people pawning jewelery for gas money !

[picard]

I saw CNN news report that indicated people are pawning their jewlery for gas money. Have you guys heard about it in your area?
People on fixed income are pawning their fur coat, diamond rings etc.. This is serious problem.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

Not really...I've never had any real issues with gas.

Just buy a small car, use public transport where necessary (some folks drive to the train station, then take the train to work), etc.

Alternatively, live closer to the big cities and use public transport. Or if you live in the country, ride a horse or something.

 

[Rovalier]

I blame those bloody idiotic SUV drivers who don't use SUV for the purpose it was primarily designed for - offroad. They say they can afford it, but ignore the fact oil is a shared finite resource. They damage the roads as well, costing taxpayers more money. People who can't afford it or use it are paying for this.

I have already seen at least 5 Hummers in the last two months alone. Who the **** needs a Hummer in the burbs/cities? Let alone drive it regularly.

I don't care if you are rich, if I was rich I wouldn't own and drive a SUV everyday to work. I hope they double the cost of SUV insurance soon enough.

 

[Bad_Lil'Pixie]

You may want to consider buying a locking gas cap.

Just this week, I know of six vehicles that have had the gas stolen out of them. 4 at my husbands office parking garage and 2 at the work place of a friend.

To make matters worse, my husbands truck has a locking gas door you have to release from inside the vehicle. They took a crow bar and pried it open, denting the rear quarter panel and scratching the paint. So now we face an insurance claim, a deductable payment and down time while it is in the body shop. I just have to be thankful he didn't approach the truck while the theft was in progress.

With prices continuing to climb I can only imagine it will get worse.

Everyone be very careful.

 

[Desdinova]

I blame those bloody idiotic SUV drivers

I happen to like my SUV!... and my car.... and my lawnmower.... and my tiller

 

[Rovalier]

Sorry I am venting frustration, I had 3 SUVs cut into my lane in a period of 2 weeks without signalling. I am still sticking by my guns... you bloody no good satan worshipping SUV driver

Seriously though, do drive it everyday and would you drive Hummer regularly if you have the choice?

 

[brucevangeorge]

Bum bam bam bum bam bam bum....

Looks like all those trillions of dollars for the war in Iraq haven't paid off.

Where's the oil they promised?

 

[picard]

this is CNN link for this thread.

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/politics/2006/04/21/tuchman.gas.prices.cnn

 

[MetalFortress]

I blame those bloody idiotic SUV drivers who don't use SUV for the purpose it was primarily designed for - offroad. They say they can afford it, but ignore the fact oil is a shared finite resource. They damage the roads as well, costing taxpayers more money. People who can't afford it or use it are paying for this.

I have already seen at least 5 Hummers in the last two months alone. Who the **** needs a Hummer in the burbs/cities? Let alone drive it regularly.

I don't care if you are rich, if I was rich I wouldn't own and drive a SUV everyday to work. I hope they double the cost of SUV insurance soon enough.

First off, no, SUV's aren't designed primarily for off-roading. They are designed to provide the versatility and manliness of trucks with the people-moving ability of minivans. The vast majority of people who off-road vehicles will buy Ford Rangers, Jeep Wranglers, or other small trucks/SUVs to do their thing with.

Second, owning an SUV doesn't make someone a jackass driver automatically. You're just reaching. And saying they do extra damage to the road and cost taxpayers more money? That's just flat out lying. Why don't we just ban big rigs and large pickup trucks too? Heck, let's ban big cars. A 4900 pound BMW 760Li would do more damage than a 4400 pound Ford Explorer, by your logic.

 

[Rovalier]

First off, no, SUV's aren't designed primarily for off-roading. They are designed to provide the versatility and manliness of trucks with the people-moving ability of minivans. The vast majority of people who off-road vehicles will buy Ford Rangers, Jeep Wranglers, or other small trucks/SUVs to do their thing with.

Second, owning an SUV doesn't make someone a jackass driver automatically. You're just reaching. And saying they do extra damage to the road and cost taxpayers more money? That's just flat out lying. Why don't we just ban big rigs and large pickup trucks too? Heck, let's ban big cars. A 4900 pound BMW 760Li would do more damage than a 4400 pound Ford Explorer, by your logic.

While there are obviously other cars contributing to the problem including pickup trucks and big rigs, SUVs are not helping the cause one bit. If everyone does something bad, obviously it ok for me to do it right?

SUVs are a costly luxary, not only to the owner, but to everyone else. How often do you need the "versatility of a truck" during most of the work days. This is the typical self-serving justification to buy a SUV, maybe one day I will need this awesome versatility, better be safe than sorry you know.

Rent a bloody truck or big van when you need one, holiday trips or whatever, they tend not to occur frequently. If you still want the "convenience" of owning a financial liability, please stop using it every day on the road unless it serves some commericial purpose. Rigs and pickup trucks often serve commericial and trade purposes, a lot of the SUV drivers I see (not all) usually has 1 or 2 people in it. At least these commericial ventures flows back into the economy to offset some of the monetary issues indirectly.

Look don't take it personally, I am not saying all SUV drivers are terrible ones. That is being bigoted, but that vehicles symbolizes so many of the things I detest. But I think there are far fewer good and practical SUV drivers in reality.

 

[Shiftkey]

I second everything Rovalier said. I despise SUV and pickup-truck drivers who buy the vehicle just to look "cool." It's these people who are part of the reason gas is so expensive.

 

[MetalFortress]

While there are obviously other cars contributing to the problem including pickup trucks and big rigs, SUVs are not helping the cause one bit. If everyone does something bad, obviously it ok for me to do it right?

Irrelevent. There are more pickups than SUVs, and big rigs weigh 10 times more, but you're singling out SUVs because they are the easy target.

SUVs are a costly luxary, not only to the owner, but to everyone else. How often do you need the "versatility of a truck" during most of the work days. This is the typical self-serving justification to buy a SUV, maybe one day I will need this awesome versatility, better be safe than sorry you know.

Costly luxury? You mean like the Toyota RAV4, which hauls 1 driver and 6 passengers, gets 30 MPG highway with its 4-cylinder engine, and costs 20,000 dollars? The 19,000 dollar Ford Escape, which gets 26 MPG highway? As for self-serving, everybody buys a vehicle for selfish reasons, except for those who buy Priuses. SUV owners aren't the only guilty party. Oh, and I forgot another aspect: safety. I don't care about owning a vehicle that can run into a big rig without killing the driver (I like small sports cars), but many do.

Rent a bloody truck or big van when you need one, holiday trips or whatever, they tend not to occur frequently. If you still want the "convenience" of owning a financial liability, please stop using it every day on the road unless it serves some commericial purpose. Rigs and pickup trucks often serve commericial and trade purposes, a lot of the SUV drivers I see (not all) usually has 1 or 2 people in it. At least these commericial ventures flows back into the economy to offset some of the monetary issues indirectly.

Got another idea on how you're going to pick up 200 dollars worth of groceries with 4 kids in the car? Good luck fitting that into a car. Just because someone isn't using it for "the utmost utility" all the time doesn't mean they never do.

Look don't take it personally, I am not saying all SUV drivers are terrible ones. That is being bigoted, but that vehicles symbolizes so many of the things I detest. But I think there are far fewer good and practical SUV drivers in reality.

Why would I take it personally? You're actually the one who is getting angry in this debate. I own a 1986 Ford Ranger with a 4-banger, so I'm not part of the SUV crowd. You are just singling out SUV owners because you need a scapegoat, and spouting off unfounded opinions.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

Stay tuned for the next episode: We compare SUV drivers to Jews!


Seriously though, if you want to get technical, ALL cars are a luxury. If you're that concerned about the environment, ride a bike to work (oil), stop using your computer (fossil fuels), and stop farting (greenhouse effect).

 

[Rovalier]

Irrelevent. There are more pickups than SUVs, and big rigs weigh 10 times more, but you're singling out SUVs because they are the easy target.

Costly luxury? You mean like the Toyota RAV4, which hauls 1 driver and 6 passengers, gets 30 MPG highway with its 4-cylinder engine, and costs 20,000 dollars? The 19,000 dollar Ford Escape, which gets 26 MPG highway? As for self-serving, everybody buys a vehicle for selfish reasons, except for those who buy Priuses. SUV owners aren't the only guilty party. Oh, and I forgot another aspect: safety. I don't care about owning a vehicle that can run into a big rig without killing the driver (I like small sports cars), but many do.

That's a crock.

Safety: http://www.suv.org/safety.html

"Overall safety on America's roads has increased over the last decade. However, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) threaten to reverse the trend. There is increasing evidence that SUVs are not as safe as they appear. Recent studies show that SUVs pose a significant threat to drivers and passengers of other cars on the road. In addition, there are indications that safety problems threaten passengers and drivers of SUVs themselves.

Most drivers want to feel safe on the road, but choosing an SUV for safety may be making the situation worse. Partly, it's an issue of escalation. Like an arms race, as more drivers choose heavier cars, those who choose lighter cars are in more danger. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government agency studying the safety of SUVs, describes two characteristics of SUVs and other light trucks that have the potential to increase fatalities: rollover propensity and crash compatibility."

You also forget to add SUV also put others at higher risks of danger. They are not under the same standards compared to trucks. Here are some more quotes, source:

"SUV's do not have to meet the same safety standards as passenger cars. The double standard exists due to arcane federal rules classifying SUV's as light trucks. Less rigid rules mean occupants of SUV's are not protected by the side-impact crash safety standards or strength requirements for bumpers required on standard passenger cars. According to The Truck, Van and 4x4 book, 1998 by Jack Gillis, the "newly adopted roof strength standard does not go far enough to effectively protect occupants in a rollover situation."

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research organization for the insurance industry, has conducted crash tests of SUV's. The results have been mixed, at best. In a test designed to show how well vehicles protect the driver and passengers in a crash, midsized SUV's were given a rating of "good", "acceptable", "marginal" or "poor". None of the 13 SUV's tested was rated "good." Five were rated as "acceptable," three as "marginal," and five as "poor." Popular models including the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Nissan Pathfinder earned "marginal" ratings. "Poor" ratings went to models such as the Chevy Blazer, GMC Jimmy and the Isuzu Rodeo. The tests measured how well head restraints and bumpers performed and damage to the vehicle's structure.

In addition, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety looked at driver death rates. The largest SUV's had fewer driver deaths than average. However mid-sized and smaller SUV's - like the Nissan Pathfinder, Suzuki Sidekick, and Jeep Wrangler - had driver death rates substantially higher than average. In examining deaths per million passengers, SUV's had nearly the same death rates in accidents as small cars, but substantially more fatalities than mid-sized or large cars."

"The number of people killed in sport utility rollover crashes rose 14 percent last year as total highway deaths hit a 12-year high at nearly 43,000, the government reported Thursday.

The Transportation Department also reported that car crash injuries fell to an all-time low in 2002. Child and pedestrian deaths also went down as did fatalities involving large trucks.

But in 2002, SUV rollover fatalities jumped to more than 2,400 victims, an increase of 14 percent, the government said. Sixty-one percent of all SUV fatalities involved rollovers. "

Got another idea on how you're going to pick up 200 dollars worth of groceries with 4 kids in the car? Good luck fitting that into a car. Just because someone isn't using it for "the utmost utility" all the time doesn't mean they never do.

That's why people own multiple vehicles, have one for the family and one for work - unless they car pool.

Consider the use of a van and a compact or sedan - two cars, the cost and utility ratio when both are utilized for the strict purpose of what they were designed for. As oppose to doing both with one car - the SUV. If you wish to maximize the utility ratio, the former is more likely to succeed, as far safety, environmental and general fuel efficiency. Its not even by a marginal amount either.

Why would I take it personally? You're actually the one who is getting angry in this debate. I own a 1986 Ford Ranger with a 4-banger, so I'm not part of the SUV crowd. You are just singling out SUV owners because you need a scapegoat, and spouting off unfounded opinions.

One of the rising trends nowadays is for the middle-class white collar to buy SUVs. It is going to continue and it is fuel-inefficient as heck. Sure there are bound to be other consumer sources. No one is denying it at all. My point is the original luxary argument, there are a lot variables you can control better, SUVs are one of them compared to trucks and rigs which serve commericial purposes. A luxary is not a neccessity.

When you can prevent a lot of the crap in the free way by cutting down a portion of the yuppie SUV drivers, why not? There are alternatives to SUVs. Its more easily done than cutting out trucks and large rigs. Nobody is blaming the entire problem on them. But as far as variables go its one of the most easy ones to control and manipulate without massive ramfications economically - aside to the car companies at most.

Look whatever, I am not going to whine anymore its not going to do me any good because it won't change anything. I will just do my part and take public transport as often as I can. Drive my wimpy car when its necessary, I am not enforcing these criterias on anyone because I know not everyone likes it. I don't expect people to change overnight because I certainly can't. But don't tell me SUVs are not a problem when it comes to fuel and safety.

 

[Brian20o2]

I drive a tiny 83 Celica and it gets 30mpg. Oh and for those who say you need an SUV to carry groceries, They made car trunks for a reason (hint hint).

 

[comic_relief]

That's why people own multiple vehicles, have one for the family and one for work - unless they car pool.

Consider the use of a van and a compact or sedan - two cars, the cost and utility ratio when both are utilized for the strict purpose of what they were designed for. As oppose to doing both with one car - the SUV. If you wish to maximize the utility ratio, the former is more likely to succeed, as far safety, environmental and general fuel efficiency. Its not even by a marginal amount either.

What about the group that owns one car because of necessity. They can only afford one so buying a mini-van is much better than a small car. They can now get the groceries and take the kids to the soccer practice. This seems better than trying to get the groceries, drop them off, and then take the kids to soccer practice and plus gas would be saved.

comic_relief

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I saw CNN news report that indicated people are pawning their jewlery for gas money. Have you guys heard about it in your area?
People on fixed income are pawning their fur coat, diamond rings etc.. This is serious problem.

Think about what you just said... They have a fixed income and they have fur coats and diamond rings yet they can't afford gas because it has gone up to match the price of a gallon of milk?! Exactly which serious problem are you talking about?

 

[Derek Flint]

It's a free country - if someone wants to drive a Hummer, whether they "need" one or not, it's their right to do so.

 

[Shiftkey]

It's a free country - if someone wants to drive a Hummer, whether they "need" one or not, it's their right to do so.

That doesn't make it a good or responcible thing to do.

Saying "it's a free country" is about as big a copout as "everything happens for a reason."

 

[Derek Flint]

That doesn't make it a good or responcible thing to do.

Saying "it's a free country" is about as big a copout as "everything happens for a reason."

Who are you or anyone else to decide what kind of car someone can drive?

Where do you draw the line?

"That house is too big for your needs"
"You don't need a car with all that HP"
"It's irresponsible to date more than 1 woman"
"No reasonable person needs that many [fill in the blank]"

It's a free country is not a cop out, but a fact.

I don't own an SUV, but if someone wants to drive one, that's his or her choice.