Posted on 10/26/2006 8:26:06 AM PDT by CSM
Chubby drivers and plump passengers add to the fuel crisis in more ways than one. A fat nation needs more gas in the tank, according to research released yesterday.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Thanks....when I first heard this story, I was thinking they said barrels.
Seemed a tad overboard.
Their "Food Pyramid" is partially responsible for the obesity in the first place.
First we have Hate Crimes.
Then we had thought crimes.
Now we have Public Obesity Crime!!!!!
Will they have little school kids go around and issue pretend "Fasto Violation Tickets" like they have school kids issue SUV "environmental tickets"?
Sounds like paradise.
Once again the MSM is advocating that Fat People have no reason to live...
Perhaps fascinting, but shows no concrete link between obesity and fuel usage. Simply makes an interesting observation (since 1960 weight has gone up, fuel use has gone up too). Of course fuel consumption is tied to weight of the vehicle including passengers, but that factor pales in comparison to other factors. For instance, how many women worked in 1960? Did they drive cars or did many/most families have just one car? How did changes there affect our overall consumption? what about the railroads, were they used for cargo transport more than they are now? If not, didnt trucks take over the load? etc.
Government agencies are already telling restaurants to cut portion sizes. Uh...no one holds a gun to my head to force me to eat the whole dish.
"All in all, this was an idiotic story designed to promote calls for new regulation and other leftist wet-dreams."
I agree with you and all the other posters on this thread.
The Government has added more weight to our cars than that of 4 obese passengers. In addition to the weight adds, the gov't. has placed cafe limits on vehicles, making the auto mfgs. use downgraded (thinner, less weight) materials. Therefore, effectively increasing fuel usage while making cars less safe.
"Don't you think this report is a crock of crap? "
Its a load, alright.
That's it I'm putting on the tinfoil hat!
this is so stupid. duh. it is incredible, how in this day and age (with 24 hour news channels, newspapers, and bloggers spewing forth volumes of useless information and opinion) even the dumbest information gets equal time. i would love to see if this passes the "statistical significance" test.
you're joking but one of the baggage handlers on a flight I was waiting to board recently, told me that the airline had just switched from peanuts to pretzels because it would save them so many millions a year and were understocking the food and beverages because the savings in fuel added up to millions a year. They're gambling that not everyone will want someting to eat or drink.
HAHAHHAHAHA...please take the comment as sarcasm...
if 200lbs causes a 1 mpg drop and 20 mpg is the fleet avg., that would be a 5% drop and 20 lbs would be a 0.5% drop.
1 billion gallons is a 0.7 % drop in annual fuel economy.
So I think the article probably has their numbers about right.
Done right, none of that should matter. All that matters is the additional fuel consumption attributable to the extra weight.
Given that we know the average 1960 adult weighed 24 pounds less than today's (if that's not already adjusted for average height, it needs to be), calculating the cost of 'obesity' would only consider the fuel savings we would realize if every vehicle was carrying (24 lbs * avg. number of passengers) less.
With the census and other data available, reasonable results should be within reach. It's just a matter of finding and properly applying the right data.
The laws of physics establish that link. If you put 24 pounds of potatoes in your trunk, your car will use more fuel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.