Changing it makes sense. Distance traveled per gallon is more meaningful and provides a better comparison. Why the resistance? It’s not as if they’re suggesting we go metric.
Miles per gallon is a measure of distance travelled per gallon, genius!
“Changing it makes sense. Distance traveled per gallon is more meaningful and provides a better comparison. Why the resistance?”
Exactly. Miles per gallon.
By the way, going from 10-20 mpg is the answer.
I agree. There's seems to be a certain strain of conservative that simply reacts against all change. I'm tempted to believe it's a kind of cowardice.
Maybe that cowardice is what is behind conservatives overall lack of action once they control congress. Health savings accounts, for example, could have been implemented back in '96 as an answer to Hillarycare. The idea has been around for a while.
Instead, conservatives were afraid to try something new and now we have Obamacare.
Political conservatism works -- as long as it isn't conservatively applied.
IT IS EASIER to understand how much fuel and thus money you can save when fuel economy is expressed as gallons per hundred (or thousand) miles driven.
In fact, I did some quick math to figure out the savings when moving from 30 to 40 mpg and when moving from 15 to 20 mpg, assuming 1000 miles driven per month. You save twice as much going from 15 to 20. I did not intuit that. The relevant calcualtion is, essentially, an expression of gallons per thousand miles driven.
mile -> IS a distance
mile/gallon IS A FORM OF DISTANCE/Gallon
oy vey!
The current measure (miles per gallon) IS distance traveled per gallon. So changing it would mean using something else that is less meaningful and does not provide as good a comparison. But changing it makes sense? Your statement does not.