Around here, it's the car that you are trying to pass that will be the one to speed up.
And many of the people passing will not speed up enough to pass the now-sped-up car.
In situations like that, you'd better speed up quickly and pass or drop behind again.
---
Additionally, for some odd reason, people will pass around here with a small speed differential... and then merge back into the right lane, only to take off like a bat outta hell.
Why they couldn't take off like a bat outta hell in the passing lane, thus allowing the faster drivers to not change their speed... but instead, slowly pass and then speed up afterwards, I'll never understand.
For that just creates a situation where the now accelerating, formerly slow car is matching the speed of traffic in the passing lane.
To me, that's a conscious and deliberate effort to snarl traffic and create unsafe road conditions which threaten my life.
Can you back into a spot as fast as you can pull in head-first? Send a video on that, I'd like to see it.
BTW, since the front end of a car like yours sticks out pretty far, how does that help you avoid the problem where you have a big van/truck/SUV alongside, and need to pull out before you can see what's coming from that side? Someone could still run right into you. The difference is, there's no telltale backup lights to help warn them you're coming out, so they have a chance to honk or stop... assuming they want to!
You're surprised that in the depths of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, gas prices were $1.85 a gallon? And do you know why that happened? PEOPLE WERE DRIVING LESS. Let's see... reduced demand drove down prices. Hmm...
Also, at my local station 87 octane is only $3.52 today. Too bad you live in an area where you are gouged on gas. I'd look into that if I were you.
There was a chance to call police. (And this is in a town where they might actually respond to a call like that.) However, I was lucky in that the Ram had this huge piece of trim on the door, and I think it hit the door handle vs. metal. So no damage I could see, no need to call police. Had there been damage there, I would have done that.
I think you have that back wards. The greatest prices are happening at a time when there is -7 to -8% LESS demand !!! Again prove positive Fuel @ highest prices (4.41) with less demand and 1.85 (lower prices)during periods of INCREASED demand. Perhaps that joke between Steve and I is too far back or at a thread you don't follow.
Insofar as moving for 3.52 vs 4.49 RUG (.97 cents) , here are interesting numbers. If I lived in a place with cheaper gas, I will in all likelihood drive less.
Be that as it may; just using a "hypothetically" same commute requirement (in all likelihood it would be less of course) 15,000 miles per year) that is 300 gal gas x .97 (difference)= minus-291 per year difference So where can I get a place for 24.25 a month? :P
I'm not looking for speed, I am looking for optimal parking. You like to be patient, you'll sit there and wait for me to back in, and like it
My car is no longer than most cars. Doesn't stick out far at all. I just creep forward like anyone else would if some idiot in a tank parks beside me - but it happens rarely as I generally park some distance out, and Americans don't like to walk. I also know the dimensions of the car very well, so I can back up very close to an obstacle without hitting it. Fintail is even better for that, as the fins can act as reversing aids. Parking doesn't annoy me at all, I look at it as a fun challenge. And seeing as I park in garages all the time, and drive a 10 year old car that is cleaner than most 2 year old cars, I must be doing something right,
Someone "could" run into me during any maneuver, but I find it much easier to look for a speeding parking lot bandit when I am moving forward rather than in reverse. I always keep my headlights on when the car is in motion too, that should be enough of a clue.
At my last traffic violators school, hardly any hands went up for speeding tickets 14 MPH and less over the SL, whereas almost all the hands went up for being there because of a speeding ticket. Most officers (at least in CA) give a 15 MPH leeway.
My radar detector sees them before they see me anyway.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The difference is that passengers in the car are aware of the driving environment (especially the front seat passenger), while those at the end of the cellphone are not. They can adjust their conversation (i.e. pause, take breaks, etc....) where the person on the other side of the cell phone cannot. That's why cellphone conversation (hands free or not) is more dangerous than talking to a person actually in the car.
I agree, but... the problem is the discussion was revolving around not letting passengers use cell phones in cars by making cell phones useless in a moving vehicle. That would mean even passengers could not make phone calls.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Laser is detectable too, but most often it'll be too late when it's detected.
I'd still feel better knowing I got nailed with laser and pulled over with a "laser" reading the cop will inevitably brag about.
Whereas without a laser detector, I will always wonder if that laser reading was really taken of my vehicle, or if he just locked in the same reading from yesterday, and met his monthly quota using that figure all during the next day.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
If I lived in a place with cheaper gas, I will in all likelihood drive less.
Uh... WHO has it backwards?
I remember 4 years ago very well. I remember clearly reading about how people were driving less during the Great Recession, resulting in decrease in demand for gas, resulting in a reduction in price. Then the economy started picking up and, guess what, people drove more and prices went up.
I'm not looking for speed, I am looking for optimal parking.
One of the reasons I cited for not backing in is that when I back in, I block other cars in the lane. Obviously this is not a consideration for you.
If you have to creep forward when you've backed in... what's the big benefit? You're trading extra time (and inconvenience for others) up front for a little easier head-swivel at the end. Meh.
Wasn't the CASH 4 Clunkers program supposed to save all those drops of fuel?
I couldn't take advantage of the program, because I never bought gas guzzlers to begin with. It seems our gov't likes to promote and benefit those who make the worst and poorest decisions (like CEO's that drive companies into the ground).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Nope. I can park fast enough, and I usually park far enough out where constant traffic isn't an issue. If I am nice and let others back out (I often do), others can let me back in. Besides, you're all for being "nice", so you shouldn't have a problem with it.
Creeping forward for 2 seconds and then going is a lot more efficient than creeping backward for 10x as long and then moving. It's also a lot safer and easier to have visibility when moving forward than backward, as my head doesn't have a quick 180 degree range once I am looking backward.
I never said start. But it is a lot quicker to pull out in a forward gear than reverse, better visibility too. I bet the time consumed backing in is exceeded by that of backing out. That combined with the ease and safety of moving forward makes it easy for me. But it's no big deal, as I often park out far enough where I can simply pull forward upon entrance.
The answer is really easy. Just grant those a tax credit for the extra cost per gal over the US average fuel per gal ( i.e in your example .97 cents per gal, and/or above what the fed says is the US average fuel per gal) IN the production of income. I also should get a tax credit for fuel savings for shared commuting. So for example we have a car pool where the other participant does not burn 14,000 miles of fuel. So @ .55 cents a mile the government should give me a credit for 7,700.
If the government can give BILLIONS failed enterprises: like Solyndra, they should be able to give a real tax credits for those that ACTUALLY get something done like fulfill and/or exceed government fuel savings goals.
What, your car pool participant doesn't chip in for gas? Talk about inconsiderate!
55 cents a mile? Wow, your car gets really rotten fuel economy, doesn't it?
There's already a big government-sponsored credit for car poolers, at least in my town... no-charge HOV lanes for car pools. Plus the benefits some employers provide, e.g. special parking places.
I've got 800+ miles staring me in the face this weekend. I'm sure I can come up with something..
In the meantime, why is it that folks at cross-street stop signs (or lights where they can make a free right turn), when they see an emergency vehicle coming down the road at them, insist on pulling out from the stop sign or light, start driving in the same direction as the emergency vehicle, THEN pull over??
I've been driving emergency vehicles for 35+ years, and it has been ever thus.
My take is lack of enforcement. They should get a ticket if and when they impede your progress, pose a danger or just plain don't care. I think you will agree, that is pure fantasy.
But then once in a while justice is served.
I saw once on the evening news a very late model and perhaps new BMW parked in a fire hydrant (red) zone, during a fire when the FD needed to tap into the fire hydrant. While the news media did not make an issue of it, the picture of a loaded fire hose doing its job through forced open BMW doors was real entertainment.
50 mpg @ $4 a gallon is 8 cents per mile... and 1/2 of that is 4 cents. Unless you expect the government to pay you for wear and tear on your car that you'd have even if you didn't carry another passenger?
But maybe the feds would spring for an occasional can of upholstery cleaner, if your passenger is messy, spills coffee and crumbs in your car. You could write your Senator, see if they'd sponsor a bill on that. They don't have any more pressing problems to deal with these days, right?
My definition of literal Hell is a 1/2 hour commute on a boring interstate driving a sports car with the radio off...too much frustration there for me
Who said anything about not listening to the radio. Anyway, I rarely find myself stuck in traffic. And when he road DOES open up, I'm not trundling along in an anodyne commuter pod.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
backy: You're surprised that in the depths of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, gas prices were $1.85 a gallon? And do you know why that happened? PEOPLE WERE DRIVING LESS. Let's see... reduced demand drove down prices. Hmm...
What has happened to gasoline usage since 2007? It has declined. Has the price dropped in tandem with this decline in usage? No.
The simple fact is that usage in the United States is no longer the controlling factor when it comes to price. You aren't going to stop price increases if you and everyone else drives 65 mph instead of 75 mph on the interstate.
backy: Also, at my local station 87 octane is only $3.52 today. Too bad you live in an area where you are gouged on gas. I'd look into that if I were you.
I paid $3.75 this morning for 87 octane gasoline. That is one of the LOWEST prices in this area. You have to account for variations in state gasoline taxes, which, in turn, are reflected in the prices at the pump. There is a difference in gasoline prices between Pennsylvania and Maryland (I live less than 40 miles from the Mason-Dixon Line) based on state taxes.
backy: Then the economy started picking up and, guess what, people drove more and prices went up.
Even if people are driving more, that doesn't mean that gasoline usage also increased. People could be trading in gas guzzlers for more efficient models, or leaving the SUV in the driveway and using the Focus or the Corolla more often.
What matters is how much gasoline people use. Gasoline usage has DECLINED in this country since 2007, yet prices have increased. Here are the figures from my earlier post:
In 2007, there were 3.39 million barrels of gasoline burned in the United States. By 2011, this figure had dipped to 3.19 million barrels, which is 6 percent below the 2007 figure. All without a change in the speed limit. (Well, except for those states that increased it on certain roads).
Of course there are multiple factors that determine the price of gasoline. I just don't agree we should give up on the effort to save gas, become energy independent, and do what we can here in the US to decrease consumption and prices.
If we consume MORE gas, e.g. by driving faster than optimal for FE, do you think that will help reduce gas prices in any way? I don't think so.
But as our Host has reminded us... not really anything to do with inconsiderate driving.
why is it that folks at cross-street stop signs (or lights where they can make a free right turn), when they see an emergency vehicle coming down the road at them, insist on pulling out from the stop sign or light, start driving in the same direction as the emergency vehicle, THEN pull over??
My take is lack of enforcement. They should get a ticket
I would rather say that most folks often have very extravagant notions about safety, about traffic laws, about car construction, etc In your case, they just think that this is a right thing to do, probably because their uncle or their friend told them so 20 years ago, and they never got a ticket, because all law enforcement was busy running after speeders or safety belts.
If we consume MORE gas, e.g. by driving faster than optimal for FE, do you think that will help reduce gas prices in any way? I don't think so.
I think everyone driving at optimal FE speeds would be inconsiderate because with everyone dawdling along the highway you'd make everyone take a lot longer to get where they are going, meaning MORE people are on the road for MORE time during the day, which in turn means there will be more traffic and congestion, which will further slow you down, and there goes any drops of gas you saved right out the window in wasted time in extra traffic and congestion.
When I speed down the freeway I feel I'm being considerate to all other drivers by clearing the roadways of my presence and space usage as fast as possible! :P
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
backy: If we consume MORE gas, e.g. by driving faster than optimal for FE, do you think that will help reduce gas prices in any way? I don't think so.
No, but it hasn't increased them, either. And a decline in gasoline usage has not produced a corresponding decline in gasoline prices in this country.
Of course, as I said before, you could use even less gasoline if you swapped your car for a horse. Maybe that would (finally) cause prices to decline.
And I thought the original claim was that people driving faster were being "inconsiderate" by driving up gasoline prices for everyone. Which, as we now know, isn't happening. Given that we've established that, it is best to move on to other subjects.
When I speed down the freeway I feel I'm being considerate to all other drivers by clearing the roadways of my presence and space usage as fast as possible!
Somehow I'm not surprised that is your attitude.
Driving for fuel efficiency is not in itself inconsiderate. For most cars, the sweet spot for fuel efficiency is 55-65 mph. That is within the speed limit for most roads in the USA. It's within the limits for 95% of the roads I drive on. Those trying to considerately save fuel for the benefit of current drivers (keep gas prices as low as possible given other factors), for themselves (pocketbooks), and for future generations who might like some oil for their use, can simply make sure they are driving no slower than the posted minimum speed limits, stay right except to pass, and consider conditions (e.g. if everyone else on the freeway including those in the right lane are going over 60, don't plod along at 50 just to save a bit of gas).
It's not all that hard. Or, we could all drive at 100 mph+ to get out of each other's way as fast as possible. :P
Somehow, I don't think most freeway mergers that do so at 15 to 25 below the speed limit are trying to save fuel, but maybe some of them are trying to save fuel at the expense of dangerously slow freeway merging.
What is all of your position on this safety issue? Should people be allowed to accelerate slowly in order to save fuel?
What is a reasonable amount of seconds to get your vehicle from 0 to 60 MPH in order to merge at a reasonable speed and have acceptable consideration for others. I know if a Prius goes 0-60 in 20 seconds, I'll be highly annoyed if I'm behind them on a single merging lane.
Some merging lanes are shorter than others, and therefore, at times, some vehicles will be required to floor it and get to 60 MPH in 10 seconds in order to merge safely.
If the merging lane is long, what is reasonable?
I think the "slow acceleration" saves fuel idea is overrated. For one, by accelerating faster you get to your vehicles optimum FE speed faster, which means you can cruise at that optimum speed longer.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"Safety first." It's not that complicated. Also, consideration for others... that goes for the merger and mergee(s).
fyi a Prius can go 0-60 in about 10 seconds. Maybe not fast enough for those who like tearing around the roads like crazy people, but more than sufficient for safe driving.
fyi a Prius can go 0-60 in about 10 seconds. Maybe not fast enough for those who like tearing around the roads like crazy people, but more than sufficient for safe driving.
I first need to say that I do not consider my MS3 to be fast; 0-60 in 5.4 seconds and a 14 second quarter mile is not quick by today's standards. That said, I also have three vehicles that can barely make it to 60 in under 10 seconds, and I don't consider any of them to be unsafe. You simply have to drive using common sense and situational awareness. Most modern vehicle operators lack -or fail to utilize- either talent...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
My E55 will do it around 5 flat...I think of that as "fast enough" but not extremely fast. I think the 1/4 is in the mid 13s. The old car can pull 0-60 around maybe 12 seconds, if it is feeling right - that's usually fine around here with the slow drivers, although as I like to be at speed by the end of the ramp, it can take some maximization of momentum.
Depends on how long the on-ramp is. Short ramp + slow car = potential trouble ahead. Long ramp? Who cares? As long as you're up to speed at the merge point.
If I recall correctly, a study conducted a few years ago showed that most people felt that if a car could get from 0-60 mph in at least 10 seconds, it was "fast enough."
Interestingly, for all of the talk of 1960s muscle cars, and their emphasis on quick 0-60 mph acceleration abilities, most 1960s cars were sold with mild-mannered V-8s, and had 0-60 mph times of between 9-12 seconds.
I can't remember the last time I had to floor my car with a 2.0L 140 hp mill and a CVT in order to merge safely and considerately onto a freeway. And when I did, that relatively sluggish powertrain was more than up to the task.
I think the need for super-fast acceleration is overstated. Does someone really need 0-60 in 5 secs to merge safely and considerately? No. They just like doing it... or knowing they can do it.
Comments
(Good one Paul!)
And many of the people passing will not speed up enough to pass the now-sped-up car.
In situations like that, you'd better speed up quickly and pass or drop behind again.
---
Additionally, for some odd reason, people will pass around here with a small speed differential... and then merge back into the right lane, only to take off like a bat outta hell.
Why they couldn't take off like a bat outta hell in the passing lane, thus allowing the faster drivers to not change their speed... but instead, slowly pass and then speed up afterwards, I'll never understand.
For that just creates a situation where the now accelerating, formerly slow car is matching the speed of traffic in the passing lane.
To me, that's a conscious and deliberate effort to snarl traffic and create unsafe road conditions which threaten my life.
Can you back into a spot as fast as you can pull in head-first? Send a video on that, I'd like to see it.
BTW, since the front end of a car like yours sticks out pretty far, how does that help you avoid the problem where you have a big van/truck/SUV alongside, and need to pull out before you can see what's coming from that side? Someone could still run right into you. The difference is, there's no telltale backup lights to help warn them you're coming out, so they have a chance to honk or stop... assuming they want to!
Also, at my local station 87 octane is only $3.52 today. Too bad you live in an area where you are gouged on gas. I'd look into that if I were you.
Insofar as moving for 3.52 vs 4.49 RUG (.97 cents) , here are interesting numbers. If I lived in a place with cheaper gas, I will in all likelihood drive less.
Be that as it may; just using a "hypothetically" same commute requirement (in all likelihood it would be less of course) 15,000 miles per year) that is 300 gal gas x .97 (difference)= minus-291 per year difference So where can I get a place for 24.25 a month? :P
My car is no longer than most cars. Doesn't stick out far at all. I just creep forward like anyone else would if some idiot in a tank parks beside me - but it happens rarely as I generally park some distance out, and Americans don't like to walk. I also know the dimensions of the car very well, so I can back up very close to an obstacle without hitting it. Fintail is even better for that, as the fins can act as reversing aids. Parking doesn't annoy me at all, I look at it as a fun challenge. And seeing as I park in garages all the time, and drive a 10 year old car that is cleaner than most 2 year old cars, I must be doing something right,
Someone "could" run into me during any maneuver, but I find it much easier to look for a speeding parking lot bandit when I am moving forward rather than in reverse. I always keep my headlights on when the car is in motion too, that should be enough of a clue.
At my last traffic violators school, hardly any hands went up for speeding tickets 14 MPH and less over the SL, whereas almost all the hands went up for being there because of a speeding ticket. Most officers (at least in CA) give a 15 MPH leeway.
My radar detector sees them before they see me anyway.
I agree, but... the problem is the discussion was revolving around not letting passengers use cell phones in cars by making cell phones useless in a moving vehicle. That would mean even passengers could not make phone calls.
Laser is detectable too, but most often it'll be too late when it's detected.
I'd still feel better knowing I got nailed with laser and pulled over with a "laser" reading the cop will inevitably brag about.
Whereas without a laser detector, I will always wonder if that laser reading was really taken of my vehicle, or if he just locked in the same reading from yesterday, and met his monthly quota using that figure all during the next day.
Uh... WHO has it backwards?
I remember 4 years ago very well. I remember clearly reading about how people were driving less during the Great Recession, resulting in decrease in demand for gas, resulting in a reduction in price. Then the economy started picking up and, guess what, people drove more and prices went up.
One of the reasons I cited for not backing in is that when I back in, I block other cars in the lane. Obviously this is not a consideration for you.
If you have to creep forward when you've backed in... what's the big benefit? You're trading extra time (and inconvenience for others) up front for a little easier head-swivel at the end. Meh.
I couldn't take advantage of the program, because I never bought gas guzzlers to begin with. It seems our gov't likes to promote and benefit those who make the worst and poorest decisions (like CEO's that drive companies into the ground).
But lots of other great government programs for me to benefit from. Like Medicare... oh, wait--that'll run out of money long before I can use it.
Or SS... hmmm... probably out of money before I'll get much out of it also.
Looks like I'll have trouble joining that 47%!
Creeping forward for 2 seconds and then going is a lot more efficient than creeping backward for 10x as long and then moving. It's also a lot safer and easier to have visibility when moving forward than backward, as my head doesn't have a quick 180 degree range once I am looking backward.
If the government can give BILLIONS failed enterprises: like Solyndra, they should be able to give a real tax credits for those that ACTUALLY get something done like fulfill and/or exceed government fuel savings goals.
Again the decline in fuel use is EIA.gov data.
:shades:
55 cents a mile? Wow, your car gets really rotten fuel economy, doesn't it?
There's already a big government-sponsored credit for car poolers, at least in my town... no-charge HOV lanes for car pools. Plus the benefits some employers provide, e.g. special parking places.
In the meantime, why is it that folks at cross-street stop signs (or lights where they can make a free right turn), when they see an emergency vehicle coming down the road at them, insist on pulling out from the stop sign or light, start driving in the same direction as the emergency vehicle, THEN pull over??
I've been driving emergency vehicles for 35+ years, and it has been ever thus.
But then once in a while justice is served.
I saw once on the evening news a very late model and perhaps new BMW parked in a fire hydrant (red) zone, during a fire when the FD needed to tap into the fire hydrant. While the news media did not make an issue of it, the picture of a loaded fire hose doing its job through forced open BMW doors was real entertainment.
But maybe the feds would spring for an occasional can of upholstery cleaner, if your passenger is messy, spills coffee and crumbs in your car. You could write your Senator, see if they'd sponsor a bill on that. They don't have any more pressing problems to deal with these days, right?
Who said anything about not listening to the radio. Anyway, I rarely find myself stuck in traffic. And when he road DOES open up, I'm not trundling along in an anodyne commuter pod.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
And some wonder why you and your ilk eared the nickname "Pious drivers"
:P
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
What has happened to gasoline usage since 2007? It has declined. Has the price dropped in tandem with this decline in usage? No.
The simple fact is that usage in the United States is no longer the controlling factor when it comes to price. You aren't going to stop price increases if you and everyone else drives 65 mph instead of 75 mph on the interstate.
backy: Also, at my local station 87 octane is only $3.52 today. Too bad you live in an area where you are gouged on gas. I'd look into that if I were you.
I paid $3.75 this morning for 87 octane gasoline. That is one of the LOWEST prices in this area. You have to account for variations in state gasoline taxes, which, in turn, are reflected in the prices at the pump. There is a difference in gasoline prices between Pennsylvania and Maryland (I live less than 40 miles from the Mason-Dixon Line) based on state taxes.
Even if people are driving more, that doesn't mean that gasoline usage also increased. People could be trading in gas guzzlers for more efficient models, or leaving the SUV in the driveway and using the Focus or the Corolla more often.
What matters is how much gasoline people use. Gasoline usage has DECLINED in this country since 2007, yet prices have increased. Here are the figures from my earlier post:
In 2007, there were 3.39 million barrels of gasoline burned in the United States. By 2011, this figure had dipped to 3.19 million barrels, which is 6 percent below the 2007 figure. All without a change in the speed limit. (Well, except for those states that increased it on certain roads).
If we consume MORE gas, e.g. by driving faster than optimal for FE, do you think that will help reduce gas prices in any way? I don't think so.
But as our Host has reminded us... not really anything to do with inconsiderate driving.
My take is lack of enforcement. They should get a ticket
I would rather say that most folks often have very extravagant notions about safety, about traffic laws, about car construction, etc In your case, they just think that this is a right thing to do, probably because their uncle or their friend told them so 20 years ago, and they never got a ticket, because all law enforcement was busy running after speeders or safety belts.
Thank you.
We do have a spot for y'all though:
How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?
It is. But commuting is not eligible for IRS credits. You make a good point otherwise, though.
I think everyone driving at optimal FE speeds would be inconsiderate because with everyone dawdling along the highway you'd make everyone take a lot longer to get where they are going, meaning MORE people are on the road for MORE time during the day, which in turn means there will be more traffic and congestion, which will further slow you down, and there goes any drops of gas you saved right out the window in wasted time in extra traffic and congestion.
When I speed down the freeway I feel I'm being considerate to all other drivers by clearing the roadways of my presence and space usage as fast as possible!
No, but it hasn't increased them, either. And a decline in gasoline usage has not produced a corresponding decline in gasoline prices in this country.
Of course, as I said before, you could use even less gasoline if you swapped your car for a horse. Maybe that would (finally) cause prices to decline.
And I thought the original claim was that people driving faster were being "inconsiderate" by driving up gasoline prices for everyone. Which, as we now know, isn't happening. Given that we've established that, it is best to move on to other subjects.
Somehow I'm not surprised that is your attitude.
Driving for fuel efficiency is not in itself inconsiderate. For most cars, the sweet spot for fuel efficiency is 55-65 mph. That is within the speed limit for most roads in the USA. It's within the limits for 95% of the roads I drive on. Those trying to considerately save fuel for the benefit of current drivers (keep gas prices as low as possible given other factors), for themselves (pocketbooks), and for future generations who might like some oil for their use, can simply make sure they are driving no slower than the posted minimum speed limits, stay right except to pass, and consider conditions (e.g. if everyone else on the freeway including those in the right lane are going over 60, don't plod along at 50 just to save a bit of gas).
It's not all that hard. Or, we could all drive at 100 mph+ to get out of each other's way as fast as possible. :P
What is all of your position on this safety issue? Should people be allowed to accelerate slowly in order to save fuel?
What is a reasonable amount of seconds to get your vehicle from 0 to 60 MPH in order to merge at a reasonable speed and have acceptable consideration for others. I know if a Prius goes 0-60 in 20 seconds, I'll be highly annoyed if I'm behind them on a single merging lane.
Some merging lanes are shorter than others, and therefore, at times, some vehicles will be required to floor it and get to 60 MPH in 10 seconds in order to merge safely.
If the merging lane is long, what is reasonable?
I think the "slow acceleration" saves fuel idea is overrated. For one, by accelerating faster you get to your vehicles optimum FE speed faster, which means you can cruise at that optimum speed longer.
fyi a Prius can go 0-60 in about 10 seconds. Maybe not fast enough for those who like tearing around the roads like crazy people, but more than sufficient for safe driving.
But, "speed kills", so resources are better used/wasted by speedtrapping wide smooth downhill roads. Gotta boost those fat pension funds somehow.
I first need to say that I do not consider my MS3 to be fast; 0-60 in 5.4 seconds and a 14 second quarter mile is not quick by today's standards. That said, I also have three vehicles that can barely make it to 60 in under 10 seconds, and I don't consider any of them to be unsafe. You simply have to drive using common sense and situational awareness. Most modern vehicle operators lack -or fail to utilize- either talent...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
2012 Toyota Prius 0-60 mph: 10.2 seconds
Dang, I need to fast forward my life. :shades:
Handy list at 0-60times.com.
My '97 Outback Limited is rated at a cool 9.0 elsewhere. Regular neck snapper.
Short ramp + slow car = potential trouble ahead.
Long ramp? Who cares? As long as you're up to speed at the merge point.
Interestingly, for all of the talk of 1960s muscle cars, and their emphasis on quick 0-60 mph acceleration abilities, most 1960s cars were sold with mild-mannered V-8s, and had 0-60 mph times of between 9-12 seconds.
I think the need for super-fast acceleration is overstated. Does someone really need 0-60 in 5 secs to merge safely and considerately? No. They just like doing it... or knowing they can do it.
No, "ungood". This was proven to increase methane content in the atmosphere, thus enhancing AGW!
Don't know if we can put enough trust in that site: they are even unable to spell VW Beetle correctly, and consistently call it "Beatle" (!)
I use this: www.zeroto60times.com