[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

This thread moves so quickly...

Don't they all

I don't see why there's this immediate jump to the idea that people need to buy a brand new, high-end hybrid vehicle...Given some of the crazy things that people take out loans for, an auto loan to go for a more fuel-efficiency vehicle is also an option.

People need to calculate it out for themselves. If the cost of a hybrid comes out to a net loss compared with the older, less efficient vehicle, then obviously it makes no financial sense. In that case, perhaps it doesn't need to be a hybrid; perhaps they could simply trade in their truck that has a perpetually empty flatbed for something like a Smartcar.

What I'm getting at is being realistic. Some people want to drive huge, fuel-inefficient vehicles, while others want to drive overpowered and inefficient sports cars. What I'm getting at is being realistic. Some people want to drive huge, fuel-inefficient vehicles, while others want to drive overpowered and inefficient sports cars. I'm not judging their preference in vehicles, but we need to be realistic about the cost of gas and our finances. If gas prices rise and you don't want to give up your truck, you are going to be paying more. You can whine to the government to subsidize and drill more all you like, but eventually you will have to deal with reality: drive less, alter your driving style, and/or change your vehicle. If there are no trucks that get the mileage you need to be able to afford shuttling yourself around and you really don't need the capabilities of a truck, then it's time to get real: you're not going to be driving a truck.

Of course, but you also can't argue under the assumption that the majority of people are driving gas-guzzling SUVs/trucks/sports car. I believe the original line of argument was that gas tax should be raised to make EV more palatable, which IMO is the wrong approach, as it'd be a regressive tax raise that will hit the poor the hardest, as they are the people who are least financially capable of adapting to the change. Do no forget that raising the price of a basic commodity like fuel is likely going to lead to increased general inflation, including basic goods such as food, potentially leading to a double-whammy against the poor.

Carpooling is feasible anywhere. The internet makes it even more feasible, as websites designed for carpooling could allow you to see other peoples' routes and acquire rides that way. It's no longer limited to word of mouth, or putting up flyers on telephone poles.

I would content that a more accurate description would be that they are possible in most places, rather than feasible. Practicality aside, one of the biggest reason you already mentioned yourself - trust. In today's society, I highly doubt most people would be comfortable with the idea of carpooling with total strangers from the internet - there are enough horror stories of that kind as it is. The public would clamor for buses long before they would look to adopt carpooling on a large scale.

20 miles sounds like a lot, but try reading stories about people who commute by bicycle. People who commute long distances, people who have major hills on their commute, people who are out of shape - the stories of their overcoming the obstacles are pretty inspiring. It really opened my eyes to what's possible.

Sorry, it may be inspiring in a "oh, that's kinda neat" way, it's a different story when you're the one doing it, and have no choice but to do it. Much like a boot-ass new PFC may find the story from the grizzled Sergeant to be inspiring, but if you ask him again in the middle of that 20+ mile hump or when he's trying to sleep in that fighting hole he had to dig with that tiny little shovel, in the cold, while raining? "Inspiring" is probably the last thing he's thinking about.

Regardless, it made me realize that you don't need to be within a five-mile radius of your destination or live on flat land for a bicycle to be feasible.

Again, possible, but hardly always feasible.