Comments on: We use more gas because we’re fatter http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/10/8069/ Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:18:29 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ryan http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/10/8069/comment-page-1/#comment-275840 Ryan Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:42:25 +0000 http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/10/8069/#comment-275840 Do they use more gas cause their fat ass is sitting at a fast food drive through? Do they use more gas cause their fat ass is sitting at a fast food drive through?

]]> By: sanya http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/10/8069/comment-page-1/#comment-275468 sanya Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:50:18 +0000 http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/10/8069/#comment-275468 maybe, just maybe we use more gas because the average american takes at least 2 trips a day to munch at the nearest fast food joint. maybe, just maybe we use more gas because the average american takes at least 2 trips a day to munch at the nearest fast food joint.

]]> By: Derek http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/10/8069/comment-page-1/#comment-275456 Derek Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:41:20 +0000 http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/10/8069/#comment-275456 Hence the small blurb in the article (comment) by someone stating that the savings would only be 1%. I think studies like this could have been better invested elsewhere. This was on the front page of the Seattle Time / ergh PI today which I noticed on the way to downtown. Ridiculous. Not that it will turn any heads other than the sensationalists touting overweight Americans are the cause of increasing gas usage. Hence the small blurb in the article (comment) by someone stating that the savings would only be 1%. I think studies like this could have been better invested elsewhere. This was on the front page of the Seattle Time / ergh PI today which I noticed on the way to downtown. Ridiculous. Not that it will turn any heads other than the sensationalists touting overweight Americans are the cause of increasing gas usage.

]]> By: Suzuka http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/10/8069/comment-page-1/#comment-275450 Suzuka Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:34:33 +0000 http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/10/8069/#comment-275450 It's true that the heavier the car, the more gas it will use, but even if your 200-170 pounds, I really don't think there will be a huge difference maybe .001 gallon will be wasted on the extra weight It’s true that the heavier the car, the more gas it will use, but even if your 200-170 pounds, I really don’t think there will be a huge difference maybe .001 gallon will be wasted on the extra weight

]]> By: Ed http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/10/8069/comment-page-1/#comment-275443 Ed Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:24:28 +0000 http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/10/8069/#comment-275443 Factually it is correct, but come on. I agree that the difference will be insignificant in the big picture. I bet we make up the difference with smaller families compared to the 1960's. According to this link: http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/presentations/commuting/index.shtml In 1960 the average persons per household was 3.4, in 2000 it was 2.7. However, the average vehicles per household was 1.0 in 1960 compared to 1.7 in 2000. The point of my post is that all of these little things like this are insignificant. We do have bigger vehicles, but I assume that they should be a little more efficient in gas usage compared to 1960. It all cancels out. Factually it is correct, but come on. I agree that the difference will be insignificant in the big picture. I bet we make up the difference with smaller families compared to the 1960’s. According to this link:

http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/presentations/commuting/index.shtml

In 1960 the average persons per household was 3.4, in 2000 it was 2.7. However, the average vehicles per household was 1.0 in 1960 compared to 1.7 in 2000.

The point of my post is that all of these little things like this are insignificant. We do have bigger vehicles, but I assume that they should be a little more efficient in gas usage compared to 1960. It all cancels out.

]]>