Hybrids - Sluggers buy a clue

Print Page | Close Window

Sluggers buy a clue

Printed From: Slug-Lines.com
Category: Archived Slugging Topics
Forum Name: Hybrids
Forum Description: This area is devoted to the discussion of hybrid vehicles and their impact to the HOV.
URL: http://www.slug-lines.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1859
Printed Date: 24 Apr 2024 at 10:16am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Sluggers buy a clue

Posted By: bolo5757
Subject: Sluggers buy a clue
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2005 at 9:27am

Message Preview
I am getting soooooo tired of this darned hybrid, no hybrid debate. Yes, I own a Prius and yes I commute over 150 miles a day and yes I actually have 2 other people in the darned car with me. So should I get my own freakin lane?[;)]
The problem that both sides seem to be missing, (but not the politicians) is that we need more road and more lanes!!!!! The politicians love the fact that we're to busy fighting each other to bother them to spend money on road improvements. We need more roads!![:(!]

BTW the other question that I have for you folks is why is nobody upset about motorcycles? I get the same or better milage in my car as most bikes and if people a driving correctly (snicker yeah right) then a bike takes up just as much lane as my car.[?]
One more thing and then I'll pass the soapbox.....if you don't like hybrids do you still get in them at the slug line? And if you do would you get in one if there were only you and the driver on an HOV3?
[:p]

Replies:

Posted By: VA4ver
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2005 at 9:35am

Never had a complaint from a slugger when we couldn't get 3 people (summer's the worst time). If it's between waiting for a 3rd or going, most people opt for going.

Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2005 at 3:38pm

Try reading some of the discussions here. That way you'll have all the answers you need, and won't look so ignorant.

Nobody here hates hybrids. It's the people driving on the High Occupancy lanes without additional passengers that are the issue. Since there are thousands and thousands of hybrids on the HOV lanes, and 98% of those have less than three people...

Posted By: qorc
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2005 at 10:34am

it's called "selective outrage"

they hate single passenger hybrids

but they don't care about motorcycles

or infants and children counting as "slugs" - which removes no drivers from the road.

But darn those hybrids!!

It's called narrow-minded self-interest

Posted By: qorc
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2005 at 10:34am

Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2005 at 3:37pm

qorc,
Go read more threads. Nobody here likes the motorcycles in HOV.

Posted By: Road Warrior
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2005 at 11:16am

quote:
Originally posted by qorc
[br]
or infants and children counting as "slugs" - which removes no drivers from the road.

I have never agreed with the premise that children qualify as a commuter...and would wholly endorse amending the VA Code to eliminate them as eligible occupants for a vehicle becoming HOV compliant.

Just my $.02 worth...

John

Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2005 at 11:47am

I suppose there's a few hundred cars with children occupants in HOV? At least they have more than one person.

People making the anti-children arguement have also argued against non-commuters using the HOV lanes. People on vacation should also be prohibited is their "arguement".

Posted By: qorc
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2005 at 7:53am

quote:
Originally posted by MDC
[br]I suppose there's a few hundred cars with children occupants in HOV? At least they have more than one person.

People making the anti-children arguement have also argued against non-commuters using the HOV lanes. People on vacation should also be prohibited is their "arguement".

Yes, they have more than one occupant that does NOTHING to reduce the number of cars on the road.

If you're going to be outraged about hybrids and how most do not reduce the number of drivers on the road, at least be consistent. I realize this is a stretch for most of the people here.

Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2005 at 8:08am

I'm sure this has been said a million times, but there's nothing wrong with hybrids. I wouldn't have a problem if a hybrid driver had two kids in the car, why do you? Nobody wants motorcycles on HOV either, but they aren't a "growing" problem, and nowhere near the numbers that single occupant hybrids are.

Consistency is saying that there should be 3 persons in each car while on the HOV lanes. Do you have a problem with that?

Posted By: qorc
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2005 at 9:59am

yes, because having "non-drivers" in the cars counting as slugs does not help congestion one bit.

I'm all for it - motorcycles don't reduce congestion, hybrids don't, and CHILDREN don't either.

Should be a rule - HOV-3 adults, period. No matter what you're driving. At least let's be consistent, if you really want to reduce congestion.

Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2005 at 3:44pm

Three persons is good enough for me, and it appears that 99% of everyone agrees. I'm leaving it at that

Posted By: jamest001
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2005 at 3:47pm

The main rationale for allowing motorcycles in the HOV lanes (in addition to fuel efficiency), is reduced parking congestion in the metropolitan areas served by HOV lanes. You can fit at least four or five motorcycles in the same space a car occupies (even hybrids).

Posted By: tdar20
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2005 at 10:32am

People are people......

Posted By: qorc
Date Posted: 24 Jun 2005 at 6:52am

quote:
Originally posted by jamest001
[br]The main rationale for allowing motorcycles in the HOV lanes (in addition to fuel efficiency), is reduced parking congestion in the metropolitan areas served by HOV lanes. You can fit at least four or five motorcycles in the same space a car occupies (even hybrids).

which may help parking lots, but does nothing to help traffic congestion...

Posted By: SuzAnne
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2005 at 12:51pm

But riding alone in YOUR hybrid does?

Posted By: qorc
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2005 at 8:25am

you obviously haven't read.

Sure, remove the exemptions for hybirds. I know this will happen sooner or later

BUT AT THE SAME TIME remove the exemptions for motorcycles and for non-adults counting as slugs.

if you're going to be pure about improving traffic congestion, try at LEAST to be consistent about it.

Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2005 at 9:55am

So unless everyone agrees with Qorc that kids shouldn't count for HOV, we shouldn't do anything about the biggest problem.

Posted By: qorc
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2005 at 11:35am

nope. You can do both. You can do either.

But the people here that use their kids as "slugs" to cart them off to daycare or wherever, and DEFEND their right to use HOV, are hypocrites to the core.

Why does discussing this issue so threaten some people here? Because they have a self-interest in preserving their own options, while attacking others for doing the same.

and we call that??? begins with an "h"....

Posted By: sluDgE
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2005 at 12:43pm

[?] Anyone know for sure what the rationale is for allowing motorcycles an HOV exemption? [?]
[B)] If it is to provide the mo'bikes a less-congested, safer environment over the regular lanes, does that rationale apply anymore with the increase congestion on HOV? [B)]

Just wonderin'.

Keep on sluggin'! [:)]

Posted By: KCWolfPck
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2005 at 2:23pm

quote:
Originally posted by sluDgE
[br][?] Anyone know for sure what the rationale is for allowing motorcycles an HOV exemption? [?]
[B)] If it is to provide the mo'bikes a less-congested, safer environment over the regular lanes, does that rationale apply anymore with the increase congestion on HOV? [B)]

Just wonderin'.

Keep on sluggin'! [:)]

No, I don't think the intent was to provide a safer biking environment for the bikers. I think it had more to do with fuel efficiency. I am certainly not as knowledgeable as others on here, but I think that the original intent of the HOV lanes was more geared towards cleaner air (get more people to ride share, use more efficient means of travel). I've read that there is some sort of correlation between federal funding for transportation and air quality. Therefore, the cleaner the air, the more money was received to improve the roads. Since motorcycles burn less fuel, their use helped keep the air cleaner (in comparison to that same driver going to work alone in a car/truck).

Of course, I'm sure there are several inaccuracies in my post, but that's the general idea as far as I understand it.

Posted By: KCWolfPck
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2005 at 2:29pm

quote:
Originally posted by qorc
[br]or infants and children counting as "slugs" - which removes no drivers from the road.

Posted By: SpongeBob
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2005 at 3:29pm

Warning, KC: you are about to enter the Twit-light Zone (yes, Twit-light,) where qorc lives. He likes saying silly things, we think because it amuses him to watch grown-ups get angry.

If you simply make allowances for his inability to count past #1 or see beyond the end of his nose, he becomes, in an odd way, faintly amusing.

Still, he can get tiresome, too. Then he's best ignored.

(Lord, I don't know what I'd do without him. I love the guy! [:D][:D][:D])

Posted By: qorc
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2005 at 8:20am

whenever Sponge has no facts or an inability to argue a point intelligently, he reverts to name-calling.

once again, I rest my case. No one, certainly not this fool, can give me a reason why one exemption is ok and another is not.

I rest my case. Game, set, match.

Posted By: qorc
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2005 at 8:21am

Posted By: qorc
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2005 at 8:24am

Oh please!!! All that matters are that there are 3 people in the car. You can't start adding a classification to say that they have to be commuters. How would you expect that to be enforced.....seriously?
-----------

many things are difficult to enforce, but are laws neverthless - like seatbelts.

How does it get enforced? When a cop can't even see the head of someone in the back seat, they will be stopped. He can easily identify children, I would think. And the person would be ticketed.

It's no more difficult than trying to enforce HOV requirements for SUVs with tinted windows - problematic, but not impossible. Should we not have HOV because we can't see into some cars? get real.

It's no different here. I'm just saying that HOV's goal of reducing DRIVERS on the road should apply across the board. my apologies to parents, but HOV was not set up to make your run to day-care easier.

Posted By: KCWolfPck
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2005 at 8:24am

quote:
Originally posted by qorc
[br]No, I don't think the intent was to provide a safer biking environment for the bikers. I think it had more to do with fuel efficiency. I am certainly not as knowledgeable as others on here, but I think that the original intent of the HOV lanes was more geared towards cleaner air
-------------

Precisely. I get 51 mpg on my run to work and back in my hybrid - high fuel efficiency.

Thank you for making my point.

You are very welcome. [8D]

Note that my post said that this was the ORIGINAL intent. I am guessing that now the the area is getting more heavily populated and more cars are on the road, I am guessing that the focus now is shifting to getting more cars off the road as well. This is probably why your hybrid exemption will be expiring shortly.

Posted By: KCWolfPck
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2005 at 8:31am

quote:
Originally posted by qorc
[br]
Oh please!!! All that matters are that there are 3 people in the car. You can't start adding a classification to say that they have to be commuters. How would you expect that to be enforced.....seriously?
-----------

many things are difficult to enforce, but are laws neverthless - like seatbelts.

How does it get enforced? When a cop can't even see the head of someone in the back seat, they will be stopped. He can easily identify children, I would think. And the person would be ticketed.

It's no more difficult than trying to enforce HOV requirements for SUVs with tinted windows - problematic, but not impossible. Should we not have HOV because we can't see into some cars? get real.

It's no different here. I'm just saying that HOV's goal of reducing DRIVERS on the road should apply across the board. my apologies to parents, but HOV was not set up to make your run to day-care easier.

Ok, answer me this then.... Let's say you have a mother and her two kids in the HOV. The mother is on her way to work and she is dropping her kids off at day-care which is semi-close to work. If she isn't driving her kids to daycare, someone else would have to. Therefore, she is still reducing drivers by transporting them to daycare herself.

Alternatively, let's say that the situation above is not even allowed, what would you expect the mother to do?? Drive in the regular laves even though she has 3 people in the car? Would you prefer for her to pick-up 2 slugs and cram them in the back seat with the kids?

You just aren't being realistic. Use your brain and think it through.

Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2005 at 8:43am

Qorc isn't about using brains. This is what Qorc is depending on to keep "hybrids" on HOV.

Here's a quote from the Los Angeles Metro site regarding motorcycles on HOV. They say it's federal law.

Motorcycles are permitted by federal law to use HOV lanes, even though they typically carry only one passenger. The explanation for the federal law is that allowing motorcycles to use HOV lanes keeps them moving, and it is considered safer to keep two-wheel vehicles moving than it is to have them traveling in start-and-stop traffic conditions. The individual states can choose to override this provision of federal law, if they determine that there is an inherent safety risk by allowing motorcycles to use HOV lanes. In the State of California, motorcycles are permitted to use HOV facilities unless a traffic control device specifically prohibits them.

Posted By: shahedC
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2005 at 9:40am

why are kids not allowed? what if an under-18 kid is working in the city?

what if a parent is taking their baby to day care in DC?

why are non-drivers not allowed? what if someone is taking their disabled parent/relative to DC?

what if someone is taking their coworker/friend to DC, who is temporarily unable to drive because of a broken foot?

I say, any seat occupier is a valid person for HOV, even if that person is a 2 year old in a baby seat.

Posted By: USA
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2005 at 4:19pm

I remember when I was a kid, the parents in the neighborhood used to team up to take turns driving to things that several kids would be attending. That certainly helps take cars off the road, if the alternative is for each parent to drive separately.

The HOV law does not say "3 persons commuting." It's 3 people, period. Perfectly legal for tourists to use the HOV, for example, or people going to Reagan Airport (that's helped me a few times when I call car service when we're leaving on vacation). For that matter, it's perfectly OK for a long-distance traveller--say, the day before Thanksgiving--to hop in the HOV if he's got the three people. It becomes unworkable otherwise. Where do you draw the line? If you say cars with "non-driver" passengers are ineligible, then do you stop the car and ask to see the teenage kids' driver's licenses to confirm their age? What about the little old lady who never got a driver's license and is a passenger with a family member? She's a nondriver. Does that mean that all cars carrying old people must be pulled over to check? Sooner or later all this pulling people over, with the attendant inevitable rubbernecking, would slow EVERYONE down.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is that nobody ever said that the HOV was to be the private preserve of people commuting to the Pentagon or to downtown DC.

Posted By: mroyal
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2005 at 10:23am

quote:
Originally posted by jamest001
[br]The main rationale for allowing motorcycles in the HOV lanes (in addition to fuel efficiency), is reduced parking congestion in the metropolitan areas served by HOV lanes. You can fit at least four or five motorcycles in the same space a car occupies (even hybrids).

That's just silly. When was the last time you saw four or five motorcycles parked in the same space a car occupies. If that were the main rationale, then I would be opposed to it. But I think the rationale was much simpler (less gas consumed and you don't want to force three persons on a two wheeled vehicle) and I'm not opposed to it.

Kindest Regards,

mroyal

Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2005 at 11:18am

Agree with mroyal here. Not too many bikers double up in parking spaces. Many times they just park illegally in the no parking zones in parking lots.

Another area that's not been mentioned is those who ride Harleys. While I can appreciate the throaty roar of a bike, maybe while cruising through the peaceful serenity of the countryside, I really don't think they're much of a commuting vehicle in a densely populated area like NoVa. No one has mentioned "noise pollution", but these bikes definitely contribute to increased levels there.

And if you say the stupid quote "If it's too loud, you're too old", you may be right. It's just one man's take on things.

SOV because you can, HOV because you care!
NoSb

Posted By: SpongeBob
Date Posted: 30 Jun 2005 at 12:03pm

My Harley riding former car-pool driver says: "Loud pipes save lives."

Considering our current driver almost squished a biker the other day because she was in our blindspot, there is some truth to that saying.

I really like MRoyal's little "HOV because you care" slogan. Nice.

Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2005 at 12:10pm

Soooo Groc, in your world three adult dwarfs (sorry, little people) may get pulled over? I smell a discrimination lawsuit. What about my teenager/restricted DL occupant, in your world does he count? Why split the hair so thin? HOV-3 counts only the human occupants and makes no other distinction. This is fair and just and the only resonable way to create this law. All cars and trucks should be held to this law. Motorcycles impact the situation diferently: only two wheels = less wear on the roads, smaller engines = less pollution and higher gas milage, fewer on the road = less contribution to congestion. OK, for argument sake: if no hybrid exemption, no motorcycle exemption. But you need to keep your nose out of my back seat. Generally speaking, I would rather abide by the HOV law and avoid participating in Groc's little demographic survey. And unless you work for VDOT or the VA Highway Patrol you should not tell me or anyone else how I am permitted to use HOV. I suspect Groc's world is not a very nice place for anyone who does not look and act like Groc.

LIVE AND LET HOV-3 LIVE!

Posted By: qorc
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2005 at 7:48am

nope. It can be a law that only drivers age count as slugs. Let someone sue. They'd lose. It's not big deal. Kids are discriminated against in MANY ways - you can't drive til you're 16, vote til you're 18, drink til you're 21. You pay more insurance if you're a young driver. Etc etc etc. .....so this is different how?

Again, if you're going to MAXIMIZE HOV - get drivers off the road, you need to eliminate the excpetions for not only hybrids, but motorcyles, and children.

You'd be surprised how easy the commute would be then. Funny how people want everyone else's exemptions ended, but are very defensive when it's their own exemption.

Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2005 at 8:43am

quote:
Originally posted by qorc
[br] Funny how people want everyone else's exemptions ended, but are very defensive when it's their own exemption.

We could always go back to pre 1973 and allow the reversible lanes to be busses only. That way the "new" HOV exemption would be eliminated along with the "newer" hybrid exemption.

Posted By: Iride
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2005 at 12:05pm

The HOV lanes were created to help with the areas clean air act. DC, VA and MD's highway funds are tied into the air quality, that is why code red air days are such a big deal. The act only allows for a small number of Code Red air days. Go over it and there are cuts or fines in the states highway funds. The exemption for hybrid cars was to encurage people to buy them and get a consumer base. VA does this but it goes against the rules of the HOV lanes as agreed on by the Fed's, DC and MD. HOV3 is because 395 corridor was determined to ne a certain percentage of cars removed from that corridor. HOV2 on RT66 for the same reason. They counted cars and crunched some numbers.

As to motorcycles, they pollute less than a full size car and the number of bikes to cars is so low, and frankly they some one lobby in their behalf to allow them. As far as parking, I commute to the parking lot on a motorcycle, I have requested that there be motorcycle designated parking in the lots but nothing has been done. So I am forced to take a full parking spot or risk a parking ticket.

I have been slugging for over eight years and think it is a great alternative to driving (or commuting on the bike for that matter). The shear popularity of the hybrid cars with single drivers HAS increased congestion. The HOV lanes may fail due to its' own popularity

Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2005 at 1:30pm

quote:
Originally posted by Iride
[br]The HOV lanes were created to help with the areas clean air act.

They were built before the Clean Air Act.

Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 09 Aug 2005 at 12:59pm

quote:
Originally posted by Iride
[br]The HOV lanes were created to help with the areas clean air act. DC, VA and MD's highway funds are tied into the air quality, that is why code red air days are such a big deal. The act only allows for a small number of Code Red air days. Go over it and there are cuts or fines in the states highway funds. The exemption for hybrid cars was to encurage people to buy them and get a consumer base. VA does this but it goes against the rules of the HOV lanes as agreed on by the Fed's, DC and MD. HOV3 is because 395 corridor was determined to ne a certain percentage of cars removed from that corridor. HOV2 on RT66 for the same reason. They counted cars and crunched some numbers.

The shear popularity of the hybrid cars with single drivers HAS increased congestion. The HOV lanes may fail due to its' own popularity

The HOV lanes were created for several reasons. Orginally, HOV was not even one of the considerations - it was about limited access to assist with traffic flow. After all, if it was just for HOV, then every off/on ramp would have an HOV entry/exit point. Also, it used to be for busses only.

Obviously, the "against the rules" is a lame arguement or you would have seen a lawsuit in the federal courts - and we haven't.

Posted By: Wagonman
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2005 at 10:28am

quote:

Obviously, the "against the rules" is a lame arguement or you would have seen a lawsuit in the federal courts - and we haven't.

First you need someone willing to sue first. Who would spend the money? If the party that sued won the suit the result would be the Feds taking back highway funding for the years that VA was violating the funding rules. Who really wants to be responsible for that? Can you imagine the backlash? The only people that might want to prevent money for roads getting to the state would be environmental groups. But are they really going to sue to get the so-called "green" cars special perks removed?
If if VA was serious about the clean air act, they wouldn't be giving a Tier 2 bin 9 vehicle clean fuel plates. It is absolutely ridiculous and they won't fix it know because it would be acknowledging that they made a big mistake.

Posted By: jamest001
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2005 at 9:56am

quote:
Originally posted by sluDgE
[br][?] Anyone know for sure what the rationale is for allowing motorcycles an HOV exemption? [?]
[B)] If it is to provide the mo'bikes a less-congested, safer environment over the regular lanes, does that rationale apply anymore with the increase congestion on HOV? [B)]

Just wonderin'.

Keep on sluggin'! [:)]

Posted By: jamest001
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2005 at 10:04am

Originally posted by sluDgE
[br][?] Anyone know for sure what the rationale is for allowing motorcycles an HOV exemption? [?]
[B)] If it is to provide the mo'bikes a less-congested, safer environment over the regular lanes, does that rationale apply anymore with the increase congestion on HOV? [B)]

Just wonderin'.

Keep on sluggin'! [:)]

The rationale for allowing motorcycles in the HOV lanes is fuel efficiency, low emmissions, reduced parking congestion in the metropolitan areas served by the HOV lanes, and less wear & tear on the roadways.

I commute by slugging, picking up slugs, VRE, PRTC, and motorcycle. I only ride the motorcycle one or two days a week at most. It is a convenient alternative, but I would gladly give it up in trade for pure HOV3 (no SOVs, law enforcement, etc. at all).

Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2005 at 1:44pm

James - Seems like most of the reasons for motorcycle exemption apply to hybrid exemption.

Posted By: jamest001
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2005 at 4:19pm

quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]James - Seems like most of the reasons for motorcycle exemption apply to hybrid exemption.

No, not most, but half of what I mentioned. They are fuel efficient and low emission. However, after they have gotten one commuter to work, they still take up a whole parking space (where six+ motorcycles could park) and they weigh as much as other small cars - so there's the same wear on the roadways.

Posted By: 122582
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2005 at 6:44pm

James, let's compare.

My Pickup - 6600 lbs, 22 feet long, 7.5 feet wide, 19 MPG.
My Bike - 785 lbs, 8 feet long, 2.5 feet wide, 60 MPG.

I'd say my bike has a smaller footprint, and is more efficient (even if you consider the effective MPG of my truck with 3 people in it).

Also, at least on military bases, (Pentagon included), it is illegal to park a motorcycle in a single parking space when motorcycle parking is available. Even though north parking is more convenient for me, I technically have to park the bike on the south side, in the designated motorcycle parking.

Safety may have been a factor as well in granting the exemption. Possibly the fact that most bikes were air-cooled at the time the exemption was granted may have played into the equation.

Keep slugging alive - tip your driver today!

Posted By: Patriot37
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2006 at 11:36am

Looking at the big picture, all possible options to move trafic, reduce congestion (on the road and parking) and cut emmisions should be welcomed. I take the train, bike and bus but usually slug 3-4 days per week. Having used every option that I'm aware of, slugging is by far the most efficient. There are times, however, that I must move to and from work outside of the HOV times (another issue). It's those times that the other mentioned options as well as my motorcycle and hybrid are a life saver.

As humans, I think we need incentives to introduce and grow improvements (i.e. hybrids and motorcycles and HOV lanes themselves). Without the incentives, who would really pay that much more for a car - who would bother to stop and pick up strangers?

Bikes do use much less fuel (50mpg+), put out less emmisions and take much less parking space. Hybrids do use less fuel (30mpg and 38mpg in stop and go, yes, I keep track - for a family SUV, that's great) and this is just the beginning of what we can achieve, but only if there are buying dollars to push it. Incentives. Improvement.

Posted By: Patriot37
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2006 at 11:38am

Posted By: Patriot37
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2006 at 11:41am

Posted By: Patriot37
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2006 at 11:54am

Sorry for the 3 postings (if anybody actually reads this).

It kept telling me it did't work.

Oh well.

Posted By: Beckie5
Date Posted: 03 Feb 2006 at 4:07pm

I'm not against Hybrid drivers if they use the car to carpool with three in the car. What I don't like to see is when a Hybrid driver drives alone. When I slug I count the number of Hybrids in the HOV lane and one morning (like most) I counted 15 single Hybrid drivers in a 45 minute commute to the Pentagon. In a situation like this - if these drivers would have sluged with each other or others so there was three in a car that would have elimitated 10 cars off of the road. And by elimitating cars from the HOV lanes the HOV lane moves faster. As they did before Hybrids.

Posted By: Patriot37
Date Posted: 03 Feb 2006 at 7:43pm

Hi Beckie,
What suggestions do you have for pushing higher efficiency/lower emission vehicles? Which hybrid or electric or fuel cell vehicle do you have or plan to buy?

Posted By: Beckie5
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2006 at 8:43am

I don't think filling up the HOV lane with Hybrids is the answer. I will not buy a Hybrid, I perfer to pick-up slugs and slug myself. For every person who slugs they actually help the environment better by not driving at all.

Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2006 at 3:03pm

quote:
Originally posted by Beckie5
[br]I don't think filling up the HOV lane with Hybrids is the answer. I will not buy a Hybrid, I perfer to pick-up slugs and slug myself. For every person who slugs they actually help the environment better by not driving at all.

Wouldn't it make more sense to BOTH buy a hybrid and pick up slugs? And don't slugs drive to/from commuter lots and perhaps (gasp!) at times other then when commuting?

Seems to me that the environment and world would be better if we rid ourselves of ALL non-hybrid vehicles. Are you doing your part, Beckie5?

Posted By: MDC
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2006 at 4:37pm

NoSUV,
Go pick up some slugs, then come back and suggest we buy hybrids.

Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2006 at 7:19am

Hybrids...a mediocre technology when the true fuel alternatives are stacked up next to it.

Sure, go ahead and support the oil/auto alliance by paying premium prices for a hybrid instead of being economically responsible and considering a true alternative fuel vehicle as a replacement when the time comes. Makes all the sense in the world....depends on what alternate reality your world exists in...

Some folks won't ever "get it". More people per car equals less cars on the roads. Less cars on the roads equals less congestion. SOVs reduce/remove the incentive to carpool thus result in more cars ergo more congestion.

Life is lived by the choices we make. Make a choice to do for others today instead of doing for yourself only (then watch what happens!).

NoSb

SOV because you can, HOV because you care!

Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2006 at 10:42am

quote:
Originally posted by N_or_S_bound
[br]Hybrids...a mediocre technology when the true fuel alternatives are stacked up next to it.

Sure, go ahead and support the oil/auto alliance by paying premium prices for a hybrid instead of being economically responsible and considering a true alternative fuel vehicle as a replacement when the time comes. Makes all the sense in the world....depends on what alternate reality your world exists in...

Some folks won't ever "get it". More people per car equals less cars on the roads. Less cars on the roads equals less congestion. SOVs reduce/remove the incentive to carpool thus result in more cars ergo more congestion.

Life is lived by the choices we make. Make a choice to do for others today instead of doing for yourself only (then watch what happens!).

NoSb

SOV because you can, HOV because you care!

NoSB: So, I gather that your choice is to DO NOTHING but spout off - good thing that others are DOING SOMETHING other than waiting. Buy a hybrid and use it, not just for the commute, but to/from commuter lots, running errands, and for all of those miles you drive in your non-environmentally friendly car. Quit waiting - DO!

Posted By: N_or_S_bound
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2006 at 10:56am

You're right again NoSUV...I should junk my car so it can go into some landfill somewhere and be more environmentally friendly. Then I should pay too much because I'm a lemming and buy whatever the marketing folks tell me I should buy.

Spout? Engaging with the politicos is nothing. Promoting REAL alternative fuels in reasonably priced vehicles is doing nothing. Telling the truth about the gullibility of those who would buy an overpriced technology for selfish reasons is spouting off. Think I'll do "nothing" as I've been doing. Then I too can appear selfish since being fiscally responsible is probably equated to selfishness by SOV hybrid drivers.

NoSb

SOV because you can, HOV because you care!

Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2006 at 4:00pm

Just wait a few years until those batteries in NoSUV's hybrid die and go to a landfill. Now THERE'S environmental responsibility! NOT!

Do nothing? I slug! I have reduced my weekly commuter mileage from about 250 to about 75. And there is one less vehicle on the road! When I drive I pick up slugs and take two vehicles off the road. Now that's activism!

Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2006 at 10:21am

quote:
Originally posted by raymond
[br]Just wait a few years until those batteries in NoSUV's hybrid die and go to a landfill. Now THERE'S environmental responsibility! NOT!

Do nothing? I slug! I have reduced my weekly commuter mileage from about 250 to about 75. And there is one less vehicle on the road! When I drive I pick up slugs and take two vehicles off the road. Now that's activism!

Ah, but what about all of those non-commuting miles? How many of those fall into the category of environmental responsibility? NONE!!!

Posted By: Quagmire
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2006 at 5:23pm

I fell asleep at the wheel one time, lucky for me the slug woke me up............and I was still in the parking lot. Giggity!

Posted By: Patriot37
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2006 at 11:15pm

Quagmire,
Well, if I happen to jump in with you and there's a chance you'll fall aslee befor the end af the parking lot... please let me know. We may need to discuss some health options (mine and yours) :)