Car gets stuck trying to get a free look at Great Adventure's safari
Posted
Three people in their GMC Jimmy trying to get a free view of the Six Flags Great Adventure Wild Safari park spent five hours stuck in the soft sand along near by this weekend, finally calling police when it looked like a woman 33 weeks pregnant was about to go into labor, authorities said.
Read more from Asbury Park Press.
Related parks
- More
- 1
- 2 of 2
JustBob said:
Don’t make yourself sound all self-righteous just because you drive a car that’s gets over 30mpg. If you really meant what you said, you would do more.
Whatever. That's like saying 'if you're really against terrorism, you would do more. Grab a gun and go hunt them down.' I shopped for a fuel efficient vehicle. I recycle. Is that going to change the world? No, but I'm doing what I can to help out, small as it may be.
EchoVictor said:
Really? So the instability in the Middle East has nothing to do with prices? OPEC? Scores of new vehicles sold in China and India? The simple concept of supply of demand is a neat thing. Go take Economics 101.
Supply and Demand. You're right. The less fuel efficient the vehicles are, the more demand there is for oil. Prices go up. It's not the ONLY factor, but it's a big one. Remember after 9/11 when travel took a huge dip, by plane and car? Gas prices plunged dramaticly. I remember filling up for 90 cents a gallon.
(TGF) * (.25) * (.25) = .125*TGF, a 12% reduction in fuel used.
While the math looks flawed, that's beside the point. What if your employer cut your salary by 12%? I would be pissed. People would jump for joy in the unemployment rate went from 5.6% to 3%. That would only be a 2.6% drop. A 12% drop in fuel consumption is huge.
People in this country are free to buy what they want to suit their needs and desires. If someone's foolish enough to buy a V8 Durango just for daily commuting, that's thier financial loss, and we all should care less.
The EPA estimates SUVs pollute 3 to 5 times as much as passenger cars and emit twice as much C02. I also live in Los Angeles, and the less fuel that is burned, the less smog I have to see and breathe. So yes, I should care.
This of course, makes the assumption the NO ONE needs an SUV for such tasks as towing a boat or trailer along with several passengers, or buying ONE vehicle that can carry thier family for one trip, and a load of 2x4's another. No, no one does that!
I never said they didn't. But those who drive a large vehicle and don't need them outnumber those who do by a large margin. Are SUVs evil? No. But auto makers need to be more responsible when it comes to reducing pollutants, and those who own them should NEED them.
The earth's oil supply is limited. It's not going to run out tomorrow, and probably not in my lifetime. But I would think prevention is better then tyring to find a cure when it's too late.
The math is not flawed. Larger SUV's make up only 25% of the market. Any action on their efficiency would therefore only affect 25% of the total fuel used.
Changing from a 20.7 mpg SUV to a 27.5 mpg car decreases your fuel used by 25%.
Thus 25 percent of 25 percent is 12.5% decraease in fuel used. Yes, that 12.5% reduction in fuel used would be very beneficial, but my main point was that it's no where near the blanket-statement of "one third".
2)
As of the Tier2 emissions regulations of 1999, ALL vehicles under 6000lb are required to meet the same standards for CO and oxides of nitrogen. Thus, only the Excursion and the Hummers (approx. 40K sold per year = 0.2% of market) fall in the commercial vehicle category.
As for CO2 being a pollutant? I guess that means you'd better kill people and cut down a bunch of trees, too.
3)
You live in LA, with a higher density of cars than anywhere on earth. That's why you have specific (read: stricter) emissions requirements for California.
4)
There's lot's of things that people buy that they don't NEED. Heck, to get this somewhat on a TOS-approved topic, we don't NEED roller coasters, but we sure do love 'em, right?:)
5)
Automakers need to be more responsible? In the words of Bob Lutz, "CAFE (gov't fuel efficiency) requirements are like trying to combat obesity buy forcing manufacturers to make smaller dress sizes." People buy 'em, so companies make 'em and sell 'em, not the other way around.
6)
Yeah, the earth's supply of oil is finite, but if it's important to people, the market will create the demand, as it is just starting to do with hybrids.
Later,
EV
Of course they do. I'm not stupid. However, it's not hard to connect the dots to see that as less fuel-efficient cars have risen in popularity that gas prices have also gone up. You're right, it IS supply and demand, and our demand is out of control.
Really? So the instability in the Middle East has nothing to do with prices? OPEC? Scores of new vehicles sold in China and India? The simple concept of supply of demand is a neat thing. Go take Economics 101.
I spend a third less, in some cases half, on gas than my neighbors because I get better fuel economy. Stick that in your calculator. It's not a myth.
Impulse-ive: Have you seen the new Honda Accord Hybrid? It's a fully-loaded version of the Accord, gets better mileage than a 4-cylinder version but has more power than the top-of-the-line V6. The Accord V6 was a fast sedan with 240 horsepower but the Hybrid has 255... it's the first hybrid that I can see myself wanting because it's a better car and not because it's a more efficient car.
OK, since you asked...
Big SUV = 15 mpg
Mid-size car = 25 mpg
(both data per Edmunds.com)
Let's say you drive the average 15,000 miles a year.
Thus;
SUV = 1000 gallons used in a year
Car = 600 gallons in a year
figuring $2/gallon for gas, you get an $800 dollar difference per year, or $66 a month.
Most folks I know that can afford the kind of dough that a bigger SUV costs ($40K +) don't bat an eyelash at paying that premium for the size, space, and power that they want.
Look, I have no problem with anyone wanting a fuel efficient car, for whatever reason. In fact, mileage was a consideration in buying my own car. It's just that I object to the blanket demonization of anyone who buys (or for that matter builds) the big SUVs. Or the thought of anyone (especially the government) tell me what I can or can't do with my own money (don't get me started on income tax, Social Security, etc.;)).
If we all drove Priuses, or if we all drove Excursions, the highways would be pretty boring, right? I'm just thankful that we are currently living in, IMHO, the greatest era of automotive choice and performance that we've ever seen.
It's actually a lot like the current era of roller coasters, with everything from 4D's and Intamin Rockets down to Spinning Mice and awesome new small woodies.
We're living in the new renaissance, folks. I say enjoy it while you can!;)
Later,
EV
The main problem with people with SUV's in ditches along the highway is people think because it is 4WD they can still go 65 mph with an inch or two of snow. Wrong! Go slow along with everyone else and you should get to where you going easier than a 2WD. Mud and trails are another story that actually requires skill to get thru some thing, along with good tires and engine that will turn them, Low geared differentals will help too! :)
I'm done bein a hick, redneck fer now!
As for me, my comfortable and functional Corolla (one of three I've owned since college) easily gets 40 mpg, so I'm spending less than half of what my neighbors spend on gas. I could afford an SUV that costs two or three times as much, but what would I do with it? Frankly, for me, it's not even about the money as much as it's about tree hugging and doing the right thing. Our next car will be a hybrid.
But people don't care about that. They care about the false sense of security they get (see greatwhitenorth's story) and keeping up with the Joneses. That's all it is. None of these people are going off-road, they're going to buy groceries and to a parking garage 20+ miles from where they live. It's irresponsible.
And yeah, we have an electric lawnmower.
My father has to deliver prototypes to his customers (just one of the many "perks" of owning his own business) and many of them don't fit into the back of a fuel-efficient Corolla or Civic. Not only that, but he often has to drive long (100+ mile) distances in inclement weather. For him, a mid-size SUV (like the ones that are being declared as irresponsible) makes perfect sense. A similar SUV works for a soccer mom that has four kids but lives in a part of the country where a front wheel drive minivan doesn't cut it when the flakes start falling. I would hardly consider her choice of vehicle to be irresponsible either. Not everything is cut-and-dry and I think it's pretty ignorant of people to look down on SUV drivers because of what they decided to buy. If buying such gas-guzzlers is such a sin, try blaming the car companies for making them or the government for allowing them to be sold to citizens since it's pretty obvious that many people are considered inept at making rational decisions.
As for me, I'll stick with a nice performance car that allows me to have a little fun as I get from Point A to Point B. I don't need to buy a 50 MPG hybrid to feel better about myself.
Danimales said:People would jump for joy in the unemployment rate went from 5.6% to 3%. That would only be a 2.6% drop.
While unemployment would be reduced to 3% technically that would be a 46.4% drop from month to month...
And Rob, in reference to your comments above about FWD minivans not cutting it when the snowflakes fall...I have driven a FWD minivan for the past 7 years in Chicago winters and haven't had any problems. Vehicles don't cause accidents, morons who don't know how to drive do. In my daily commute, I see many more small cars spun out and wrapped around trees than I do minivans (or SUVs for that matter).
Besides, how did a news story about some dorks getting stuck trying to see SF's Wild Safari park become a rant on SUVs???
Look at it this way- SUVs use more gas than regular cars. But I've always owned a "regular" car (meaning NOT an SUV) but I used to go on drives just for the sake of driving. Since that used "extra" gas just like SUVs use, did those "drives to nowhere in particular" make me irresponsible? I think not.
redman822 said:
While unemployment would be reduced to 3% technically that would be a 46.4% drop from month to month...)
Heh, I stand corrected. Not sure what I was thinking there!
Jeff said:
But people don't care about that. They care about the false sense of security they get (see greatwhitenorth's story) and keeping up with the Joneses. That's all it is. None of these people are going off-road, they're going to buy groceries and to a parking garage 20+ miles from where they live. It's irresponsible.
Well put. I wouldn't say 'none of these people,' but for the vast majority this holds true.
The idea that SUV's are better suited for anything is a myth, as some of the above stories point out. Driving up the I-271 corridor through Cleveland's snow belt (a phenomenon caused in part by lake effect snow) showed me just how true this is. What vehicle types was found most frequently stuck in the median? What type was most frequently in the accidents I passed? SUV's, of course.
Few people have had any kind of training on how to operate their vehicle in adverse conditions, and without that training, it doesn't matter what you're driving. In fact, having those big vehicles causes more potential for danger in untrained hands. When my Dad gave me some training (he used to rally race professionally), he showed me that it was the little fuel-efficient FWD cars that were winning in the ice races on the frozen lakes in Northern Michigan.
To the person wondering about hybrid power: My mom's Prius has plenty of power, I drove it up to Erie, and blew past everyone. It's easy to go 85 when the engine's shut off... you feel like you're going about 40.
To the guy with the broken calculator: You only factored in large SUV's. What about the guy two doors down from me that drives his Dodge Ram to work and never hauls anything @ 9mpg?
"People in this country are free to buy what they want to suit their needs and desires. If someone's foolish enough to buy a V8 Durango just for daily commuting, that's thier financial loss, and we all should care less."
Um, it's a lot more than their financial loss. There irresponsible choices have an impact far beyond their wallet. Billions of dollars for wars (thousands of lives) to protect oil supplies so Americans can have cheap gas. Millions of tons of pollution so people can "do what they want." Like it or not, oil is a finite resource and completely unsustainable in the long run.
"We all should care less?" We all should care more! None of us lives in a bubble and every action we take has a profound impact on the rest of the world. The United States uses an amazingly high proportion of the earth's resources and like it or not, there is no way to increase the size of the earth so we'll have to learn, sooner or later, to use what we have efficiently and fairly. No amount of drilling in pristine wilderness or invading other countries is ever going to solve the problem in the long term.
And yes, driving an SUV is irresponsible. In fact, driving anything as much as we do is irresponsible but we can all take steps to minimize our impact on the world and seeking out fuel efficient vehicles or alternative energy sources is one good stepping stone towards a better future for everybody. Even better would be to rethink how we plan our communities and try not to be so car-dependent. In fact everything we do has an impact that ripples across the world. Switching from a huge SUV to a hybrid car is good. Switching from a car to a bicycle is even better. Switching from a bicycle to walking is better still.
"As for CO2 being a pollutant? I guess that means you'd better kill people and cut down a bunch of trees, too."
So I guess it never occured to you that we exhale CO2 as a waste product, eh? Care to volunteer to sit in a CO2 filled chamber? CO2 is the principle gas for enhanced global warming and I don't care what any right-wing talk show host says. The facts are crystal clear. In a decade, many of the world's glaciers will be gone. The oceans are already starting to register a lowered saline level from historic levels. But yeah, we should all care less. It's a matter of personal freedom and one person's decision never impact anybody else's life do they?
No offense to your father, Rob, but I am hard pressed to think of anybody that really really needs an SUV. We didn't always have SUVs yet somehow the world's business got done. What did that person in Blairstown do 20 years ago? Spend all winter camped out at the bottom of the hill waiting for the snow to thaw? You're in NJ, take a ride around Lake Hopatcong and get a load of some of those crazy roads, plenty of people there make do without an SUV.
Oh, that's right, we need to tow a boat, and three ATVs, two snowmobiles, a couple of jetskis all while fording rushing rivers. Ever stop to think that we just have too much STUFF? And maybe we could be just as happy leading simpler and less materialistic lives?
P.S. - I did the responsible thing and walked 30 miles to work today.
What vehicle types was found most frequently stuck in the median? What type was most frequently in the accidents I passed? SUV's, of course.
Yeah, I'll call Americans largely irresponsible.
Got to love the fine displays of "responsible" reporting/opinions in this thread.
P.S. Got to go now. I'm seearching Ebay for a used Yugo to get me up Mt. Charleston (Vegas) for some sledding. :-)
- More
- 1
- 2 of 2
You must be logged in to post
