As I said a few weeks ago: "Concerns about demand have helped pull oil down from its May 22 high of $135.09. Those concerns were exacerbated Wednesday by the EIA report and by moves by India and Malaysia to cut fuel subsidies, effectively raising prices. Many investors believe subsidy cuts will choke off demand for fuel in the developing world." The continued price increases can not continue as other countries, do not have the GDP and wealth that we have, and will have to reduce or end their subsidies.
I feel less safe when I drive my 3300 lb Mustang than when I drive my Sonoma or Silverado.
This is so interesting.... perspective is everything. always feel safer driving my car than I feel driving any large SUV.... being able to be quicker, more nimble just is safer to me than hoping to survive impact.
The laws of physics say "larger is safer" and in cases when large meets large that does not apply.
The problem with most of today's SUVs is that they are top-heavy and any "avoidance maneuver" will most likely end up in a tip-over.
I tend to feel safer in smaller, better-handling cars too. And that's fine as long as I can "steer out of trouble" but sometimes that is not an option.
This is so interesting.... perspective is everything. always feel safer driving my car than I feel driving any large SUV.... being able to be quicker, more nimble just is safer to me than hoping to survive impact.
Most of the accidents I've been in were of the type where the type of car is pretty much irrelevant. If you have to suddenly slam on your brakes because of a sudden emergency up ahead and a 2000 Infiniti goes up under your rear bumper, whether you were in an '85 Silverado, or a brand-new Miata, is pretty much irrelevant.
This is one of those instances where basically, might makes right. Damage to my truck was a whopping $350. That Infiniti I-30-something probably had a good $4-5K or more worth of damage done to it. And as it was, that impact shot my 4200 lb Silverado pretty far forward with some force. Imagine what it would have done to a little car!
Now, I'll admit I don't feel exactly immortal in my buddy's '06 Xterra. It's a tough little truck, and weighs about the same as my Silverado. But it just has a jittery feel to it when you're driving down the road, and in cornering you can definitely feel the top-heaviness.
Smaller cars also aren't always more nimble. For example, my 2000 Intrepid can outhandle and out-accelerate my uncle's 2003 Corolla. The only real advantage to the Corolla is that it presents a smaller target to hit. So if I pulled a boneheaded maneuver like running a red light, leaving myself ripe for T-boning, the Corolla's 175 inches would be less of a target to hit than the Intrepid's 203.
When I said smaller, I was really looking at SUV/sedan, not necessarily looking at different cars. Give me a car with power, great tires, and nimbleness anyday.
always feel safer driving my car than I feel driving any large SUV.
I feel just the opposite. Seeing a problem is the first step in avoiding a problem. I cannot see nearly as far ahead in our low slung LS400 as in the Sequoia or my PU truck. I feel very vulnerable in little cars like a Corolla or Civic. The percentage of SUVs and PU trucks in Southern CA is very high. And a big share of them are lifted which makes them even more hazardous to others. So my Sequoia is a good middle of the range compromise in size.
This really is a fascinating discussion. Despite how I may come across, I really have no strong feelings about promoting bicycling. It's a personal choice that individuals have to make for themselves. I do hope they make their choice from a rational position rather than one driven by emotionalism though.
Are bikes more safe than cars? Frankly I don't know the answer to that question. I think that a pretty good argument can be made either way.
Statistics can be interpreted in various ways simply because statistics are rather limited in what they can tell us, often influenced merely by what data that was chosen to be gathered. One person says an important bit of data is missing, and another says that data would not really be useful while yet another missing bit of info would. Makes for lively discussion but usually doesn't move us any closer to answering the question at hand.
Something else I'm noticing is that individual histories, observations, and experiences are very poor statistical samples. Doesn't make much sense to extrapolate those to a larger population, especially to make recommendations to that population as a whole or to reach conclusions about that population. Although they certainly could play a part in personal choices. Statistics usually don't mean much of anything to the individual that has been adversely affected. Perfectly understandable I think. For instance it might be difficult to convince someone that air travel is safe if they have had a loved one killed in a plane crash.
Statistics tell us that accidents occur and what the outcomes were. They present composite picture, but often leave out pertinent details. They are often short on info regarding the causes or the "why" part of the incidents. Here personal observations and narratives can be helpful. Take the stories relayed in this thread. The driver was asleep, the bicyclist made a stupid move, the driver had an ax to grind, the bicyclist failed to signal, and on and on.
So, I stand by my position. It is behaviors that are dangerous, not modes of transportation. If laws are followed and reasonable safety measures employed, sprinkled with some amount of courtesy, I remain unconvinced that any given mode of transportation is more or less dangerous than any other mode of transportation.
Gary says, "I cannot see nearly as far ahead in our low slung LS400 as in the Sequoia or my PU truck"
My question is: How far ahead do you NEED to see? I generally only see the car in front of me and maybe one car ahead of that. It has not made the road more dangerous for me.
If you are looking that far ahead, then aren't you dividing your attention in an unsafe way? Should you not be watching the brake lights on the car in front of you so you know to slow down? Anything further ahead than that seems useless.
Should you not be watching the brake lights on the car in front of you so you know to slow down? Anything further ahead than that seems useless.
Then why do they build fire-watch towers so tall, when the game warden could just sit on the ground and watch the tree in front of them? Why did armies want the high-ground? The further you can see, the more warning and time you have to prepare.
I just got back from a 330 mile round trip to Indianapolis to see my new niece.
I took the Suburban. I dropped $100 to top her off before hitting the interstate. I set the cruise there and back at 67mph with A/C on both ways. I drove about 15 miles of city driving. I returned to the same station I initially filled up at to refill and see what the damage was. I used 18.54 gallons to go 330 miles. That equates to 17.8 mpg. Slowing down definitely saves fuel. If I would have cruised my normal 75-80mph, I'd barely break 15mpg.
If you are looking that far ahead, then aren't you dividing your attention in an unsafe way? Should you not be watching the brake lights on the car in front of you so you know to slow down? Anything further ahead than that seems useless.
And therein lies the problem. I find that if I'm driving in a car, I usually can't see much beyond the car in front of me. Even with cars, they block a lot more of the view than they used to. They're taller, have higher rumps, thicker roof pillars, higher seatbacks, tints on the windows...all sorts of things that make it harder to see through than, say, your typical 70's car.
So, if I can't easily see very far ahead of me, that means I have to concentrate more on looking around that car in front of me. That can take my attention off of that car. But if I'm in something that sits up higher, like my truck, it's not that I'm consciously looking further down the road and ignoring what's right in front of me, but I see the big picture, all at once.
And many times, it's avoided an accident, as I'd see something before the driver in front of me, and would back off, in case of trouble. Had I not had that extra time to react, then if the driver slammed on his brakes, I would've had to slam on mine, and even if I stopped in time, who's to say that the vehicle behind me would have been able to? Or the one behind that. In those chain reaction brake-jams, the further back you are, generally the faster you have to react.
But if I'm in something that sits up higher, like my truck, it's not that I'm consciously looking further down the road and ignoring what's right in front of me, but I see the big picture, all at once.
What if you are following a Suburban or Tahoe with tinted back windows? Can't see through them.
Guess I don't miss the Suburban I had for many years with re to gas. Fill-ups would cost about $125 today.
Kernick, thanks for the headsup. But I'm not TOTALLY DENSE.
I understand why watchtowers, armies, and Titanic iceberg lookouts need high vantage points.
I just don't think that drivers of a car, on a flat road, need to be concerned about seeing 1/4 a mile or 1/2 a mile ahead under normal driving circumstances.
And I certainly believe it to be idiotic if anyone uses that rationale to decide what vehicle to buy.
For kdhspyder: has anyone ever came to you as a car salesman and said, "I need something tall enough where I can see a 1/2 a mile ahead !"
My guess is going to be NO, that has not happened.
There are millions of people who have driven their whole lives without car wrecks and have never owned a "high profile" vehicle.
OK, I drive a car.... and I see further than just the car directly in front of me - I try to keep my following distances long enough so I have a sense of the big picture. Of course the CHMSLs help too.
Actually, if you are a correctly safe driver, you don't ride someone close enough to hit them even if it takes you a second to react to their brake lights.
That's another problem with drivers in the USA: They think "closer is better" and cannot get into the habit of driving with a typical safe distance between themselves and the car in front of them.
What they don't realize is that riding a safe distance back will get them to their destination just as quickly, and likely safer. Sad.
Sorry, I just saw humor in the analogy to the forest ranger only looking at the closest tree, and no advantage to see as far as he could.
Similarly a driver should want all the visibility he can get in all directions. While a driver may not need 1/4 or 1/2 mile a few hundred yards certainly is useful at highway speeds. Considering reaction time (125') and braking distance (175') a minimum of 100 yards is required. It would also be good to have time to think, and not jam on the brakes.
There are millions of people who have driven their whole lives without car wrecks and have never owned a "high profile" vehicle.
Certainly, since only 40,000 people per year die. But I also rather play in a lottery that requires me to pick 6 balls out of 48, rather than 6 balls out of 50. And I'd also like to run faster, be stronger, and be smarter even though I may never need those abilities. And I like my autos to have more power, more traction (drive-wheels), better brakes, more crumple zones and better overall capability. More is better.
As far as being top heavy and rolling over - that is basically eliminated on new vehicles with stability control.
That's another problem with drivers in the USA: They think "closer is better" and cannot get into the habit of driving with a typical safe distance between themselves and the car in front of them.
If you keep anywhere close to the recommended one car length for every 10 MPH, you will have people going around you and into that big empty space. As far as not caring about anything that is going on a few cars ahead of you, that is fully your prerogative. I don't feel that way nor will any amount of argument change my position. I have no problem with people in little cars in front of me. Makes it easier to see 8-10 cars in front for any potential danger. It also goes along with the Defensive Driving taught by Ma Bell when I first went to work in 1961. The course taught you to look several cars ahead. Sadly most drivers today are unaware of good Defensive Driving techniques.
Rule 12: Look Down the Road! This means keep your eyes UP and looking down the road. Many drivers focus on the road only 5 or 8 seconds ahead. You should be looking about 15-20 seconds ahead of your vehicle, farther if you can. This gives you the time to recognize and avoid most potential hazards before they become a problem. You'll see lane restrictions or construction areas, traffic congestion, truck entrances, mishaps, etc.
You saw that article in the courant too? Did you see the quote by the trucking industry guy that CT will have the highest diesel prices in the country after the increase.
I wonder if comparing miles driven is the right metric. Maybe we need stats on seat time in hours? I would probably be more concerned about exposure or seat time not miles. What, for example, are the odds at any given hour that I could be injured or killed riding a bike, driving a car or flying in a plane?
Sergei Konstantinovich Krikalyov has the record in space of 804.37 days. 804.37 days x 24 hours/day x 17,210 mph = 332,236,984.8 miles I would not call space travel safe even if they do rack up lots of miles. :shades:
She'd show my all these publicity brochures - the kinds you hand out in schools and a bunch that were aimed at adults saying that the safest mode of transportation per million miles is an elevator.
At one time (like a hundred years ago) the death rate on elevators was about one per million people per week. In other words a city of one million people could expect one person a week to die in an elevator.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"The people being hit hardest by these high gas prices don't even drive - they're your parents and grandparents -- seniors who rely on Meals on Wheels deliveries to eat every day.
Ada and Elmore County Meals on Wheels say in the past few weeks, five of their volunteers have quit because they can't afford the gas they need to complete their routes."
Should you not be watching the brake lights on the car in front of you so you know to slow down? Anything further ahead than that seems useless.
Well if I am watching ahead of the car ahead of me I can see whats going to affect his/her driving and can anticipate them hitting the brakes and adjust my driving accordingly maybe even allowing me not to touch my brakes.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That's another problem with drivers in the USA: They think "closer is better" and cannot get into the habit of driving with a typical safe distance between themselves and the car in front of them.
It works in theory but can be hard to do in reality. Try my daily commute, if you keep 5 car lengths between you and the car infront of you 5 cars will fill it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The congressfolk who thought it'd be a great idea to give payback to their donors through the years namely large farmers and lobbies and the ADM types who have a vested interest in pushing alcohol and subsidy of product thereof and building plants for production of same. Real boondoggle.
I don't hear congressfolk talking up stopping it now that it's started and it's apparent what's happening to food prices. Ohio's Minority Speaker Republican John Boehner should be interested since he's here in a gerrymandered district in the farm area which also has lots of older voters who aren't benefiting from high corn prices.
What are some stock plays to take advantage of this?
Just last Sunday at noon, while travelling in our car on a 55 MPH US numbered highway that has plenty of curves, dips and crests and almost all double-yellow, we encountered an idiot woman bike rider riding at the edge of the pavement.
I've read this several times, thinking perhaps I missed something, but I still do not see what the woman was doing to be classified as an idiot. Apparently, she was riding as far to the right of the road as possible.
Just because a road has a 55 mph speed limit doesn't mean that bicyclists are not permitted to ride on it. The interstate highway system has a ban on pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles in most states, but not all. I remember legally riding along an interstate in Montana back in the 90s when their speed limit was merely "safe and prudent" and no fixed number.
While a driver may not need 1/4 or 1/2 mile a few hundred yards certainly is useful at highway speeds.
I try to keep an eye on the entire road as far ahead as I can see. But then if I am driving on a straight (or near straight) road looking as far as I can see I also see whats right infront of me and everything in between. Many times it has resulted in me seeing road obstacles soon enough that I was able to take detours around the trouble.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And if you did a study you'd find that bikes are pretty safe when ridden away the street, a little more dangerous when ridden on the sidewalk, and very dangerous when ridden on the street with cars and no barrier.
I believe you have a few of the facts backwards. Bicycle/car accidents are much more frequent when the cyclist is on a sidewalk, coming up to an intersection. Why, you ask? The driver is not looking for a vehicle on the sidewalk when pulling out of a side street, parking lot, whatever. Larsb even said his close encounters are at intersections. He also says he mainly rides on the sidewalk.
I'll be more than happy to post links to studies on this after I get home around 1:30 a.m. tonight. Company firewalls prevent me from doing so at the moment.
I have never been to this discussion until today, but I thought that I'd add my .02. The problem as I see it is that you can't see as far ahead in a small car because there are so many SUVs, not to say that SUVs don't have as much a right to be there as small cars, they just pose a larger "problem" with regards to visibility. As a rule when I am on the highway or bumming around town I will always pass a larger vehicle in order to see ahead of them. I don't pass because I think that I am better than them or that I think that my car is faster or more capable, I pass because it makes me nervous when I can't see ahead of them, but I will not spend $100+ per week for gas to see above everybody, I will simply pass. I feel perfectly safe in my 3100 lb Accord.
I'm not here to offend anyone, and if anybody had already brought these points up I'm sorry for wasting your time.
I have never been to this discussion until today, but I thought that I'd add my .02.
Since this is about high fuel prices shouldn't that read "my 0.6 oz"?
Anyway about passing, it sounds good and will work if you can pass and don't end up behind the truck or SUV that the guy you just passed was behind.
Now I have to ask you, are you one of those guys that pass someone then just sit there right infront of them sometimes going slower than the car you just pass? I had one of those the other day but thats a story for another forum.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I remember something under a buck in the 60's with Dad at the wheel and there were so many different Gas brands out there. Mergers now have changed the landscape of filling stations and the competitiveness as well.
California has 3 different refiners left and they have to make a special blend of "clean" gas per California standards, so there's no going outside the state to bring in gas. talk about cornering the market.
Gas this evening was $4.39 for RUG at Rotten Robie I can't fill up my 35 gallon tank without usuing two swipes of the credit card.
No, definitely not. Those people piss me off too. I try to pass and stay in whatever lane allows me to see as far as possible. I keep up with traffic. I'm not going to obstruct traffic to save a buck. The cost/benefit just isn't worth it to me.
This is forum primarily about gas prices, so here is what I think. While everybody should slow down, it's safer and uses less gasoline, people don't always do what they are told. I'm told to eat my vegies, but I don't even they are good for me, because they are gross.
Anyway, back to my point. The benefit of driving more slowly is that I will save some money on gasoline and that my reaction time will be substantially greater, but the cost is that I will create a moving obstacle by going slower than those behind me. By making myself a moving obstacle I in turn increase my chances of having a bad accident and therefore increase my chances of having high medical bills. I'll spend the extra money on the gas and keep up with traffic.
However, I do go 55 in the morning on a freeway marked 70 because there are literally maybe 2 other cars going the same direction at 4 a.m. In the afternoon I will go 70 or whatever the ambient speed happens to be.
So the cost versus benefit is very lopsided, if I'm confusing please tell me because I have trouble articulating my thoughts in a manner which is clear.
I've found that those who are going far in excess of the speed limit generally aren't paying as much attention to the speed of those in front of them. I have to say that at one time I was guilty of speeding that much.
So the cost versus benefit is very lopsided, if I'm confusing please tell me because I have trouble articulating my thoughts in a manner which is clear.
I'm following you fine. I do the same when someone is in front of me that I cannot see around. I was trained to look more than one car ahead. It is difficult to do with a PU, SUV or Mini-van in front of you. Mini-vans are fat and wide as the largest SUVs. I used to sit at a stop light in my little Passat Wagon and look out at the monster tires on the vehicles next to me. I could see them driving over the top of my little car crushing it like a pop can. Just not worth the little extra gas saved. I want to be at least close in size to the average vehicle on the road. Worst part is in CA, most of the big PU trucks and SUVs are driven by young guys and gals without any fear. They drive like gas is free. I get passed every day I am out on the road. I rarely am first across the intersection. Many times by the time I get to the next light the guy next to me has been sitting there for a couple minutes. Which is good it gives his brakes a chance to cool down after slamming them on to stop.
I could consider going back to a smaller car if the traffic ever becomes a little more civilized. I am not optimistic. And not thinking of getting rid of the Sequoia. Unless they build a large diesel SUV that I like.
This is forum primarily about gas prices, so here is what I think. While everybody should slow down, it's safer and uses less gasoline
I think that is really vehicle specific. I took a quick trip to Phoenix from San Diego. I filled at the border and drove 75-80 MPH all the way to Phoenix. I filled when I arrived in Phoenix and got 16.88 MPG. On the return trip I thought I would try and get the best possible mileage. So I set it on cruise for 65 MPH and nearly fell asleep it seemed like I was not moving. When I got back to the border and filled up, I only got 16.82 MPG. So I don't think it makes much difference in our Sequoia. Both ways the climate control was on to keep the cab at 74 degrees. I kicked it back up to 80 for the last leg to home and got 16.38 MPG. That was climbing over the mountains back into San Diego. It only has 5500 miles on it after 9 months so it is not broken in. It only had 1700 mies on it when we got back from that trip. Maybe we will see 18 MPG on our next trip.
I know that I was generalizing a little bit, but my point is that one week I decided to do an experiment. I live 17 miles from work of which 5 is freeway, I did the math and going 55 versus 70 was going to take me an extra 1.7 minutes. So I did 55 to work the whole week and 70 home from work the whole week. The results were a net gain of 2 mpg. I went from 27 mixed to 29, which now I think about it it's not worth the hassle. I still slow down in the morning because I'm in no big hurry to get to work. If I leave the same time every day I have most of the lights timed so I will get to work roughly the same time every day.
It helps that my morning route is a main street which is set to stay green until somebody is coming from either side.
I just wish I knew of a website where I could find the most fuel efficient speed at which to drive. I know that I read somewhere that every car has a sweet spot, and anything under or over that sweet spot would return poor mileage. For instance some cars get the best mileage at 55 and some might get the best mileage at 60. I wish I could find out what that speed is on my Accord.
I'm thinking maybe some buggies have a "sweet spot" mpg. I am driving an '04 Yukon XL and it seems like no matter what I do it gets right around 16.5mpg.
I would agree that the amount of savings is vehicle specific, however, increasing air resistance will cost you mpg as the speed increases. The general rule of thumb is that 40 to 50 mph is probably the sweet spot for most car/engine/gearing combinations.
16.XX mpg, that is just plain ugly miles per. :lemon: So what are you going to do about it?
On another note, India just announced a 10% increase in gasoline prices. The pain at the pump in India will increase. Malaysia increased prices 41% and Indonesia was up 29%. In terms of oil consumption, India is the 6th largest consumer, Indonesia is 17th, and Malaysia is 27th. Worldwide it adds up to a modest decrease in demand.
The increasing prices will likely put a damper on increased car sales in all three countries. People have been predicting that car fleet will zoom to hundreds of millions in China, India and other countries. I have my doubts.
Not only will higher fuel prices discourage sales, the problem of higher costs for steel and other products will limit sales.
I did the math and going 55 versus 70 was going to take me an extra 1.7 minutes.
Slowing down from 70 to 55 for 5 miles will cost you 1.17 minutes. Going from 27 to 29 MPG over a 17 mile commute will save you 18 cents in gas (presuming $415/gallon). Running the numbers saving 18 cents over 1.17 minutes equates to earning $9.25/hour.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Comments
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-06-04-oil-wed_N.htm
This is so interesting.... perspective is everything. always feel safer driving my car than I feel driving any large SUV.... being able to be quicker, more nimble just is safer to me than hoping to survive impact.
The problem with most of today's SUVs is that they are top-heavy and any "avoidance maneuver" will most likely end up in a tip-over.
I tend to feel safer in smaller, better-handling cars too. And that's fine as long as I can "steer out of trouble" but sometimes that is not an option.
Most of the accidents I've been in were of the type where the type of car is pretty much irrelevant. If you have to suddenly slam on your brakes because of a sudden emergency up ahead and a 2000 Infiniti goes up under your rear bumper, whether you were in an '85 Silverado, or a brand-new Miata, is pretty much irrelevant.
This is one of those instances where basically, might makes right. Damage to my truck was a whopping $350. That Infiniti I-30-something probably had a good $4-5K or more worth of damage done to it. And as it was, that impact shot my 4200 lb Silverado pretty far forward with some force. Imagine what it would have done to a little car!
Now, I'll admit I don't feel exactly immortal in my buddy's '06 Xterra. It's a tough little truck, and weighs about the same as my Silverado. But it just has a jittery feel to it when you're driving down the road, and in cornering you can definitely feel the top-heaviness.
Smaller cars also aren't always more nimble. For example, my 2000 Intrepid can outhandle and out-accelerate my uncle's 2003 Corolla. The only real advantage to the Corolla is that it presents a smaller target to hit. So if I pulled a boneheaded maneuver like running a red light, leaving myself ripe for T-boning, the Corolla's 175 inches would be less of a target to hit than the Intrepid's 203.
View this chart:
The green line is crude. So you can see that when it spiked in late 2007, gas prices did not really go up a ton in........line with the crude spike.
If oil goes down and STAYS down, then lower gas prices will follow. But it will not be quickly.
I feel just the opposite. Seeing a problem is the first step in avoiding a problem. I cannot see nearly as far ahead in our low slung LS400 as in the Sequoia or my PU truck. I feel very vulnerable in little cars like a Corolla or Civic. The percentage of SUVs and PU trucks in Southern CA is very high. And a big share of them are lifted which makes them even more hazardous to others. So my Sequoia is a good middle of the range compromise in size.
Are bikes more safe than cars? Frankly I don't know the answer to that question. I think that a pretty good argument can be made either way.
Statistics can be interpreted in various ways simply because statistics are rather limited in what they can tell us, often influenced merely by what data that was chosen to be gathered. One person says an important bit of data is missing, and another says that data would not really be useful while yet another missing bit of info would. Makes for lively discussion but usually doesn't move us any closer to answering the question at hand.
Something else I'm noticing is that individual histories, observations, and experiences are very poor statistical samples. Doesn't make much sense to extrapolate those to a larger population, especially to make recommendations to that population as a whole or to reach conclusions about that population. Although they certainly could play a part in personal choices. Statistics usually don't mean much of anything to the individual that has been adversely affected. Perfectly understandable I think. For instance it might be difficult to convince someone that air travel is safe if they have had a loved one killed in a plane crash.
Statistics tell us that accidents occur and what the outcomes were. They present composite picture, but often leave out pertinent details. They are often short on info regarding the causes or the "why" part of the incidents. Here personal observations and narratives can be helpful. Take the stories relayed in this thread. The driver was asleep, the bicyclist made a stupid move, the driver had an ax to grind, the bicyclist failed to signal, and on and on.
So, I stand by my position. It is behaviors that are dangerous, not modes of transportation. If laws are followed and reasonable safety measures employed, sprinkled with some amount of courtesy, I remain unconvinced that any given mode of transportation is more or less dangerous than any other mode of transportation.
My question is: How far ahead do you NEED to see? I generally only see the car in front of me and maybe one car ahead of that. It has not made the road more dangerous for me.
If you are looking that far ahead, then aren't you dividing your attention in an unsafe way? Should you not be watching the brake lights on the car in front of you so you know to slow down? Anything further ahead than that seems useless.
Then why do they build fire-watch towers so tall, when the game warden could just sit on the ground and watch the tree in front of them? Why did armies want the high-ground? The further you can see, the more warning and time you have to prepare.
I took the Suburban. I dropped $100 to top her off before hitting the interstate. I set the cruise there and back at 67mph with A/C on both ways. I drove about 15 miles of city driving. I returned to the same station I initially filled up at to refill and see what the damage was. I used 18.54 gallons to go 330 miles. That equates to 17.8 mpg. Slowing down definitely saves fuel. If I would have cruised my normal 75-80mph, I'd barely break 15mpg.
And therein lies the problem. I find that if I'm driving in a car, I usually can't see much beyond the car in front of me. Even with cars, they block a lot more of the view than they used to. They're taller, have higher rumps, thicker roof pillars, higher seatbacks, tints on the windows...all sorts of things that make it harder to see through than, say, your typical 70's car.
So, if I can't easily see very far ahead of me, that means I have to concentrate more on looking around that car in front of me. That can take my attention off of that car. But if I'm in something that sits up higher, like my truck, it's not that I'm consciously looking further down the road and ignoring what's right in front of me, but I see the big picture, all at once.
And many times, it's avoided an accident, as I'd see something before the driver in front of me, and would back off, in case of trouble. Had I not had that extra time to react, then if the driver slammed on his brakes, I would've had to slam on mine, and even if I stopped in time, who's to say that the vehicle behind me would have been able to? Or the one behind that. In those chain reaction brake-jams, the further back you are, generally the faster you have to react.
Because we got a break on the gasoline for a while, despite its increase. Both were going up but oil was going up faster. See Larsb's graph.
Both diesel and home heating oil did go up with the price of oil. If gas went up at the same rate, you'd now be paying closer to the diesel price.
What if you are following a Suburban or Tahoe with tinted back windows? Can't see through them.
Guess I don't miss the Suburban I had for many years with re to gas. Fill-ups would cost about $125 today.
I understand why watchtowers, armies, and Titanic iceberg lookouts need high vantage points.
I just don't think that drivers of a car, on a flat road, need to be concerned about seeing 1/4 a mile or 1/2 a mile ahead under normal driving circumstances.
And I certainly believe it to be idiotic if anyone uses that rationale to decide what vehicle to buy.
For kdhspyder: has anyone ever came to you as a car salesman and said, "I need something tall enough where I can see a 1/2 a mile ahead !"
My guess is going to be NO, that has not happened.
There are millions of people who have driven their whole lives without car wrecks and have never owned a "high profile" vehicle.
That's another problem with drivers in the USA: They think "closer is better" and cannot get into the habit of driving with a typical safe distance between themselves and the car in front of them.
What they don't realize is that riding a safe distance back will get them to their destination just as quickly, and likely safer. Sad.
The booster seat helps too!
Similarly a driver should want all the visibility he can get in all directions. While a driver may not need 1/4 or 1/2 mile a few hundred yards certainly is useful at highway speeds. Considering reaction time (125') and braking distance (175') a minimum of 100 yards is required. It would also be good to have time to think, and not jam on the brakes.
There are millions of people who have driven their whole lives without car wrecks and have never owned a "high profile" vehicle.
Certainly, since only 40,000 people per year die. But I also rather play in a lottery that requires me to pick 6 balls out of 48, rather than 6 balls out of 50. And I'd also like to run faster, be stronger, and be smarter even though I may never need those abilities. And I like my autos to have more power, more traction (drive-wheels), better brakes, more crumple zones and better overall capability. More is better.
As far as being top heavy and rolling over - that is basically eliminated on new vehicles with stability control.
Personally, I can see fine enough to drive safely whether in GraveDigger or in a Corvette.
I've never seen anyone run into a vehicle 100 feet from them at the time. Usually it's the closest vehicle to them.
If you keep anywhere close to the recommended one car length for every 10 MPH, you will have people going around you and into that big empty space. As far as not caring about anything that is going on a few cars ahead of you, that is fully your prerogative. I don't feel that way nor will any amount of argument change my position. I have no problem with people in little cars in front of me. Makes it easier to see 8-10 cars in front for any potential danger. It also goes along with the Defensive Driving taught by Ma Bell when I first went to work in 1961. The course taught you to look several cars ahead. Sadly most drivers today are unaware of good Defensive Driving techniques.
Rule 12: Look Down the Road!
This means keep your eyes UP and looking down the road. Many drivers focus on the road only 5 or 8 seconds ahead. You should be looking about 15-20 seconds ahead of your vehicle, farther if you can. This gives you the time to recognize and avoid most potential hazards before they become a problem. You'll see lane restrictions or construction areas, traffic congestion, truck entrances, mishaps, etc.
Hey!
I took that course! Not in '61, but in '81.
heh
guess 'low slung' is relative...
I'm not saying people don't have the right to own a taller vehicle because they want to see farther down the road. More power to them.
But if they think that view makes it a substantially safer vehicle, then I think they are just dead wrong.
Like I said - I can drive as safely as I need to in either a Corvette or in GraveDigger. So can Joe and Jane Public.
Oh, I dunno. I'm only using 1/3 as much gas per month by switching primarily to pedal power for my commutes.
Think outside the box.
Sergei Konstantinovich Krikalyov has the record in space of 804.37 days. 804.37 days x 24 hours/day x 17,210 mph = 332,236,984.8 miles
I would not call space travel safe even if they do rack up lots of miles. :shades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight_records
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
At one time (like a hundred years ago) the death rate on elevators was about one per million people per week. In other words a city of one million people could expect one person a week to die in an elevator.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Ada and Elmore County Meals on Wheels say in the past few weeks, five of their volunteers have quit because they can't afford the gas they need to complete their routes."
Meals on Wheels Volunteers Struggle to Make Deliveries (KTVB)
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I thought it was Burger King that told you to have it "your way".
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well if I am watching ahead of the car ahead of me I can see whats going to affect his/her driving and can anticipate them hitting the brakes and adjust my driving accordingly maybe even allowing me not to touch my brakes.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It works in theory but can be hard to do in reality. Try my daily commute, if you keep 5 car lengths between you and the car infront of you 5 cars will fill it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't hear congressfolk talking up stopping it now that it's started and it's apparent what's happening to food prices. Ohio's Minority Speaker Republican John Boehner should be interested since he's here in a gerrymandered district in the farm area which also has lots of older voters who aren't benefiting from high corn prices.
What are some stock plays to take advantage of this?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I've read this several times, thinking perhaps I missed something, but I still do not see what the woman was doing to be classified as an idiot. Apparently, she was riding as far to the right of the road as possible.
Just because a road has a 55 mph speed limit doesn't mean that bicyclists are not permitted to ride on it. The interstate highway system has a ban on pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles in most states, but not all. I remember legally riding along an interstate in Montana back in the 90s when their speed limit was merely "safe and prudent" and no fixed number.
I try to keep an eye on the entire road as far ahead as I can see. But then if I am driving on a straight (or near straight) road looking as far as I can see I also see whats right infront of me and everything in between. Many times it has resulted in me seeing road obstacles soon enough that I was able to take detours around the trouble.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I believe you have a few of the facts backwards. Bicycle/car accidents are much more frequent when the cyclist is on a sidewalk, coming up to an intersection. Why, you ask? The driver is not looking for a vehicle on the sidewalk when pulling out of a side street, parking lot, whatever. Larsb even said his close encounters are at intersections. He also says he mainly rides on the sidewalk.
I'll be more than happy to post links to studies on this after I get home around 1:30 a.m. tonight. Company firewalls prevent me from doing so at the moment.
Those fire towers are great for visibility but tehy don't handle very well...
I have never been to this discussion until today, but I thought that I'd add my .02. The problem as I see it is that you can't see as far ahead in a small car because there are so many SUVs, not to say that SUVs don't have as much a right to be there as small cars, they just pose a larger "problem" with regards to visibility. As a rule when I am on the highway or bumming around town I will always pass a larger vehicle in order to see ahead of them. I don't pass because I think that I am better than them or that I think that my car is faster or more capable, I pass because it makes me nervous when I can't see ahead of them, but I will not spend $100+ per week for gas to see above everybody, I will simply pass. I feel perfectly safe in my 3100 lb Accord.
I'm not here to offend anyone, and if anybody had already brought these points up I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Hi.
I have never been to this discussion until today, but I thought that I'd add my .02.
Since this is about high fuel prices shouldn't that read "my 0.6 oz"?
Anyway about passing, it sounds good and will work if you can pass and don't end up behind the truck or SUV that the guy you just passed was behind.
Now I have to ask you, are you one of those guys that pass someone then just sit there right infront of them sometimes going slower than the car you just pass? I had one of those the other day but thats a story for another forum.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
California has 3 different refiners left and they have to make a special blend of "clean" gas per California standards, so there's no going outside the state to bring in gas. talk about cornering the market.
Gas this evening was $4.39 for RUG at Rotten Robie
I can't fill up my 35 gallon tank without usuing two swipes of the credit card.
This is forum primarily about gas prices, so here is what I think. While everybody should slow down, it's safer and uses less gasoline, people don't always do what they are told. I'm told to eat my vegies, but I don't even they are good for me, because they are gross.
Anyway, back to my point. The benefit of driving more slowly is that I will save some money on gasoline and that my reaction time will be substantially greater, but the cost is that I will create a moving obstacle by going slower than those behind me.
However, I do go 55 in the morning on a freeway marked 70 because there are literally maybe 2 other cars going the same direction at 4 a.m. In the afternoon I will go 70 or whatever the ambient speed happens to be.
So the cost versus benefit is very lopsided, if I'm confusing please tell me because I have trouble articulating my thoughts in a manner which is clear.
I've found that those who are going far in excess of the speed limit generally aren't paying as much attention to the speed of those in front of them. I have to say that at one time I was guilty of speeding that much.
I'm following you fine. I do the same when someone is in front of me that I cannot see around. I was trained to look more than one car ahead. It is difficult to do with a PU, SUV or Mini-van in front of you. Mini-vans are fat and wide as the largest SUVs. I used to sit at a stop light in my little Passat Wagon and look out at the monster tires on the vehicles next to me. I could see them driving over the top of my little car crushing it like a pop can. Just not worth the little extra gas saved. I want to be at least close in size to the average vehicle on the road. Worst part is in CA, most of the big PU trucks and SUVs are driven by young guys and gals without any fear. They drive like gas is free. I get passed every day I am out on the road. I rarely am first across the intersection. Many times by the time I get to the next light the guy next to me has been sitting there for a couple minutes. Which is good it gives his brakes a chance to cool down after slamming them on to stop.
I could consider going back to a smaller car if the traffic ever becomes a little more civilized. I am not optimistic. And not thinking of getting rid of the Sequoia. Unless they build a large diesel SUV that I like.
I think that is really vehicle specific. I took a quick trip to Phoenix from San Diego. I filled at the border and drove 75-80 MPH all the way to Phoenix. I filled when I arrived in Phoenix and got 16.88 MPG. On the return trip I thought I would try and get the best possible mileage. So I set it on cruise for 65 MPH and nearly fell asleep it seemed like I was not moving. When I got back to the border and filled up, I only got 16.82 MPG. So I don't think it makes much difference in our Sequoia. Both ways the climate control was on to keep the cab at 74 degrees. I kicked it back up to 80 for the last leg to home and got 16.38 MPG. That was climbing over the mountains back into San Diego. It only has 5500 miles on it after 9 months so it is not broken in. It only had 1700 mies on it when we got back from that trip. Maybe we will see 18 MPG on our next trip.
It helps that my morning route is a main street which is set to stay green until somebody is coming from either side.
I just wish I knew of a website where I could find the most fuel efficient speed at which to drive. I know that I read somewhere that every car has a sweet spot, and anything under or over that sweet spot would return poor mileage. For instance some cars get the best mileage at 55 and some might get the best mileage at 60. I wish I could find out what that speed is on my Accord.
I would agree that the amount of savings is vehicle specific, however, increasing air resistance will cost you mpg as the speed increases. The general rule of thumb is that 40 to 50 mph is probably the sweet spot for most car/engine/gearing combinations.
16.XX mpg, that is just plain ugly miles per. :lemon: So what are you going to do about it?
On another note, India just announced a 10% increase in gasoline prices. The pain at the pump in India will increase. Malaysia increased prices 41% and Indonesia was up 29%. In terms of oil consumption, India is the 6th largest consumer, Indonesia is 17th, and Malaysia is 27th. Worldwide it adds up to a modest decrease in demand.
The increasing prices will likely put a damper on increased car sales in all three countries. People have been predicting that car fleet will zoom to hundreds of millions in China, India and other countries. I have my doubts.
Not only will higher fuel prices discourage sales, the problem of higher costs for steel and other products will limit sales.
Slowing down from 70 to 55 for 5 miles will cost you 1.17 minutes. Going from 27 to 29 MPG over a 17 mile commute will save you 18 cents in gas (presuming $415/gallon). Running the numbers saving 18 cents over 1.17 minutes equates to earning $9.25/hour.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D