B
Bill Funk
Guest
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:47:07 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
>> the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
>> for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.
>
>That is a point. However, it's not that strong a point and here is why.
>For
>starters, when we are talking expendables, the only ones that really matter
>here are fuel, as vehicle fuel dwarfs the expendable consumption of every
>other expendable on the vehicle. So let's be honest and say gas/fuel.
>
>In the world, (not just the US) just about every non-mideast country is a
>net importer of oil. There are a few notable exceptions of course, but
>they don't set the world oil price, OPEC does.
>
>So here is the problem from the US's side. Every barrel of oil
>consumed that is over the US max production is subject to
>artifical price control by OPEC, which is accomplished by artifical
>limiting of the oil supply. Simply put, that price control is bad for
>the US's economy. The upshot is that even though Billy Bob might have
>to pay more for fuel, the fact that he is consuming more fuel and
>thus helping to increase the oil demand past what the US can supply
>makes prices rise for ALL fuel purchasers.
True, and I sincerely thank the flea-drivers for leaving more for us.
>
>>
>> Rad repair? The roads are built to handle semis.
>
>People drive on more than just roads, there's bridges, traffic
>control devices like speed bumps, and street signage such as
>crosswalk stripes, etc. Heavier vehicles wear more. Look at
>any major intersection and you will see the lines worn, in many
>cases worn right away. Heavier traffic wears more. Granted,
>semitrucks wear the streets out far more than SUV's do, but
>when was the last time you ever saw a bicyle lane that had a
>big groove worn away on the pictures of bikes and the wording
>"bike lane" where the tires of the bicycle had worn away the wording.
The point remains, Billy Bob's truck doesn't appreciably wear the road
(and other infrastructure) more than the fleas do. It's the bigger
trucks that do the damage.
>
>> Fuel? Possibly.
>> Insurance? I'm sure insurance premiums are based on the risk
>> presented, so that's already done.
>
>No, because as the numbers of large, heavy vehicles on the road
>increase, the average injuries and deaths increase for the sedan
>drivers, thus driving up their insurance.
Which is included in the risk assessment, like I said.
You figured it out, right? So did the insurance companies.
>
>>
>> That's sort of strange thinking, to me.
>> While a minority, they are still popular. They don't need to be a
>> majority to be popular.
>
>The context of your post made it sound like you were arguing that light
>trucks and SUV's are more popular than sedans, that is what I was
>objecting to.
I certainly didn't mean to give that impression.
What I tried to say is that they ar epopular.
And they are.
>
>>
>> So they *are* popular? Didn't you just say they weren't?
>
>No I said they aren't "so popular"
>
>> Wait a minute...
>> Why are so many complaining that light trucks/SUVs are bought just out
>> of vanity, if, according to you, they are being bought for their
>> utility?
>
>I didn't say that they are all being bought for their vanity. I said
>"everyone who has a light truck or
>an SUV are going to give them up" in my statement above.
>
>I do allow that if bigger sedans were available that some SUV purchasers
>would elect to buy a big sedan. Espically if the sedan has a drivers seat
>in it that is a foot higher than the average sedan today.
But I don't
>think that a majority of SUV purchasers AS A WHOLE are vanity purchasers.
>Keep in mind the large number of SUV's purchased in rural areas where they
>are needed.
>
>But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
>THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.
So are the purchasers of performance casrs in such areas, right?
>
>> Are you saying that all (or even most) light trucks/SUVs are bought
>> for their utility?
>
>I would say that just about all light trucks and SUV's purchased in towns
>smaller than 20,000 people and in rural areas are bought for their utility.
>I would say that the large majority of them purchased in big cities are
>vanity
>purchases. Taking the total SUV's and light trucks sold in both areas and
>averaging them together, I think you probably would find that a majority of
> them are utility purchases -
>if there was any way to reliably survey such a thing which there really
>isn't,
>as your basically asking people if they are idiots or not -
>but NOT that big of a majority.
>
>Ted
>
OK.
The same logic can be successfully applied to many other vehicle
classes, too.
Point being, SUVs and light trucks aren't the *only* (nor even,
arguably, the largest class of) vehicles chosen with little regard to
what many see as their primary intended use.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
>> the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
>> for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.
>
>That is a point. However, it's not that strong a point and here is why.
>For
>starters, when we are talking expendables, the only ones that really matter
>here are fuel, as vehicle fuel dwarfs the expendable consumption of every
>other expendable on the vehicle. So let's be honest and say gas/fuel.
>
>In the world, (not just the US) just about every non-mideast country is a
>net importer of oil. There are a few notable exceptions of course, but
>they don't set the world oil price, OPEC does.
>
>So here is the problem from the US's side. Every barrel of oil
>consumed that is over the US max production is subject to
>artifical price control by OPEC, which is accomplished by artifical
>limiting of the oil supply. Simply put, that price control is bad for
>the US's economy. The upshot is that even though Billy Bob might have
>to pay more for fuel, the fact that he is consuming more fuel and
>thus helping to increase the oil demand past what the US can supply
>makes prices rise for ALL fuel purchasers.
True, and I sincerely thank the flea-drivers for leaving more for us.
>
>>
>> Rad repair? The roads are built to handle semis.
>
>People drive on more than just roads, there's bridges, traffic
>control devices like speed bumps, and street signage such as
>crosswalk stripes, etc. Heavier vehicles wear more. Look at
>any major intersection and you will see the lines worn, in many
>cases worn right away. Heavier traffic wears more. Granted,
>semitrucks wear the streets out far more than SUV's do, but
>when was the last time you ever saw a bicyle lane that had a
>big groove worn away on the pictures of bikes and the wording
>"bike lane" where the tires of the bicycle had worn away the wording.
The point remains, Billy Bob's truck doesn't appreciably wear the road
(and other infrastructure) more than the fleas do. It's the bigger
trucks that do the damage.
>
>> Fuel? Possibly.
>> Insurance? I'm sure insurance premiums are based on the risk
>> presented, so that's already done.
>
>No, because as the numbers of large, heavy vehicles on the road
>increase, the average injuries and deaths increase for the sedan
>drivers, thus driving up their insurance.
Which is included in the risk assessment, like I said.
You figured it out, right? So did the insurance companies.
>
>>
>> That's sort of strange thinking, to me.
>> While a minority, they are still popular. They don't need to be a
>> majority to be popular.
>
>The context of your post made it sound like you were arguing that light
>trucks and SUV's are more popular than sedans, that is what I was
>objecting to.
I certainly didn't mean to give that impression.
What I tried to say is that they ar epopular.
And they are.
>
>>
>> So they *are* popular? Didn't you just say they weren't?
>
>No I said they aren't "so popular"
>
>> Wait a minute...
>> Why are so many complaining that light trucks/SUVs are bought just out
>> of vanity, if, according to you, they are being bought for their
>> utility?
>
>I didn't say that they are all being bought for their vanity. I said
>"everyone who has a light truck or
>an SUV are going to give them up" in my statement above.
>
>I do allow that if bigger sedans were available that some SUV purchasers
>would elect to buy a big sedan. Espically if the sedan has a drivers seat
>in it that is a foot higher than the average sedan today.
But I don't>think that a majority of SUV purchasers AS A WHOLE are vanity purchasers.
>Keep in mind the large number of SUV's purchased in rural areas where they
>are needed.
>
>But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
>THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.
So are the purchasers of performance casrs in such areas, right?
>
>> Are you saying that all (or even most) light trucks/SUVs are bought
>> for their utility?
>
>I would say that just about all light trucks and SUV's purchased in towns
>smaller than 20,000 people and in rural areas are bought for their utility.
>I would say that the large majority of them purchased in big cities are
>vanity
>purchases. Taking the total SUV's and light trucks sold in both areas and
>averaging them together, I think you probably would find that a majority of
> them are utility purchases -
>if there was any way to reliably survey such a thing which there really
>isn't,
>as your basically asking people if they are idiots or not -
>but NOT that big of a majority.
>
>Ted
>
OK.
The same logic can be successfully applied to many other vehicle
classes, too.
Point being, SUVs and light trucks aren't the *only* (nor even,
arguably, the largest class of) vehicles chosen with little regard to
what many see as their primary intended use.
