05-19-2007, 07:31 AM
Quote:IN the US people use there car for everything because they can (could), fuel didn´t cost anything....and now things change. And your point about comfort is just plain wrong........most european cars (I'm not talking about the smallets cars) are just as comfortable for long distances as american cars.......anyway it is your way of thinking that made GM, Ford etc. lose market share to toyota.
First off, let's agree this is an entirely subjective point. Second, let's agree you're wrong! :P
No, but to be serious for a moment I really dreaded my short lived experience in small European cars. I admit, I've only driven one a couple of times. But when it comes to comfort, as Ashock pointed out, part of comfort has to do with safety - driving in a small coffin on wheels is not comforting.
I'll admit that when it comes to going out and grabbing groceries at the store, the comfort level of the interior is moot. But when it comes to driving many hours with a full car? There's little doubt the inside of a H2 Hummer is much more enjoyable than a small European coupe.
I still don't think you're fully understanding my point about the difference in the US compared to Europe. "I know some people need SUVs and I know some people have to travel long distances.....but those some people are not the average."
SUV's aside, US culture revolves around traveling long distances more than you think. I'm guessing in Europe there's a very similar social phenomenon. Most people expect a European to have visited almost all of the European countries at some point or other, right? Same thing happens in the US, most people expect you to have seen a sizeable chunk of the US states. The social phenomena exists because indeed, both Europeans' and Americans' lives revolve around quite a bit of travel. Sometimes its leisure, sometimes its business, sometimes it's only as a stop to somewhere else. Either way, we both travel a lot.
Now in Europe there's a complex international train network on the macro level, and great local service (buses, trains, subways, bicycle lanes) on the micro level. And that system makes sense in Europe. There's a much denser population per land, more countries are politically liberal with social programs, etc. Not to mention the inflated gas prices to keep these systems afloat and in good service.
But in the US we don't enjoy the same transit system. Yes, there are trains. Yes we have subways. But the US system isn't designed to (and doesn't) service the same percentage of the population. A big reason is the sheer size of the US. I'm dead serious when I bring up the State of Nevada. Europe doesn't have barren sparse land on the same scale we do (sorry to anyone whose from Nevada, or Wyoming too). Just imagine half of France (or over 7 times the size of Belgium) worth of desert land. And that's just a tiny portion of unused, undervalued land. We also have 10,000 acre cattle grazing farms in Wyoming. Or 10,000 acre blocks of woods in Montana. And interspersed over all these areas are the places everyone wants/needs to go.
So what's the solution? It sure isn't to fly everywhere, nor to build up a great transit system. The answer's already here, and a big part of US culture, it's to drive. Both socially and as I said before economically the US is heavily reliant on travel.
In other words, you say you understand the differences. But when you say things to the effect that European reliance on the automobile is the same to that of the United States', you're wrong Eppie. Raising tariffs on gas doesn't make sense here. And cutting back on gas isn't as easy stateside as it is in Europe.
Cheers,
Munk