Are cars even practical any more?

[zixxer]

I bet the OP is some douche going to a huge university, paid for by mommy and daddy, thus doesn't have to work.




In the real world, in 99.9% of cities/towns, you HAVE to have a car.



I won't deal with bus/bus stops to get to work. Sorry, but I won't.




I have a motorcycle, yeah it's a lot faster, and arguably better for the enviroment, but I pay more for insurance on the bike than I do for gas+insurance on the car.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: zixxer
I bet the OP is some douche going to a huge university, paid for by mommy and daddy, thus doesn't have to work.

Wow, some of you are so reactionary. All it is is a discussion, she's not saying we're all evil or immoral.

 

[PingSpike]

Cars were never practical to begin with.

 

[vi edit]

I'd do a motorcycle but it's impractical about 8 months out of the year in the Midwest and some clueless moron with a cellphone in one hand and the other one is trying to wrestle with her kids in the back seat sitting in a 4500 pound suburban would make a grease spot out of me.

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: zixxer
I bet the OP is some douche going to a huge university, paid for by mommy and daddy, thus doesn't have to work.




In the real world, in 99.9% of cities/towns, you HAVE to have a car.



I won't deal with bus/bus stops to get to work. Sorry, but I won't.




I have a motorcycle, yeah it's a lot faster, and arguably better for the enviroment, but I pay more for insurance on the bike than I do for gas+insurance on the car.

I am curious. Why did you insult the OP?

 

[TheSlamma]

Nevermind got the question wrong.

 

[Metron]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Yeah..OP you live in NYC, where public transportation is everywhere. Many of the rest of us have no other practical way of getting from Point A to B.

Actually I'm in NYC less than two months a year and that figure goes down from there.

So you live in Manhattan and you spend most of your time on Nantucket Island?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
It sounds absurd to have something that weighs a ton and a half (and often much more) to move around a person that weighs approximately 8 percent of one ton!

:Q

Step outside of a major city for an extended period of time & think again.

 

[AudiPorsche]

Originally posted by: Queasy
After driving down to Florida for a week and needing our Grand Caravan minivan to haul all of our stuff for two adults, a toddler, and an infant...yes...they are extremely practical.

how many times a year do you do that?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: loic2003
motorbikes are hugely more paractical: think fuel economy, space taken on the road, parking, etc.
Bicycles use energy exerted 3x more efficiantly than if you're on foot.

Cars are safer, and better when it's pouring with rain...

cars are no doubt the winner..... get you there safely and quick

Scratch the 'quick' from your answer and I'd agree. A motorbike is quicker in pretty much every possible way. Not to mention the feeling of being on a fast bike is on par with decent sex. Seriously.

Not with snow on the roads.

 

[miri]

Its hard to not have a car in American cities because they are not as densely packed as cities around the world. When I lived in Sevilla, I could walk from one end of the city to the other end of the city in about 1 hour, and that city had over a million people. See how long it takes you to walk from one end of a American city to the other end of a American city of 1 million people.

 

[herm0016]

and how am i going to traval the 1000 mile round trip to my school from home 5 or 6 times a year? i bike in the spring/summer/fall almost everywhere but cars are so much better because of the load hualing capicity, the speed. . . cars are practical to us that arnt in a city.

 

[Metron]

Teleporter for the nguyen!

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Chompman

Originally posted by: BigJ
Much more practical than other means of transportation.

I think she means since people are driving huge SUV's and trucks.

Please, let's not start this argument again. SUVs and trucks are very practical to a certain segment of the population. Just because you don't fit in that segment, doesn't mean they aren't practical.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: loic2003
motorbikes are hugely more paractical: think fuel economy, space taken on the road, parking, etc.
Bicycles use energy exerted 3x more efficiantly than if you're on foot.

Cars are safer, and better when it's pouring with rain...

cars are no doubt the winner..... get you there safely and quick

Scratch the 'quick' from your answer and I'd agree. A motorbike is quicker in pretty much every possible way. Not to mention the feeling of being on a fast bike is on par with decent sex. Seriously.

Not with snow on the roads.

Thats why you have to put chains on the tires!

 

[imported_Condor]

When I was in Wash DC, my commute on each end of the day on the Metro was 45 min to an hour and a half. I got a parking space with my new office and said I wouldn't use it because of the traffic. I had so many meetings in Greenbelt, Ruston, etc that I drove in one day. It took me 15 minutes each way driving. I drove from that day until I left. It wasn't just the time I saved that was worth some $45.00 to $70.00 each day, but before I started driving I was having to commute back home before each off site meeting, get the car, and drive to the meeting site. Metro didn't go there. Commute public if you can, but don't the condition of everyone in the world on just your microcosm. Think outside the tuna can!

mi·cro·cosm (mº?kr?-k¼z??m) n. A small, representative system having analogies to a larger system in constitution, configuration, or development. --mi?cro·cos?mic (-k¼z?m¹k) or mi?cro·cos?mi·cal (-m¹-k?l) adj. --mi?cro·cos?mi·cal·ly adv.

 

[homestarmy]

Originally posted by: dxkj

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
think of it this way: it travels ~15x faster than you can

I can run 20mph

So that would equate that you can run the 100m in 11.18 seconds? The world record is 10.62 seconds, are you really that close? If so, kudos to you.

An average person running it in 15 seconds would be about 15mph FYI.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: blackdogdeek
i'm not going to have my pregnant wife walking around with our 2.5 year old everywhere in this cold weather.

sorry, we need our car.

why not? the eskimos and american indians endured much worse.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: loic2003
motorbikes are hugely more paractical: think fuel economy, space taken on the road, parking, etc.
Bicycles use energy exerted 3x more efficiantly than if you're on foot.

Cars are safer, and better when it's pouring with rain...

cars are no doubt the winner..... get you there safely and quick

Scratch the 'quick' from your answer and I'd agree. A motorbike is quicker in pretty much every possible way. Not to mention the feeling of being on a fast bike is on par with decent sex. Seriously.

Not with snow on the roads.

Thats why you have to put chains on the tires!

.... i hope youre not serious

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: loic2003
motorbikes are hugely more paractical: think fuel economy, space taken on the road, parking, etc.
Bicycles use energy exerted 3x more efficiantly than if you're on foot.

Cars are safer, and better when it's pouring with rain...

cars are no doubt the winner..... get you there safely and quick

Scratch the 'quick' from your answer and I'd agree. A motorbike is quicker in pretty much every possible way. Not to mention the feeling of being on a fast bike is on par with decent sex. Seriously.

Not with snow on the roads.

Thats why you have to put chains on the tires!

.... i hope youre not serious

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: loic2003
motorbikes are hugely more paractical: think fuel economy, space taken on the road, parking, etc.
Bicycles use energy exerted 3x more efficiantly than if you're on foot.

Cars are safer, and better when it's pouring with rain...

cars are no doubt the winner..... get you there safely and quick

Scratch the 'quick' from your answer and I'd agree. A motorbike is quicker in pretty much every possible way. Not to mention the feeling of being on a fast bike is on par with decent sex. Seriously.

Not with snow on the roads.

Thats why you have to put chains on the tires!

.... i hope youre not serious

It's an engine. We use something like 65% of energy only for walking because the rest of it goes wasted as we step. Bikes cannot be 3x more efficient. Carnot engine anyone? =)

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: loic2003
motorbikes are hugely more paractical: think fuel economy, space taken on the road, parking, etc.
Bicycles use energy exerted 3x more efficiantly than if you're on foot.

Cars are safer, and better when it's pouring with rain...

cars are no doubt the winner..... get you there safely and quick

Scratch the 'quick' from your answer and I'd agree. A motorbike is quicker in pretty much every possible way. Not to mention the feeling of being on a fast bike is on par with decent sex. Seriously.

Not with snow on the roads.

Thats why you have to put chains on the tires!

.... i hope youre not serious

He meant put two sidecars on.

 

[virtueixi]

They will be practical when gas is $7/gal and fatty doesn't drive down the street to get his snack at Mcdonalds.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: loic2003
motorbikes are hugely more paractical: think fuel economy, space taken on the road, parking, etc.
Bicycles use energy exerted 3x more efficiantly than if you're on foot.

Cars are safer, and better when it's pouring with rain...

cars are no doubt the winner..... get you there safely and quick

Scratch the 'quick' from your answer and I'd agree. A motorbike is quicker in pretty much every possible way. Not to mention the feeling of being on a fast bike is on par with decent sex. Seriously.

Not with snow on the roads.

Thats why you have to put chains on the tires!

.... i hope youre not serious

He meant put two sidecars on.

With four wheels, would it still considered a motorcycle?

 

[Viper GTS]

In low population density areas cars (or some form of motorized vehicle) are necessities. Cars just happen to be the best thing we humans have come up with to fill that need.

They won't be going away any time soon, the US is simply too big & too sparsely populated.

In other countries (particularly small, population dense islands) cars may die off sooner.

Viper GTS