U.S. gasoline price hits record high for 4th week

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Take a bus.

Non-seeing eye dogs are not allowed on the bus!!!!!!

AM I hearing Dissention saying "I'm wrong - you are right" to Strand

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

My SUV will also be a hybrid - so where is that issue then. It is gone. Come on admit it - PPPLLLEEEEAAAASSSEEE

And - no matter how good of mileage it gets as a hybrid, it still doesn't make the car any safer, man. Don't you get what I'm saying?

SUV = Unsafe vehicle.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Non-seeing eye dogs are not allowed on the bus!!!!!!

AM I hearing Dissention saying "I'm wrong - you are right" to Strand

They are in my area.

But I never cart my dog with me, I leave it at home.

[estranged4life]

driven a SUV or even tempted too...

Btw, If I wanted to spend money on a status vehicle I will spend it on either a 427 Shelby Cobra, a Dodge Viper GTS Coupe, a '70 AAR 'Cuda or the Bad-ass '69 Yenko Camaro not some glorified pickup with a camper

[dissention]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

driven a SUV or even tempted too...

One of the main reasons that I've never driven one is that I'm afraid of big cars. I am petrified of being on the road and the bigger the car I'm driving, the more scared I become.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

And - no matter how good of mileage it gets as a hybrid, it still doesn't make the car any safer, man. Don't you get what I'm saying?

SUV = Unsafe vehicle.

Again, you can get killed or kill someone just as easily in any car if you drive it irresponsibly. So, that whole SUV's are unsafe is a subset of the larger argument that cars of all types should be made to be safer than they are. But, they are not. Also, people should have to take driver's ed. in school before getting a DL, but they are for the most part not. Those two factors would obviate a significant number or the accidents on the road today FAR more than eliminating SUV's

BTW - did you just concede the MPG argument!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

driven a SUV or even tempted too...

Btw, If I wanted to spend money on a status vehicle I will spend it on either a 427 Shelby Cobra, a Dodge Viper GTS Coupe, a '70 AAR 'Cuda or the Bad-ass '69 Yenko Camaro not some glorified pickup with a camper

Thumbs up on the muscle cars!!!!!!! I, too, love them. I would like a 62 Thunderbird FACTORY roadster. I had one for awhile but sold it. I currently have a 64 Cadillac Eldorado convertible (black on black), which is being lovingly restored little by little.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, you can get killed or kill someone just as easily in any car if you drive it irresponsibly. So, that whole SUV's are unsafe is a subset of the larger argument that cars of all types should be made to be safer than they are. But, they are not. Also, people should have to take driver's ed. in school before getting a DL, but they are for the most part not. Those two factors would obviate a significant number or the accidents on the road today FAR more than eliminating SUV's

BTW - did you just concede the MPG argument!!!!

If the new SUVs don't pollute half as badly as they do now, I'll concede. I'm liberal, not conservative, so I admit defeat.

But I won't concede the unsafe argument until you actually look up how unsafe SUVs are. Then you'll agree with me.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

If the new SUVs don't pollute half as badly as they do now, I'll concede. I'm liberal, not conservative, so I admit defeat.

But I won't concede the unsafe argument until you actually look up how unsafe SUVs are. Then you'll agree with me.

I agree that the sheer bulk and height of the SUV causes more safety issues than a regular car. But, as evidenced by the crash safety tests reports issued this weekend, the sedans are being toughed to withstand it. And - SUV's have been made MUCH safer than they were just a few years aso. So, that is why I am arguing that all cars should be made safer and all cars are dangerous in the hands of someone who was never taught to drive.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally Posted by dissention

If the new SUVs don't pollute half as badly as they do now, I'll concede. I'm liberal, not conservative, so I admit defeat.

But I won't concede the unsafe argument until you actually look up how unsafe SUVs are. Then you'll agree with me.

Well then we can also say that small sports cars are unsafe. One crash and it's all over...jaws of life to get you out of that thing. They're like matchbox cars and they're too fast. The drivers up here who own them are usually assholes. What use do you have unless you're on a racetrack for a car to go 100 and some mph?

[wondergirl9847]

What use do you have unless you're on a racetrack for a car to go 100 and some mph?

Yeah, I don't understand why vehicles need to go over 75...it's absurd. Also, why can't we raise the legal driving age to like 18?

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

Yeah, I don't understand why vehicles need to go over 75...it's absurd. Also, why can't we raise the legal driving age to like 18?

We have a Cinderella law here. Basically what that means is that now, you have to be 17 to get your permit AND if you are under the age of 21 and wanting to obtain a license in the state of NJ, after taking the written test you must drive with a licensed driver of 3 years in your vehicle and may have no more than one passenger in the car (unless you are over 21). You are not permitted out later than 11:01 PM or earlier than 5:00 AM (unless you are 21 or older). This just came into effect in the past 3 years and it might be the only smart thing New Jersey has done.

[wondergirl9847]

That sounds like a great law! I'd be curious to see the traffic accident statistics before and after this law.

[Hawkeye]

yeah but old people are far more deadly then young drivers so until they have an no driving under 17 or over 71 the accidents won't go down

[gldstwmn]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...2152&ncid=2152

California governor Schwarzenegger promises 'Hydrogen Highway' by 2010

DAVIS, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an order Tuesday for California to have a network of stations offering the pollution-free hydrogen fuel up and down the state within six years.
Schwarzenegger signed the order after driving around a university campus in a Toyota Highlander propelled by a clean-burning hydrogen engine. The University of California at Davis is the site for one of America's most advanced centres for the study of alternative transportation systems.
Although many industry experts say the plans are ambitious - estimated to cost $100 million - Schwarzenegger said he believes the technology is available but government needs to play a catalyst role in making the new fuel system a reality.
"Your government will lead by example," he said. "As I have said many times, the choice is not between economic progress and environmental protection. Here in California, growth and protecting our nature beauty go hand in hand."
Schwarzenegger's order calls on state agencies to work with private companies and existing research coalitions to build the hydrogen network. He has asked California Environmental Protection Secretary Terry Tamminen to come up with a plan by Jan. 1, 2005, for how the system might be put together.
He said he will support legislation that would create tax incentives or public financing proposals that might be needed.
Still, much work remains to be done.
Like the Toyota that Schwarzenegger tested, a number of auto manufacturers have built special fuel cell vehicles for test purposes.
Instead of using gasoline for power, fuel cell cars are powered by electric engines that rely on a chemical reaction caused when hydrogen and oxygen are mixed. The chemical reaction produces electricity which powers the vehicle.
The vehicle that Schwarzenegger drove has a driving radius of about 190 kilometres before needing a fillup, according to Ken Kurani, a UC Davis research engineer. Currently the cost of both the vehicle and the fuel is far more that existing gas models but as more and more hydrogen vehicles are built and fuelling stations are established, the price should come down, Kurani said.
EPA's Tamminen has said the network proposed by the governor would provide about 200 stations statewide - a small fraction of California's existing network of 10,000 retail gas outlets today.
California already has 10 stations - including one at UC Davis and one in West Sacramento, two in the Bay area and five in Southern California. About 10 more could be up and running in a relatively short time, according to Tamminen
Schwarzenegger also noted he would work aggressively to get some of the $1.7 billion that President George W. Bush has promised for hydrogen research.