 1:53 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Oh, bullshit. Hummers average 9-11 mpg, minivans average 22-28 mpg.

Sorry, you are entirely incorrect. H1s may get that low MPG, but H1s
were never marketed to the public. H2s and H3s get comparable MPG to
other vehicles in their size class, i.e. mini vans.

> Minivans cost half or less what a Hummer costs,

Yes, and a Focus costs less than a Mustang, yet both are small cars.

> and Hummers were
> designed to take advantage of the tax deduction for purchasing large
> heavy vehicles.

There is not and was not any such deduction, that is a myth.

> The price of the Hummers rose as more people bought
> them

The only thing you got right, popularity increased the price.

> to take advantage of the tax deduction for huge, heavy trucks.

Bullshit, there is/was no such deduction.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:26:40 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> > wrote:
>
> > I think in general, Brits do not have a realistic concept
> > of how big geographically the US really is....
>
> I think you're right... even for those who claim to have visited here.

Many of those who have visited here have only visited some of our larger
cities and thus not seen any rural areas.

On 11/05/2011 1:34 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>> 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.

No. Fuel efficiency generally translates to economic benefits, unless
you are spending a lot of extra cash to get a fuel efficient vehicle
that saves you less in fuel than the extra investment.
>
>> 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.

More comfortable? I don't know about that. I find my Honda Civic to be
quite comfortable. One of the most comfortable cars I ever drove was a
VW Golf that I rented in Europe. Capable? I don' need to have a
vehicle that is capable of being driven 50% faster than the highest
posted speed limits. Nor to I need a vehicle that will lay rubber at
ever intersection.



>>
>> 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.

That could be $5 a week.

On 11/05/2011 1:58 PM, gloria.p wrote:

> 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.

It is amazing isn't it. Gas prices have been bouncing up and down a lot
over the years, though they tend not to bounce down as far as they have
been bouncing up. Ever time gas prices spike it is just like you say.
Everyone wants a car with good mileage. As soon as they drop, people
start buying the gas guzzlers.

Need a pickup truck to move something?.... rent one once in a while.
Need a pickup truck to bring home building materials one or twice a
year? Some places have free delivery, free delivery over a certain
amount, or a $25-50 fee. It's cheaper than driving a pickup to work
every day and doing the weekly groceries.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:30:12 -0400, Landon > wrote:

> You're nothing but another whining European, whining about Americans.

Giusi is an American transplanted to Italy. Maybe she's been gone too
long, but she was just here on an extended visit so she isn't out of
touch. Not sure why she posted the article here instead of
uk.f+d.misc, where you'll see that sort of attitude being voiced and
supported.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 11/05/2011 2:35 PM, jmcquown wrote:

> 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.



They are luxury SUVs. There is something inherently wrong with someone
who spends a lot of money on a sport utilitiy vehicle that is too nice
to be used off road. That goes for Hummers, Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac and
other luxury SUVs. If they bodies and paint jobs are too good to take a
chance on them getting pelted with gravel and brushed with branches,
they have no business being SUVs.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:49:39 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> Most indicated that the
> citizenship route was too much work and they were happy with permanent
> resident.

So, they wanted the best of both worlds. Lazy SOBs.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 11/05/2011 1:34 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> No. Fuel efficiency generally translates to economic benefits, unless
> you are spending a lot of extra cash to get a fuel efficient vehicle
> that saves you less in fuel than the extra investment.

Efficiency = fuel used / work done

Your small car is more economical for just hauling you around, however
that does not make it more efficient than a large pickup.

On 11/05/2011 2:49 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>> 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.


Nope. Jill is seeing the same thing I am. The majority of them have only
one person in them.
>

Janet wrote:
>
> In article <f5c082b8-603f-4ef9-b813-928d5ab12a15
> @n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, says...
> >
> > 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....
>
> Brits travel all over the world as a matter of course. We're always
> amused by the American notion people only know their native country.

You may travel a lot, but you don't seem to take in the big picture. If
you did you would realize why virtually nothing European will work in
the US.

On 12/05/2011 4:39 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> "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.

Maybe it is far less fuel efficient than a US truck but it is far more
suitable for transporting one or two people around. Why transport the
extra iron?

Krypsis

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> >Some of the highest population density areas in the world. Certainly not
> >comparable to 90%+ of the US. The US cities that do have high population
> >densities do have public transit, for the rest of the US public transit
> >will never be viable.
>
> It's way too late, before any major transportation system becomes
> operational it will become obsolete, especially if based on fossil
> fuel/electricity. The old technology won't work, at best there's
> maybe 30 more years worth of oil remaining... amazingly petroleum only
> took a little more than 150 years since it's discovery as an energy
> source before it will be depleted. By about 2040 all air travel as we
> know it will cease, and no private citizen will own a fossil fuel
> driven automobile. I suggest all young folks start now to learn about
> caring for a horse, and how to sail a ship. Won't be too very before
> ye olde ice-a-box will be replacing the fridge.

I generally refer to this as "The Great Global Tidy Bowl Swirl(tm)".

On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:38:32 -0400, The Cook >
wrote:

> Subways. Check out DC Metro.

The fact you said "Metro" proves her point.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
>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.

Correct... mowing at the optimal height the mower is designed for is
the most economical method. If you let the grass grow high you'd need
to mow twice, once with the deck raised, then again at the correct
height.. mowers will prematurely break down from fatigue when
attempting to cut grass that's too high all in one fell swoop... I
often need to mow particular areas in height increments when the
ground is too wet to mow in early spring. But one can cut fuel costs
significantly by choosing a mower that's best designed for the
terrain, that is one with appropriate horsepower. I have two mowers,
one is 7' wide and attached to a 43 horsepower tractor, the other is
54" wide and attached to an 18 horsepower tractor... both diesel. I
burn about half as much fuel mowing my 10 acres of turf with my small
unit, but it takes me three times longer. However I'm retired so time
doesn't mean a whole lot and I can DVR my TV shows (lol) still I'm not
about to spend four days a week astride a tractor. Mostly what
affects which mower I use is the weather, when the ground is wet I use
the lighter machine, the heavier machine would bog down to its axles.
Now that it's still early spring here and the ground is exceptionally
wet this year I've been mowing about 6 acres with my small unit, the
rest is still too wet... I tried this morning but decided I'd rather
wait than need to be towed out, after the ground dried sufficiently to
get there with the large unit. One acre is still a lot of mowing, too
much for a typical push mower but it can be done in two or three
sections if one has the time, assuming one has the stamina. You can
really save fuel if you were to use a manual push reel mower... you'd
pretty much need to mow a full day every day all growing season. I
give mowing and fuel prices a lot of thought, there is really no way
to use less fuel and still mow. and I'm not about to quit mowing and
let this property go back to nature... then I may as well move to a
city condo, ain't happening.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:39:40 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:24:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Which is why it need to be improved.
>
> Yes, but I'm not sure how it could be improved. Certainly
> technologically it could be improved, but it can't support itself
> financially now, and improving the comfort and efficiency isn't going to
> increase the potential ridership more than a few percent.
>
> Rail such as Amtrack will always be a publically funded transport for a
> very small subset of the public who can readily afford to pay the full
> fare. Intercity and interstate rail just doesn't meet the general
> public's transportation needs.
> In-city rail works in high density cities for the small number of people
> who live in them and general transport around the cities. For the large
> number of workers who work in those cities and who reside outside the
> cities, the rail provides little more than a shuttle from a remote
> parking lot, and those people still have to drive their personal vehicle
> o get to work.

It's pretty depressing. We're willing to get out of our cars, but we
can't. In my area, they make it harder and harder on drivers - but
with every punishment they throw at drivers they also cut back on
public transportation, so drivers are caught between a rock and a hard
place.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 12/05/2011 2:04 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On May 11, 12:17 am, > 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?

I've seen very few crew cabs here with more than a couple of people in
them. They might have been designed for carting a crew of workers around
but it would seem that it is not the reason most of them are purchased.
I think it's the same as with SUVs, the owner making a statement about
themselves.

Krypsis

On 2011-05-11, sf > wrote:

>
> Much as I'd like to blame The Shrub for it... the downward spiral
> (unfortunately) started long before even his father was in office.

Yeah, but Shrub made such huge cuts, it almost shut it down.

nb