> -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Burns [mailto:s1burns at ucsd.edu] > Sent: 21 March 2005 20:19 > To: dragaera at dragaera.info > Subject: RE: Petrol Prices > <SNIP> > And my comment about 350 miles every week wasn't about > traveling long distances so much as a statement about how > frequently I drive; I think we drive so frequently because we > have no other options, not because the distances are > necessarily longer than other places. My trips are only about > 50 miles around, which isn't very long, but it is regular. > Some people make longer regular trips; some shorter. But most > make regular trips. It is a culture of suburbs, where few if > any people actually travel to the city center, where public > transit is most common. I completely agree, from my extremely limited experience of the USA, that you guys would be pretty screwed if deprived of your motor vehicles. I have no idea whether there is any realistic way to change this situation, so I guess cars are probably going to remain the primary means of transport for the forseeable future. However - what the hell is the deal with your car engine sizes? I'm pretty sure your speed limits aren't much higher than over here (70mph max), yet the smallest engine Ford seem to make is a 2 litre. This would be considered a pretty big engine for a car over here, and people seem quite happy with general performance. Making generalisations about a nation of - umm.. 290 million, is it? - isn't going to be at all conclusive, I know, and I'm sure there are some people over there who do drive smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. But it's hard to escape the conclusion that the US could significantly cut its fuel demands if there were fewer 3 or 4 litre cars on the roads. I mean, do people find the idea of having to spend less money to go the same distance unattractive, or something? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005