Going Electric?

[94Eddie]

@94Eddie We're not having a power shortage where I live. Also I wasn't "telling" anyone to go purchase a Hybrid or else. Simply stating facts from watching current driver in my area. I drive 9.5 miles round trip to work and back, so I don't even fall in the national norm.
Good Gen II Priuses are available for $3000- to $5000- Currently. So are other 4 cyl ICE vehicles.
@Lee's Automotive If you want to burn your tires off and punish your vehicle at will, then go for it. I wouldn't want any of my prospective customers seeing me do that though. They might think that while I have their car working on it, that I'm going to drive theirs that way too.
@CDW6212R I hope that my grammer is ok. I just have a spelling problem.
Yesterday, I paid $2.97 a gallon.

I wasn't intending to come across as being hyper critical of you. I was just making a point. I see those high up in government these days showing little concern for people with children having to choose between food and paying for gas. Only to find their advice to them is to buy a $50k EV. The hybrids on the market now are mostly used up ones. The cheap Prius' are cheap because the batteries are toast in them and replacing them costs more the the vehicle is worth. In the past what has typically happened is that gas prices go up and then they come down so replacing a less efficient vehicle might not be the best economic choice in the long run. Also, owning a less efficient vehicle like a truck, large SUV etc. might be born of necessity and not personal preference. Adopting a smaller vehicle might just add more problems than it eliminates.

Lastly, I'll add that the $2.97 gas you are enjoying is a short lived situation due to the draining of the military's strategic petroleum reserves. The reserves are nearly depleted and once the election is over gas prices will skyrocket again along with natural gas, fuel oil, propane and electricity. All these have already gone up drastically but we haven't seen the worst of it yet by a long shot. Then add in the rising cost of food, building supplies, nearly every commodity used and gas prices are just one of many things putting incredible financial strain on the middle and lower classes. This makes buying even a $3k vehicle off the table for many, many people. Even if one does buy a $5k fuel efficient vehicle it will take a very long time to recoup this cost in fuel savings over what they are driving today. When a person, or family, is living paycheck to paycheck they don't have the luxury of waiting years to just break even on purchasing a $5k vehicle. They see that spending $5k is better used in the here and now to feed their family, pay utility bills, pay their mortgage and/or to pay for all the other highly inflated costs they are dealing with today. This is why they see telling them to go buy an EV or more efficient ICE vehicle is no better than telling them to plant a money tree in their back yard. Both are just as realistic in their world as far as solvng their financial problems is concerned.

 

[Lee's Automotive]

If someone is stupid enough to operate a car without a seatbelt on, they get what they deserve when in an accident. I won't ride in a car with someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt. In a wreck they would end up crushing me, breaking my neck while they get out unharmed.

I agree but imo it's a way for states to make money

 

[Lee's Automotive]

I wasn't intending to come across as being hyper critical of you. I was just making a point. I see people high up in government these days showing little concern for people with children having to choose between food and paying for gas. Only to find their advice to them is to buy a $50k EV. The hybrids on the market now are mostly used up ones. The cheap Prius' are cheap because the batteries are toast in them and replacing them costs more the the vehicle is worth. In the past what has typically happened is that gas prices go up and then they come down so replacing a less efficient vehicle might not be the best economic choice in the long run. Also, owning a less efficient vehicle like a truck, large SUV etc. might be born of necessity and not personal preference. Adopting a smaller vehicle might just add more problems than it eliminates.

Lastly, I'll add that the $2.97 gas you are enjoying is a short lived situation and is a result of Biden draining the strategic petroleum reserves to artificially lower gas prices. This is just a ploy to lower gas prices before the 2022 mid term elections to get more votes. The reserves are about depleted and once the election is over gas prices will skyrocket again along with natural gas, fuel oil, propane and electricity. All these have already gone up drastically but we haven't seen the worst of it yet by a long shot. Then add in the rising cost of food, building supplies, nearly every commodity used and gas prices are just one of many things putting incredible financial strain on the middle and lower classes. This makes buying even a $3k vehicle off the table for many, many people. Even if one does buy a $5k fuel efficient vehicle it will take a very long time to recoup this cost in fuel savings over what they are driving today. When a person, or family, is living paycheck to paycheck they don't have the luxury of waiting years to just break even on purchasing a $5k vehicle. They see that spending $5k is better used in the here and now to feed their family, utility bills, mortgage and/or to pay for all the other highly inflated costs they are dealing with today. This is why they see telling them to go buy an EV or more efficient ICE vehicle is no better than telling them to plant a money tree in their back yard. Both are just as realistic in their world as far as solvng their financial problems is concerned.

You hit the nail on the head this $2.97 will not last and I won't be surprised if it reaches $5 a gallon here but hopefully in November things change for the better

 

[Turdle]

If someone is stupid enough to operate a car without a seatbelt on, they get what they deserve when in an accident. I won't ride in a car with someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt. In a wreck they would end up crushing me, breaking my neck while they get out unharmed.

One example of a law some seem intrusive, others seem to support.

We need laws. We shouldn't, but there are just too many people who feel they should just grab what they want

 

[Josh P]

One example of a law some seem intrusive, others seem to support.

We need laws. We shouldn't, but there are just too many people who feel they should just grab what they want

Laws are needed where people interact with other people in public. Laws that are not needed are ones that dictate what you can or cannot do inside your home. There are cities where it is illegal to smoke cigarettes in your house. That is intrusive, the seatbelt law keeps your body inside your car so other motorists don't run your ass over.

 

[peterk9]

Where does the other 24.6% come from?

Sorry. Nuclear power accounts for about 16% and non hydro renewal sources (wind, solar) around 5.2% Not sure about the remaining 3+%.

Peter

 

[CDW6212R]

The seat belt laws are not about freedom, but safety of the passengers in an accident, and separately for the driver. The driver needs the seat belt not as much for safety, but to hold them securely before an accident, an event requiring evasive maneuvers. Think about the idiot lady school bus driver on video last year, falling out of the drivers seat. She ran over curbs, bushes and into cars etc, stopped by an object(not her). Whether she was drinking, eating, smoking, drunk etc, the seat belt could have prevented almost all of the damages.

 

[Lee's Automotive]

The seat belt laws are not about freedom, but safety of the passengers in an accident, and separately for the driver. The driver needs the seat belt not as much for safety, but to hold them securely before an accident, an event requiring evasive maneuvers. Think about the idiot lady school bus driver on video last year, falling out of the drivers seat. She ran over curbs, bushes and into cars etc, stopped by an object(not her). Whether she was drinking, eating, smoking, drunk etc, the seat belt could have prevented almost all of the damages.

Correct even without a seat belt law I would still wear it I have never driven without it except on farm land or private property

 

[Turdle]

Laws are needed where people interact with other people in public. Laws that are not needed are ones that dictate what you can or cannot do inside your home. There are cities where it is illegal to smoke cigarettes in your house. That is intrusive, the seatbelt law keeps your body inside your car so other motorists don't run your ass over.

I somewhat agree on the smoking inside home, unless you do it with kids on welfare in the same room. See where this could go? Should the masses foot the kids medical bills?

 

[Rick]

The seat belt laws are not about freedom, but safety of the passengers in an accident, and separately for the driver. The driver needs the seat belt not as much for safety, but to hold them securely before an accident, an event requiring evasive maneuvers. Think about the idiot lady school bus driver on video last year, falling out of the drivers seat. She ran over curbs, bushes and into cars etc, stopped by an object(not her). Whether she was drinking, eating, smoking, drunk etc, the seat belt could have prevented almost all of the damages.

The mandated seatbelts keep the vehicles occupants from getting killed by the mandated airbags.

"Using a Pennsylvania trauma database, the researchers identified crashes resulting in injuries to drivers and front-seat passengers from 1990 to 2002. The study included approximately 12,700 patients with spinal injuries--8,500 drivers and 4,200 passengers. Of these, 5,500 patients had fractures of the cervical spine.

The rate of cervical spine fractures was 54 percent in drivers using an airbag only, compared to 42 percent for drivers using both an airbag and seatbelt. With adjustment for other factors, the relative risk of cervical spine fracture was 70 percent higher for drivers using an airbag without a seatbelt, compared to drivers using both protective devices. This was even greater than the 32 percent increase in cervical fracture risk for drivers using neither an airbag nor seatbelts."

 

[Lee's Automotive]

The mandated seatbelts keep the vehicles occupants from getting killed by the mandated airbags.

"Using a Pennsylvania trauma database, the researchers identified crashes resulting in injuries to drivers and front-seat passengers from 1990 to 2002. The study included approximately 12,700 patients with spinal injuries--8,500 drivers and 4,200 passengers. Of these, 5,500 patients had fractures of the cervical spine.

The rate of cervical spine fractures was 54 percent in drivers using an airbag only, compared to 42 percent for drivers using both an airbag and seatbelt. With adjustment for other factors, the relative risk of cervical spine fracture was 70 percent higher for drivers using an airbag without a seatbelt, compared to drivers using both protective devices. This was even greater than the 32 percent increase in cervical fracture risk for drivers using neither an airbag nor seatbelts."

That makes sense unless ya got Takata air bags that haven't been replaced under recall

 

[CDW6212R]

The mandated seatbelts keep the vehicles occupants from getting killed by the mandated airbags.

"Using a Pennsylvania trauma database, the researchers identified crashes resulting in injuries to drivers and front-seat passengers from 1990 to 2002. The study included approximately 12,700 patients with spinal injuries--8,500 drivers and 4,200 passengers. Of these, 5,500 patients had fractures of the cervical spine.

The rate of cervical spine fractures was 54 percent in drivers using an airbag only, compared to 42 percent for drivers using both an airbag and seatbelt. With adjustment for other factors, the relative risk of cervical spine fracture was 70 percent higher for drivers using an airbag without a seatbelt, compared to drivers using both protective devices. This was even greater than the 32 percent increase in cervical fracture risk for drivers using neither an airbag nor seatbelts."

Yes airbags are dangerous for children and adults in many cases. I'm old enough to remember when no cars had seat belts, and the new law pushed safety and not driver control. Just like today's laws that are not well presented to the people, to explain them etc. We are left with news organizations to interpret laws and give us their opinions. The masses need protection from all of those "elites," plus their own ignorance etc.

 

[Rick]

I somewhat agree on the smoking inside home, unless you do it with kids on welfare in the same room. See where this could go? Should the masses foot the kids medical bills?

Yep, part of the shared risk of being human. Different people are subject to different risks. Taking a kid fourwheeling could be considered a risk.

Do you remember the story behind this photo?

AZ Rock Crawl Competition last weekend (photos)

This was supposed to be a big event, but ARCA couldn't get affordable permits from the BLM so the locals put on their own run. My friend Mike Porter is in the black Wrangler with the green bumpers. Some of you may remember Mike from the rockcrawling incident in front of his house. Here is...

www.explorerforum.com

 

[Josh P]

Walking out your front door is a risk. Back in the day kids rode in the bed of a pickup, cars didn't have any advanced safety features, crumple zones, etc. Asbestos was everywhere, lead paint, CFCs and yet somehow we survived it

 

[94Eddie]

Yes airbags are dangerous for children and adults in many cases. I'm old enough to remember when no cars had seat belts, and the new law pushed safety and not driver control. Just like today's laws that are not well presented to the people, to explain them etc. We are left with news organizations to interpret laws and give us their opinions. The masses need protection from all of those "elites," plus their own ignorance etc.

I am old enough to remember that my fathers right arm was my seat belt when I was standing up next to him in the front seat while he drove.

 

[Turdle]

Walking out your front door is a risk. Back in the day kids rode in the bed of a pickup, cars didn't have any advanced safety features, crumple zones, etc. Asbestos was everywhere, lead paint, CFCs and yet somehow we survived it

Yes, we did. A lot of people didn't though.

After a few hundred kids got thrown outta the bed, we got smart. Well, some did.

 

[Rick]

Walking out your front door is a risk. Back in the day kids rode in the bed of a pickup, cars didn't have any advanced safety features, crumple zones, etc. Asbestos was everywhere, lead paint, CFCs and yet somehow we survived it

Riding in the back of pickups is still legal in AZ

Passengers in Truck Beds

Arizona's seatbelt law requires all front-seat passengers and children under 16 years old to be properly restrained. However—apart from a few special rules for child care facilities and foster homes—the law doesn't prohibit persons 16 years and older from riding in the bed of a pickup truck.

Having a truck-bed passenger won't lead to a traffic violation fine but could result in civil liability or insurance costs if anyone is injured in an accident.
Pets in Truck Beds

Just as there are no restrictions on people in truck beds, Arizona doesn't prohibit the transportation of animals in truck beds. However, the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends that pets be secured either by a kennel in the truck bed or by a harness inside the cab.

 

[410Fortune]

I generate my own power now, homestead and shop completely off grid
I can tell you the upfront cost is huge ( batteries, solar, wiring, plumbing, mounting, charge controls inverters and generator) but the monthly bills are 1/3 of what we used to pay for power, water and gas
If this system lasts for 10 years ( it should last 20) then we come our way ahead!!
The prices for power, water, and gas never seem to go down…..
even with off road diesel at $5.20 a gallon still coming out cheaper then our old monthly bills from Colorado

Buildings account for 40% of emissions so if we each took our homes off the grid maybe having a gas vehicle wouldn’t be such a target for the globalist elite

Most tools are battery powered now and many devices can be powered with usb. If 75% of Americans would add some solar a few batteries and take some of their electronics off the grid it would make a huge impact! Why wait?

 

[Fix4Dirt]

imo its both in the sense of yes technically it is a way for states to make money, since it brings in revenue. that said it also protects those who would not wear it. are we protecting idiots? maybe, sure, but they have it coming for them anyways. but money, or lack thereof is a consequence which would force those to wear the belt, and as such can persuade them into doing so, which just may save lives. especially as people drive riskier these days, crumple zone etc is becoming more and more important as speeding is also the new norm. maybe we arent the problem, i assume most on EF are experienced and good drivers. but, you cannot control other people, you can only control how you react, and sometimes physics isnt on our side in this. so yes before most (not all) survived it, but can we improve that rate? i think so. personally, not sure i want to end up a statistic lol, at least not for a bit.

every cause has an effect. everything has its pros and cons imo, no getting around it lol! every action has an equal/opposite reaction

dunno, just feel like everything has its use right tool for the job. there is no one sided argument. for some with short city commutes who dont want to deal with oil change etc, i could see an EV being ok. but for those with long commute long driving rural etc stick with gas till we find something better. no shame in it imo. just seems like personally for me i get worked up over issues, then realize that it dont apply totally to me. i can make arguments for or against others, but at the end of the day i make my own choice with where i put my value, its my life not theirs i make my choice and i do what i feel is best for me. someday, i have to admit, i may own an EV, who knows. one thought that does come to mind is one day will superchargers/EV stations become like the new gas station if they make them profitable enough if gas starts to be lesser used in city areas, so then in city areas would EV become the new gas? and would a gas station be as far and few as EV stations are now?

 

[Fix4Dirt]

true they arent as safe as the new airbags no denying it. but i thik its still better than no bag lol or put a pillow on the wheel or replace em its free iirc

That makes sense unless ya got Takata air bags that haven't been replaced under recall