Why would you buy a bulb that isn't efficient? Even from a value point of view, it just doesn't make sense.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
Why would you buy a bulb that isn't efficient? Even from a value point of view, it just doesn't make sense.
Not to characterize anyone in particular here, but I think there are some people who would buy a less efficient bulb because they think somehow being able to do so represents "freedom". "Freedom without responsibility" comes to mind.
P.S. I've changed the word "kill" in the heading of this thread to "weaken" in order to be more accurate. Everything else I've said remains the same.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I heard a couple thousand people die annually from driving around these lightweight "fuel efficient" cars....
I will stick with my heavy.
Can I see stats to back this statement up?
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
I heard a couple thousand people die annually from driving around these lightweight "fuel efficient" cars....
I will stick with my heavy.
Can I see stats to back this statement up?
i wonder if that might possibly be because it is people in hummers and semis and massive suvs that crash into them and kill them?
fact is you can get killed in any vehicle.
my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
I heard a couple thousand people die annually from driving around these lightweight "fuel efficient" cars....
I will stick with my heavy.
Can I see stats to back this statement up?
i wonder if that might possibly be because it is people in hummers and semis and massive suvs that crash into them and kill them?
fact is you can get killed in any vehicle.
my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...
YES!
YES!
and YES!
P.S. Excellent profile photo and great looking Les Paul!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
I heard a couple thousand people die annually from driving around these lightweight "fuel efficient" cars....
I will stick with my heavy.
Can I see stats to back this statement up?
i wonder if that might possibly be because it is people in hummers and semis and massive suvs that crash into them and kill them?
fact is you can get killed in any vehicle.
my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...
Ok, let's not dismiss the obvious facts just because it counters what you believe people should do.
Have you seen a smart car? It is obvious that it is more likely that someone would die in a crash in a smart car versus a big, hefty vehicle like a hummer. Does that mean we abandon the idea? No way. We should just improve the safety of the Smart car. Heck, a bicycle is way better for the environment, but it certainly protects less from a collision with a car.
P.S. Excellent profile photo and great looking Les Paul!
thanks man, that is a 2004 les paul custom. alpine white, though finally starting to yellow some due to sweat and bar smoke... that pic was taken 2 nights ago..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Have you seen a smart car? It is obvious that it is more likely that someone would die in a crash in a smart car versus a big, hefty vehicle like a hummer. Does that mean we abandon the idea? No way. We should just improve the safety of the Smart car. Heck, a bicycle is way better for the environment, but it certainly protects less from a collision with a car.
i have actually driven a smart car. the owner of my former boxing gym had one. it has some safety features but i was not comfortable driving that on the road at all.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...
Lessening our dependence on foreign oil was the exact intended purpose of the Department of Energy. Bang up job they're doing. How about ax that department instead of the EPA?
my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...
Lessening our dependence on foreign oil was the exact intended purpose of the Department of Energy. Bang up job they're doing. How about ax that department instead of the EPA?
I can agree with this Vinny.
If we got off of the oil teet then the epa would not have to be as large, since it is burning of fossil fuels that is causing a lot of this pollution.. but since the dept of energy has failed in it's job we are facing cuts to the epa.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i wonder if that might possibly be because it is people in hummers and semis and massive suvs that crash into them and kill them?
fact is you can get killed in any vehicle.
my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...
Ok, let's not dismiss the obvious facts just because it counters what you believe people should do.
Have you seen a smart car? It is obvious that it is more likely that someone would die in a crash in a smart car versus a big, hefty vehicle like a hummer. Does that mean we abandon the idea? No way. We should just improve the safety of the Smart car. Heck, a bicycle is way better for the environment, but it certainly protects less from a collision with a car.
Are those Smart cars in the US not...um, actually pretty stupid?
They arent even very fuel efficient...You drive a tint tin-can that gets OK gas mileage? I am all for small cars and hybrid technology, but this thing is a cheap go-cart with kinda crappy mileage. It should be getting like 60+ mpg to be a "smart" idea
"The Smart fortwo is the most fuel-efficient gasoline-engined car for sale in the US; however, according to the EPA, the Smart's fuel efficiency is lower than the fuel efficiency of some hybrids such as the Ford Fusion, the Toyota Prius, the Honda Civic Hybrid, and the 2-seat Honda Insight (making it the fourth most fuel efficient vehicle in the U.S.), which achieve 41/36, 51/48, 40/43, and 40/43 respectively while the Smart achieves 33 city and 41 highway, though the Smart fortwo, which is not a hybrid, costs about half as much as a hybrid in the US."
my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...
Lessening our dependence on foreign oil was the exact intended purpose of the Department of Energy. Bang up job they're doing. How about ax that department instead of the EPA?
I can agree with this Vinny.
If we got off of the oil teet then the epa would not have to be as large, since it is burning of fossil fuels that is causing a lot of this pollution.. but since the dept of energy has failed in it's job we are facing cuts to the epa.
^Now that's a compromise.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
i wonder if that might possibly be because it is people in hummers and semis and massive suvs that crash into them and kill them?
fact is you can get killed in any vehicle.
my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...
Ok, let's not dismiss the obvious facts just because it counters what you believe people should do.
Have you seen a smart car? It is obvious that it is more likely that someone would die in a crash in a smart car versus a big, hefty vehicle like a hummer. Does that mean we abandon the idea? No way. We should just improve the safety of the Smart car. Heck, a bicycle is way better for the environment, but it certainly protects less from a collision with a car.
I looked into the Smart Car a couple of years ago and was surprised to learn it is considered relatively safe. It is built like a roll-bar cage on wheels and apparently can withstand collision better than many larger vehicles. The four things I didn’t like about the car were 1) I wanted small but not THAT small, 2) the vehicle can only take high octane gas, 3) I wanted something that gets better gas mileage and , 4) Smart Cars can only be serviced at a dealership. The car isn’t meant to be the answer to improving fuel efficiency, it is meant to be very small for crowded city parking.
The idea that one must drive a tank, however, to be safe on the road is ridiculous. There are very safe cars (Volvos are rated very high for safety) that are not SUVs or Roats (ridiculously oversized American trucks) which get terrible mileage and are often poorly made. (For example, look at the Consumer Reports findings on the Hummers— very low ratings all around, a total piece of crap.)
gimmesometruth27 really hit it on the head though- better gas mileage does not address the issue of getting us off our oil addiction. I drive a Prius and do what I can to minimize trips and I feel very safe driving this car and believe 45 MPG helps but is that the answer? If everyone drove a Prius would that end pollution and energy wars? It would certainly help, but no, it would not solve the problems.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I looked into the Smart Car a couple of years ago and was surprised to learn it is considered relatively safe. It is built like a roll-bar cage on wheels and apparently can withstand collision better than many larger vehicles. The four things I didn’t like about the car were 1) I wanted small but not THAT small, 2) the vehicle can only take high octane gas, 3) I wanted something that gets better gas mileage and , 4) Smart Cars can only be serviced at a dealership. The car isn’t meant to be the answer to improving fuel efficiency, it is meant to be very small for crowded city parking.
The idea that one must drive a tank, however, to be safe on the road is ridiculous. There are very safe cars (Volvos are rated very high for safety) that are not SUVs or Roats (ridiculously oversized American trucks) which get terrible mileage and are often poorly made. (For example, look at the Consumer Reports findings on the Hummers— very low ratings all around, a total piece of crap.)
gimmesometruth27 really hit it on the head though- better gas mileage does not address the issue of getting us off our oil addiction. I drive a Prius and do what I can to minimize trips and I feel very safe driving this car and believe 45 MPG helps but is that the answer? If everyone drove a Prius would that end pollution and energy wars? It would certainly help, but no, it would not solve the problems.
Ok, where did I say that no car can be safe?
Let's do a head on collision chicken test. You get the smart car, and I get to pick whatever car I want. Deal?
hippiemom = goodness
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
Let's do a head on collision chicken test. You get the smart car, and I get to pick whatever car I want. Deal?
If I said something to warrant you being defensive, I'm sorry. I was just relating my experience with the Smart Car. No need to get hostile. I don't do "let's play chicken". Can we get back to a reasonable discussion?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Let's do a head on collision chicken test. You get the smart car, and I get to pick whatever car I want. Deal?
If I said something to warrant you being defensive, I'm sorry. I was just relating my experience with the Smart Car. No need to get hostile. I don't do "let's play chicken". Can we get back to a reasonable discussion?
Huh? Just putting your words to a "real life" test. I don't want to actually ram you head on in a car no matter what car either of us have. Feel free to have whatever you feel is reasonable, sorry if I didn't meet your guidelines.
hippiemom = goodness
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
:-? Moving right along...
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Perhaps I'm not making myself as clear as I need to.
#1) I was not upset or offended
#2) I did not intend to upset or offend you with my post about "chicken"...it was a joking comment just to point out that while a Smart car can be a safe vehicle for it's class, safety shouldn't be the selling factor...and it wasn't even your comment that initially had me commenting about it I guess.
So again, I apologize if I offended.
Back to the topic at hand. Fuel efficiency is still an important topic/issue and mandating certain levels of fuel efficiency does more than just create more fuel efficient cars...due to the cost...it creates the incentive to use R&D to find an alternative.
But, until an alternative is utilized as the norm, as far as the environment is concerned, fuel efficiency means less than actual number of miles driven.
Look what I found on the interwebs of higher learning
The EPA Wants to Kill Old People and BabiesThe EPA want to cut Texas’ power capacity by 10%. 10% is a lot. We are already over 100% demand because of the heat and are having to go to emergency measures to reduce demand.
So what does it mean when the EPA passes laws that reduce our generation capacity. People die. People who wouldn’t die without the rolling blackouts that will result. People are already dying; rolling blackouts will kill more. Right now, the deaths are from people who don’t have air conditioners. The city is actually doing a decent job of getting AC to those people. I would rather see charity doing that work, but at least it is happening.
When the blackout happens, no one has AC. And instead of deaths from the small percentage of the population in Dallas that hasn’t gotten an AC unit, we have a wide swath of people being put in danger. Those in danger are the most vulnerable — infants and the elderly. This isn’t just heat, either — the same problem can happen in winter, and this year already experienced rolling blackouts. Dropping capacity by 10% can end up causing long blackouts during winter, resulting in freezing deaths, and even more expense and danger from burst pipes, which can end up contaminating the drinking water rather than just effecting the home with the burst pipes.
Electricity is civilization. The people who want to limit electrical generation and ban the Edison bulb are enemies of civilization. These people refuse to stop meddling with the most basic of modern necessities — that when you flip the switch in your house, you get light. They want to reach into your living room, and change all the bulbs — and after that, they want to make it so that sometimes it doesn’t even work — so that you can breath .01% better air.
I heard a couple thousand people die annually from driving around these lightweight "fuel efficient" cars....
I will stick with my heavy.
Can I see stats to back this statement up?
A study by the National Academy of Science found that lighter vehicles required to satisfy CAFE — which was first enacted in 1975 — were responsible for up to 2,600 highway deaths a year.
And data from the government's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, analyzed by USA Today, concluded that 7,700 people died for every one additional mpg attributed to CAFE regulation.
The Obama administration on July 29 announced a new fuel economy standard that requires automakers to boost their fleets' miles per gallon by 5 percent a year until they reach 54.5 mpg by 2025.
The standard is designed to save thousands of dollars in fuel costs over the life of a vehicle, but critics say it will have another effect: a rise in motor vehicle deaths.
"By far the worst result, however, will be the fact that thousands will die because Obama, fanatical Big Green environmentalists, and their allies in the federal bureaucracy care more about removing micro-amounts of emissions than they do about the safety and convenience of people on the roads."
Perhaps I'm not making myself as clear as I need to.
#1) I was not upset or offended
#2) I did not intend to upset or offend you with my post about "chicken"...it was a joking comment just to point out that while a Smart car can be a safe vehicle for it's class, safety shouldn't be the selling factor...and it wasn't even your comment that initially had me commenting about it I guess.
So again, I apologize if I offended.
Back to the topic at hand. Fuel efficiency is still an important topic/issue and mandating certain levels of fuel efficiency does more than just create more fuel efficient cars...due to the cost...it creates the incentive to use R&D to find an alternative.
But, until an alternative is utilized as the norm, as far as the environment is concerned, fuel efficiency means less than actual number of miles driven.
Thank you, cincybearcat. Sorry if I misunderstood and thanks for setting me straight!
Also, good point about fuel effiency meaning less than actual miles driven!
P.S. I'm totally chicken when it comes to playing chicken but a demolition derby would be a gas and we'd get a few more cars off the road. What do you say?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
Not to characterize anyone in particular here, but I think there are some people who would buy a less efficient bulb because they think somehow being able to do so represents "freedom". "Freedom without responsibility" comes to mind.
P.S. I've changed the word "kill" in the heading of this thread to "weaken" in order to be more accurate. Everything else I've said remains the same.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I will stick with my heavy.
fact is you can get killed in any vehicle.
my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
YES!
YES!
and YES!
P.S. Excellent profile photo and great looking Les Paul!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Extinct species don't drive anything.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Ok, let's not dismiss the obvious facts just because it counters what you believe people should do.
Have you seen a smart car? It is obvious that it is more likely that someone would die in a crash in a smart car versus a big, hefty vehicle like a hummer. Does that mean we abandon the idea? No way. We should just improve the safety of the Smart car. Heck, a bicycle is way better for the environment, but it certainly protects less from a collision with a car.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Lessening our dependence on foreign oil was the exact intended purpose of the Department of Energy. Bang up job they're doing. How about ax that department instead of the EPA?
If we got off of the oil teet then the epa would not have to be as large, since it is burning of fossil fuels that is causing a lot of this pollution.. but since the dept of energy has failed in it's job we are facing cuts to the epa.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Are those Smart cars in the US not...um, actually pretty stupid?
They arent even very fuel efficient...You drive a tint tin-can that gets OK gas mileage? I am all for small cars and hybrid technology, but this thing is a cheap go-cart with kinda crappy mileage. It should be getting like 60+ mpg to be a "smart" idea
"The Smart fortwo is the most fuel-efficient gasoline-engined car for sale in the US; however, according to the EPA, the Smart's fuel efficiency is lower than the fuel efficiency of some hybrids such as the Ford Fusion, the Toyota Prius, the Honda Civic Hybrid, and the 2-seat Honda Insight (making it the fourth most fuel efficient vehicle in the U.S.), which achieve 41/36, 51/48, 40/43, and 40/43 respectively while the Smart achieves 33 city and 41 highway, though the Smart fortwo, which is not a hybrid, costs about half as much as a hybrid in the US."
^Now that's a compromise.
I looked into the Smart Car a couple of years ago and was surprised to learn it is considered relatively safe. It is built like a roll-bar cage on wheels and apparently can withstand collision better than many larger vehicles. The four things I didn’t like about the car were 1) I wanted small but not THAT small, 2) the vehicle can only take high octane gas, 3) I wanted something that gets better gas mileage and , 4) Smart Cars can only be serviced at a dealership. The car isn’t meant to be the answer to improving fuel efficiency, it is meant to be very small for crowded city parking.
The idea that one must drive a tank, however, to be safe on the road is ridiculous. There are very safe cars (Volvos are rated very high for safety) that are not SUVs or Roats (ridiculously oversized American trucks) which get terrible mileage and are often poorly made. (For example, look at the Consumer Reports findings on the Hummers— very low ratings all around, a total piece of crap.)
gimmesometruth27 really hit it on the head though- better gas mileage does not address the issue of getting us off our oil addiction. I drive a Prius and do what I can to minimize trips and I feel very safe driving this car and believe 45 MPG helps but is that the answer? If everyone drove a Prius would that end pollution and energy wars? It would certainly help, but no, it would not solve the problems.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Ok, where did I say that no car can be safe?
Let's do a head on collision chicken test. You get the smart car, and I get to pick whatever car I want. Deal?
If I said something to warrant you being defensive, I'm sorry. I was just relating my experience with the Smart Car. No need to get hostile. I don't do "let's play chicken". Can we get back to a reasonable discussion?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Huh? Just putting your words to a "real life" test. I don't want to actually ram you head on in a car no matter what car either of us have. Feel free to have whatever you feel is reasonable, sorry if I didn't meet your guidelines.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Perhaps I'm not making myself as clear as I need to.
#1) I was not upset or offended
#2) I did not intend to upset or offend you with my post about "chicken"...it was a joking comment just to point out that while a Smart car can be a safe vehicle for it's class, safety shouldn't be the selling factor...and it wasn't even your comment that initially had me commenting about it I guess.
So again, I apologize if I offended.
Back to the topic at hand. Fuel efficiency is still an important topic/issue and mandating certain levels of fuel efficiency does more than just create more fuel efficient cars...due to the cost...it creates the incentive to use R&D to find an alternative.
But, until an alternative is utilized as the norm, as far as the environment is concerned, fuel efficiency means less than actual number of miles driven.
The EPA Wants to Kill Old People and BabiesThe EPA want to cut Texas’ power capacity by 10%. 10% is a lot. We are already over 100% demand because of the heat and are having to go to emergency measures to reduce demand.
So what does it mean when the EPA passes laws that reduce our generation capacity. People die. People who wouldn’t die without the rolling blackouts that will result. People are already dying; rolling blackouts will kill more. Right now, the deaths are from people who don’t have air conditioners. The city is actually doing a decent job of getting AC to those people. I would rather see charity doing that work, but at least it is happening.
When the blackout happens, no one has AC. And instead of deaths from the small percentage of the population in Dallas that hasn’t gotten an AC unit, we have a wide swath of people being put in danger. Those in danger are the most vulnerable — infants and the elderly. This isn’t just heat, either — the same problem can happen in winter, and this year already experienced rolling blackouts. Dropping capacity by 10% can end up causing long blackouts during winter, resulting in freezing deaths, and even more expense and danger from burst pipes, which can end up contaminating the drinking water rather than just effecting the home with the burst pipes.
Electricity is civilization. The people who want to limit electrical generation and ban the Edison bulb are enemies of civilization. These people refuse to stop meddling with the most basic of modern necessities — that when you flip the switch in your house, you get light. They want to reach into your living room, and change all the bulbs — and after that, they want to make it so that sometimes it doesn’t even work — so that you can breath .01% better air.
A study by the National Academy of Science found that lighter vehicles required to satisfy CAFE — which was first enacted in 1975 — were responsible for up to 2,600 highway deaths a year.
And data from the government's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, analyzed by USA Today, concluded that 7,700 people died for every one additional mpg attributed to CAFE regulation.
The Obama administration on July 29 announced a new fuel economy standard that requires automakers to boost their fleets' miles per gallon by 5 percent a year until they reach 54.5 mpg by 2025.
The standard is designed to save thousands of dollars in fuel costs over the life of a vehicle, but critics say it will have another effect: a rise in motor vehicle deaths.
"By far the worst result, however, will be the fact that thousands will die because Obama, fanatical Big Green environmentalists, and their allies in the federal bureaucracy care more about removing micro-amounts of emissions than they do about the safety and convenience of people on the roads."
now go sit in the corner for five minutes
It;s true. I get tired of having to prove the most basic facts with links and graphs. Look it up for yourself people.
Thank you, cincybearcat. Sorry if I misunderstood and thanks for setting me straight!
Also, good point about fuel effiency meaning less than actual miles driven!
P.S. I'm totally chicken when it comes to playing chicken but a demolition derby would be a gas and we'd get a few more cars off the road. What do you say?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"