Should there be less cars?

Great Debates
1

Hi fellow dopers.

This thread came into being primarily as a result of the thread regarding SUV’s supposedly supporting terrorism by de facto because of their “higher fuel consumption”.

Now, I want you all to appreciate that I love cars. I love engineering in general. I love motorbikes, and oddly, I’m also a former national representative cyclist in road racing too - so I love race bikes as well.

I ask the following question… on a sliding scale of efficiency, where does the average “large car” come in, in terms of resources used, versus passengers carried, vs fuel consumed, vs net total recycling after death of said product?

I used to joke during my road racing days that a race bike was the most efficient form of transport known to man - you could get 2000 miles per gallon of milk! Hah!

But I also tend to think about resource wastage nowadays too, and it’s occurred to me that the car industry, in many respects, is the world’s most expensive “fashion industry” - and in being so, gee it wastes a lot of resources from the “cradle to the grave” due to so very little of a car’s products being upgradeable, and or recyclable.

Obviously, a commuter bus carrying 50 people realises IMMENSELY higher passenger miles vs fuel consumed - and they seem to last for a long time too. And trucks carry incredible loads over huge distances, so they’re pretty efficient transporters of products as well. Nothing beats my race bike obviously, but even high capacity, high horsepower motorbikes like a GSXR-1100 deliver better fuel consumption vs resources used co-efficients than a car.

So my question again, is this… in terms of net impact on the Western economy, and net impact on resources wastage, should there be less cars, in favour of more mopeds and motorbikes (just as an example)?

To give you an idea of what I’m driving at here, imagine a typical Los Angeles traffic jam on a freeway on a Monday morning… all those cars at a standstill, burning fuel, creeping forward a little bit at a time etc. Imagine if all of those folks were on 750cc motorbikes (just as a joke of course - some of 'em would insist on Harley’s obviously) but you get my drift. Better traffic flow, faster travel times, less fuel burnt, less costs involved all round…

2

Indeed, by most measures, such as those studied in the book “Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices”, transportation in general and cars in particular have a very large environmental impact, perhaps the largest of any single consumer choice we make (depending on how you group them).

So, yes, less cars, more fuel-efficient cars, smaller cars would all be improvements. Mopeds and motorcycles might be a small part of the solution although they offer other disadvantages. One is that while they emit few greenhouse gases, they tend to emit more of other pollutants. Perhaps stricter standards could help here but there is only so much you can do with the limited amount of room you have. (E.g., where would you put a catalytic converter?)

3

“Less”, no.

“Fewer”, sure.

4

I’ll try not to follow up with too many posts here to avoid “owning a thread” as it were, but gee, wouldn’t it be great if you could buy a car which was a “classic shape” and then get the factory to offer ongoing “upgrade packs” as the years went by?

I once read an interview with a senior designer at BMW. He was speaking about the original “boxy” 3 series and he said “We’re really sad we stopped making that car. It was as close as we’ve come to ever making a classic which could have lasted forever. We should have just upgraded bits and pieces of it, but it was a close as we’ve come to making a timeless car so far…”

I liken the analogy to guitars believe it or not. If you’re a guitar nut, the major players in the game like Gibson and Fender make their classics like a Les Paul or a Strat, and in real terms, they haven’t changed much in over 40 years. They try to make new models every now and then, but the market keeps saying “Nope, not as good as the original” and so the originals continue getting made. Indeed, to get hold of a true collectors item from the late 50’s or early 60’s is to get hold of a real jewell. Obviously, we’re talking about very “mature product lines” here.

5

IIRC trains are much more efficient (energy/mile) approaching that of ocean going freighters (being the most efficient). Trains were maybe 1.2 times that of the freighters. Trucks were more like 5x that of freighters.

I would like less cars on the road but it is for selfish reasons (and I better still have mine).

Cars can only get so concentrated in an area until a non-road (rail) mass transit system develops. Mass transit is nessessary for cities to develope, w/o it the city will be more like a very dense suburb then a city. So no mass transit means no ‘true’ city means population density is limited means only so many cars in that area.

If a mass transit system develops an interesting thing happnes. As car travel time increases due to congestion, mass transit travel time decreases due to more frequent service to serve more people who are no longer taking their car becasue it is faster to take the train. These 2 forces ballance out and this is a very simple explanation to a rather complex traffic theory.

So in short, cars are self limiting, they can’t support population densities over a certain amount by themselves and if non-road mass transit is introduced, population densities can skyrocket but the more cars there are the more efficinet the ‘train’ system will move people lessin ing the cas actually on the road.

6

Sure, there should be fewer cars. But all those people have to get around somehow. For people who don’t have useful mass transit (for example, those of us in the largest metropolitan area between Seattle and Minneapolis), cars are here to stay.

7

Someone’s ears must be ringing

8

Should there be fewer cars? Tough question. I’ll open a new thread for discussion on what may be part of the problem, too many parking spaces. Don’t mess with gas prices or cars, eliminate min. parking requirements.

9

Less cars?

Hell ya, they get in the way when I am trying to do a 100mph in my 8’ tall GMC Suburban:)

10

A few things:

Automobiles are probably the most recycled product on the planet. Almost nothing gets wasted. Car junkyards are one of the most profitable & lucritive industries there is.

In terms of impact on resources, sure. But the car industry is the lifeblood of the western economy. Fewer cars made/sold would serious hurt it. And mopeds or motorcyles (or, snicker, Segways) are not a viable alternative. People want to sit in reasonable comfort while they drive. And this is not viewed as being extravagant. Two-wheeled vehicles are not now, nor will they ever be, considered general transportation. They are niche products.

Yes, this is very wasteful. But what else can you say other than its still people’s right to choose to be that wasteful if they want to be. It’s their money they’re spending on new SUVs, gasoline, insurance etc.

And you can make mass-transit cheaper, cleaner, faster etc. but it will never be more private than a car and some people (myself included) are willing to spend the extra money for that.

And until we all agree to make it illegal, we will continue to do so.

11

Al Gore got the political shit beat out of him by saying we should do away with the internal combustion engine. Of course, all the right wing wags interpreted this as meaning ditch all cars, but what he meant is find technology to replace that engine–in which 75% of the energy created by the fuel is wasted as heat–to something more efficient, such as electric.

Should there be fewer cars? No.

Should there be more efficient cars? Definitely. If not for our environment, then at least for a consistent and logical foriegn policy.

Will there be soon? Not likely. Detroit hates the idea of electric cars (even as commuter cars) because they need significantly less maintenance.