Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Inconsiderate Drivers II (share your stories, etc.)

1246

Comments

  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    ruking1 said:

    That is why NON/appropriate speed/s was/were used. On the normal daily commute, we’ve gone anywhere from 15 mph to 80 mph. Situationally, 15 mph might’ve been too fast, aka accident. 80 miles an hour might’ve been too slow, vice versa & in other combinations.

    The PIN (person in DEnial) use s/d non sequitur argument/s, as if preparing for the first grade school rehearsal debate. Yet, it’s inexplicable the PIN is in practice, that naïve!

    Now I’m OK with the fact that that may be ones’ opinion; that one may think it good for other people, but not for one.

    But as mentioned, the data is really quite clear. The government safety agencies have bemoaned the fact/myth that speed kills. Yet on the other hand, they can’t easily lie about the data. They will say that (non appropriate) speed is a dominate factor in about 20% - of fatalities/accidents. What they do leave OUT is that the 80% + better fatalities/accident are in compliance @ posted speed limits or below.

    Yet again data can be muddled. So for example, it is widely known that alcohol is involved in 40% of accidents fatalities. So (inappropriate) speed ( & other factors) can easily fall under the category of DWI. If modifying variables are really the cause, the 20% inappropriate speed can really be LESS; up to only 12%.

    Again, this is probably true in most major cities, but, in the LA metropolitan area: which is a HUGE bunch of real estate, the speed limit used to be 55 mph during the Nixon era. Naturally doom and gloom was forecasted if the speed limit EVER got to 60 miles an hour. So fast forward to 2019 and the speed limit of 65 mph with more normal speed is 75 to 85 mph the roads are SAFER than ever.

    12%? Actually, the Dept. of Transportation/NHTSA found, in a buried study because it doesn't fit the myth agenda, less than 5% are due to speed:

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2627.asp

    Also, I'd argue speed is blamed far too much and far too widely precisely because a vast amount of miles driven by EVERYONE is above the speed limit, so naturally by the laws of numbers some accidents will occur at above the posted speed limit, particularly when that limit is under-posted causing far more than 15% to exceed it regularly.

    I've also seen studies that use the premise "IF YOU HAVE ACCIDENT" or "WHEN YOU HAVE AN ACCIDENT" to mislead about plain physics. Yes, crashing at 100 MPH is worse than 50 MPH! However, one should think about the likelihood of a crash at 100 MPH vs. 50 MPH before accepting the premise, if and when.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Air travel really points this phenomenon out as they routinely travel at 500 MPH with a better safety record than vehicular travel.

    For example, one should care about a 25 MPH speed limit on a road causing 100 accidents per million miles traveled. If a 35 MPH speed limit on that same road caused only 10 accidents to happen in the same million mile sample, then you'd have to prove that accidents at 35 MPH were 10X as deadly! If you can't, you are murdering people with your 25 MPH speed limit!
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    PF_Flyer said:

    Not sure what is in the water around here, but SOMETHING is making drivers (and I use the term loosely) consider red lights to just be suggestions. And I can't just throw the "cell phone blanket" over them either. Most of the time it's just, "I want to turn/cross at the intersection, here I come".

    Being on high alert is tiring :@

    In CA a red light violation will run you over $550. That probably makes red-light running in CA less common than in other parts of the world.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    andres3 said:

    ruking1 said:

    That is why NON/appropriate speed/s was/were used. On the normal daily commute, we’ve gone anywhere from 15 mph to 80 mph. Situationally, 15 mph might’ve been too fast, aka accident. 80 miles an hour might’ve been too slow, vice versa & in other combinations.

    The PIN (person in DEnial) use s/d non sequitur argument/s, as if preparing for the first grade school rehearsal debate. Yet, it’s inexplicable the PIN is in practice, that naïve!

    Now I’m OK with the fact that that may be ones’ opinion; that one may think it good for other people, but not for one.

    But as mentioned, the data is really quite clear. The government safety agencies have bemoaned the fact/myth that speed kills. Yet on the other hand, they can’t easily lie about the data. They will say that (non appropriate) speed is a dominate factor in about 20% - of fatalities/accidents. What they do leave OUT is that the 80% + better fatalities/accident are in compliance @ posted speed limits or below.

    Yet again data can be muddled. So for example, it is widely known that alcohol is involved in 40% of accidents fatalities. So (inappropriate) speed ( & other factors) can easily fall under the category of DWI. If modifying variables are really the cause, the 20% inappropriate speed can really be LESS; up to only 12%.

    Again, this is probably true in most major cities, but, in the LA metropolitan area: which is a HUGE bunch of real estate, the speed limit used to be 55 mph during the Nixon era. Naturally doom and gloom was forecasted if the speed limit EVER got to 60 miles an hour. So fast forward to 2019 and the speed limit of 65 mph with more normal speed is 75 to 85 mph the roads are SAFER than ever.

    12%? Actually, the Dept. of Transportation/NHTSA found, in a buried study because it doesn't fit the myth agenda, less than 5% are due to speed:

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2627.asp

    Also, I'd argue speed is blamed far too much and far too widely precisely because a vast amount of miles driven by EVERYONE is above the speed limit, so naturally by the laws of numbers some accidents will occur at above the posted speed limit, particularly when that limit is under-posted causing far more than 15% to exceed it regularly.

    I've also seen studies that use the premise "IF YOU HAVE ACCIDENT" or "WHEN YOU HAVE AN ACCIDENT" to mislead about plain physics. Yes, crashing at 100 MPH is worse than 50 MPH! However, one should think about the likelihood of a crash at 100 MPH vs. 50 MPH before accepting the premise, if and when.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Air travel really points this phenomenon out as they routinely travel at 500 MPH with a better safety record than vehicular travel.

    For example, one should care about a 25 MPH speed limit on a road causing 100 accidents per million miles traveled. If a 35 MPH speed limit on that same road caused only 10 accidents to happen in the same million mile sample, then you'd have to prove that accidents at 35 MPH were 10X as deadly! If you can't, you are murdering people with your 25 MPH speed limit!
    The link that you give actually points to a very scary reason: “loss of control”. It’s really not lost of control. It’s actually more times than not, GIVING UP control.
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,852
    Would you at least agree that depending on the situation and circumstances, slower could be less safe, and vice versa, faster could be less safe

    In general terms, yes.  

    I am certainly not in the camp of “speed kills” and everyone should drive 55... just think we all need to be realistic and at some point there is a safety issue driving too far above the limit.  If anything because there are so many poor drivers that you have to look out for!





    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    Many “poor drivers”, aka alledged “good” drivers” do not include themselves in that characterization. So no, a good percentage of the accident % are not realistic. There is even less percentage of accidents driving above the limit. So it is indeed a strawman argument.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    It seems from my anecdotal observation that bad drivers think of themselves as the opposite simply because they aren't always crashing into things.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    LOl! UNTIL.... they do (anecdotally)!

    I’m not sure if I should make this clear, or not. In any one accident caused by a “bad driver” , the other side/driver can normally safely be called not @ fault or still a good driver. Anecdotally, very few bad drivers take out (only) other bad drivers or self eliminate. Example, drunk hits drunk, drunk driver or drunks killed.

    Those that that drive with no to without proper insurance by (DEFACTO) definition elect themselves to the “BAD driver category.

    In CA, it’s estimated 25% to 30% of cars/drivers carry no to little proper insurance. I’m just guessing that the other 49 states, et al, are similar or not far behind. (50 states: 221.7 M licensed drivers) https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

    So those that drive thinking THINGS on the roads are “SAFE”, to having expectations the 1st world folks drive better, albeit safer; are naive or at best delusional. I wonder out loud what % folks with that attitude add to the pool?

    Indeed, I would argue the first (goal) order of business is to never, ever be a victim, or involved.

    Indeed it is almost laughable (his city?) that dah mayor (of a very big a big metropolitan CA, city app 1.99 M) was involved in an accident: his bicycle allegedly hit by a car (SUV, probably driven by a valued illegal & probably with no insurance?) and broke a lot of his body parts.
    https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/01/02/san-jose-mayor-liccardo-hospitalized-bike-crash.html
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    Bicycling on many roads around me is Russian roulette. Same for motorcycling. No thanks, I am too old for it, all I can think of is physical and financial pain when the bills from our wonderful care system come due.

    The illegal/SUV conjecture is pretty whiny and inappropriate IMO, par for the course for the lucky generation who cashed in on that economy I suppose.

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    Para #2, That’s total conjecture, for “the cloud over head of “Charlie Brown set. But thanks! 👍life is good! The economy’s here are extremely diverse, robust & forecasted to do better! It’s one of the reasons why the political side is trying to shake it down, ... mafia style.

    It is amazing that that federal agency does NOT track bicycle fatalities and injuries. My take is bike transportation is @ least epidemicslly dangerous as motorcycle driving.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,499
    edited January 2019
    Ya think? Let's compare two-wheeled vehicles with lots of power that run at approximately traffic speed (with serious helmets [can we say Snell?]) to two-wheeled vehicles running at 15-20 mph or less. I've done both motorcycles (for 5 years my only vehicle) and bicycles on the street -- no comparison. I no longer do either. The bicycling I do is on dedicated paths and/or in locations far from the city.

    It''s a Darwin thing.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    A roommate in college traveled all over Europe with his sister and her then boyfriend for two summers. ( Triumph 650’s his sister & bf did the sidecar drill) He kept one motorcycle and at times we used to get around: no helmets no jackets, no boots kind of riding. To interject the important part, no incidents.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    And, really what these examples illustrate is that the actual risk associated with these activities is extremely low. However, it only takes once.... So, do the math and make the choice, but realize that it *is* a choice made.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    Indeed, there are instances where it CAN ONLY take once! The saying even 60 years ago, it’s not IF you drop the bike, it is WHEN.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    I'd ride a bike in Germany over here any day of the week. I have much more faith in fellow road users in areas where there are actual standards for getting a license.

    One no-lighter this evening, an older Highlander, so maybe without automatic lights.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    Must concede the irony, expecting INXS of 109,000 + miles on new ‘shoes” ( UTQG 800, MB GLK 250 BT) running in the worst commute traffic and road situations, in the nation. The old set (oem run-flats, UTQG 200) got slightly short of 76,000 miles @ 3/32 in left. 😉
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    You're rolling that odometer red hot! I am at about 81,500 on the Q7. Ironically, the winter tires (Yokohama IG-51v) are wearing incredibly well, but the all-seasons are not. After only two summers and maybe 15,000 miles, they are nearing ready for replacement. I'm hoping to squeak this year out of them, and I might if I'm willing to take them down to 2/32nd. I usually replace with 4/32 for the summer tires and 6-7/32 for winter.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    There are a lot of TMI’s in favor of posting INXS of 109,000 miles. If folks are interested, I can post. So for example, for maximum wear and appropriateness, three to four sets of wheels are necessary. (old, new, different sized sets, winter set) That for me is more than TMI enough & $$’s.

    All we’re doing is avoiding hitting concrete curb sides and bumpers, 3 psi above placard, 5,000 miles rotations, torque to spec wheel nuts..
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ruking1 said:

    There are a lot of TMI’s in favor of posting INXS of 109,000 miles. If folks are interested, I can post. So for example, for maximum wear and appropriateness, three to four sets of wheels are necessary. (old, new, different sized sets, winter set) That for me is more than TMI enough & $$’s.

    All we’re doing is avoiding hitting concrete curb sides and bumpers, 3 psi above placard, 5,000 miles rotations, torque to spec wheel nuts..

    We continue to avoid potholes and debris.

  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    fintail said:

    It seems from my anecdotal observation that bad drivers think of themselves as the opposite simply because they aren't always crashing into things.

    The bar is quite low with some people. Still, I'd take not crashing into things as as valuable indicator of driving skill, if over a period of many miles and many years. Not a whole indicator, but a good one. I've heard a person admit they were not a good driver, and I think it was due to having 3 at-fault accidents by the age of 21.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    At fault accidents are definitely a sign. The "not crashing" thing can just be others dodging the oblivious, but I suppose if it goes for 20 or more years, there is more to it than luck.

    This seems like a sketchy claim based on what I see on the road here

    Just yesterday I got blindly cut off by a typical eastside drone in a Lexus GS. I was in the fintail (how does one not see that car?) and I just laid on the horn. That car has a very loud horn.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    I’ve literally not had an “@ fault “accident. (52.5 yrs. driving career)

    Most UN upgraded oem horns sound pretty wimpy. So how my horns are currently used, an inexpensive upgrade is not worth the time nor expense or performance improvement.

    For some reason, your 2nd para reminded me of an accident, a legally parked 87 TLC. While in a store, I heard an awful crashing sound (my guess, hit gas NOT brakes) I looked out the stores window to see a late model BMW 5 series rear end up against the 1987 Toyota Landcruiser’s rear end with Smitty Bilt rear tube/push bumpers. On closer examination, the BMW seemed to have sustained approximately $5,000 of damage. The TLC seemed to have a bumper powder coat paint smudge. The driver asked if the car was mine, whereby I nodded. She commenced to say she would not have hit the car,
    IF its’ front wheels were touching the concrete stop bumpers. So I looked @ her (probably incredulously) and said I’d remove the damage she caused with rubbing compound, then walked away.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    fintail said:

    At fault accidents are definitely a sign. The "not crashing" thing can just be others dodging the oblivious, but I suppose if it goes for 20 or more years, there is more to it than luck.

    Yes, I suspect that the results of that study are based on rate of failure, which might simply mean that the quality of drivers on the road (e.g., those that are teaching the ones out to get a license) is poor in general. :D
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    ruking1 said:
    The driver asked if the car was mine, whereby I nodded. She commenced to say she would not have hit the car, ifs’ front wheels were touching the concrete stop bumpers. So I looked @ her (probably incredulously) and said I’d remove the damage she caused with rubbing compound, then walked away.
    Wait, how would your front tires touching the stop bumper have stopped her for mistaking the gas for the brake?

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    👍😜 To me, ...totally inexplicable !

    Idid get the license plate # & descriptions, in case of false hit/run claim: she claiming “VICTIM” with me as RUN.

    I also am aware of the concept that: “ no good deed goes Unpunished”.

    No real need to think and act like the apocalypse is here. As I have been saying all along it is the safest it’s ever been ? https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/topicoverview
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    That makes perfect sense. Drive around Seattle for a day, your head will spin.

    Now that the process is virtually privatized now, I also have suspicions that licenses are effectively for sale, if not directly, then by paying for a certain amount of tests or classes - not that the tests themselves are difficult compared to other developed countries.
    xwesx said:


    Yes, I suspect that the results of that study are based on rate of failure, which might simply mean that the quality of drivers on the road (e.g., those that are teaching the ones out to get a license) is poor in general. :D

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,852
    Four spots... nice job 


    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    That's what the "4" means in "FX4" B)

    Just above freezing here this morning, and although the humidity doesn't seem high - clear skies, my street was slathered in de-icer, to the point where it looked like it might have rained a little. I saw it on no other roads, and funny thing, at the bottom of my hill is a bridge, which had no de-icer at all. Makes sense, as bridges don't freeze early or anything, it's just slight hills you have to watch out for.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    Just shaking my head here! Is it Ford’s (of late) $1,295. attempt @ turning S—- into shine-nola? If I remember correctly Ford also uses “off road” Rancho instead of crappy oem shocks.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    A couple of interesting sightings/events tonight. I have this cheap little portable dashcam in my Q7 right now, as I was testing it for an upcoming trip on which we will take it for the rental car.

    First was this gem: Jeep wrangler is coming onto the highway from an on-ramp and decides to go from merge lane to middle lane. You can see in the video that the right lane is sparsely used here, as it merges with the middle lane a little further up the road, but rather than use the clearing that other vehicles use, this guy decides to just jump the berm in his amped up Jeep, which promptly slows him down, and nearly puts him into the side of my Q7.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-10CvTvSd4
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    Second sighting was a pickup that had wedged itself in the ditch on the wrong side of the highway. A whole gang of people, including a trooper, had stopped to assist. The guy attempting to recover the pickup was using a flat recovery strap, so it is not likely he was successful on the attempt.

    I considered stopping and offering the use of my kinetic rope, which would have yanked the guy out no problem, but with so many on site, I figured the last thing needed was another cook in that kitchen!


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIUb0hCbYtM
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    I have absolutely no data on this. It would seem that drivers in winter, in laziness, cut down their fields of vision. When combined with normal, no signal, no look, bad field of vision anyway, no care, etc., it can lead to deadly to injurious situations.

    Your first vehicle merging link is almost EXACTLY like my CHP encounter. It was on 2 lanes each way interstate, high desert, see forever conditions, etc.. He finally woke up as his vehicles left rear quarter panel almost crashed into my right front side.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    Slight chance of snow now in the forecast for early next week (probably ending up as a crying wolf situation), maybe I can get a good cam clip too.

    That Jeep is mindboggling - I think vehicle type often influences behavior.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    #2 para.

    Yes, It can be found in the FARS, insurance https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/vehicle-size-and-weight/fatalityfacts/passenger-vehicles web sites, which was recently posted. The last I perused, compact to midsized sedans had that (your) distinction. It can be seen as significant because sedan population is around 25% - of the passenger vehicle.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    Fatality rates might not be linked to driver behavior, unless both cars in the incident are noted, along with who was at fault.

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    I noted THAT particular statistical concept issue in a post about speed. Corrected for that (current) variable is very easy. So the real point is being misdirected. BUT, despite the migration to bigger vehicles, those HIGH (CAR) SEDAN accident/fatality %’s categories REMAIN baked into the fatality & injury cake, despite being 25% minus in the PVF.

    Again, the underlying environmental hypothesis was that smaller cars crashing in the smaller cars would be safer. Reality sux eh? In Washington DC. one can see all the environmentalist’s getting around town in small car Cadillac Escalades or the small compact Chevrolet Tahoe’s 🤑😜 So the other reality is that things are FAR safer with SUV’s, trucks, pick ups being much BIGGER!

    My own personal feeling was that the environmentists were trying to drive folks wanting/needing size 12 size shoes to size 5 petite. OBVIOUSLY more than 75% of the paying driving public disagree.

    Now don’t give me wrong, I was one person who wanted/needed a (real wee compact) 1970 VW Beetle, bought used in 1971. But even then, I KNEW that I was taking a risk. This car was literally dangerous.(in case of accident) So really, this is not a new concept.

    My folks were not keen on me getting this for a multitude of reasons. But, one reason why was because of the accident/injury/death component. But I got 32/34 mpg with evacuator exhaust. So in approximately 250,000 miles, I happily burnt 7,813 gallons of gas vs 20,833. At that time, a normal car got approximately 10 to 12 miles a gallon. Getting 15 mpg in my folks midsized 1972? sedan was like astonishing & goes without saying ...rare.

    So now with a CUV getting 37 mpg, in 250,000 miles, I will happily burn 6,757 gals. The VW Jetta with 45 to 50 miles a gallon in 250,000 miles,will burn approximately 5,000/5,555 gallons.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    The problem with bigger = better is that it eventually becomes an arms race, and often puts people behind the wheel who don't grasp the handling limitations of specific vehicles - much worse for the motoring public when someone is in a Suburban and can't handle it than if they are in a Civic. I think the risk posed to others is calculated seldom, if ever.

    Once again, diesels make all the difference :)

    My 4200+ lb car that can hit 45 mpg on the highway and also be one of the safer vehicles on the road is fine by me.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    fintail said:

    The problem with bigger = better is that it eventually becomes an arms race, and often puts people behind the wheel who don't grasp the handling limitations of specific vehicles - much worse for the motoring public when someone is in a Suburban and can't handle it than if they are in a Civic. I think the risk posed to others is calculated seldom, if ever.

    Once again, diesels make all the difference :)

    My 4200+ lb car that can hit 45 mpg on the highway and also be one of the safer vehicles on the road is fine by me.

    There are walking smart phone users that certainly do not grasp they should look, let alone pay attention while crossing streets? 😱🧐 Then of course, they blame their lack on ...cars, CUV’s, SUV’s, PU trucks, etc.

    The so called “arms race” apocalypse is WAY overblown! The statistics both expose & hide that!

    Yes,! GO DIESEL!
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    No diesel comments here! Big Brother is watching... always watching! B)
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    xwesx said:

    No diesel comments here! Big Brother is watching... always watching! B)

    I posted a link ( some posts ago) to the Wall Street Journal article, (cut to the chase) Indicating the profit dynamics for bbl of oil ratio diesel/gas, etc. has been literally flipped on its’ head. As a result, (historically) the MORE profitable diesel has been made LESS profitable and the gas which used to be profitable (stand alone) is now ...barely IF @ all.

    So to keep the (both) profits flowing, they are GLUTTING the gas PUG/RUG/MGUG inventories, chasing ULSD profits. So help dah USA, take a motor vehicle trip?

    So through an interesting set of dynamics, even in CA though we are tax WAY more, CPMD Cost per mile driven: PUG is app 76% MORE than ULSD, which can cost more than PUG per gal. Same model 21 mpg PUG /37 mpg ULSD.

    And then, there is the POLAR VORTEX......😱

    San Francisco /NYC piers are not 12 ft under water, as promised BY the environmentalists, dates LONGER than since past. Indeed, the new Golden State Warriors stadium is being built on land a few feet above seawater near ...piers. I guess SF didn’t get the FYI memo.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    edited January 2019
    For a city as precariously perched as SF, they don't seem to get a lot of memos. :p

    That said, I do appreciate the polar vortex phenomenon; we're really enjoying our warm (relatively) reprieve here! On Friday night, the temperature was 0C (32F)! We even had an honest snow storm that evening, midwest style!
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    Got to love minus- 50 F to -60 F windchill.

    Oh & I do remember being out for 10 hour days of minus- 50 F to minus-70 F! (upstate NY.)

    South Lake Tahoe, CAvis a “killer” at 44° F.👌
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    My anecdotal experience shows me many more dopey SUV/CUV and aggressive truck drivers than idiots with phones to their ears walking into traffic.

    ruking1 said:


    There are walking smart phone users that certainly do not grasp they should look, let alone pay attention while crossing streets? 😱🧐 Then of course, they blame their lack on ...cars, CUV’s, SUV’s, PU trucks, etc.

    The so called “arms race” apocalypse is WAY overblown! The statistics both expose & hide that!

    Yes,! GO DIESEL!

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    Not driving your environs, I’m glad for you. I try to avoid routes with any significant pedestrian or bike traffic. It’s really not on my radar.

    While I’m sure of aggressive SUV/CUV, PU truck drivers, % wise, of car/sedan drivers do their fair share of aggressive driving. Then, there are the PASSIVE/aggressive set.🤪😱
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    I am on foot almost every day of the week in a relatively crowded area. I see a lot more gormless drivers, in my neighborhood especially the upmarket CUV demographic, blowing through occupied green signaled crosswalks (with virtually no enforcement, of course) than I do phone addicts bumbling into traffic lanes. Maybe it's a CA/NV thing :)

    Passive-aggressive, like LLCs - definitely have that covered in western WA.

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    I’m not sure if I should post this or not, but I had a CHP (behind me for miles) pull over a LLC, that literally refused to get out of the #1/2 lane (of the way) and used the #2/2, right lane & it’s users to help block someone else’s (mine for purposes of this discussion) forward progress. He just pulled behind the perp (after I vacated the #1/2 lanes) & coded! It was a yippee, yahoo moment. Going by the perp & looking @ the driver...priceless.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    edited January 2019
    ruking1 said:

    I’m not sure if I should post this or not, but I had a CHP (behind me for miles) pull over a LLC, that literally refused to get out of the #1/2 lane (of the way) and used the right lane & it’s users to help block someone else’s (mine for purposes of this discussion) forward progress. He just pulled behind the perp (after I vacated the #1/2 lanes) & coded! It was a yippee, yahoo moment. Going by the perp & looking @ the driver...priceless.

    Wow; one of those rare moments of enforcement that is definitely worth enshrining, even if within this humble thread. :)
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    Indeed!

    I was always taught, PASS & and get out of the way! Cruising is for the SLOW to SLOWER lanes.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited January 2019
    fintail said:

    I am on foot almost every day of the week in a relatively crowded area. I see a lot more gormless drivers, in my neighborhood especially the upmarket CUV demographic, blowing through occupied green signaled crosswalks (with virtually no enforcement, of course) than I do phone addicts bumbling into traffic lanes. Maybe it's a CA/NV thing :)

    Passive-aggressive, like LLCs - definitely have that covered in western WA.

    Thanks for clarifying that you were not opining from your vehicle perspective. When I posted, I didn’t really know if that was the case.

    Well I guess the POLAR VORTEX is going to force FAR more energy consumption than the global WARMISTS /marxists/socialists want? I would further guess the enviro con’s consumption MODEL are the homeless in tents, or ZERO manufacturing. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitter-cold-natural-gas-shortages-133018251.html

    Here’s a TMI about natural gas . https://www.investopedia.com/natural-gas-etfs-find-support-as-polar-vortex-sets-in-4585055

    It’s a chilly 60° F right now in Silicon Valley, CA. Neighbors in South Lake Tahoe, CA tell me it’s a balmy 45° F.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    It IS balmy!

    -3F here this morning, and it feels pleasant enough. :)
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 235,199
    xwesx said:

    It IS balmy!

    -3F here this morning, and it feels pleasant enough. :)

    Same here.. :(

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

This discussion has been closed.