quote: I fill my car with 50 dollars worth of gas. I drive to the store to buy a 6 dollar bag of beef jerky. It takes me 3 dollars to go 14 miles to buy the jerky. I eat it all before I get home so I must go back to the store to buy more jerky for 6 dollars. Again it costs me 3 dollars in gas. I finish the jerky just as I arrive at home only to get an upset stomach from 1/2 pound of dried beef swelling in my stomach. I now have to spend another 3 dollars in gas to buy a 7 dollar bottle of Rolaids. This 1 hour of my life cost me 28 dollars. With the price of gas these days I think its time to give up on beef jerky. Another pleasure gone due to gas prices. Joe Stain, Atlanta, Georgia
Please somebody tell me that this "Joe Stain" is actually a parody someone sent in as a joke. Most of them aren't as bad as that, but his complaint is totally ridiculous on more levels than I really want to reply to.
A lot of the people who emailed in say they now try to run all their errands at once, do all their shopping in one day, because the gas costs so much. So? I've always done that, because I hate making multiple trips to the store! A lot of these emails are just reinforcing the opinion that high gas prices will finally make people start conserving a little. I was honestly surprised to see what some* of the people considered "sacrifices" to save gas money.
*Please note that I don't mean families who are barely scraping buy with just their commute to work. I'm referring to people complaining about doing all their shopping in one trip instead of going to the mall every day of the week.
--Enigmatic
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
There was a time when I did all my errands at once; it's how I was raised.
After having a baby or two I had to adjust and realize that if I got out and got ONE errand done today and ONE errand done tomorrow, I was doing pretty good. Just trying to get myself and kids ready to go out around the baby's feeding/napping schedule made it impossible to get everywhere I needed to go at once. And it was torture to run them ragged. So I gave up and just did as much as I could do.
I have been consciously more conservative these days because of the gas prices. My youngest is now 2, so it's not quite as hard to go a couple places instead of just one ... but I still don't get everything done in one trip. I'll do it when I can, but I won't stress about it until then.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Please somebody tell me that this "Joe Stain" is actually a parody someone sent in as a joke.
It's a joke.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
That last one is pretty wacked out too...don't they check what they post for all the world to see?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Obviously a spoof of complaints he's heard, but most of those other complainers don't make as much sense as JoeStain's parody.
Witness Jim-Me proclaiming the natural right of people to pollute as much as they want and waste as much fuel as they want driving a vehicle 40times their own weight at 1950s sports-car acceleration. Is there any likely payoff in explaining how folks driving low-powered high-economy sub-compacts (as well as most other drivers) are directly paying for the Hummer/etc driver's fuel use? Let alone more complex matters such as engine displacement, car mileage estimates, and hybridization?
Very close to home, a friend routinely drives 6blocks in her brand new overweight-and-still-overhorsepowered Lexus sports-coupe to the fastfood joint down the street for a sandwich and a soda, then drives back with them. She also routinely drives 6blocks in the opposite direction to exercize by walking in the neighborhood park, then drives back. And complains about rising gasoline prices.
[ April 21, 2006, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I personally hope gas prices reach as much as $5 a gallon. This will keep the idiots off the road (at least those between 16 and 25). And it's still a lot less than in most European countries. A substantial price increase is long overdue. Frederic Paulson, Naperville, Illinois
Cute. High gas prices get those dangerous kiddies off the road! They hit $5 dollars a gallon, social security won't be enough to cover the cost and we can keep all those idiots (at least those between 60 and 80) off the road.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Witness JimMe proclaiming the natural right of people to pollute as much as they want and waste as much fuel as they want driving a vehicle 40times their own weight at 1950s sports-car acceleration. Is there any likely payoff in explaining how folks driving low-powered high-economy sub-compacts (as well as most other drivers) are directly paying for the Hummer/etc driver's fuel use?
Wow, aspectre, you really do like to make crap up about people, don't you?
Do those folks driving low-powered sub-compacts happen to have 5 kids they need to cart around?
There might be payoff in acting like a civil human being. Why don't you try that for a couple of weeks.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by aspectre: Witness JimMe proclaiming the natural right of people to pollute as much as they want and waste as much fuel as they want driving a vehicle 40times their own weight at 1950s sports-car acceleration.
Either I misread something, or that's quite the misrepresentation, aspectre. Can you post specific quotes to back up that interpretation?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Read the exchange again, Dagonee. We weren't talking about parents hauling around their five kids, or even one child and the family dog and some groceries. We were talking about one individual making his daily commute / daily rounds all by his lonesome little self in a gas hog.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Even if that is true, it doesn't justify, "witness JimMe proclaiming the natural right of people to pollute as much as the want and waste as much feul as they want..."
What I basically got out of Jim-Me's posts was that in our cries for more environmental protection, we shouldn't neglect improvements that are being, or can be made. If he were actually what you claim, I highly doubt he'd be considering shelling out an extra 12-16 grand for a hybrid.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Read the exchange again, Dagonee. We weren't talking about parents hauling around their five kids, or even one child and the family dog and some groceries. We were talking about one individual making his daily commute / daily rounds all by his lonesome little self in a gas hog.
No, Jim-Me was responding to your complaints about what hybrid technology was being used on. He even quoted it for you:
quote:Car manufacturors are being slammed because most of their hybridization is being used to increase horsepower within their most popular existing vehicle lines, not to increase gas mileage.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:We weren't talking about parents hauling around their five kids, or even one child and the family dog and some groceries.
You might not have been, but Jim certainly was.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
My complaints? Make ya a deal: Explain to readers how drivers who are more caring in their choices are directly paying for the Hummer/etc driver's fuel use, and I'll parse out that exchange.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My complaints?
The complaints you posted, that Jim-Me quoted. Your inability to accurately recount the exchange begins to make sense.
quote:Make ya a deal: explain to readers how drivers who are more caring in their choices are directly paying for the Hummer/etc driver's fuel use, and I'll parse out that exchange.
How about you just stop making stuff up about people?
I can read at least as well as you, so I don't really need your help parsing out the exchange.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
What does that have to do with you slandering someone?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
aspectre....anyone who is even vaguely familiar with your posts in the past few months will know that you get off on being an ass....you have even bragged about it in 3 threads in the last few weeks.
Not that we really needed to hear it, we could tell without you spelling it out.
So lets stop pretending that what was said actually matters......you are going to be a jerk about it one way or another.
BTW, I read very well, and what you are arguing ISN'T what Jim-Me was saying at all. You were trying to make it seem like it was even then, and it went over about as well then as now.
In case you haven't noticed, what you think about what other people drive doesn't matter in the least. People have the right to do what they want, and to be honest I think we would all be better off driving hybrid SUV's than what most of us drive now.
They at least have more right to determine what they drive than you do....
If YOU want to drive a rollerskate powered by hot air, feel free. Judging by your posts here I know you would never run out of gas (or fuel, as it may be), and would beat most of us off the line as well. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
whoop-dee-doo Ya just derailed this thread cuz ya like to play flamewars. Now, how about writing something on topic that's useful or interesting?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I will, as soon as you do.
Let me know, I'll want to bookmark it.....
Someone should, it would be a first.
Maybe it could be a Landmark? Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If ya don't like the Jim-Me example:
Very close to home, a friend routinely drives 6blocks in her brand new overweight-and-still-overhorsepowered Lexus sports-coupe to the fastfood joint down the street for a sandwich and a soda, then drives back with them. She also routinely drives 6blocks in the opposite direction to exercize by walking in the neighborhood park, then drives back. And complains about rising gasoline prices.
Drivers who are more caring in their choices are directly paying for the Hummer/etc driver's fuel use.
[ April 21, 2006, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I drive a pickup, and it doesn't get great gas mileage....not horrible, but not good.
I can't afford anything else, and that is that. It isn't a Lexus, or a SUV, but a lot of the newer cars have BOTH better gas milage AND more power.
I have no problem with a lot of people who own them.
I don't ever want to hear someone who owns a Hummer complain about gas prices though.
But if gas costs X, and they buy their gas themselves...
Then I should have NO say in it, unless they are stupid enough to complain to me about their gas costs.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No, Kwea, that is not that. By driving your old truck, you are sparing the economy from the energy costs and the environment from the pollution costs of manufacturing a new car. And due to the way money runs through the economy, the manufacturing process itself is the lesser part of the total fuel and pollution costs that the purchase of a new car causes. So unless your truck is dangerous to drive or fuming/dripping noxiously -- or your repair bills are high enough and often enough to make car payments look attractive -- driving around in your old truck is more environmentally sound than needlessly replacing your truck with the cleanest and most fuel efficient new car that can be purchased.
[ April 21, 2006, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"But if gas costs X, and they buy their gas themselves..." ...those who conscientiously care about their consumer choices are still paying for those who are wasteful due to the increase in marginal costs caused by extra demand.
[ April 20, 2006, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "But if gas costs X, and they buy their gas themselves..." ...those who conciously care about their consumer choices are still paying for those who are wasteful due to the marginal costs caused by extra demand.
So...if we don't all buy a Prius, we're evil, evil creatures?
I have a v6 Passat with four wheel drive. I buy Premium. I am a horrible person; I should go buy a hybrid Civic right now.
-pH
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I find it odd that the difference between regular, whatever-the-middle-is, and premium (87, 89, 92?) is still about 10 cents*. This, despite the fact that gas prices have doubled where I live over the past 5 years.
That tells me that the difference between the grades is either non-existant, or have miniscule differences in production costs.
Or that the gas companies are making so much money that it doesn't matter to them.
*per grade, of course.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*shrug* My car says Premium Only.
Therefore, it gets Premium.
But I'm used to it; my first car needed Premium AND an octane booster for every tank.
-pH
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Why not cry about the cost of tomato's as well...all those damn inconsiderate people making pasta every night, not to mention those evil people who prefer OJ...raising the cost of oranges.
We pay more in TAXES on gas than we do in actual costs (or at least we did in recent history....not so sure about these days), so I find that argument to be almost completely worthless.
You could make the same argument about almost ANYTHING that has a market value, man.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"So...if we don't all buy a Prius, we're evil, evil creatures?
It would be ridiculous to buy two Priuses when two drivers would have to transport a 6member family (including pets) on a regular basis using two vehicles instead of a minivan/etc which could contain everybody. It would also be ridiculous to buy two minivans when one vehicle is normally used by a single individual to commute to&from work.
Being unaware isn't the same as being evil. If it were, most of us have committed a great deal of evil.
"I have a v6 Passat...I am a horrible person; I should go buy a hybrid Civic right now."
Because of the energy and pollution costs of manufacturing a new car, etc, you should use your v6Passat as long as possible. However, you should also treat your car well to maximize its usefulness to yourself in the long term. And for the possibility of a future need to change vehicles, so that whoever owns it after you can use that v6Passat to its maximum lifetime.
Things are never so "either/or" clear in our choices. Often, the good is in choosing that which causes the least harm in the long term. And the evil is in choosing that which causes the least benefit for others in the long term.
[ April 20, 2006, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I bought my car new, and I CHOSE my car. I actively decided against buying a hybrid even though my car has higher costs in gas. So in my case, it's not that I was unaware or ignorant. It's that I decided that I wanted something else.
So apparently, since I'm buying more gas than I could be if I were driving a car that WASN'T a four wheel drive v6, it is my fault that gas prices are high.
-pH
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Definitely follow your manual's instructions, pH. My parents had a car that required 89, and it seemed to get worse mpg when I used 87 before I was informed about it. Hard to say for sure though. It's just a suspicion I have.
[ April 20, 2006, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yep, pH, high gas prices are your fault to the extent that you got "more car than ya need" or use it more often than necessary, as it is the fault of everyone who bought "more car than they need" or use them more often than necessary.
Even though I've been fairly concientious and ever more so approaching the present, I've gotcha so hands-down beat in wasting fuel that it'll take a long time for you to catch up. Most especially because my higher-than-average lifetime-so-far use of aviation fuel has also added to the longterm increase in the cost of gasoline.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
And who is to determine how much car I "need?" You?
Who's to say I don't have other considerations much more pressing than gas milage?
Juxtapose, I know exactly what you mean! Whenever I evacuate and there's no premium available, only plus, my car doesn't seem to run as well. It's weird.
By the way, what does it mean about the engine "knocking?" What does that feel like? Or is it a sound?
-pH
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
aspectre, I don't mean to attack you or anything, but I'm a little confused as to how you can rag on these people for being "ridiculous" and driving unnecessary cars and then say you've "wasted" more fuel than most of us.
(And just a note, Juxtapose, that was libel not slander. Slander's spoken. Oh, man, how that was driven into my head by my Con law prof...)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
God forbid anyone should be required to GASP! Ride a bike or walk!
I live in Davis California, the Bike capital of America. We are actually in contention as the bike capital of the world, but there are several chinese and thai cities that give us a run for our money in bikes-per-capita. My point is that even in an obsessively bikey town like Davis, where you can't kick a rock without it knocking over a row of parked bicycles, where every building has more bike parking than car parking (more by far), the drivers are ridiculous.
People, like my roomie, drive the half mile to the giant student parking lot and then walk the quarter mile to class. The affair takes 20 minutes, but on my bike I can make the whole trip in six, and park at the door, and its FREE! Still people drive everywhere, and I will NEVER understand what is so aweful about getting a little excercise, maybe even alot of exercise. I even do my grocery shopping on my bike sometimes; it limits the hauls I can make, but I can go any time I want, I never have to hastle with parking.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Orincoro, there are plenty of cities in which biking or walking are not options. I cannot bike to the movies. I cannot bike to the hardware store. I can sort of bike to the grocery store, but then I can't buy all that many groceries. I can't bike to the mall. I can't bike to Best Buy. I pretty much can't walk or bike anywhere that I need to go unless it's the drugstore, a sandwich shop, or school. Or the hairdresser or something. On top of that, I am very uncomfortable traveling about at night unless I am in a car.
There are also plenty of people who live in rural areas or suburbs who have to drive to get to most places.
-pH
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Confessing ain't bragging, Celaeno. (And on an entirely different matter, also to Kwea.) I think that pH has been open enough about her travels that it's a fairly safe for me to guesstimate that her lifetime fuel use is still considerably less than my lifetime fuel use. I've lifetimed more than she has. And until a relatively short time ago -- pH was probably already excited that she'd be able to legally drive soon -- I hadn't even given any real thought to the amount of air travel that I've done. Aviation fuel counts in the total amount of crude oil pumped then refined: eg airlines were squeezed last year by aviation fuel refining capacity converted over to gasoline for the US shortfall. So my flying counts toward my degree of responsibility for the rise of fuel prices, etc.
My lifetime ratios of walking miles to car miles and of bicycling miles to car miles are probably the highest (or*near) of anyone on this forum. With a higher probability that I've walked more miles for errands and to nearby recreation and bicycled more miles for errands, to recreation, and on regular commutes than anyone on this forum. My walking miles as a tourist is probably higher than that of anyone here who isn't strongly into hiking as a sport. My bicycle mileage for tour(ist)ing is probably higher than that of anyone here who isn't strongly into sports bicycling. That was bragging.
* Had to put in that "or near" because: From my experience as a Manhattanite, NYC folks can get along fine without a car, except some taxi service for emergencies. Same for large sections of the SanFrancisco BayArea. Though the specific "where ya live" has more of an effect than in NYC. Orinoco is at Davis, and appears to have a Davis heart. Synesthesia appears to walk or mass transit nearly everywhere she goes. Rabbit seems to have the same general attitude toward using alternatives to cars as I do. And plaid's general lifestyle nearly hollers that he treads more lightly on the environment than I do. There are a few others; but they mentioned their habits long enough ago that I don't remember enough details to guesstimate their overall transportation choices.
[ April 21, 2006, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
For the record, I do, in fact, haul my five kids to school and daycare before then proceeding alone, for about half of my total drive, to work. My total one-way trip is approximately 15 miles, about 8 of which I drive solo in an 8 passenger vehicle-- a '99 Mecury Sable which I bought used with 104k miles on it for $3950. Its emissions are clean and it gets about 19-20 miles to the gallon on average around town-- better than the Kia Sedona I previously owned and comparable to the '97 Grand Caravan which I unfortunately totalled, but was probably the best all around vehicle I have ever owned.
Were I rich enough to afford a second car and if I could park it overnight at the day care center, then perhaps I could make aspectre happy. If I didn't need to take the kids to school and day care I could make him very happy indeed because I'd be driving a $1200 scooter, getting upward of 120 mpg, and leaving the station wagon in the garage for family trips and rainy days. As it is, however, this is yet another very good example of what I *was* talking about in that thread-- how some environmental activists' refusal to be satisfied casts the entire movement in a poor light and, as Dagonee summarized so well in that thread, calls their sincerity into question.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wish to high heaven that where I live had a better mass transit system. Taking a bus is nice, but when I have to be at the movies in 15 minutes, it's not really convenient to take the bus. I'd have to leave 45 minutes earlier than usual and wait that same amount of time to get back. And quite frankly, 90 minutes of wait time just to take a bus just isn't worth it for movies. So I drive, and usually am carting four or five people with me.
If Meto Detroit had a subway, I'd take it EVERYWHERE. I'd love to hop on a sub and take it into Detroit for a game, or spend time at the casino or catch a show. I'd take it to work, to the movies to school (if it reached that far) or to wherever else I needed to go, and I'd garage my car for everything other than long road trip vacations. It's been a wish of mine for years to get a subway started in Metro Detroit, but it will never happen, and the bus system here isn't uniform in all cities.
So I have to drive most places. Going over to a friends' house means I can walk or roller blade or what not, but anything further than that requires a car.
It's not through lack of caring though, there just aren't any other mass transit options in the Metro area. (Barring the People Mover actually IN Detroit, but that thing is a joke 90% of the time).
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: brand new overweight-and-still-overhorsepowered Lexus sports-coupe
while it is certainly not environmentally friendly to do so, I would point out that "overhorsepowered" does not apply to a sports coupe, from the standpoint of making it a better sports coupe.
While this may seem flippant it is actually very relevant to what I was getting at: you are speaking as if power is bad per se. That is nonsense. Given the same engine, increased efficiency will increase power as well, especially the very important and useful power at low rpms and speeds.
It is possible to improve both power and efficiency of a drivetrain. People who do so should be applauded, not denigrated.
People who do complain of that accomplishment come off as being against power, rather than for efficiency. This does considerable harm to your public perception.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Se we should all quit flying, too?
I think I'll just sit in my house all day.
And not run the air conditioner, because then I'm hurting the environment by using electricity.
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:She also routinely drives 6blocks in the opposite direction to exercize by walking in the neighborhood park, then drives back. And complains about rising gasoline prices.
I drive to my park to walk too, what's wrong with it? The track there is level, compared to my neighborhood which isn't, there are leash laws, it's a pleasant walk, and I know exactly how much I'm walking. The kids can play at the playground in the middle of the track so I can exercise and still keep an eye on them.
But even when they're at school and I'm by myself, I don't see a single thing wrong with driving to the park to exercise. It's a safe, pleasant place to walk and I used to meet other moms there so I had company while I exercised. I certainly don't think anyone deserves to be demonized for driving six blocks to a park to exercise.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: God forbid anyone should be required to GASP! Ride a bike or walk!
Orincoro...This is how it is in the real world: I don't have the luxury - and it is a luxury - to be able to walk or ride a bike or take public transport. I take care of my 81-year-old mother who a) does not get around well enough to take public transport or walk anywhere, and b) has serious enough memory problems that I cannot leave her alone at home for the hour or two it would take to take a bus or walk to a grocery store, do my shopping, and get back home. So, when I do something as radical as go grocery shopping (which is practically the only place I ever get to go these days - if I'm lucky, we go out to dinner once in awhile and I get a library trip maybe once a week), I have to take the car.
Furthermore, there's a budget for gasoline in the household. I can afford $20 for gas every two weeks. That's it (and even if I had more money to spend for gasoline, I wouldn't be inclined to do it). If that gas gets used up, we don't go anywhere at all for a few days. Sometimes, the car does not even move for three or four or five days. Fortunately, we moved into town a little over a year ago, and I've got everything I need within three to five miles, so I don't actually use that much gasoline and I can make the amount of gasoline $20 will buy stretch for two weeks.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: (And just a note, Juxtapose, that was libel not slander. Slander's spoken. Oh, man, how that was driven into my head by my Con law prof...)
Not by Jonah Jameson in Spiderman?
--Enigmatic
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:And just a note, Juxtapose, that was libel not slander. Slander's spoken. Oh, man, how that was driven into my head by my Con law prof...
Whoops. Thanks for the correction.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It does seem to me that you people are kind of confusing 'I need' and 'it would be a bit inconvenient to do without this', or even 'I wanna'.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, KoM, I *could* put my older three kids on a school bus, but that would require getting five kids and myself up, dressed, fed and ready to go by 7am (when the bus stops nearest our house). While this in itself is not insurmountable, just a ROYAL pain, there is the small issue of having to actually be home when they get off that same bus at 3:30, which would require me to leave work about 3:15, which would leave me fired, which would leave me unable to feed the aforementioned children or, in fact, pay the rent which gives them a dry place to sleep to begin with (thereby, presumably solving the problem of getting them out of bed at 5:45).
So when I say "need" I do not mean "it would be a bit inconvenient to do without this." But hey, the earth would be just a little bit safer for those adorable penguins in that movie last year If I gave up my station wagon... oh and incidentally utterly failed to provide for my kids. Yep, clearly the responsible thing to do.
Disclaimer: there may have been some sarcasm in the preceding post.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It does seem to me that you people are kind of confusing 'I need' and 'it would be a bit inconvenient to do without this', or even 'I wanna'.
Oh, sheesh...exactly what part of my mother does not get around well enough to do public transport and she cannot be left alone sounds like "it would be a bit inconvenient" to walk or take the bus? That was just uncalled for, KoM.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
<-- Don't look at me. I don't even eat beef jerky.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Kangaroo jerky, on the other hand...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It takes me at least twenty minutes to DRIVE to the mall or the movies. At least half an hour for Best Buy. At least half an hour for the hardware store. And it requires the use of the interstate.
...shall I start walking?
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It doesn't occur to any of you people that there might exist apartments a wee bit closer to any of these places? Even in America, there's no actual law saying you have to live an hour's drive from the nearest grocery store. And really, if your mother is so ill she cannot be left alone, then it's not a one-woman job to tend her anyway.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: It takes me at least twenty minutes to DRIVE to the mall or the movies. At least half an hour for Best Buy. At least half an hour for the hardware store.
Oy. You have my sympathies. I used to have a car like that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Then what DO you do with it Tante? Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It doesn't occur to any of you people that there might exist apartments a wee bit closer to any of these places? Even in America, there's no actual law saying you have to live an hour's drive from the nearest grocery store. (...)
So? What exactly is your point? That people shouldn't complain? Or are you going to use aspectre's stick to try and beat people to?
The fact that places to live might exist closer to the store is by no means a requirement that you live closer. And there are certainly other factors (likely more important) in choosing somewhere to live.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
KoM, if I were to get an apartment closer to, say, the mall, I would have to drive half an hour every day to school. I am currently located about a mile away from school and generally walk there unless I'm pressed for time or it's a night class.
-pH
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And really, if your mother is so ill she cannot be left alone, then it's not a one-woman job to tend her anyway.
She isn't ill - she has memory loss. And you don't have any idea of our circumstances, so you have no right to judge.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I dare you to find me an apartment in upstate SC that will rent to an adult and five children.
But that aside, as someone else said, there are other more important factors in choosing a home, like availability and affordability.
You guys really have no clue how much like a couple of spoiled college students you sound, do you? And then you have the arrogance to condescend to us about our choices... and wonder why people don't follow your lead or even listen to you.
And again, the point is not even about being environmentally friendly... it's people who are environmentally conscious that you are raking over the coals. How persuasive.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I work with a woman, a widow who lives alone, who drives a humongous SUV, that apparently gets horrible gas mileage. I say apparently because she is forever griping about how much it costs to fill her tank (last report -- $70) and how often she needs to fill it (2 x week). Almost all of her driving is to and from work. Here's the thing. It is a newish SUV. She got it to replace her old humongous SUV that was a perpetual source of complaints about how expensive gas is. The new SUV costs her more in gas than the old one. She got the new one because "it was time for a new car". This makes no sense to me.
I drive a '93 Corolla, and when the tank is bone-dry, it costs me $25 to fill it up. I fill up about 3 x month. Almost all of my driving is work-related, too, and, in fact, I'd lay a bet that I drive far more miles in a week than she does. Our choices of what to drive affect our political outlook. I think it would be a very good idea to levy a 50-cent/gallon federal gas tax with the proceeds earmarked towards developing alternative fuels and transportation. She thinks we should go to war with Venezuela if it would bring us cheaper prices at the pump.
When I have to get a new car, I will choose the most economical and reliable used car that I can afford. I care little for how impressive it looks. I would definitely pick "basic transportation" that got 45 miles/gallon over some souped-up hybrid that only gets 20 mpg. My coworker is talking about how it will be "time for a new car" next year. She is considering a bigger SUV because she likes the "commanding road view", and the "feeling of safety" she gets from having the biggest car on the road. She regrets that she can't afford "the BIG Hummer", because she really admires them. She wants to get the next best thing.
She'd probably be pleased as punch to get herself one of these.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We have three vehicles and four children.
V1 is a 1998 Plymouth Voyager minivan that we've practically given to my brother & sister in law. It gets around 20 miles to the gallon.
V2 is a 2000 Ford Windstar that my wife uses for her main mode of transportation. It gets around 22 mpg.
V3 is a 2002 Toyota Echo that I drive back and forth to work. Because I have a long commute (60 miles, one way) it was imperative that the car we purchased be fuel-smart. The Echo gets between 36 to 40 miles per gallon, and so fits the bill.
SUVs make me laugh. The 'utility' seems largely a joke. They're expensive to buy, expensive to fuel... buying a car AT ALL is something of a minor tragedy, IMO. Why do you want to compound it by purchasing a vehicle that will cost more and deliver less?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The Echo gets between 36 to 40 miles per gallon, and so fits the bill.
See... this is what puzzles me. I have rented priuses (pri-i?) for long solo drives and typically got 43-44 mpg. Percentage-wise, the Prius is a fairly minor improvement over the Echo and similar vehicles (about 10%), whereas the Highlander Hybrid represents a similar numerical improvement and therefore a much greater percentage improvement (about 27%) in mileage over even the next most economical Highlander, and an enormous improvement (about 50%) over the V6 model it compares to. If everyone who drove Corollas and Camrys converted to hybrids it would result in significant fuel savings. If everyone who drove seven passenger vehicles converted to hybrids it would drastically affect fuel consumption in this country.
But people hail the Prius as the second coming and the Highlander as not truly green.
Color me, or rather, them, confused.
Edit: I found, in researching the Toyota website, that the new Camry hybrid does have a significant city mileage boost over the comparable model (nearly doubling it, in fact), but a relatively small highway mileage boost. So, comparing apples to apples, I am wrong on that particular count. Still a 50% increase in mileage and a significant decrease in emissions pollution should be hailed as a breakthrough and not a problem.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Jim-Me, everyone knows that whenever you purchase an SUV, a protion of the profits go to Satan.
-pH
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I personally dislike SUVs and I do suspect that a lot of people (unlike JimMe and his family) driving them don't really need that much room.
I think the hybrid SUVs are a good thing, though, and that it's silly that some people deride them for being not good enough. At the very least it's a huge step in the right direction. There are some people who really do need a lot of room in their car, and there are those who probably don't but will insist on driving one anyway. I'd much rather have them in a hybrid SUV than a regular one.
Something that often gets overlooked is that since miles/gallon is a rate of consumption, improving the lower-MPG cars has a much larger effect on the total amount of gas used than improving the cars that already have good fuel efficiency. (Not that we shouldn't be trying to do both if possible, of course.)
--Enigmatic
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I want a diesel hybrid.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Jim, it's snobbery within snobbery; There are lots of people who look down on the Civic Hybrid, because the electric motor isn't the "main" motor, like the Prius.
I agree, if you are going to buy an SUV (and one reason I know a coworker did was because she felt like she needed a big SUV to feel safe driving around all the other SUVs...), it is commendable if one would buy the Highlander Hybrid (or Escape Hybrid, or even the RX400h, for those with money).
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
PC, me too.
-Bok
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
If VW comes out with a v6 4motion hybrid, I will buy it when it comes time for me to buy another car.
Until then, I will waste natural resources and contribute to global warming and kick puppies.
-pH
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
pH- Good for you for not being put on the defensive and feel like you have to justify the vehicle you drive and the miles you go. I wonder if people like KoM have ever lived in the real world-the one with zoning laws and rural areas.
Rather than make me feel like I should be more environmentally conscious, the constant tirades of, "What you're doing is not good enough" really make me not care as much.
So rather than getting a hybrid to 'do my part,' honestly I'll just wait until it's economically beneficial for me to do so.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Until it becomes economicly beneficial for you to purchase a hybrid, BaoQingTan, you are doing your part by sticking with your current choices. Along with due consideration of the car problems that I mentioned earlier to Kwea, the long-term expenditure of money is as close as a consumer can get to a true measure of the total energy and pollution costs that is needed to evaluate whether a change in cars is beneficial to the environment / reduces total energy demand.
[ April 21, 2006, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:See... this is what puzzles me. I have rented priuses (pri-i?) for long solo drives and typically got 43-44 mpg.
My 1st generation prius gets about 47mpg most of the time, but during the summer it can get as high as 56 mpg. When it gets near zero in the winter it gets as low as 33 if I only make short trips that don't give it a chance to warm up.
The 2nd generation prius is supposed to get better mileage than mine. In any case the prius is larger and more stable than the echo.
BTW, I also own a full sized pickup truck, because there are some things you just can't move in a prius. But on average I use the truck less than 300 miles a year (which is really annoying when I pay to insure it).
I see all these Subdivisions and Exhibitions driving around, usually with just the driver by themselves, and I can't believe that they actually need that much vehicle. At least, not for more than a few hundred miles a year.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Tante:
quote:She'd probably be pleased as punch to get herself one of these.
Onlookers have been known to gawk at its style and gasp at its size. At 21-feet long with tires hip-high and a 9-foot tall cab, it's the largest production pickup truck currently on the market. It's an International® CXT - born out of the proven International® 7000 severe service commercial work trucks used by professionals for the most rugged applications.
Equipped with the legendary International® DT 466 diesel engine, the CXT provides up to six tons of hauling power* while its air-ride cab and individual bucket seats offer an exceptionally smooth ride. A spacious and well-appointed interior, including luxury options such as leather, DVD and satellite radio, ensures automotive-like comfort and convenience.
You could say it's an extreme production pickup truck. Whatever you call it, the CXT leaves bystanders speechless. For drivers who want to make a statement, this is how to broadcast it. Size, power and flash brought together to create the ultimate truck for extreme work or play.
The result of more than a century of leadership in the truck market, the CXT is simply a vehicle unrivaled in capability, size and appearance and delivers performance in a big way.
I love that last part.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Oh I'm speechless alright.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
::holds a puppy, Lucy-like, for pH to kick.. Charlie-Brown-Like::
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Funny thing about that link is at the bottome it starts bragging about how "green" it's desiel engine is.
Gotta love it...... Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Well, KoM, I *could* put my older three kids on a school bus, but that would require getting five kids and myself up, dressed, fed and ready to go by 7am (when the bus stops nearest our house). While this in itself is not insurmountable, just a ROYAL pain, there is the small issue of having to actually be home when they get off that same bus at 3:30 (...)
Why? If you have three children in school, then presumably the eldest is ten or so. That's certainly old enough to manage on their own for a few hours. You could even compromise : Drive them to school, let them take the bus back.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
We're all wasting plenty of electricity by reading and posting on the Internet, a particularly non-essential activity in almost all cases.
I just had my tires rotated, so I'm a damn good person now, because my fuel efficiency just went way up. I'm going to sniff my farts for a while now ;P
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: We're all wasting plenty of electricity by reading and posting on the Internet, a particularly non-essential activity in almost all cases.
I'm so ashamed of myself. Goodbye, Hatrack! I'm going to go and compost something, now.
Posted by Princesska (Member # 8954) on :
quote:Do those folks driving low-powered sub-compacts happen to have 5 kids they need to cart around?
I think that's what station wagons are for. You can buy 'em used, though a couple of companies might still manufactore them. Also, how old are the kids? When I was five, our family car (for two parents, one child and maybe one or two of her friends) was a Toyota Tercel. When I got too big for that backseat, the car was replaced with a Geo Prizm. A few years later, when I reached adult-size, it was replaced with an Oldesmobile Alero. Now that I've moved out of the house, I wouldn't be suprised if the next car was a two-seater. (by the way, this is a two-car family. The smaller car would remain in use for one parent's commute, but the larger one would be used for commutes plus any trips with the entire family. All cars would be well-maintained and driven for apx 10 years)
quote:While this in itself is not insurmountable, just a ROYAL pain, there is the small issue of having to actually be home when they get off that same bus at 3:30, which would require me to leave work about 3:15, which would leave me fired,
Have you considered letting the kids use the bus in the morning and then you pick them up after school? I'll admit that sometimes it's difficult to get by without a car in America, but it's not all-or-nothing. Or maybe you could have them take the bus in the afternoon too and hire a babysitter for those couple of hours, or have the bus drop them off at a friend's house where you know a parent will be there? You have options.
quote:My point is that even in an obsessively bikey town like Davis, where you can't kick a rock without it knocking over a row of parked bicycles, where every building has more bike parking than car parking (more by far), the drivers are ridiculous.
I live in Palo Alto. It's the same here. Bike heaven compared to my old home in Ohio, but I'm often using the bike lane to whiz past traffic jams. Whee!
quote:People, like my roomie, drive the half mile to the giant student parking lot and then walk the quarter mile to class. The affair takes 20 minutes, but on my bike I can make the whole trip in six, and park at the door, and its FREE! Still people drive everywhere, and I will NEVER understand what is so aweful about getting a little excercise, maybe even alot of exercise. I even do my grocery shopping on my bike sometimes; it limits the hauls I can make, but I can go any time I want, I never have to hastle with parking.
Right on! I'm slow for a bicyclist so my trips often take longer than by car, but the endorphins and lack of parking hassle make it totally worth it.
I used to go to a small college in Florida and it took me about five minutes to bike across campus, less if I was in a hurry. It couldn't have been more than half a mile. Most students biked or walked it. But I had one friend who used her car to go that distance. When I saw her get into her car outside of class for the express purpose of going back to her dorm, I was shocked.
quote:Fortunately, we moved into town a little over a year ago, and I've got everything I need within three to five miles, so I don't actually use that much gasoline and I can make the amount of gasoline $20 will buy stretch for two weeks.
Have you considered getting a used bicycle and putting a basket on it? Three miles by bike doesn't take much longer than three miles by car, and if you're cooped up in your mother's house most of the time, your muscles would probably appreciate the stretching out.
Not that I'm discounting your situation. I'm just sensing a bit of cabin fever there.
quote:There are also plenty of people who live in rural areas or suburbs who have to drive to get to most places.
I used to be one of those people. It really sucked. I made an effort to bicycle where I could, but a lot of the roads were suicidal (since the fast drivers weren't used to seeing bikes) and a lot of the important places I had to go were just too far away. Our public transporation was limited to a 2-mile area of downtown (whereas I lived in the suburbs), and it was called the Southern Ohio Regional Transport Authority -- i.e., SORTA! The car was my only option. I couldn't opt out if I wanted to.
quote:She is considering a bigger SUV because she likes the "commanding road view",
Sitting in an SUV is like sitting on the top of a skyscraper. Technically you can see for miles, but looking down and seeing what's two feet from the skyscraper's base is rather difficult. I say this because, while riding my bicycle, I was once hit by an SUV. And it was obvious that if the driver had been sitting in a smaller car with a lower field of vision, she would have seen me. But she didn't, so my front wheel was bent and I limped a little for two days.
My daddy says that a good cure for a traffic would be that when a jam occurs, all SUV's have to go off-road. That's what they were made for anyway, right?
quote:You guys really have no clue how much like a couple of spoiled college students you sound, do you? And then you have the arrogance to condescend to us about our choices... and wonder why people don't follow your lead or even listen to you.
I understand that the way things are set up, everything is spaced so far apart that a car is often neccessary if you want to live in an affordable house in the suburbs and work at the highest-paying job you can find. I've met a woman who bikes to work and once moved to a new apartment just to keep the commute short enough, but I know that she's a rare breed.
I've committed myself to bicycling and public transportation, and though both work very well in the Bay Area, it has prevented me from taking some higher-paying jobs because the commute would take ridiculously long. It's a difficult choice and I know there are good reasons for choosing differently. I just hate driving.
Though I encourage everyone to bike or walk instead of driving, I know that this isn't always possible. What I find troubling is when people get into the habit of driving so deeply that suddenly they can't conceive of using their two feet to get anywhere. Just because your commute has you in the car for two hours a day doesn't mean you can't walk a mile to the local 7-11. Heck, after all that driving, your legs are probably cramped and would appreciate it anyway!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why? If you have three children in school, then presumably the eldest is ten or so. That's certainly old enough to manage on their own for a few hours.
*jawdrop*
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting he have a ten year old supervise four younger siblings? Alone? For several hours? (The youngest of whom is under age three, IIRC.)
Leaving aside for the moment that this would be an excellent way to get DCS very, very involved in his life, are you INSANE?!?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, well? Children have watched their younger siblings for centuries. Honestly, you Americans are insanely paranoid. You could have a neighbour look in on them every once in a while, maybe.
Actually, come to think of it, with the kind of dependency patterns you must be developing, maybe this particular ten-year-old isn't capable of it. But frankly it's high time he learned.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, well? Children have watched their younger siblings for centuries.
Slavery and child labor were popular for a good long time too, you know.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
10 or 11 was about the age I started walking home after school by myself. Don't know if I woulda wanted to be responsible for four younger sibs though. I don't think I'd want to be responsible for them now, for that matter.
Really does depend on the kid though.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
As usual, King of Men is posting out of blatant ignorance of America, compounded by patronizing arrogance. Ignore him.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"We're all wasting plenty of electricity by reading and posting on the Internet, a particularly non-essential activity in almost all cases. I just had my tires rotated, so I'm a damn good person now, because my fuel efficiency just went way up. I'm going to sniff my farts for a while now ;P "
[ April 27, 2006, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:As usual, King of Men is posting out of blatant ignorance of America, compounded by patronizing arrogance.
Except he is correct - America IS paranoid. (Parents especially. ) I suspect a 10-year-old would have a good deal of trouble looking after 4 younger siblings even for a few hours, but trying it isn't child abuse, and certainly isn't comparable to child labor or slavery, especially if neighbors are there to help, etc.
As to the gas prices, I think it will probably be a good thing in the long term that prices are rising. The fact that people live so far from the places they need to go, and the fact that they rely so much on gas is a long-term problem - and it isn't going to be fixed until driving is more costly. People will rely on the convenience of driving until economics makes it less easy to do so. It will be painful in the short-term, but I suspect better in the long-term.
In the meanwhile, almost everyone should have at least some options. As has been mentioned, you can bike or walk more. If things are far away then take fewer trips to the store, or carpool with a neighbor when they go. Go to the movies less if it costs too much gas to get there. Send you kids on the school bus, if necessary. Take a bus yourself, if one is available. If you truly live in the middle of nowhere with no neighbors or stores around you, then you are probably stuck - but everyone else should have alternatives, even if they are a bit more painful.
If those alternatives are too painful in your particular case, take the hit and buy more gas - spend less on something else. That's usually an option too.
On that note, however, I don't think it makes sense to patronize people who are using more gas, such as SUV drivers. They are probably doing so because they have a good reason to, and because it makes sense for them to do so. That doesn't make them bad people.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Yeah, Rivka. If you keep letting him get your goat, he's going to land up with all the goats, and we will have to go to HIM for all our goat-related needs.
When I was 10, I took the school bus home alone and looked after myself until my parents got home from work. My younger sibs took the school bus to a neighbor's house, where my folks arranged for the mom there to watch over them until they could be picked up. I'm pretty sure that my folks paid the neighbor lady something for this.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
He's 11. He also very likely has Asperger's Syndrome and is having social difficulty enough that they have seriously considered holding him back in the 5th grade despite his acdemic performance being off the charts. All that to say that he has difficulty taking care of himself and no way in hell am I leaving him in charge of two younger kids while I am 20-25 minutes away (not counting the fact that I half to walk roughly 1/2 mile to my car because of my parking situation).
For, among other reasons, the very good one that Rivka pointed out-- I do not wish to have them taken away (and I have seen people investigated for leaving their kids in the car while they went to pay for their gas).
I'm just waiting for someone to say "you should have thought of all that before you had five kids and got divorced." Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A person who drives a larger vehicle because their regular-commute includes transport of multiple passengers is being both more energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly than most people who drive smaller vehicles whose regular-commute is solo.
Most people are driving overweight&overpowered vehicles because they have been brainwashed by years-and-years-and-years of advertising into thinking that it enhances social status and/or that it is safer. It isn't safer. Whatever gains made from being in a larger vehicle during a collision are lost in the increased probability of being in an accident due to a decrease in the maneuverability useful for accident avoidence and in the increased likelyhood of rollover during an accident. As a trend, the larger and more powerful the vehicle, the more likely it is that its driver will normally drive faster than the speed limit by an amount greater than the speed set by traffic flow. The larger and more powerful the car is, the larger that excess speed is likely to be. Because of these factors, it may be (at least) slightly more dangerous to ride in a large vehicle than a small vehicle. It's hard to tell for certain because the Department of Transportation seems to be far more interested in burying information within its statistics than in providing information to the public. It is fairly clear though that heavier, more powerful vehicles greatly increase the risk faced by those in smaller vehicles while doing nothing to increase the safety of those in the larger vehicles.
[ April 27, 2006, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, Asperger's is a bit of a special case, admittedly. Neighbour watch, perchance? I note, I walked to school, about two kilometers, from age seven; and entertained myself on getting home, too. And it was uphill both ways.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And Vikings don't even notice the snow and ice and avalanches. Wolves do make great cloaks though.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I suspect a 10-year-old would have a good deal of trouble looking after 4 younger siblings even for a few hours, but trying it isn't child abuse,
It may not be child abuse but it is illegal. In this state, no child under the age of 14 is supposed to be in charge of another child, of any age.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
FWIW, when I was my oldest son's age, I was regularly riding my bike 3-4 miles to the local mall. When I was my middle son's age (4) I used to sometimes ride in my father's lap and "drive" the car. Other times I'd ride in the hatchback. This was a Pinto, too. Doing that today *will* get you charged with child abuse. Standards have changed... whether or not this is a good thing is debatable I s'pose. I was shocked at the billboards around here which proclaim that 4'9" is the cutoff for child seats.
My mom is shorter than that...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It may not be child abuse but it is illegal. In this state, no child under the age of 14 is supposed to be in charge of another child, of any age.
That's not a very good law, in my opinion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
By the way, I wasn't exaggerating my last post - it really was uphill both ways. There was a hill between me and the school, which you had to go up, then down, either way you were going.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I guess I'm not getting something here. Why do people think it's a bad thing that children should be adequately supervised? I get that eventually they need to learn to be on their own and have responsiblity, but surely 15 and 16 is young enough to start learning that.
I think it boils down to parental convenience. People want to be able to work long hours and not be home when their kids get home from school, so they think it should be fine for pre-teens to be responsible for younger siblings.
Funny, but most of the kids I talk to don't seem to think it's all that grand. I've had many come to my house after school and talk about how they wished their mom or dad would be home with them in the afternoon.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The key word is 'adequately'. What you call 'adequate', I call 'smothering'.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When I was ten, although my mother was home, I was making 75 cents an hour babysitting for other kids. My being responsible for younger kids had nothing to do with her convenience.
Of course, this was back in the dark ages. LIfe expectancy was only about 15. People were married at 7. We lived in caves...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I loved having my mother at home even when I was at school. It made feel very safe - I could do anything, because she was there to come and get me if I fell (metaphorically or literally).
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Leaving a 10 year old alone now and then for a few hours may or may not be a problem. Some kids will do fine, others won't. But leaving a 10 year olf (or even a 12 or 14 year old) in charge of younger siblings, not just now and then but for several hours every day, as KoM is suggesting is absolutely child abuse. Not just for the older child, but for the younger ones as well.
Children are children, not miniature adults. Even the most responsible, well behaved, level headed 10 year old, is still a 10 year old. It's unfair to force a child of that age into a caretaking role, and unfair to the younger children to be left without an adult.
My parents divorced when I was 6, and for several years, my older sister (3 1/2 years older) became my "babysitter" while my mother worked nights. It was miserable for both of us. I think of 9 year olds I know now (all of my children are older) and can't even imagine what my mother was thinking to think it was acceptable to leave my sister in charge, not just now and then, but every night for several years. Of course, she didn't have a lot of other options open to her, but still.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think, then, you are in the rather uncomfortable position of suggesting that most of humanity for most of history has practiced child abuse.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I think, then, you are in the rather uncomfortable position of suggesting that most of humanity for most of history has practiced child abuse.
By our standards, certainly. When we have the means and the prosperity to live as we do today, it stands to reason that our children should live better than their forebears did. I have no problem with that. I certainly want my children (and grandchildren...) to have a better life than I did.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I guess I'm not getting something here. Why do people think it's a bad thing that children should be adequately supervised?
I don't think that is a bad thing.
I do think it is a bad thing to make it a crime to leave children under less-than-ideal supervision, when parents may be forced to leave children in such situations because of work requirements, school hours, and the lack of money to pay for child care. Are you prepared to jail someone, or fine someone, or take their children away because they think their 10-year-old can watch over their 8-year-old for a few hours? I think that would be extremely unfair to the parents, and undermining their rights as parents to judge what is and is not safe for their own children - especially so if their financial situation leaves them with few other options.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I think, then, you are in the rather uncomfortable position of suggesting that most of humanity for most of history has practiced child abuse.
My therapist informed me that she is required by law to report to the authorities anything more than an open handed slap on the rump.
By that standard, yes indeed, the vast majority of historical, and even currently living, humanity has practiced child abuse.
When I was 10 and again when I was 12, I was paddled at school without even prior parental notification much less permission (which they would have absolutely given).
As I noted above-- for good or ill, the standards have changed.
I'm wondering, though, KoM, when the vast majority of humanity became a standard for you? It certainly isn't on other topics...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that's a good point, actually.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Why do people think it's a bad thing that children should be adequately supervised?
I think we're just disagreeing on what "adequately supervised" means.
quote:I get that eventually they need to learn to be on their own and have responsiblity, but surely 15 and 16 is young enough to start learning that.
Even though they could be out of the house and living on their own as early as 17? Granted, college isn't really, "on your own," but I'd still call that a monumental leap for someone who's only been allowed to be unsupervised for one or two years.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Out of curiosity, is there anyone here who is advocating less need for kids to be supervised who actually has children of their own?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I was wondering how long that would take to come up.
Nope, no kids here and for a good while I'd say. Just writing based on having been a kid. Take it for what it's worth.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, is there anyone here who is advocating less need for kids to be supervised who actually has children of their own?
Not I. I'm basing this on kids I know who are under 14 who I know could take (and have taken) care of younger siblings for at least a few hours, and on my own experiences.
It wouldn't surprise me if most of the people arguing for stricter supervision are parents, and vice versa, though. Parents tend to be biased on this stuff towards the overprotection end of the spectrum - I'm guessing because they worry a lot about their kids and thus tend to view kids in a certain way. And nonparents tend towards the other end of the spectrum - I'd guess because we lack those same feelings and experiences, and often view kids in a different sort of way.
I generally think that the parental perspective is less accurate, but also is a more effective perspective to use to raise kids - because it is better to be overcautious than undercautious when raising a kid, no? But that opinion is through the lens of my own biases, too.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Ok... far enough on all this stuff.
Look back over this thread and see how people have persistently tried to find an excuse to call me lazy or environmentally unfriendly for having a large vehicle... look how far they've gone:
I should bus my kids. I should hire a nanny. I should live within walking distance of work. I should leave them unattended for 2-3 hours a day.
Even if I did all of that, I'd stll own a huge car because if I don't I can't carry my entire family anywhere and some of us are not $#^*^@*@%# rich and spoiled enough to afford and maintain two vehicles for one driver. I'm not and I make more than the national median income (last I checked).
And no one has even mentioned auto racing, vacationing, traveling fairs, other traveling entertainment (sports, music tours), or group outings/tournaments (cheerleading, band, sports, gymnastics, church, etc.)-- all of which are a hell of a lot more frivolous use of resources than my poor car.
I re-iterate... this nonsense is why people don't listen and why people have the impression that environmentalists are about attacking a certain class of people and not actually solving a problem.
[ April 28, 2006, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It wouldn't surprise me if most of the people arguing for stricter supervision are parents, and vice versa, though.
Neither would I. But I'm going to debate the why. IMO, parents have actual experience with what happens when there is NOT sufficient supervision -- both in terms of what their kids do and in terms of other people's reactions.
When you have had someone imply that you should be reported to DCS because your 11 year old spends 45 minutes unsupervised, or because your six year old has untameable hair (I kid you not -- her hair looks as though it were never brushed 30 minutes after it has been tamed, and I keep hearing about it), get back to me.
Until then, hush.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Everyone has had experience with what happens when there is no supervision of children. Even at the very minimum, everyone has been an unsupervised child at some point in their life. I'm sure most people have been around unsupervised children before and have seen how they can act and what they might do. What parents uniquely have experience with is how it is to be in such a situation from the perspective of being the parent, as opposed to the child or a third party. But I don't think that is the only perspective that counts.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Tres, did you miss the part where Rivka said to hush until you've been threatened with loss of custody?
That is the ace of trumps. Nothing you say is going to make me risk losing custody of my kids. And for damn sure not to save a few gallons of gas!
"Where do they find these people?" indeed...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But I don't think that is the only perspective that counts.
What most people other than parents (and possibly teachers) lack is the daily experience of what kids do even when they are directly under an adult's watchful eye.
Even though everyone was at some point a child, they aren't remembering those events as observers who truly understood the ramifications of some of the more dangerous things they did.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That is the ace of trumps. Nothing you say is going to make me risk losing custody of my kids. And for damn sure not to save a few gallons of gas!
Hey, I wasn't the one who said you should actually leave your kids there. I was the one who said it shouldn't be illegal to do so - they shouldn't be able to take your custody for that.
quote:Even though everyone was at some point a child, they aren't remembering those events as observers who truly understood the ramifications of some of the more dangerous things they did.
This is true, but none of the perspectives is one that truly understands ALL the remifications of something. I think parents tend to understand certain ramification much better ("I could have injured myself") but at the same time tend to downplay or forget other ramifications ("My peers would have made fun of me if I didnt do it.") From a parental perspective, physical injury is much more prominent concern, but from a child's perspective it might be less important. Who is correct? It is hard to say - but I've certainly seen some parents who want their child's safety to be the highest priority for their child, but apply an opposite logic to themselves.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
We've all been kids, Tres. I remember what it was like to be a kid and have to worry about peer pressure. I know how big a deal it can be. As a parent, I now understand that there are things that are bigger deals, like safety.
Parents deal in a lot of "could haves". Even if the chance that something bad might happen is low, the cost is just way too high.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QUOTE]I'm basing this on kids I know who are under 14 who I know could take (and have taken) care of younger siblings for at least a few hours, and on my own experiences.
And my arguement is that there's a big difference between occasionally taking care of younger siblings for a few hours, and doing it day after day for years on end.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Out of curiosity, is there anyone here who is advocating less need for kids to be supervised who actually has children of their own?
Yup. Me.
(long rant)
When my son went to kindergarten we took him the first few days, and then let him walk to school himself. It was just across the road, and you could see the schoolyard (but not the school) from our house. There was a crossing guard in the morning, but after school he stayed at an after school daycare program. We picked him up at about 6:00.
BTW, this was the same elementary school that my wife walked to everyday when she was a child, and we were living with her mother in the same house.
This went on for some time. When he was in 1st grade, he still went to the daycare, but he complained that his friends all left before 6:00, so my wife and I told him that he could walk home anytime after 5:00, since my mother-in-law or I would be home. I was going to school at the time, and was often home during the daytime, but my mother-in-law was always home by 5:00. At the very worst, my wife and I would be home an hour later, and we also had two neighbor's houses he could go to.
We gave him a note to give to the daycare, saying he had permission to walk home after 5:00. My wife or I still stopped by the school to pick him up at 6:00, but we expected to get there and find that he'd already left. But he never walked home on his own, and wouldn't tell us why not.
One day I got a call from my daughter's daycare, saying that she had a high fever, and I needed to pick her up. She was 6 months old (edit: My wife points out she must have been at least a year old, probably 2 if my son was 6. I didn't take notes at the time). I brought her home, and expected my wife to pick up my son that day. Well 6:00 came, and I got a phone call from the after school program, telling me that no one had picked up Raymond. "No problem. I'm here, just send him home." They refused. I reminded them that they had written permission so he could walk home, and also that I could watch from my window to see him once he got to the edge of the schoolyard, but that my daughter was sick and I wasn't going to take her out in the cold, nor was I going to leave her home alone so I could go pick up Raymond.
They refused to send him home, and demanded that I come pick him up. I told them that I wouldn't, that my wife was supposed to pick him up, but must be running late. I told them again that they should send him home, and they said they would wait for my wife. A few minutes later they called back, saying that I would have to come pick him up because they wouldn't wait any longer. I told them to send him home. They hung up and called the YWCA, which ran the program. They called back in tears to tell me that the person at the YWCA had told them that since they had written instructions, and a verbal order to send him home, that they would have to send him home. They said this as if I should be shocked.
I said "Great. I'll be right here."
Some time later I heard a car pull up, and heard heavy footsteps on the front porch. The woman had driven him from the school and escorted him up the driveway.
The next day I picked him up at school at about 5:45, and the woman started to explain to me how dangerous it was, because someone could have been hiding in the bushes and molested him. I told her that statistically, the most likely person to molest a child is a parent, followed by day care workers.
***************
We moved into our own house when my son was in 5th grade. He went to daycare that year, but in 6th grade he came home to an empty house (he was 11). My daughter started coming home on the bus when she was 9 or 10, and my son watched her most days (he was 13 or 14), except that some days he stayed after school and she was on her own.
But before she started coming home on her own, she decided to walk to school. I dunno, she must have been about 8, and it's about a half mile to school. I was walking twice that far to school at that age.
Well, she was walking to school one day, and a neighbor is driving her kids to the same school. She sees my daughter walking, stops by the side of the road, forces her into her car and takes her to the school principal, and tells the principal that she found her walking to school. We got a call from the principal saying they have a policy that students must take the bus or be dropped off. We told her that if that woman forces our daughter into her car again we'd have her arrested for kidnapping. Then we told our daughter to walk to school through the woods so she came into the school through the playground, and didn't walk along the road. The school people never noticed her coming in that way, and she walked when she wanted to.
I look at my own kids, and compare them with their friends, and at my students, and I'm glad I taught my children to be self sufficient. In general, kids today have no sense of independence. My students can't complete a simple assignment without demanding help. I never see kids get together to play ball in an empty lot, they have to be in organized sports or they don't play.
Both my kids have been on the honor roll every marking period their whole lives. My son is an Eagle Scout. He's held a job since he was 15. My daughter has been been "working" date nights with my wife at her gymnastics since she was 12. She's now 15 and plans to get a job this summer where she will spend two weeks at a dance camp in another state, where she will be in charge of supervising younger kids while their parents dance till midnight.
I agree with KoM here about the historical roll of kids taking care of their siblings. And Rivka, doesn't a boy become a man at 13 years of age? That's not just a Jewish tradition, it was typical of all cultures for children to take some form of apprenticeship at about that age. It's a rite of passage into manhood.
In fact, I think that's the major problem with our educational system. Kids at 12 or 13 are constantly complaining that the stuff they learn in school is abstract and arbitrary. Historically, they were learning a trade, which was concrete and relevant. I think middle school should be more oriented toward vocational training, rather than "preparation for high school."
quote:I get that eventually they need to learn to be on their own and have responsiblity, but surely 15 and 16 is young enough to start learning that.
15 OR 16 IS WAY TOO LATE! Growing up should be a gradual process of letting go in small ways. Gradually give the kid more responsibility and freedom so that they're ready to BE an adult by the time they ARE an adult. You can't start the process at 15 or 16 and expect to have a well adjusted 18 year old.
[ April 30, 2006, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Glenn, I not only agree with you on having your kids walking to/from school (given the distances and ages you gave), I applaud your ingenuity in getting around bureaucracy.
However. There is a really, really big difference between a 10-12 year old being home alone for an hour or so, and having that same child supervise several younger siblings. Neh?
My girls (ages 12 and 6) walk to their grandparents' after school. Some days there's someone there; some days not. And that's fine. But I am very hesitant to let them do the same thing this summer after camp, because my son (age 9, who attends a different school than the girls, but will be at the same camp) has a history of getting into a ridiculous amount of trouble when left unsupervised.
If someone who doesn't know my kids (well!) were to tell me that my girls should not be left unattended for an hour or two, I would roll my eyes and ignore them. But I would have the same reaction if someone told me that I should leave my son with them.
Same goes if anyone (*cough*KOM*cough*) made a blanket statement about what age kids should be able to be alone, and/or supervise younger siblings. So while I agree with Tres that making it illegal to leave a child under age 14 alone with a younger child is ridiculous (it's 12 in this state, and I think that's at least more reasonable), I also agree that there are many 12 and 13 year olds who have no business babysitting -- and many who do.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Rivka,
Sounds like we're in agreement. I was responding to your question about parents advocating less need for supervision, and yes, I think Americans in general are overprotective, so I agree with KoM in that regard.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
As a general statement, I agree as well.
In terms of the specifics he (and several others) was suggesting, I disagree pretty strongly.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) I suspect a 10-year-old would have a good deal of trouble looking after 4 younger siblings even for a few hours, but trying it isn't child abuse, and certainly isn't comparable to child labor or slavery, especially if neighbors are there to help, etc. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)