Re: Life after the oil crash

From: <>
Date: Thu Oct 27 2005 - 17:20:56 EDT


> >
> > But seriously gas-guzzlers including 4X4 should be
> >curtailed. Most people here who have 4x4 could do just as
> >well with a car which would use 50 to 66% of the fuel.
> >
> But seriously who would decide which people are allowed to
> drive an SUV and who are not?
> I have six kids, all but two are still in carseats or
> boosters. I need a vehicle that will carry 8 adults
> essentially. Cars cant carry my family. Most mini vans
> are also too small, I could either put everyone in one gas
> guzzler, or we could split up in two cars whenever the
> entire family needs to go somewhere.
> And I am sure that some people require SUV's for other
> legitimate reasons, such as for the towing capacity. They
> may only need to tow something like a camping trailer once
> a year, and the rest of the year they drive around in a
> "gas guzzler" that is not necessary most of the time.
> If we are going to tell people what they can and cant
> drive. Why dont we just start telling them how many kids
> they can have, and require them to work within 10 miles of
> where they live, etc, etc, etc. ?

I don't think we'll ever come close to dictating these kinds of choices in this
country -- at least not in a political / legal sense. We would all be enraged
by the mere notion. But economic forces certainly ought to play into it
eventually if gas prices stay on an overall rising trend (as they probably ought
to). If we bicyclists get carried away on preaching our ideology, then you can
just remember that many of us come looking for people with big vehicles whenever
we have some big things to move, etc. When we need something big done the truck
& van owners suddenly find they have lots of "friends". I don't think anybody
objects to the notion that a large vehicle carrying lots of people is operating
just as (or more) efficiently than several cars carrying the same. It's the
mindset that I need an sporty SUV to drive myself to work everyday that I find
such a culpable attitude. Some will play the "safety" card, but that simply
means safety at everybody else's expense. (There's an evolutionary principle
here! -- trees growing taller competing for sunlight ... vehicles growing
larger competing for safety and status ...) Its basically an arms race of
vehicles! Don't let anybody make you feel defensive about a big family & the
vehicles necessary to transport them. If you can afford it that's your affair.
 But if you insist that driving large vehicles everywhere virtually empty is a
good mode of transportation, then again -- it's your money. But don't expect it
 to be viewed as an intelligent or globally responsible choice. If the shoe
fits, we get to wear it whether we like it or not. And I don't think any of us
living in this country escape responsibility for the attitudes we are even now
exporting to the world.

Received on Thu Oct 27 17:21:25 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 27 2005 - 17:21:25 EDT