gas prices too high or too low?

>>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
>>you're just talking out of your ass.

Hummmm, speak for yourself. I suppose it may be that you don't NEED to
be driving. But I do. I'm disabled and cannot ride a bike or ever walk
more than around 1/4 mile without a rest. I also don't deal with heat
well. I live in a city (Knoxville, Tennessee) with very poor public
transportation and long hot summers. The nearest place to buy food is
a mile or so away, my work is seven miles away and the nearest public
transportation is about three mile away.

If I don't NEED to drive, explain to me how I get work, buy food, etc.
I suppose you could pass laws greatly limiting where folks like me can
live/work etc, or lock us up somewhere or just kill us, but lacking
these draconian measures I think that some of us do indeed NEED to drive.

Of course, I didn't mention all of the people who live in rural areas
with no public transprotation. How do you suggest they get around if
they don't NEED to drive?

r

Ron Tipton
Dragonhome.org

I hate to tell ya but minivans are also considered trucks. Ever
ridden in a Ford Aerostar or a Chevy Astro? Definitely a truck.

SUV and station wagons are alike because they are both not
sedans, they are both more utilitarian than sedans, they both
have an enclosed cargo area accessible from the passenger
area. They both come in 2WD and 4WD, althought most SUVs
are either 2WD or 4WD, while some station wagons are only
2WD and other station wagons are only 4WD. On average
SUVs are larger than station wagons, but not always.

So is a PT Cruiser an SUV? Is it a station wagon? Is it a truck?
It looks like a delivery truck from a few generations in the past.


On 12 Jun 2004 20:10:00 -0700, (ben) wrote:

>hate to tell ya but SUVs are different than minivans and station
>wagons because they are considered trucks....
>
>a truck by def of the federal gov. does not have too meet the same gas
>and safety standards as a passanger car
>
>"being classified as a light truck has its advantages. Trucks must
>post a CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) of 20.7 miles per gallon
>(with a very modest boost to 22.2 mpg by 2007), while that figure is
>27.5 mpg for passenger cars; and until now light trucks have been
>given breaks on tighter new air pollution regulations, although they
>will soon be held to the same emissions standards as cars."
>
>http://www.thecarconnection.com/inde...1&article=6769
>
>(which is why auto makers like classifying SUVs as trucks).....
>
>the bottome line in a capitalist culture is all about $$$$$$$$$
>
>
>

I hate to tell ya but minivans are also considered trucks. Ever
ridden in a Ford Aerostar or a Chevy Astro? Definitely a truck.

SUV and station wagons are alike because they are both not
sedans, they are both more utilitarian than sedans, they both
have an enclosed cargo area accessible from the passenger
area. They both come in 2WD and 4WD, althought most SUVs
are either 2WD or 4WD, while some station wagons are only
2WD and other station wagons are only 4WD. On average
SUVs are larger than station wagons, but not always.

So is a PT Cruiser an SUV? Is it a station wagon? Is it a truck?
It looks like a delivery truck from a few generations in the past.


On 12 Jun 2004 20:10:00 -0700, (ben) wrote:

>hate to tell ya but SUVs are different than minivans and station
>wagons because they are considered trucks....
>
>a truck by def of the federal gov. does not have too meet the same gas
>and safety standards as a passanger car
>
>"being classified as a light truck has its advantages. Trucks must
>post a CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) of 20.7 miles per gallon
>(with a very modest boost to 22.2 mpg by 2007), while that figure is
>27.5 mpg for passenger cars; and until now light trucks have been
>given breaks on tighter new air pollution regulations, although they
>will soon be held to the same emissions standards as cars."
>
>http://www.thecarconnection.com/inde...1&article=6769
>
>(which is why auto makers like classifying SUVs as trucks).....
>
>the bottome line in a capitalist culture is all about $$$$$$$$$
>
>
>

"charliew2" > wrote in message
...
> Sgt. Sausage wrote:
> > "ben" > wrote in message

[snip]

> >
> > On the other hand, in general, I think they're too
> > high -- but only because I'm a consumer seeking
> > to reduce my expenses. I've no idea what the "ideal"
> > price of a gallon is in the U.S, but I'd like to think it's
> > a helluva lot lower than we're paying now and I'd like
> > to think we actually have a chance of reducing the
> > current prices to that "ideal" price.
> >
>
> (cut)
>
> I've seen this type of thinking before, though not expressed so
explicitly.
> If you could indulge me a bit, please take a bit of time to think about
the
> "ideal" price and try to tell me why that particular price is ideal.


Which part? The part about it being cheaper was just
me being a greedy consumer. I want everything. I want
it now, and I want it cheap. Ideally, everything I want
to consume would be free, but that's not gonna
happen! <grin>

For me, the true "ideal" price would involve a lot of
factors -- hence the above "I've no idea" -- these factors
involve things I'm not up to speed on.

The "ideal" price, for me, would be ... umm ... something
along the lines of "Everyone who wanted to cosume it could
afford it, and everyone who wanted to produce it could make
a reasonable profit".

But, that's really a vague concept. What exactly is "could
afford it" -- at what cost (not just at the pump $$$)?
What exactly is a "reasonable profit" ?

Whether or not such things actually have an answer or if
there is such a thing as an "ideal price" is a question I really
can't answer.

The more I think about it, the more I think the concept
of an "ideal price" is really just a Bunch-O-Hogwash. Please
ignore my previous post about "ideal" price.

"charliew2" > wrote in message
...
> Sgt. Sausage wrote:
> > "ben" > wrote in message

[snip]

> >
> > On the other hand, in general, I think they're too
> > high -- but only because I'm a consumer seeking
> > to reduce my expenses. I've no idea what the "ideal"
> > price of a gallon is in the U.S, but I'd like to think it's
> > a helluva lot lower than we're paying now and I'd like
> > to think we actually have a chance of reducing the
> > current prices to that "ideal" price.
> >
>
> (cut)
>
> I've seen this type of thinking before, though not expressed so
explicitly.
> If you could indulge me a bit, please take a bit of time to think about
the
> "ideal" price and try to tell me why that particular price is ideal.


Which part? The part about it being cheaper was just
me being a greedy consumer. I want everything. I want
it now, and I want it cheap. Ideally, everything I want
to consume would be free, but that's not gonna
happen! <grin>

For me, the true "ideal" price would involve a lot of
factors -- hence the above "I've no idea" -- these factors
involve things I'm not up to speed on.

The "ideal" price, for me, would be ... umm ... something
along the lines of "Everyone who wanted to cosume it could
afford it, and everyone who wanted to produce it could make
a reasonable profit".

But, that's really a vague concept. What exactly is "could
afford it" -- at what cost (not just at the pump $$$)?
What exactly is a "reasonable profit" ?

Whether or not such things actually have an answer or if
there is such a thing as an "ideal price" is a question I really
can't answer.

The more I think about it, the more I think the concept
of an "ideal price" is really just a Bunch-O-Hogwash. Please
ignore my previous post about "ideal" price.

In article >, says...
> > People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> > you're just talking out of your ass.
>
> Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply not
> practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
> within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even basic
> supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for a lot
> of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not, this

Bull****.

> country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around personal
> vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate whether
> it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
>
> Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we were
> willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer miles.
> Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
> thing.
>

Again, bull****, conservation did not bring down gas prices in the 70s,
nor will it now.

> Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
> accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about SUV's.
> I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them as

It's not necessary. If you want to be told what to drive I hear Cuba is
shooting less ex-patriots these days.

> often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine most of
> the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
> environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than their
> share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
> there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me, and
> I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
> doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
>

Do you, yet?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article >, says...
> > People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> > you're just talking out of your ass.
>
> Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply not
> practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
> within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even basic
> supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for a lot
> of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not, this

Bull****.

> country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around personal
> vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate whether
> it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
>
> Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we were
> willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer miles.
> Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
> thing.
>

Again, bull****, conservation did not bring down gas prices in the 70s,
nor will it now.

> Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
> accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about SUV's.
> I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them as

It's not necessary. If you want to be told what to drive I hear Cuba is
shooting less ex-patriots these days.

> often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine most of
> the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
> environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than their
> share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
> there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me, and
> I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
> doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
>

Do you, yet?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article >,
says...
> Subject: gas prices too high or too low?
> From: Ron Tipton >
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, sci.environment
>
>
> >>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> >>you're just talking out of your ass.
>
> Hummmm, speak for yourself. I suppose it may be that you don't NEED to
> be driving. But I do. I'm disabled and cannot ride a bike or ever walk
> more than around 1/4 mile without a rest. I also don't deal with heat
> well. I live in a city (Knoxville, Tennessee) with very poor public
> transportation and long hot summers. The nearest place to buy food is
> a mile or so away, my work is seven miles away and the nearest public
> transportation is about three mile away.
>
>

Your city's lack of proper transportation is not my problem. Perhaps if
you voted for the right people you would have better luck getting
around. This lame excuse does not put you on the short list for "NEED
to drive". The truth is you WANT to drive.

--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article >,
says...
> Subject: gas prices too high or too low?
> From: Ron Tipton >
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, sci.environment
>
>
> >>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> >>you're just talking out of your ass.
>
> Hummmm, speak for yourself. I suppose it may be that you don't NEED to
> be driving. But I do. I'm disabled and cannot ride a bike or ever walk
> more than around 1/4 mile without a rest. I also don't deal with heat
> well. I live in a city (Knoxville, Tennessee) with very poor public
> transportation and long hot summers. The nearest place to buy food is
> a mile or so away, my work is seven miles away and the nearest public
> transportation is about three mile away.
>
>

Your city's lack of proper transportation is not my problem. Perhaps if
you voted for the right people you would have better luck getting
around. This lame excuse does not put you on the short list for "NEED
to drive". The truth is you WANT to drive.

--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

Get a motorcycle - most get more then 50 mpg or more great for short
trips
wouldn't work to good for Ron though. I'm just as guilty at my house
we
have 2 cars (MR2 86, Accord 95) 1 Truck ( GMC K1500 98 ) 1 Van (
Quest 01 ). I ride my street bike to work or the MR2 because of the
price of gas. The Quest takes about 15 gal @ 2.30 ( LA County,
Califorina ) which would be about 34$, the Truck would would set me
back over 60$. The MR2 gets about 30 mpg if I stay
out of the red line I normal get 26 mpg. I have no idea what the
Accord gets because I never drive it ( her car ). The Truck gets about
12 mpg and the Van will get 21 mpg on the open highway buy about 15
to as low as 12 depending
if I have a Van full of Wife kids and stuff with the air blowing.

My hole point after reading most of the post to this thread is that
yes I beleive that gas is toooo high but there ain't **** I can do
about it! I need my Truck to hall my stuff around (Toyota nor Nissan
doesn't make a Truck with enough balls or room) and the Van for when
the wife and kids. I still have my 1986 MR2 from my single days
because it's fun to drive and It's payed for and the most important it
is reliable.

The bottom line is Michael has all these gas powered vehicals at his
house and he's going to have to pay it! But I have been riding my
motorcyle a lot more these days!!

Michael B's 2$ worth






Ron Tipton > wrote in message >...
> >>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> >>you're just talking out of your ass.
>
> Hummmm, speak for yourself. I suppose it may be that you don't NEED to
> be driving. But I do. I'm disabled and cannot ride a bike or ever walk
> more than around 1/4 mile without a rest. I also don't deal with heat
> well. I live in a city (Knoxville, Tennessee) with very poor public
> transportation and long hot summers. The nearest place to buy food is
> a mile or so away, my work is seven miles away and the nearest public
> transportation is about three mile away.
>
> If I don't NEED to drive, explain to me how I get work, buy food, etc.
> I suppose you could pass laws greatly limiting where folks like me can
> live/work etc, or lock us up somewhere or just kill us, but lacking
> these draconian measures I think that some of us do indeed NEED to drive.
>
> Of course, I didn't mention all of the people who live in rural areas
> with no public transprotation. How do you suggest they get around if
> they
don't NEED to drive?
>
> r
>
> Ron Tipton
> Dragonhome.org