Comment Re:It could improve resource usage (Score 2, Insightful) 467
Both analogies ignore the obivous: firing up your high-powered workstation to type letters or running auto-cad once a month doesn't represent an increased safety threat to Bob with his new $499 budget PC from Best Buy. The substantial increase in SUVs and the super-sized "light trucks" (what an oxymoron!) in the 1990s now represents at least 40% of the vehicles on the road. It may a represent a "choice" for those who can affford them, but collectively it is a very selfish choich as it makes driving substantially more dangerous for those who can't afford them or are philosophically opposed to owning one.
Likewise you both ignore the environmental impact, and I don't mean the mediocre fuel economy and increased emissions, but rather how the trend is now necessitating the need for bigger parking areas, larger garages, and making our bleak, sprawling, car dependent "cities" more forboding and obscene than ever.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not against such vehicles for people who have a legitimate need for them, such as ranchers/farmers, or rural residents in areas of poor roads and steep terrain that have a legitimate need for 4 Wheel Drive. However as we all know most such vehicles, especially the recent luxury SUVs, are gold plated penises designed to show the world how "successful" and "cool" you really are. Engineering wise they are little more than your standard pickup truck with a fancy cab grafted on and thus extremely profitable (and overpriced) due to an irrational, gullible public that puts fashion and "keeping up with the Joneses" before such matters as practicality, sustainability, and personal safety.
For a family of four a mini-van or station wagon is a marginally better choice. The real choice, that we're so lacking in most of our cities, is the choice not to drive at all. Transportation costs are now the #2 expense for most individuals and families behind the need for housing, represent from 15% to 20% of income for outlays suchs as car payments, insurance, maintainance, taxes, and fuel.
Isn't it a little ridiculous to design an environment that forces people to own a car in order to fully function as a citizen? Unlike a house a automobile eventually full depreciates to nothing, much like a personal computer, though much more expensive considering that PCs are basically commodities these days. If you do the math you'll see that a typical family a four will spend as much or more on automotive ownerships costs over than mortgage payments in the 30 years it takes to payoff a house. And all of this so we can live in a bland, polluted, cookie cutter landscape with no sense of community or place.
Reductionist
Likewise you both ignore the environmental impact, and I don't mean the mediocre fuel economy and increased emissions, but rather how the trend is now necessitating the need for bigger parking areas, larger garages, and making our bleak, sprawling, car dependent "cities" more forboding and obscene than ever.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not against such vehicles for people who have a legitimate need for them, such as ranchers/farmers, or rural residents in areas of poor roads and steep terrain that have a legitimate need for 4 Wheel Drive. However as we all know most such vehicles, especially the recent luxury SUVs, are gold plated penises designed to show the world how "successful" and "cool" you really are. Engineering wise they are little more than your standard pickup truck with a fancy cab grafted on and thus extremely profitable (and overpriced) due to an irrational, gullible public that puts fashion and "keeping up with the Joneses" before such matters as practicality, sustainability, and personal safety.
For a family of four a mini-van or station wagon is a marginally better choice. The real choice, that we're so lacking in most of our cities, is the choice not to drive at all. Transportation costs are now the #2 expense for most individuals and families behind the need for housing, represent from 15% to 20% of income for outlays suchs as car payments, insurance, maintainance, taxes, and fuel.
Isn't it a little ridiculous to design an environment that forces people to own a car in order to fully function as a citizen? Unlike a house a automobile eventually full depreciates to nothing, much like a personal computer, though much more expensive considering that PCs are basically commodities these days. If you do the math you'll see that a typical family a four will spend as much or more on automotive ownerships costs over than mortgage payments in the 30 years it takes to payoff a house. And all of this so we can live in a bland, polluted, cookie cutter landscape with no sense of community or place.
Reductionist
