Built like a Mercedes (?)

I'm sure the best available facts aren't five years old, nor are they as vague as some on here seem to use.

As to digging them up, I've posted links to info proving my point. That Huw likes his vague assumptions is not my problem. It does however, lead to an opportunity to be amused at his cost.

He just SAID that he hauls tractors and cars on trailers. Downsizing for people that actually *use* big pickups for what they're designed for simply isn't an option. Fortunately, the market is full of cheap used ones from all the urbanites that used them as status symbols in recent years :-)

What really strikes me as boneheaded is that Toyota just announced a humongous replacement for their Tundra truck. Just at the moment the market is shrinking back to the people who've always needed trucks, and are highly unlikely to buy a Toyota given that "features" like this would cost them income, not just loss of stylish transportation:

Oh no. Those numbers are on the *WEB*. They're a valid citation, and your criticisms of them are not acknowledgeable. How dare you, you unwashed American who probably drives a PICKUP truck! And probably a DODGE too! After all, NOTHING anyone finds with a search engine could EVER POSSIBLY be based on flawed statistics or be outdated...

Stop squirming, it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. I am the only one who has provided proof here with links to US DOE information. If you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date, then this is your opportunity to provide it. Please don't be shy. Please don't be long.

Hot air, buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one.

Huw

While business use may be justified, the rest of the World has no problem using much more efficient vehicles. To say you have no alternative is to submit to a long term shafting. There is a choice. Fairly soon I suspect things will get distinctly uncomfortable.

Planning for these things is long term and it would be prudent if you started planning for your leaders aim to come true. It could be fairly painless as your energy use is so profligate compared to the rest of the world that quite substantial cuts in percentage terms should be easy and you would still be comparatively profligate energy users.

Huw

Unfortunately, you lack the basic knowledge to be able to comprehend exactly why you are wrong.

Simply doing the math will get you the reasons why rail travel is more efficient. Of course, you would have to know the math to run the equations.

I posted links, last week sometime, whether or not you chose to look at them is unknown to me.

Changing the subject fools no-one but yourself. Your continued fairy stories are less convincing with practice. If you have can show either the US DOE to be mistaken or the figures for railways compared to road vehicles provided by me to be substantially mistaken then please do so in the appropriate place. This particular thread of the conversation is about average road miles per car [in case you hadn't noticed]. Further bluster only serves to dig you a deeper hole.

Huw

In the US, the _average_ is close to 2 cars per household. For a while I was in a household with 5 (all driven regularly)

Yes those figures are included in those DOE tables but if you look carefully you will find that they only refer to households that actually have a car. On that basis the UK has nearly half of all households that have a car with two cars or more. Still less than the US. If you look at all the references I provided, it is all there. Since you must bring up how many cars were in your household as if in a pissing contest then I should say that I presently have a Range Rover, Land Cruiser, Nissan Terrano, Fiat Panda, Isuzu Trooper and a Land rover outside. Hmm, that's six, five of which are SUV's, not counting the commercial vehicles connected with my various business away from home. These have only four drivers presently.

Huw

The most recent figures I can find show about 1.7 cars per household for the US if you assume that all households with 3 or more vehicles only have 3.

Same figures show 63% of households with cars in the US have two or more.

I thought I saw a higher figure in the statistics somewhere but I won't argue with that.

So the UK is not very far behind. I suspect the UK and Europe has been catching up from a historically much lower number.

Huw

Depending where you are in Canada that might not be too long from any given day. IIRC Calgary had snow last summer.

Table A19 of the document you reference shows average HOUSEHOLD vehicle miles to be 29000 per year - with - and this is one thing I stated that you poo-poo'd - the RURAL mileage being 36,000, and the urban 27,000. These are 2001 figures, published in 2005.

The forces that have raised those numbers over the last 10 years have not diminished in the last half of those ten years. These numbers, you need to understand are PER HOUSEHOLD - and NOT PER HOUSEHOLD WITH A VEHICLE.

Yes, more than one vehicle per household drops the average per vehicle, but households with no vehicle raise the average as well.

And you know the old saw - figures never lie, but liars figure. and - there's statistics, damn statistics, and lies.

My esteemed leader is about 6 years too late on my planning schedule. I bought a diesel truck, so I can fuel up using bio diesel. We have an abundance of soybeeans around here. As such, I'm quite ok driving a 7000lb truck.

Yeah, Huw must think that the net is the final authority.....

See another post of mine where I use actual numbers, something that Huw has yet to post.

Well Huw, ya can't have it both ways. Either the U.S. Government is full of crap (see Iraq, oil consumption) or they aren't (see your profound and complete belief that the U.S. Government speaks the truth throughout their reports).

Already posted them Huw, no need for me to redo research you failed to look at.

I found yet another one....

'locomotive%20fuel%20consumption' Check out Appendix B, where it lists fuel consumption by GPH.

WIDE open for an hour, making 2900+hp, a locomotive only burns 170gallons of fuel.

With that kind of power, you can pull 4000 tons (40 rail cars) at 50 MPH no problem. Thats 200,000 ton miles. A truck burning fuel at 5 MPG will go 850 miles on 170 gallons. Hauling 25 tons, thats 21,250 ton miles. If the locomotive is operated properly it'll use less fuel, since it won't be wide open 100% of the time.

The locomotive used in the test isn't even a "new improved" design, its over

30 years old.

More numbers Huw. Got any yet?

Since you've introduced households to the discussion we'll now have to find out what the average houshold size is to make a valid comparison !

Graham