From: pky@meadow.uucp (Peter Yeung)
Subject: Re: Change the speed limit
Reply-To: pky@meadow.UUCP (Peter Yeung)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 22:37:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.104631.17761@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> mart@csri.toronto.edu (Mart Molle) writes:
>mennie@bcrki39.bnr.ca (Bill Mennie 3-4473) writes:
>
>>At the risk of being accused of being an "eco-terrorist" or something
>>equally stupid, I wish to ask the following question. ;-)
>
>>How is it possible that so many Canadians express grave concern about
>>the environment and still want to drive cars at higher speeds?  Have we
>>forgotten why speed limits in the U.S. were dropped to 55 mph during the
>>first energy crisis and Canada followed by dropping them to 100 km/hr?  
>
>Please spare us the the patronizing rhetoric.  If your goal is to save
>fuel to "save the environment", then lobby for rules that directly result
>in fuel savings.  Why push for something that has fuel savings only as a
>relatively unimportant side effect?  You can save a lot more fuel by
>driving at *high speed* in a light weight, aerodynamic vehicle with an
>efficient computer controlled engine/transmission than you can by slowing
>down to 55mph/90kph in a 1970's vintage gas guzzler.  Furthemore, there
>is much less fuel savings from driving slowly in a new fuel efficient
>car than there was in a 1970's vintage gas guzzler.
>

Umm... may be we should have a law to ban all gas guzzlers as well. I hate those
land yatch anyway!

>>While significant gains were made in overall gas mileage during the late
>>'70s and early '80s, the last two cowboy presidents decided that it was
>>more important to let automobile manufacturers get on with the job of
>>plundering by permitting overpowered cars, more useless,
>>energy-consuming gadgets, etc. which have since reduced efficiency
>>drastically.
>
>Nonsense.  Fuel consumption has declined more significantly in the late
>80's and early 90's than it did over the "energy crisis" period you cited
>above.  Note, in particular, that today's "large car" (e.g., Ford Crown
>Victoria, == 6 passenger sedan with 4.6L V8) gets better gas milage than
>an early 70's econobox, like a VW Beetle.
>
>Also, it is not the evil politicians who are sabotaging the fuel efficiency,
>it is ordinary citizens.  Nobody is forcing people to buy big/fast/gadget
>laden cars; they do it of their own free will.  Furthermore, as the auto
>manufacturers invest billions to redesign their products for lower fuel
>consumption, consumers rush out and buy minivans (e.g., Chrysler "magic
>wagons") and sport utilities (e.g., Ford Explorer, Jeep Cherokee) -- which
>are heavy, have terrible aerodynamics, and worst fuel consumption than even
>the largest cars.  Get yourself a copy of the government fuel consumption
>booklet, available at most car dealers.  The very large, V8 powered rear-wheel
>drive Lincoln Town Car gets significantly better gas milage than any minivan
>or sport utility, yet the van/SUV owners are considered Politically Correct
>but the car owners are not.  (A medium-to-large sedan also has better 
>active [==handling, braking, acceleration] and passive safety too...)
>
>>              Of course, Canadian politicians wouldn't want to stand out
>>by enforcing their own standards because the "market isn't big enough." 
>>Funny how California seems to be able to pull it off. ;-)
>
>Canada is already scheduled to adopt the California emissions standards
>within the next year or two.  What more do you want?  BTW, have you compared
>the size and value of the Canadian versus California car market?  I think
>you'll find that they buy a lot more new cars than we do, especially more
>expensive and/or unusual ones.  (Yes, that includes the big "gas guzzlers",
>but it also includes exotic little ones with unusually good fuel
>efficiencies...)
>
>Again, if you really want to save the environment by reducing fuel
>consumption, then please advocate measures that directly affect fuel
>consumption, like:
>
>1. higher gasoline prices
>
>2. rationing
>
>3. much higher graduated taxes/rebates/whatever on car purchases and
>   annual registration renewals based on fuel consumption
>
>4. (my favourite longer term solution) install government-certified
>   fuel flow limiters in all cars, with higher annual fees for those
>   that permit higher maximum flow rates.  This would not only make
>   differences in fuel consumption more visible to the consumer, it
>   would also give people more of an incentive to keep their cars in
>   tune, not use the air conditioner so much, avoid heavy optional
>   equipment, etc.
>
>Mart L. Molle
>Computer Systems Research Institute
>University of Toronto
>Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
>(416)978-4928

I guess banning all passenger cars is out of the question then? ;-)


-- 
Peter Yeung     Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
                Phone: (416) 542-6300    Fax: (416) 858-2233
Newsgroups: can.general