are these changes better for all of us?

[GreyGoose006]

if it gets to the stage that there is a 100% safe and quick public transport system that serves all your commuting needs, then cars can be purely for fun.

because 100% is unattainable. all systems need maintenance. the more complex the system, the more frequent and specialized the maintenace.

The reality is, we are burning energy at an unsustainable rate (a car at cruise putting out 20kW is burning 80-100kw worth of fuel).

so why drive 150? (a hyperbole, apparently, although i'd be willing to bet that 125 or 100 isnt)
internal combustion is inefficient. the only way to have a system that is sustainable is to complete the circle.
right now we are sucking stuff that is billions of years old out of the ground, burning it, and putting it into the atmosphere, where it stays, and causes problems.
the only way 150mph (yes i know, a hyperbole) is possible is if we were to somehow develop a way to take something out of the air, burn it, and put it back n the air... impossible. electricity is the closest we can get, with solar and nuclear being the way of generating it.

[KiwiBacon]

Originally Posted by UncleBob

rubbing elbows with the oil-rich countries won't change the supply/demand issue. Again....free market.

Invading oil producing areas has a negative effect on the supply chain.

[UncleBob]

Originally Posted by KiwiBacon

Invading oil producing areas has a negative effect on the supply chain.

yes it does....but in the long run, its not even a blip on the radar. You could argue that its better this way, because we (as a nation) are turning our thoughts more towards alternatives and reducing our consumption. Something that should have been done ages ago IMO.

Also keep in mind, if oil isn't being harvested from an area due to its instability....its still there for later consumption....so the market will still get the oil, just at a later date. So all is good in the race to burn up all crude on the planet. Goodie!

[KiwiBacon]

Originally Posted by UncleBob

yes it does....but in the long run, its not even a blip on the radar.

I agree with that. But in the short term it is a major influence in the market.
Short term prices are also heavily dependent on political factors and events like Hurricane Katrina. Anything which affects (or threatens to affect) extraction, storage or transportation.

[TheSilentChamber]

Originally Posted by UncleBob

.... we (as a nation) are turning our thoughts more towards alternatives and reducing our consumption. Something that should have been done ages ago IMO.

I'm not so sure about this, everyone complains about gas prices, and protest "we need more ecomonimal and environmentally friendly vehicals"... but every time I get out on the road I'm dwarfed by a never ending sea of SUV's carrying one person around town.

[UncleBob]

Originally Posted by TheSilentChamber

I'm not so sure about this, everyone complains about gas prices, and protest "we need more ecomonimal and environmentally friendly vehicals"... but every time I get out on the road I'm dwarfed by a never ending sea of SUV's carrying one person around town.

nothing will happen overnight. But the fact that people buying new vehicles are (for once) really considering mpg as part of the purchase dicision, is a huge difference from what it was even 5 years ago. There's been a few polls about this, and the priority lists for vehicle buyers are changing drastically in that catagory

As for large vehicles blocking your view. Try riding a 300 pound bike on the road

[curtis73]

I heard something recently (I couldn't verify it as reliable, but the numbers seem perfectly sane) concerning the alaskan resources. President W had the opportunity to sign a new CAFE raise of 1 mpg. He did not do it. If he HAD done it, we could have saved as much fuel in one year after its inception as we would be getting from that alaskan reserve.

Not too happy about that BS.

[UncleBob]

there are a lot of interesting data points on consumption vs conservation.

I read somewhere (and I won't make any attempt to say its fact, but it sounds believable) if the average car got 35mpg, the US wouldn't have to import a single gallon of oil.

Wonder if we'd be in Iraq then, eh?

Thats a pretty noteworthy fact, considering that roughly 66% of our crude consumption is electricity generation. So the other side of the coin....if we actually invest in more alternative energy generation, we could make a huge impact.

[KiwiBacon]

Originally Posted by curtis73

I heard something recently (I couldn't verify it as reliable, but the numbers seem perfectly sane) concerning the alaskan resources. President W had the opportunity to sign a new CAFE raise of 1 mpg. He did not do it. If he HAD done it, we could have saved as much fuel in one year after its inception as we would be getting from that alaskan reserve.

Not too happy about that BS.

To put another spin on it.

If everyone drove (maybe) 5% less, you'd get the same savings.

Moving closer to work (or working closer to home) has the potential to eclipse your car choice as a factor in fuel consumption.

[UncleBob]

Originally Posted by KiwiBacon

To put another spin on it.

If everyone drove (maybe) 5% less, you'd get the same savings.

Moving closer to work (or working closer to home) has the potential to eclipse your car choice as a factor in fuel consumption.

man! Since we're brain storming all these great ideas, I have a good suggestion.

Lower all speed limits to 25mph. That way, it would take so long to go anywhere of any decent distance, no one would drive there.

30K lives a year would be saved, due to the reduction is fatalities in higher speed accidents.

MPG would be improved with engines being designed and optimized for the low speeds.

Oh, and to save the equivilant amount of gas that is in the alaskan site, all forms of motorized sports are canceled. Not only would that make a healthy dent in consumption, but think about the emissions improvement with that move alone! Race vehicles are horrible polluters.

I think I'm going to call up my congressman right now!

[GreyGoose006]

sorry to bring this topic back, but i just saw a comercial for a lincon ls that can parallel park its self. just line it up and WHAMMO.

personally, i like to have manual control over my vehicle.
parallel parking is an art that i prefer to master on my own.
i believe that the driverless car is on the way.
pardon me but i like to drive my own car thank you.

[GreyGoose006]

and i'm not trying to sound like some unenducated ignoramus, but i wont drive a car that "knows" better than i do what i want it to do.
thats what i am there for. to make the decisions.
not the computer.
it is there to keep the air fuel mixture at a perfectly stoichiometric ratio, to make the radio play when i push the button, and to make the horn beep when i press the button to lock the doors twice in a row.

my point is, if it aint broke, dont go fixing it.
LEAVE IT ALONE.

[redstang423]

Ok - here's my take. While I guess it is possible that somewhere down the road we may have an automated transportation system, 30-40 years from now is no where within the realm of possibility. One reason: INFRASTRUCTURE. Depending on the technology, there would be different huge setbacks. If the cars responded to the roads (similar to railroad, but using some type of system inside the car that would interact with the road), EVERY single road (and driveway) in the US (let plus, lets think of Canada and Mexico, and anywhere else for that matter. Can we expect our cars and trucks to be unable to operate in those countries, or refuse vehicles from those countries? No way) would have to be converted to these Smart roads. Trillions of dollars involved. If the cars were to autonomously recongize the roads, all of a sudden everyone would have to buy new cars so that everyone could conform. Again, not going to happen. In addition to this, anything that could even resemble a road would have to be removed for fear of causing an accident.

There is wayyyyy too many concerns involved for even our grandchildren to really have a chance at seeing a system like this.

[curtis73]

Actually, you may be surprised...

Germany has several companies working on the system and over 8400 miles of roads have been retrofitted with the signaling devices. Its really a simple operation; the protocols are all in the car. The roads are easily outfitted with the sensors. Its as simple as closing a lane for the night and cutting into the pavement. Its like adding a stoplight loop.

In today's day and age of sharing and corporate handshaking, most companies are in bed with every other company. Take a look here and you'll see that almost everyone is in bed with everyone else. http://www.globalauto.org/global.htm . Then look here and see how the trucks are lumped in with many companies : http://www.globalauto.org/truck.htm

Sterling is a branch of the Ford comany, recently bought out, but they have either Mercedes or Cummins engines which are in bed with Daimler Chrysler. Then you have the ever-changing White/GMC/volvo which is now owned by Renault/Nissan who also own Freightliner. Its like playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon, but you only have to go two steps before you include every possible car manufacturer from Skoda to Scania. Word gets around.

What I'm saying is... every company is in bed with whoever develops the technology. Its just a matter of time. There is also no benefit to keep the protocol proprietary. They would only benefit from sharing it with their sister companies

[Steel]

Lexus LS you mean. Sick. Dumb down driving even more for people.

And Lexus LS >> Lincoln LS. By a LOT.