Call me twisted...

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by larrybuck

In deep snow the 4x4 will make me feel much safer than a target in the CRX.

Long as you don't confuse feeling safe with being safe. As for instance the time I was heading up the snowy, winding mountain road, and rounded a curve only to see a 4x4 SUV coming down - sideways.

[Fat Charlie]

Arragonis- we're a lot more decentralized than Europe, and decentralizing things makes for lots of inefficiency. You've got more rail over there, sure, but Wikipedia says that Western Europe has 165,331 km of rail (I just zipped down the list and I know I missed Portugal with its 2,842km) while we "only" have 226,427 km. Out here, you've got to have your own infrastructure, and some way to "haul stuff" is a big part of that.

Hatchbacks and wagons are really effective at that, but mpg requirements actually killed them here because the requirements weren't paired with meaningful gas taxes- people got the same utility (and more manliness) by buying an SUV that didn't have to meet the same requirements as cars. Since gas was so cheap for so long, there was no real incentive for people to buy cars instead of trucks. Add a little shortsightedness about real costs and a lot of marketing, and you wind up with a country full of chromed out quad cabs with V-8s.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Long as you don't confuse feeling safe with being safe. As for instance the time I was heading up the snowy, winding mountain road, and rounded a curve only to see a 4x4 SUV coming down - sideways.

We have a high % of SUVs and trucks up here. the % of SUVs and trucks in the ditch is higher.

Small cars are not unsafe, neither are SUVs inherently dangerous. Drivers who out drive their vehicle for the condition's are.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

Arragonis- we're a lot more decentralized than Europe, and decentralizing things makes for lots of inefficiency. You've got more rail over there, sure, but Wikipedia says that Western Europe has 165,331 km of rail (I just zipped down the list and I know I missed Portugal with its 2,842km) while we "only" have 226,427 km. Out here, you've got to have your own infrastructure, and some way to "haul stuff" is a big part of that.

Hatchbacks and wagons are really effective at that, but mpg requirements actually killed them here because the requirements weren't paired with meaningful gas taxes- people got the same utility (and more manliness) by buying an SUV that didn't have to meet the same requirements as cars. Since gas was so cheap for so long, there was no real incentive for people to buy cars instead of trucks. Add a little shortsightedness about real costs and a lot of marketing, and you wind up with a country full of chromed out quad cabs with V-8s.

Charlie - I appreciate the reply but I think you are confusing a number of issues.

Firstly I am not in Portugal, I am in the UK - we invented trains here but we have not extended the network for a very long time. Certainly hauling things to my door or even to the store where I might spend my cash is more likely to have been done by road than rail. Rail these days is mainly used for passengers.

Even with that I don't need a truck - seriously. Let me give 2 examples. Last year I bought a fridge - the retailer offered free delivery, so no issue.

I also bought a shed with no delivery. I ended up paying a "man with a van" £50 for 2 hours of loading, shipping and unloading to my door with me helping. Again no need for a truck.

Most people in Europe (certainly in the UK) do not even have the space for an extra truck not doing anything. And road laws here in the UK mean that if I did decide to buy one I have to insure it for the whole 12 months (even if I don't use it) and I also have to road tax it even if I don't use it.

Given that assuming I had a need to own a truck I wouldn't, I would buy a Transit Van - it drives better than a truck, uses less fuel, has more torque, more load space, better built and better FE, even with a 4cy TDCI.

[Frank Lee]

Sounds like that place would make me claustrophobic. It's already happening here in the land of wide open spaces thanks to wanton reproduction. :/

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Sounds like that place would make me claustrophobic. It's already happening here in the land of wide open spaces thanks to wanton reproduction. :/

What place where ?

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

Arragonis- we're a lot more decentralized than Europe, and decentralizing things makes for lots of inefficiency.

I disagree about the US being more decentralised issue.
In Europe - and certainly in Belgium where urbanisation has failed miserably - people literally live everywhere and anywhere. So we have lots and lots of people spread around.

While the US obviously has its really remote villages and homes, from what I've seen of the States, most people live fairly concentrated - which makes mass transit and mass transport actually more of an option.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Sounds like that place would make me claustrophobic.

Compared to "up north" in the US, you'd likely find lots of Europe to be very crowded.

One of the things that attract me to the US (and Scandinavia, or even Scotland) is the vast openness and the desolation of the landscape.

[Arragonis]

Scotland has a population of 5 to 5.5 million. About 4.5 million of those live ion the central belt - the bit between Edinburgh and Glasgow (the M8) or about 40-50 miles either side of this. The reason is that there are not that many jobs outside the remaining few "cities" (in reality large towns) such as Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. Once you pass Inverness going north towns are usually quite small.

I plan (hope) to go north when I retire as I won't need to travel for work.

[Fat Charlie]

Arragonis- I know you're not in Portugal, sorry. I had just added a bunch of numbers together and was mentioning that I had missed at least one that I meant to include. My point is that while rail in Europe is used a lot (mainly for passengers), it's useless here for almost anything because there's so little of it and we're so spread out. Most people here don't have the room or money to have a truck just sitting around gathering dust either, so they use full size pickups as daily drivers. There isn't much of a "man with a van" industry here because enough people have enough of a need for a truck that there are so many out there... that nobody's going to get into the hauling stuff for people business.

euromodder- You don't know decentralized. Belgium? That's not much bigger than New Hampshire, but has 1,318 people per square mile to our 139 people per square mile. Where you have lots and lots of people spread around, we have people spread around over lots and lots of land. Even when we do stack up, the pattern is more sprawl than anything and doesn't work well with most mass transit. You're right, though- Scotland is kind of open with their 171 people per square mile.