Big Cars are killing Americans

[Oaktree]

Driver inattentiveness has been around forever. Taller vehicles with blunt noses are the only thing that's changed in recent years.

No, I'd say that pedestrian inattentiveness has also increased severalfold in recent years, look at the number of people walking with their noses stuck in their cellphones and/or with headphones on oblivious to everything around them. I don't know what's so fascinating that it can't wait 'til they get home.
Different things are causing driver inattentiveness today. Once it was fiddling with the radio, now it's cellphones or the horrible ergonomics in many modern vehicles that require you to fiddle with a touchscreen to do much of anything.

No argument that some vehicles have gotten needlessly huge over the last 10-15 years.

 

[3 Horse Ranch]

We know that burning fossil fuels is a part of the reason for climate change, the proportion of man vs nature is not precisely known, but it's not none. The effect that we can each have on reducing climate change is minuscule, but it is not none. Internal combustion engines will be with us for a long time to come, as in some applications there is no practical alternative - yet. But, the move to reduce "lifestyle only" emissions, smaller more efficient personal vehicles, and electric vehicles where they are practical will help, at least a minuscule amount, and it will redirect society's priorities over time.

I come from aviation, we love big snarky piston engines. But, that time has passed. I know that needless consumption of fuel harms the climate, and I know that the climate is changing because it is being harmed. I see reports if worsening wild fires, rain storms, and I understand the dangers of sea level rise for some population groups. Where I live, those effects are minor on me, but not so for friends, they're suffering!

So, if I need to carry six people, and haul 10,000 pounds all the time, I'll buy a big pick up truck with those capabilities - it's justified. But, I don't. So I choose a small turbo diesel car, a small diesel tractor, ride my bike it it's practical, and otherwise don't burn fuel if I don't need to! To be honest, I still own a plane, which burns 8 gallons on hour, and I hardly use it. I enjoy my JD tractor, and excavator, which burn 2 gallons a day much more! It'll be a long time before piston engines are gone, but needlessly big should be a thing of the past....

Recorded human history, and even ice core samples represent nothing more than just a snapshot of world climatological history. It's like science is looking at a 50 year old man and saying, 'this is the way he's always looked'. The Sahara was once temperate, more recently, the city of Petros was abandoned because the weather changed and water was no longer available. These happened long before humans could have caused the change. The Earth has gone through numerous ice age cycles and science has only conjecture as to cause. Science is not very profitable if it reports that all is well, science makes money by reporting that the sky appears to be falling and we need to study it extensively.
The climate is changing, but it always has.

 

[warrendeere]

Inflation at a 40 year high?
Job creation sucking wind?
Only thing saving our butts right now is low interest rates.

I bet the RV industry is booming is because of Covid. People can RV safely in the Covid pandemic.
Its safer than airplane, hotel, airport masking-type vacations.

And they say inflation is temporary. Ridiculous

 

[3 Horse Ranch]

Solar, wind, hydro electric, and nuclear, if needed please....

They are dismantling Nuke plants. Just try getting past the environmentalists to build a new hydro dam. Ask Texas about wind power. Even solar has it's limitations, it requires sun. Should we get a large volcanic eruption (it's not if, but when) then solar panels would become only marginally effective.

 

[fishdrivel]

Some interesting reading....

Death on foot: America's love of SUVs is killing pedestrians

America's love for SUVs is killing pedestrians, and federal safety regulators have known for years.

www.freep.com

"Many who died were males, were jaywalking or had alcohol in their systems on multilane roads in urban areas at night."

 

[fishdrivel]

I AGREE ENTIRELY. I hunt regularaly. We just lost a tract of over 1300 ACRES all to a solar farm. Now someone tell me how in any way, shape, or form that this is Good for the environment.

Gets rid of the methane from the deer poop?

 

[Jims1025R]

Recorded human history, and even ice core samples represent nothing more than just a snapshot of world climatological history.

Is true, but a snapshot is confirming independently of our changing weather patterns that there is change.

Ice core gas analysis tells us of the climate composition going back long before weather observations were recorded:

Core questions: An introduction to ice cores

How drilling deeply can help us understand past climates and predict future climates.

climate.nasa.gov

More common to my knowledge, I've been a part of this research since 2006:

Single view - AWI

www.awi.de

Climate change is real. Man made? Natural cycle? I'm not certain of the proportion, but needless burning of fuel is not helping the situation. If I can ride my bike where I need to go, I ride. If not, my efficient car will take me. If I have to haul a load, I borrow a truck. Society's business can't spiral to a stop, and nothing can be perfect, nor even ideal. But, preventing waste and excess is a start. If I got where I needed to go, did it need to be in a huge vehicle, if I was just on my own, or with just one other person?

The military needs Hummers, the streets not so much....

 

[MossRoad]

So do we base our existence on a 1 time in 100 years event, or the typical low-to-high scale of probability?

I can show you a couple of events that happened in my hometown that were a 1 in a 100-500 year event. Yet nothing will be changed to prevent it. The owners or operators seem to think the capital investment to prevent a 1 in 100-500 year event does not meet their payoff analysis.
Im not taking a side, just asking.
In my opinion, if everything had to be built to avoid ANY and EVERY situation, little to nothing would get built.

Good question that only time will tell.

In I.T. I used to tell my boss he could redundancy himself into the poorhouse as to system up-time and high availability. They had to come up with a level of loss that was acceptable. In their case, how much data could be lost for how much time VS no down time.

In the yard of the house that my father built and I spent my first 24 years in, there were ivy beds cutting across the yard, dividing it into different lawns. As kids, we knew not to run through the ivy beds because each one had a 4' wide by 1' deep swale in it (something good to know when you're playing tag with friends), and you'd trip and fall. I asked my dad why there were ditches in the ivy. He said to divert water in the even of a 100 year flood. Then he explained what a 100 year flood was.

Since that time we've had several 100 year floods. People often read a lot into that term "100 year flood". This explains it better than I could. It pretty much matches what my father told me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-year_flood#Probability

 

[MossRoad]

Definitely replaced by texting and phone usage.
Id rather cut down on that to save lives than force people to drive tin can cars with mattresses for a front bumper.

Yep. If my phone buzzes in the city, or on a congested highway, I just leave it and check when I stop. It's usually less than 5-10 minutes anyway. On open road or long highway trips, I set the phone in my instrument cluster to use as GPS/map. I can see message alerts pop up. If it's important, I'll hit the hands-free button. If not, it can wait till I need gas.

 

[Hay Dude]

Plus anytime you convert one source of energy to another you have a loss of BTU potential.

Converting oil to diesel or gas wastes BTU potential.
Converting natural gas to electricity wastes BTU potential.
Converting corn to alcohol wastes BTU potential.
Converting any fuel to generate electricity is a waste.
Hydroelectric, solar, wind and nuclear are pretty efficient.
Burning natural gas directly in a vehicle is about as efficient as it would ever get for internal combustion engines.
And burning corn in corn burners to heat houses is well into the 90% efficiencies.

There's gonna come a time when burning things to generate energy to perform work is going to become rarer and rarer.

But the systems to do all the work are already IN PLACE (Fossil fuel generation stations, oil/gas refineries).
To Replace fossil fuel systems with “green” energy systems requires a lot of energy to be expended and pollution to be created. NOBODY seems to talk about or care about this HUGE undertaking.
The act of tearing down a coal fired power plant creates a LOT of pollution. Building a “green” replacement for it creates a LOT MORE pollution. And no green power plant is 100% clean.

I agree we ARE moving towards greener solutions, but what’s the environmental price or payback? It could be decades before a “green” power generation station pays all the carbon it created to build it to be “paid back”.

What if we converted power generation plants that were existing into ultra low emissions? It’s already been done, but they closed because it increases operating cost, but what’s the capital cost operating cost to tear it down and replace it with 13,000 acres of solar panels? What’s the environmental impact?