Bob Lutz: A CAFE level of 42 mpg is "totally ridiculous"

The reason bob says this is he wants to stay with ice and gasoline and that crap alcohol corn blend. I increased 8mpg on vacation buying gas for my old gas hog on pure gasoline. That was 4 tank fulls 8 mpg remained and not due to weather or different type of driving.

 

I am well aware of historic origin of expression.. never the less it is proper use according to modern dictionaries (Oxford, Merriam).

This is a meter of perspective; after all hobbesian choice is a choice never the less. You can either take it or not take it.

In a larger picture what looks as a choice for you may not look much of a choice for someone else: tell catholic about condom and listen to what he is gonna tell you back about alternatives

People move out not b/c they like driving, b/c they can't afford to live close or they lost job and have to take any job even if it is 2.5hr drive one way.

now about the car choice.. how about a car to fit 6-person with EPA combined north of 30MPG? sure there is an alternative, right?

 

I am confused. Why would someone who is well aware of the historic origin, not use it, and decide to use the 'so many people have done it wrong it is now accepted practice' one instead?

 

you made me think.. and I have no answer for it.

It is kind of like lift vs elevator, millenia vs millenniums, idecies vs indexes or irregardless vs regardless.. you just use it.

 

Well, while you thinking consider the difference between discarding choices you do not like, and having but one choice.

Or the difference between logic, and rationalizing illogic as "personal perspective."

 

there is no such thing as rationalized illogic, just different premises which lead to different conclusions.

for example your "choices" (Carpool. Combine trips. Use a condom. Move. Lose weight. Drive slower. Pick a small car. [don't] live to suburbia and exurbia) based on propositions which for some are not unacceptable for various reasons. Some would even go as far as to call the choices above as "ridiculous" and "rationalized illogic".

Anyways, :focus:

 

I agree with you on a lot of that, except the move to the city thing. There is only so much room in a city, and that is most of the time at a premium. I could move to the city and lose the car or one car, but I can't afford to live in the city. So I am forced to live in the burbs. Just because a choice is possible, does not mean that everyone can do it. I do drive slower and drive a Prius, though, and telework 2 days a week. Now that is at least a 40% reduction in petrol use for just one person, and then a 50% decrease in petrol used on the days that I do commute. I won't move to DC, though.

 

What you are calling "rationalized illogic" in fact DOES exist. Its real name is "rational construction," which is a logical fallacy wherein a person embraces a conclusion for one reason or another, and then argues FROM the conclusion, rather than discovering premises and arguing to a conclusion. Good examples of this are Creationism, UFOlogy, Tea Bag Histories, and other pseudo-sciences. The arguer decides that they like a particular outcome, and then they find reasons for that outcome, while arguing against reasons that controvert that outcome. That is why you always argue in circles with a creationist, for example, and no amount of demonstrative science will convince them otherwise, meanwhile there is no demonstrative science to support their position - while they argue a scientific foundation for their "belief". People who use rational construction also typically use ad hominem and straw man arguments to try to undercut a counter argument, while never addressing the validity of the counter argument directly.

 

long time ago I shared a dorm room in college with UFOist. If was very comic (still brings tears to my eyes) when in the middle of argument he would run to the window, point to lights in the sky and scream "look! UFO!". When he heard back "it is just an airplane, come down" his contra-argument was "plains don't fly that often".

agree the "rational construction" is usually goes hand in hand with propaganda with ad hominem, ad nauseum, appeal to authority, selective truth, etc and other propaganda methods.

 

Just to make it clear: I am not arguing against alternatives you lists as choices.. actually I happen to share your views. A few years ago I used to avg ~54MPG in commute using my "hybrid" vehicle, minivan when it snowed, motorcycle otherwise.

All I am saying that there will be alot more dead bodies laying around if you sell poison on every street corner.

 

Plains don't fly.

 

I just tend to ignore Mr Putz!

 

Interesting note about that. The very term "UFO" connotes that the seer cannot identify the object that is in the sky. It is "UNidentified." How does one make the jump from, "I can't identify it" to "therefore it is from another planet?"

Without negating that perhaps this planet might have been or is being visited by beings from other planets, how does one make the assertion that because they can't identify something, they definitively know what it is? They have already predicated themselves into a corner.

 

Bobby Nertz is just a corporate mouthpiece. They trot him out now and again to reassure investors. Just because someone worked their way to the top of the corporate payroll doesn't mean they know anything about anything... except cars and mileage... wait, what? He just wants to sell more Corvettes and Camaros, which are doing good things for their bottom line. They are coming out with the ZL1 next year, which is going to kill their CAFE figure.

 

I heard they embalmed him and installed servo systems in him about 10 years ago. Just sayin'.

 

My list was not meant to be exhaustive or required, but only a few examples of the many choices available to those confronted with, or desirable of, decreasing petrol use.

Americans routinely confuse wants and needs. Like cyclopath in an earlier post, they also tend to conflate 'don't want to' with 'can not.'

 

From experience listening to religious types, the answer is usually "well, how do you know it isn't !?" And that seems to settle the argument in their eyes.

 

don't single me out you could go back and live in cave or under the bridge.

 

i agree with Bob, it is ridiculous. it should be no less than 50 MPG!!

 

That's what always amuses me. "Hmmm, that's a strange light up in the sky. Could it be a plane, a helicopter, a spy plane, a satellite or maybe a planet? No, it can't be any of those; it's got to be a spaceship from lightyears away visiting us but only in secret!" ha ha ha.

Now does life exist on other planets and more importantly does intelligent life exist out there -now that's another question. But as they said on Monty Python's Galaxy Song - there's bugger all down here on earth! [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_Song]Galaxy Song - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]