JayB

As of yesterday Slothrop's description is right on. We were really looking forward to riding our mountain bikes up the first 2-3 miles of the road with our packs on, but somehow we reconciled ourselves to riding up it in a vehicle instead...

Smokey McPot and..... Whatever happened to that guy?

Those segments contained arguments that make use of actual data and concrete figures that show precisely how much extra fuel the nation consumes as a result of increased SUV sales, and exactly how many additional fatalities result from driving them. They clearly show that neither the change in the level of fuel consumption nor the safety issues associated with them are as great as the anti-SUV posters on this board have claimed. The more you argue this point, the more clear it has become that your objections to SUVs are not based on factual information, or a rational assesment of their impact on the environment and the safety of the motoring public.

Are SUVs Really the Dangerous, Gas Guzzling Brutes They're Made out to Be? October 15, 2002 As automakers sell more and more sport utility vehicles, a populist backlash is gaining ground amongst people who despise them. They berate SUVs for their poor fuel economy and allegedly unsafe design. But are these popular vehicles really as dangerous as they’re made out to be? Let's look at the facts. "According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), for every million SUVs on U.S. roads, there are about 139 fatalities a year. By comparison, for every million passenger cars there are 126 fatalities a year. The most recent data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shows there are over 14 million SUVs registered in the U.S. That means there are around 200 additional fatalities a year due to people driving SUVs instead of passenger cars. However, while no one wants to see even one additional fatality, this number has to be placed in the context of all people killed in traffic accidents. There are about 42,000 people killed in motor vehicle accidents every year in the U.S. So the additional fatalities due to SUVs are a mere fraction of a percent - not good - but not the outrageous carnage the anti-SUV crowd claims." "...also berates SUVs because they are more prone to roll over than passenger cars in an accident, which is absolutely true. SUVs (and pick-up trucks and full-size vans) sit higher than passenger cars, which raises their center of gravity and makes it easier for them to roll them over in an accident, or in severe driving maneuvers. Indeed, 63 percent of all SUV fatalities are due to rollovers. But data from NHTSA also show that 66 percent of all those killed in SUVs were not wearing their seatbelts. Just getting SUV drivers and occupants to buckle up would lower the fatality rate of these vehicles to less than those of passenger cars...Also keep in mind that in every other type of accident, SUVs are safer than passenger cars. Rollovers account for about one out of every five accidents for all vehicles." "SUVs are also attacked for being gas-guzzling brutes. And there's no question that they do get significantly lower fuel economy than most passenger cars. But would forcing SUVs to get the same fuel economy of passenger cars make a tremendous dent in U.S. gasoline consumption? There is no SUV fuel economy standard per se. The standards are for passenger cars and light trucks. Cars have to meet an average of 27.5 mpg. Trucks have to achieve an average of 20.7 mpg. But those are averages for an automaker's fleet of new vehicles. Each automaker must figure out the fuel economy of all the light trucks that it built in a year and make sure that the average is 20.7 mpg. Some trucks (which include pick-ups, SUVs, minivans, and full-size vans) get well under 20.7 others get more than that. But the sales-weighted average must come to 20.7 mpg. A rough calculation would be to calculate the number of gallons of gasoline a vehicle uses in a year if it gets 20.7 mpg and drives 15,000 miles a year (the miles driven is the number the EPA uses). That comes to 724 gallons. The same calculation at 27.5 mpg comes out to 545 gallons. Thus the savings per SUV, assuming it had to achieve 27.5 mpg, would be 179 gallons. Now, let's multiply the savings in gallons by the number of SUVs made every year, about 3.8 million, and the annual gasoline savings would be 680 million gallons. Of course that's only the savings for all the new SUVs. It doesn't count what's already out on the road. But let's say that in the next 10 years total SUV registrations hit 40 million units. That would save 7 billion gallons a year. But keep in mind that the U.S. uses about 5 billion of gallons of gasoline every two weeks! Forcing SUVs to achieve passenger car fuel economy would reduce the nation's dependence on oil. But overall it would only save less than three weeks' worth of consumption." The anti-SUV crowd should be applauded for pressuring automakers to build safer and more fuel efficient SUVs. But their virulent diatribes against these vehicles grossly overstate the problems they cause.

Take as long as you want. Start with the figures at www.fueleconomy.gov and work your way down....

you have been told repeatedly that 98% (or wahtever overwhelming percentage) of SUVs are not used for off-roading, that only a few people do things requiring more than a 2-wheel drive yet SUV sales are ~30% of all car sales in the us today, that SUV are dangerous to their drivers and others on the road. yet you keep hammering that nobody can be sure the suit driving across 520 in his tank may just need it after work or whatever. without addressing the salient facts cited above. i don't have to demonstrate to you that the laws of probability indicate that said suit is most likely not going to need commuting in a tank for after work pursuits. yet, i am sure you'll keep focussing on the fact that there exists a very small chance teh wrong car may be tagged instead of admitting that driving a SUV for mondane tasks is very wasteful. furthermore it will take you many lines to express this simple fact and much time for your readers to decipher what you are saying. and you wonder why joshk and others are done debating? Repeats from way back: - Sportscars, big-vans with V-8's, most luxury sedans, and most mini-vans are every bit as wasteful as the average SUV. Check for yourself at www.fueleconomy.gov - It is the government that determines what is an acceptable level of fuel economy, and what is not. Ditto for safety. - The statistical argument is a crock. That's like claiming that since X% of a certain group are criminals you are justified in pointing to one out of every X of them that pass by and labelling them as criminals. The fact of the matter is that you have no idea what a given person does with their vehicle, no matter what they look like at any moment in particular. Further, unless the vehicle has been outlawed it's not your place to tell anyone else what is as suitable vehicle for their lifestyle and what is not. -If you are getting upset at SUV drivers because they are not constantly making use of all of their vehicle's capabilties, you should also get upset at someone for driving a van rarely has all of the seats filled or its interior stuffed with its cargo. That's what vans are made for, right? If they are not constantly filled with passengers/cargo then they are guilty of the same sin that you are condemning SUV owners of - consuming more fuel than the owners average transportation needs warrants. -The driver is the most important determinant of the risk a vehicle presents to other drivers. Just about all of the arguments put forward that claim that SUVs are uniquely detrimental to the environment are riddled with inconsistencies and rife with bald assertions that can't be backed up with hard data. It's not surprising that they have been uncritically accepted by, and have found favor within the groups that recite them, however.

Everything from the riverbank to the base of the slope leading up to the Columns got pretty well scorched, but most of the big trees seemed to have survived, and some of the underbrush is starting to come to life again.

Word.

We were there on Saturday and it was indeed wet in the morning, but it cleared up right after we arrived (9:30-10:00) and it was dry and in the mid-60's for the rest of the day. In fact, by mid-afternoon it was downright pleasant. And....we were apparently climbing so well that all of the snakes came out to check us out. We topped out on an easy route with no rap anchors and I started coiling the ropes while my partner started heading out. After about 20 feet he turned back and said "Hey - watch out for the rattlesnake over here" while pointing to a spot three or four feet away. I headed up and caught sight of a rattler in the general vicinity of the one he had pointed out and asked "Is this the snake you saw on the way up? " "Nope - that one's a few feet to the right." I take one step to the right and hear another telltale rattle, then see another snake. I naturally veer in the opposite direction and make it all of three steps before I hear what sounds like a much larger rattle emanating from a shadowy crack about a foot ahead of me. Once we get away from the snake's sundeck (warm rocks) and back onto a dirt trail we manage to avoid irritating any more snakes. You'd think that with all of the snakes at that place the 's wouldn't be a problem, but we had a couple of fearless 's raiding our pack all day. Moral: -Rap instead of walking off if you want to avoid the snakes. -If you can't rap off, avoid the rock piles as much as possible. -Ignore the two morals listed above and bring a syringe full of anti-venom or become a born-again holy-roller and test your faith in the Lord Almighty while taunting the numerous rattlers that you encounter on the way back to your packs. Other Random thoughts on the Royal Columns: - Sandals will almost certainly get you across the river faster than the cable. -If you op to take the cable, bring your own pulley for an easier/smoother trip across. Also not a bad idea to use gloves while pulling yourself across as there is at least one section with a bit of frayed wire that you can cut your hand on pretty easily, as I did. Ignore if you have had a recent tetanus booster shot. -Climb Inca Roads. It rules.

I've used both, and went with the Metolius hexes. Not much difference between the two in standard placements, but the curve hexes also have a curved surface on one of the ends which makes them cam into place when placed endwise, yielding a more secure placement. At least the placements look and feel more secure to me. I rarely used hexes out in CO, but since returning to the land of basalt/andesite I've found myself using them more and more. Quite a few of the cracks in that stuff seem to have hourglass shaped convolutions running along the length of the cracks, and many flare outward just a bit. Hexes seem to yield both faster and more secure placements in this sort of crack.

Were you the guys at the columns Saturday?

I did recently move back here from Colorado, and did occaisionally climb outside Boulder, where I learned a thing or two about being whack from the locals. Now that I have NxNwest's checklist there is no stopping me from claiming the crown......

Same. Plus I get the satisfaction of knowing that I am scoring waaaaaaaaaay high in the Whack MC contest prior to heading out - better snag a couple more poser stickers to past on my truck before heading out to the crags tomorrow so that I can take the lead in a more definitive fashion though. Also - not sure whether it'll be cold enough to warrant bringing the Serendipity to wear over the Patagonia Hawaiian Print Silkweight Tee while pantomiming the moves at the base.....

I love guys like this. No better tactic than violence to completely alienate the general public, discredit your cause, and permanently marginalize your movement. Case in Point: Timothy McVay and the Militia movement.

If you are primarily cragging I would buy the cheapest UIAA certified, 10+mm, 60 meter rope that you can get your hands on and apply the savings to an off-length (less than 165') dry rope with a diameter of 9mm or less for alpine and glacier stuff. Any cragging rope that will stand up to routine abuse will be much heavier than necessary for alpine stuff, and any most skinny ropes will not be durable enough to take many falls at the crags. You can find short alpine ropes Here

Looks like I'll have to stay in town this Sunday so I won't be able to make it to Smith. To bad - was looking forward to dusting off my pink tigerstripe lycra and dogging on some 5.9's down there...

Oops. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out - musta been skimming too fast. Best Regards,

Anybody out there have the contact number for the folks who regulate the closures of a URL with up to date info?

But who the hell is this guy? "Posted by JayBee on April 09, 19103 at 12:21:39: In Reply to: HONESTLY , WHO IS THE HELL ARE THE MAZAMAS? posted by SLC Gymrat on April 08, 19103 at 18:58:32: Yes, Portland. The only time I've had a problem is when they have big outings in an alpine setting. All this Smith whining pisses me off, all you f-ing pansies just have to start climbing harder if you don't being around larger groups. We're all out there to have a good time. It's the goddamn land of bolts people! " I just hope he never joins cc.com and starts posing as me at Pub Clubs....

Yeah - all true of course. It's just that of the two guys that post here with names that sound like J...B.... when spoken aloud, its a bit less likely that j_b would be part of the GregW fan club and an occaisional climbing partner. Not impossible, but certainly not as probable I believe you - but how do I know the person that I met last night was really allison and not alicesin or allisten or al_is_zen or some other sound alike....

Made even funnier by the fact that when we were talking I said that I've gone out climbing with GregW a few times and that he's a really good guy. Kinda hard to imagine those words coming out of j_b's mouth. Thankfully I don't need any digits at the moment, but if I did I suspect that posing as the other guy wouldn't get me much more than a lot of unwanted attention from mousy, furtive looking guys with whispy moustaches and berets looking for folks to attend their lively Marxist knitting collective...

Thinking about heading to Smith for the weekend, can leave anytime after 3:00 or so this Friday. Anyone who wants to split the $ to fuel up Toyota 4x4 truck is welcome to come along. 1 can ride comfortably, 2 uncomforatably, and 3-4 will fit if you are cool with crashing in the bed (w/canopy) for several hours on the way down. Send PM or post below if interested.

OMG- you thought I was the lower case guy! I feel like such a fraud now. I have to admit I was a bit surprised (pleasantly) by the reception I got. Even though my identity as the evil upper case guy is now in the open - it was very nice to meet you in person! Maybe j_b will benefit from such confusion at a neocon conference at some point in the future and we'll be even... Distel32 - get back to those books, man. Your future is at stake!!!!!!

Just shut down Zeke's. Great Crowd, nice to meet more folks from the board.

I worked for an investment company while I was living out in Colorado, and after a reshuffling I ended up sitting next to The Whitest Man in America, both in color and culture. Grew up in Vail, looked and sounded like a young Will Farrell (the big white guy from SNL), etc, etc. I started calling him "The Jive" as a joke, and it stuck instantly. He seemed to dig it, but I was never sure if he was in on the joke or not...