Most Americans Still Don't Accept Driverless Cars

 

The charts above are from the YouGov Poll -- done between November 27th and December 3rd of a nationwide sample of 1,110 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

The Public Is Not Yet Sold On Idea Of Electric Cars

The charts above are from the Pew Research Center. They surveyed 13,749 U.S. adults between April 20th and 29th, and their survey had a 1.4 point margin of error.

It shows that the idea of buying an electric car does not appeal to a majority of Americans -- at least not yet. While they think the electric cars are much better for the environment, they think they cost too much and have doubts about reliability and the driving experience.

Are Electric Cars The Answer To Pollution ?

The picture above is of the Nissan Leaf -- an all-electric automobile. It is advertised as a zero emission vehicle because it has no exhaust pollution like a gas-powered car does. Electric cars are being touted as an answer to the environmental concerns being raised by the continuing use of fossil fuels that foul our air and contribute to global climate change. But is that really the case?

A new study, done by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, says that may not be true. They cite two reasons for this. First, the construction of an electric car produces more factory pollution than the production of a gas-powered car. This is because of the chemicals that go into making the battery (which actually results in a more toxic brew of pollution). But even though this is true, electric cars would still reduce pollution if it was not for the second factor -- where the cars get their electricity.

While these cars don't need gasoline, they still must get their power from somewhere. And right now, that would be existing power plants, which would have to produce more power to take care of this added need for electricity -- and most of that power is produced from the burning of fossil fuels. When you combine the extra pollution from building the electric cars and the extra pollution from getting the electricity from dirty power plants, the result (according to the study) is that electric cars don't have any advantage over gas-powered automobiles (especially the high-mileage sub-compacts) as far as the environment is concerned.

But that does not mean the electric car is not a good idea -- only that it cannot solve the problem of pollution without also addressing the source of their electric power also. The problem is not quite as acute in Europe, where they get a larger percentage of their electricity from non-fossil fuel sources (like solar, wind, and nuclear power). But it is a major problem in the United States, where over 85% of the electricity produced is from fossil fuels -- especially the burning of coal.

There has been a lot of talk lately, even from our president, about the promise of "claen" coal. Don't be mislead. There is no such thing as clean coal. That is just propaganda fed to the public by the coal companies. Even after washing and treating coal, it is still the dirtiest of all the fossil fuels -- and pollution capturing techniques are still just a dream (and may never be a reality).

I still think electric cars are a good idea, but until we cut the use of fossil fuels to produce electricity and replace that with clean (and hopefully renewable) sources of electricity production, it will just be a good idea that failed. The use of electric cars cannot replace the need to clean up our power plants. In fact, it increases the need to do that.

Americans Still Love Their Gas-Powered Autos

There's no doubt that Americans love their automobiles, and they have ever since it was first mass-produced. There have been efforts to get people in this country to use mass transportation more and leave the cars at home (or do without them completely), but these efforts have been largely unsuccessful. While many might use airplanes or trains to travel long distances, just as many (or more) will just load up the car and drive.

And outside of New York City, it's a very small percentage of the population that doesn't take their car even on very short trips -- like going to work or to shop. This brings up an interesting question. In light of the rising gas prices (and environmental damage), is it possible to get Americans away from their cars -- especially the gasoline-powered cars?

The Gallup Poll recently examined that question in a nationwide survey taken May 12th through May 15th of 1,024 adults. The most interesting question they asked was would you be willing to do the following if the price of gasoline rose above $10 a gallon? The only option that people really had any interest in was buying a car that used less gas (but not an electric car). Here are the percentages who would NOT be willing to do the following:

Replace your car with one that gets better mileage...............38%
Use mass transit as your main source of transportation...............52%
Buy an electric car that could only go limited miles at a time...............57%
Move closer to the places you drive to most often...............69%
Change jobs or quit working...............72%

Looking at these numbers it's easy to see why mass transit and electric cars (at least the current versions) have not been able to gain much traction in most of the country. Americans live driving their gasoline-powered cars, and majorities will continue to do that if gas rises to above $10 a gallon. The most a majority would be willing to do is get a more efficient car.

This is a good argument for the current government position of putting most of their conservation efforts into making gas-powered cars more efficient. It's also a good argument for making the auto industry step up that efficiency far more than they have currently been required to do.

I am one of those who would like to see more available mass transportation -- especially things like bullet trains. But while mass transportation has been successful in other countries, a poll like this makes me wonder if people in the United States want or would use such transportation in the numbers required to make it worthwhile.

New Speed Limit For Texas ?

It looks like the Texas legislature is once again going to prove they have completely lost their minds. They have pushed a Voter ID bill which they say will prevent voter fraud (even though there is no evidence of that voter fraud in the state). And they are trying to pass a budget bill that will be disastrous for most Texans (except for the rich and the corporations). Now they have decided to take this lunacy to the state's traffic laws.

The Texas House has passed a bill that would raise the speed limit on many of the state's highways to 85 miles-per-hour. The bill goes to the Senate now, and it looks like it may have a good chance of passing that body too. Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), author of the bill, said, "They have high-speed roadways in Europe, and there could be some merit in having some of those highways in Texas."

That's sort of a surprise. When's the last time you heard a Republican say we should do something because it's done in Europe? Usually the Republicans are against anything the Europeans are doing.

Of course the insurance companies don't like the idea at all. They have visions of paying out a lot more money for the increased accidents that will happen. Jerry Johns, spokesman for Southwestern Insurance Information Systems, said, "Obviously, the two things that kill most people on our highways are speed and alcohol. Increasing it to 85, or even 75, will have a dramatic impact on the death and injury rate on those highways where it's implemented."

I believe Johns is right. I live in a part of Texas with long straight highways and a sparse population -- obviously just the kind of place pictured by the proponents of this bill. But I've also driven in Texas most of my life, and let me tell you, most Texans can't drive worth a darn. Our highways are already dangerous enough without raising the speed limit to 85.

Frankly, can you picture a scarier sight than a teenager barreling down the highway in daddy's SUV at 85 miles-per-hour while talking or texting on his/her cell phone. I shudder just thinking about it. And that's not to say the teenagers are any worse than most adults -- they aren't. This is just a bad idea and a bad bill.

How Does This Still Happen ?

What the hell is wrong with people? I don't understand how some people think, or maybe it's because they don't think. You don't have to live in Texas to know how hot it gets here in the summertime. It usually gets near or at 100 degrees in June and doesn't let up until sometime in October.

So how is it that people will still leave babies or young children locked in their automobile, while they go shopping in a nice air-conditioned store. It makes me wonder if they care at all for those little kids. You don't have to be a rocket-scientist to know the "greenhouse effect" causes the temperature to quickly rise to very dangerous levels in an automobile sitting in the Texas sun.

But it has happened again. About 5:15 pm last Tuesday, a passerby noticed a baby locked in a car in a Wal-Mart parking lot. The temperature at the time was about 98 degrees. The good samaritan broke the car window, got the baby out and called 9-1-1. That was exactly the right thing to do. You can never know how long the child has been in that dangerous heat, or how much longer they have before succumbing to it.

The baby was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that it was OK. Meanwhile, the mother (pictured above) was arrested as she returned to her car. She said she thought her mother had taken the baby, and anyway, she was only in the store for about 10 minutes.

Those are some pitiful excuses! Didn't you go into the store with your mother? Couldn't you see she wasn't carrying a baby? Don't you know that even 10 or 15 minutes can be deadly to a baby in that kind of heat? We can only hope that the courts will get this young woman's attention.

Sadly, that won't be the last time this happens this summer. I imagine at least three or four (or even more) instances of this will happen this summer here in Texas. It always does. Just what the hell is wrong with these people?

What Is An "American" Car ?

On Monday, nearly 2700 workers walked out of the General Motors plant in Arlington. They were joining thousands of their union brethren in a strike against General Motors.

For years, these workers have watched as GM shipped American jobs to other countries, where they could abuse lower paid non-union workers. Today, GM has less than 25% of the number of American workers that it employed in 1970. That is an apalling figure, especially considering that many more cars are being made.

So this strike is less about wages, and more about job security. It's a bad sign that the contract expired on September 14th without a new agreement. Does it mean that GM wants to ship even more American jobs overseas?

This dilemma got me to wondering just what is an "American" car? Is it a Chevrolet made by Mexican workers for a company headquartered in the United States? Or is it a Toyota made by American workers for a company headquartered in Japan?

The Mexican-made Chevrolet makes GM's owners richer, but the American-made Toyota probably contributes more to the American economy, because the money made by the workers turns over several times and benefits many more people in this country. To me, a car made by American workers is a lot more American than one made by foreign workers, regardless of where the rich owners live.

American-headquartered car companies like GM and Ford should be careful about asking people to "Buy American". They might just do it.