On the experience of driving pickups versus driving cars. Trust me, I've driven many. I've also seen many many pickups meet ditch (not me personally), and it almost always ends in a rollover. And given the amount of time I've spent on Northern highways (High Level, Grande Prairie, Fort St John), I know how prone pickup drivers are to driving like they have more control than everyone else on the road, and how often they're proven wrong. They may have more size for a pickup versus semi truck collision, but, there's a lot more safety issues to look at too. Like I said, for me, hitting the ditch is the most common accident I see (I feel sorry for you if you see more semi versus vehicle than you do ditch strikes), and pickups fare way worse there due to their height. I'd rather hit the ditch in a car thanks.
Peak Oil Update
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
On the experience of driving pickups versus driving cars. Trust me, I've driven many. I've also seen many many pickups meet ditch (not me personally), and it almost always ends in a rollover. And given the amount of time I've spent on Northern highways (High Level, Grande Prairie, Fort St John), I know how prone pickup drivers are to driving like they have more control than everyone else on the road, and how often they're proven wrong. They may have more size for a pickup versus semi truck collision, but, there's a lot more safety issues to look at too. Like I said, for me, hitting the ditch is the most common accident I see (I feel sorry for you if you see more semi versus vehicle than you do ditch strikes), and pickups fare way worse there due to their height. I'd rather hit the ditch in a car thanks.
Hitting an approach (which are very common on the highways mentioned) is just as deadly as hitting a semi. The human factor is probably higher than type of vehicle in any incident involving highway speeds.
The report posted supposed that the human factor is perhaps why minivans are amongst the safest vehicles... because they're driven more cautiously (as a general rule), than pickups not full of kids. I know that with pickups, a lot of the problem I see is the human factor. People driving like their pickup isn't susceptible to ice, or will handle nimbly at 140 without losing control.
Whoa. You said 'Fords had sloppy stearing, Chevys had poor visibility and pickups had poor road feel'. These are generalizations that just cannot be blurted out without reason. Maybe you you are basing your expertise on driving a Ford Pinto, a Chevy Vega, or a Ford Ranger. Obviously you havent driven recent pickups because you would know they handle almost as good as any sedan.
The majority of trucks in the ditch are good drivers who are trying to avoid idiots driving their compact vehicles who dart in and out constantly cutting other vehicles off with no regard to anyone but themselves. You see it all the time on the 401.
Did you just ignore this part because it was said by a woman? lol.
I've driven plenty of pickups, recent and past. Full size pickups. The only I haven't got much experience driving is Dodge. Ford (including their sedans) has steering sloppier than a $2 hooker. I love almost everything else about a Ford, but can't get past that. I'd have happily bought a Freestyle the last time I was looking at vehicles, but it handled like mud, as does my hubby's pickup. The instant they fix that up, I'd gladly buy their product again.
Last edited:
Why aren't these moronic posts deleted that are completely off topic? Is it too hard for these rude people to start their own topic elsewhere and talk about pickups and driving? Bunch of dumb yahoos.
Where is the moderator?
Where is the moderator?
Politicians have their head in the sand, they pray peak oil will not happen on their watch.
Businessweek magazine has a good article on peak oil. In rhe 1960s big Oil controlled 80% of world oil reserves, not its down to about 20%. Oil nationalism is kicking in, meaning countries don't want to or can't expor like they used to.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_26/b4040074.htm
From Peak Oil To Dark Age?
Oil output has stalled, and it's not clear the capacity exists to raise production
[FONT=arial,helvetica,univers]With global oil production virtually stalled in recent years, controversial predictions that the world is fast approaching maximum petroleum output are looking a bit less controversial. At first blush, those concerned about global warming should be delighted. After all, what better way to prod the move toward carbon-free, climate-friendly [/FONT]
But climate change activists have nothing to cheer about. The U.S. is completely unprepared for peak oil, as it's called, and the wrenching adjustments it would entail could easily accelerate global warming as nations turn to coal (see BusinessWeek.com, 4/19/07, "Rx for Earth: Sooner Not Later"). Moreover, regardless of the implications for climate change, peak oil represents a mortal threat to the U.S. economy.
Peak oil refers to the point at which world oil production plateaus before beginning to decline as depletion of the world's remaining reserves offsets ever-increased drilling. Some experts argue that we're already there, and that we won't exceed by much the daily production high of 84.5 million barrels first reached in 2005. If so, global production will bump along near these levels for years before beginning an inexorable decline.
What would that mean? Alternatives are still a decade away from meeting incremental demand for oil. With nothing to fill the gap, global economic growth would slow, stop, and then reverse; international tensions would soar as nations seek access to diminishing supplies, enriching autocratic rulers in unstable oil states; and, unless other sources of energy could be ramped up with extreme haste, the world could plunge into a new Dark Age. Even as faltering economies burned less oil, carbon loading of the atmosphere might accelerate as countries turn to vastly dirtier coal.
GIVEN SUCH UNPLEASANT possibilities, you'd think peak oil would be a national obsession. But policymakers can hide behind the possibility that vast troves will be available from unconventional sources, or that secretive oil-exporting nations really have the huge reserves they claim. Yet even if those who say that the peak has arrived are wrong, enough disturbing omens—for example, declining production in most of the world's great oil fields and no new superfields to take up the slack—exist for the issue to merit an intense international focus.
The reality is that it will be here much sooner for the U.S.—in the form of peak oil exports. Since we import nearly two-thirds of the oil we consume, global oil available for export should be our bigger concern. Fast-growing domestic consumption in oil-exporting nations and increasing appetites by big importers such as China portend tighter supplies available to the U.S., unless world production rises rapidly. But output has stalled. Call it de facto peak oil or peak oil lite. It means the U.S. is entering an age when it will have to scramble to maintain existing import levels.
We will know soon enough whether the capacity to raise production really exists. If not, basic math and the clock tell the story. All alternatives—geothermal, solar, wind, etc.—produce only 3% of the energy supplied by oil. If oil demand rises by 2% while output remains flat, generation of alternative energy would have to expand 60% a year. That's more than twice the rate of wind power, the fastest-growing alternative energy. And all this incremental energy would somehow have to be delivered to transportation (which consumes most of the oil produced each year) just to stay even with the growth in demand.
Nuclear and hydropower together produce 10 times the power of wind, geothermal, and solar power. But even if nations ignore environmental concerns, it takes years to build nuclear plants or even identify suitable undammed rivers.
There are many things we in the U.S. can do (and should have been doing) other than the present policy of crossing our fingers. If an oil tax makes sense from a climate change perspective, it seems doubly worthy if it extends supplies. Boosting efficiency and scaling up alternatives must also be a priority. And, recognizing that nations will turn to cheap coal (recently, 80% of growth in coal use has come from China), more work is needed to defang this fuel, which produces more carbon dioxide per ton than any other energy source.
Even if the peakists are wrong, we would still be better off taking these actions. And if they're right, major efforts right now may be the only way to avert a new Dark Age in an overheated world.
Views expressed in Outside Shot are solely those of contributors.
Businessweek magazine has a good article on peak oil. In rhe 1960s big Oil controlled 80% of world oil reserves, not its down to about 20%. Oil nationalism is kicking in, meaning countries don't want to or can't expor like they used to.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_26/b4040074.htm
From Peak Oil To Dark Age?
Oil output has stalled, and it's not clear the capacity exists to raise production
[FONT=arial,helvetica,univers]With global oil production virtually stalled in recent years, controversial predictions that the world is fast approaching maximum petroleum output are looking a bit less controversial. At first blush, those concerned about global warming should be delighted. After all, what better way to prod the move toward carbon-free, climate-friendly [/FONT]
But climate change activists have nothing to cheer about. The U.S. is completely unprepared for peak oil, as it's called, and the wrenching adjustments it would entail could easily accelerate global warming as nations turn to coal (see BusinessWeek.com, 4/19/07, "Rx for Earth: Sooner Not Later"). Moreover, regardless of the implications for climate change, peak oil represents a mortal threat to the U.S. economy.
Peak oil refers to the point at which world oil production plateaus before beginning to decline as depletion of the world's remaining reserves offsets ever-increased drilling. Some experts argue that we're already there, and that we won't exceed by much the daily production high of 84.5 million barrels first reached in 2005. If so, global production will bump along near these levels for years before beginning an inexorable decline.
What would that mean? Alternatives are still a decade away from meeting incremental demand for oil. With nothing to fill the gap, global economic growth would slow, stop, and then reverse; international tensions would soar as nations seek access to diminishing supplies, enriching autocratic rulers in unstable oil states; and, unless other sources of energy could be ramped up with extreme haste, the world could plunge into a new Dark Age. Even as faltering economies burned less oil, carbon loading of the atmosphere might accelerate as countries turn to vastly dirtier coal.
GIVEN SUCH UNPLEASANT possibilities, you'd think peak oil would be a national obsession. But policymakers can hide behind the possibility that vast troves will be available from unconventional sources, or that secretive oil-exporting nations really have the huge reserves they claim. Yet even if those who say that the peak has arrived are wrong, enough disturbing omens—for example, declining production in most of the world's great oil fields and no new superfields to take up the slack—exist for the issue to merit an intense international focus.
The reality is that it will be here much sooner for the U.S.—in the form of peak oil exports. Since we import nearly two-thirds of the oil we consume, global oil available for export should be our bigger concern. Fast-growing domestic consumption in oil-exporting nations and increasing appetites by big importers such as China portend tighter supplies available to the U.S., unless world production rises rapidly. But output has stalled. Call it de facto peak oil or peak oil lite. It means the U.S. is entering an age when it will have to scramble to maintain existing import levels.
We will know soon enough whether the capacity to raise production really exists. If not, basic math and the clock tell the story. All alternatives—geothermal, solar, wind, etc.—produce only 3% of the energy supplied by oil. If oil demand rises by 2% while output remains flat, generation of alternative energy would have to expand 60% a year. That's more than twice the rate of wind power, the fastest-growing alternative energy. And all this incremental energy would somehow have to be delivered to transportation (which consumes most of the oil produced each year) just to stay even with the growth in demand.
Nuclear and hydropower together produce 10 times the power of wind, geothermal, and solar power. But even if nations ignore environmental concerns, it takes years to build nuclear plants or even identify suitable undammed rivers.
There are many things we in the U.S. can do (and should have been doing) other than the present policy of crossing our fingers. If an oil tax makes sense from a climate change perspective, it seems doubly worthy if it extends supplies. Boosting efficiency and scaling up alternatives must also be a priority. And, recognizing that nations will turn to cheap coal (recently, 80% of growth in coal use has come from China), more work is needed to defang this fuel, which produces more carbon dioxide per ton than any other energy source.
Even if the peakists are wrong, we would still be better off taking these actions. And if they're right, major efforts right now may be the only way to avert a new Dark Age in an overheated world.
Views expressed in Outside Shot are solely those of contributors.
Oh bite me. Threads wander. You could have tried to get the topic back on track without being an insulting jerk.
Ok, people wander. I want CC for serious discussion, freedom of speech on political issues is important. To me, and I think the country. We get the gov't and democracy we deserve.
Because we are on as they say Internet time, things can change fast. Who heard of the 100 mile diet five years ago? Or peak oil? Or that Big Oil, which helped keep us in our comfy lifestyles can't find more oil? There are forecasts of $2.25 per litre oil by next year. Wouldn't surprise me. But it will shock us.
Because we are on as they say Internet time, things can change fast. Who heard of the 100 mile diet five years ago? Or peak oil? Or that Big Oil, which helped keep us in our comfy lifestyles can't find more oil? There are forecasts of $2.25 per litre oil by next year. Wouldn't surprise me. But it will shock us.
Fighting $4-a-gallon diesel
As diesel was threatening to break through the $4 level in January -- the most recent month for which data is available -- U.S. refineries shipped 982,000 barrels or 41.2 million gallons of diesel to Mexico. The 2008 shipments far exceed January shipments in any other year except 2000 and 2001.
Posted May 6, 2008 05:28 PM PST
Category: ECONOMY
That diesel fuel sells in Mexico for $2 a gallon.
http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=19882&topicId=8059
As diesel was threatening to break through the $4 level in January -- the most recent month for which data is available -- U.S. refineries shipped 982,000 barrels or 41.2 million gallons of diesel to Mexico. The 2008 shipments far exceed January shipments in any other year except 2000 and 2001.
Posted May 6, 2008 05:28 PM PST
Category: ECONOMY
That diesel fuel sells in Mexico for $2 a gallon.
http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=19882&topicId=8059
I've been hearing a number of stories about truckers who drive to Mexico (from Texas) to fill up because it saves them so much money. If Mexico can sell gas at $2.00 a gallon and make a profit, why can't the US?
Uncle
The point I was trying to make is that: We are doing it. Expensive or not. We are doing it. Sign-up fees are at an all time high. When the process of drilling in a heavy population is completely mastered (Sask. is not high population), it should become cheaper (I hope). And remember - huge reserves still exist in the US.
Uncle
These subsidies will likely end soon in Mexico, they are bankrupting the gov't. Oil nationalism rears its ugly head as investment and production withers.
The price of oil isn't high enough yet. Even if it goes to $200 a barrel it will still be too cheap. I have NO sympathy for the chucklehead who drives a vehicle large enough to qualify for a postal code instead of a license plate, a vehicle with a fireplace and a basement (and don't laugh too hard on that one, since a lot of SUVs double as travelling theaters and concert halls), a vehicle that gets gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon, a vehicle where the rotation of the earth must be taken into account when parallel parking, and then, when it's all done, the driver whines about the price of gas.
Who says that is who the price increase is going to hit the worst? I doubt very much anybody with an SUV is living paycheck-to-paycheck. Would you suggest those who are just ask for a 20% increase in wages?
My hubby's down in Houston right now, and on an international level, his company is saying that they don't expect much work past 2032.
According to Wiki, the US has a reserve span of 12 yrs.
So, these 'huge' reserves that people are so excited over are clearly not as 'huge' as they'd like, given that North America has got the appetite to match.
According to Wiki, the US has a reserve span of 12 yrs.
So, these 'huge' reserves that people are so excited over are clearly not as 'huge' as they'd like, given that North America has got the appetite to match.
Price increases of always hit the lower income families the worst. I see you can get 96mo financing on new vehicles now. If it takes you 96 months to pay off a vehicle, you can't afford it. Long term financing like this wouldn't exist if people didn't live beyond their means. Should I feel badly for individuals who now find they have overextended their income?
No, feel sorry for the ones who will (eventually) be stuck with their tab, the ones who didn't overextend and are not quite at the pay-no-tax level.