Filed under: Comment
I was recently watching a show on Toyota and their seemingly never-ending quest to make fuel efficient cars.
Almost immediately afterwards, I watched a show talking about the diet of Americans, and their seemingly never-ending quest to be obese.
And this got me thinking.
If cars are getting more fuel efficient, but people are getting fatter – doesn’t that mean that it takes the same amount of power to move people as it did when people were lighter but cars were less fuel efficient?
In other words, are the benefits of fuel efficient cars being cancelled out by the increasing weight of drivers & passengers?
Maybe I’m wrong – I was shit at school – but if that’s the case, maybe it would be good if Toyota gave a diet plan with every car sold.
Or gave a price discount to anyone who is in the recognised height/weight ratio.
Or encouraged people to walk rather than drive to the post box.
Maybe.
75 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well that’s my weekend ruined as I think through your tantalising question.
Comment by Pete November 30, 2012 @ 6:24 amThe post box?????
Comment by John November 30, 2012 @ 6:32 amI think he’s being sarcastic. I hope he is. But he could also be referencing the land of carmageddon, where people drive from their garage to their house.
Comment by Pete November 30, 2012 @ 6:34 amWould that be on the way to the music hall?
Comment by John November 30, 2012 @ 6:34 amHe is from Nottingham.
Comment by Pete November 30, 2012 @ 7:15 amHe’s also from the 80s when postboxes were bulging.
Comment by John November 30, 2012 @ 7:50 amcampbell has never had any friends to send a letter to so he doesnt even know the postbox is all but fucking dead. poor, misguided twat.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 8:08 amDo you know if there is a study that has explored the minimum distance people feel comfortable using their car? I’m guessing in LA it would be about 3 feet but the results could add an additional metric that demonstrates fuel efficient cars are only balancing out societies laziness rather than making a difference to the environment.
This is a good post Rob. Really good.
Comment by Pete November 30, 2012 @ 6:32 amget.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 8:08 ama.
fucking.
room.
I don’t know if that information exists. It would be good to find out. Of course my logic could be entirely flawed but it seems to have captured the attention of a couple of you, so at least I won’t look the only idiot when it all comes out I’m talking bollocks. As usual.
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 8:26 amI have vague memories of in the US, some amazing percentage of US car journeys is under 800m… Although, having attempted to cross some of their roads, I can understand why.
Comment by Shackleford Hurtmore November 30, 2012 @ 9:14 amhaving seen the size of their fucking asses i know why.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 9:23 amHello! Lovely for you to pop by.
I’ve just been to your blog and it’s wonderful. Far more wonderful than this could be in a 1000 years – which suggests to me that the only reason you came on here was to humiliate my feeble efforts.
You succeeded.
Hope you come back again sometime.
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 10:05 amAu contraire. I was flattered that you tweeted me. I work in a very conformist industry, and have to fart out my ideas pseudonymysly onto my humble rag of a blog. I’ve subscribed to your blog for a while now. At least your blog has a theme. And readers. Where did you buy them?
Comment by Shackleford Hurtmore November 30, 2012 @ 11:09 amHave you seen their comments? They’re definitely from the reject department of “buy a blog commentators” shopping.
PS: thank you for not pointing out my “theme” is talking rubbish. I’m assuming that level of discretion means you’re in the public relations field.
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 11:37 amtheres no fucking readers on this shithole, only commentators. get your fucking facts right.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 11:47 amI thought your overarching theme is that most money spent on advertising and marketing is wasted, and they should give the cash to you instead. Have I woefully misunderstood?
Comment by Shackleford Hurtmore November 30, 2012 @ 11:51 amgive the cash to me? too fucking right.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 11:54 amgive it to campbell? hahahahahahahahahaha.
Yes to the former.
The latter would be nice but not what I was intending to communicate and certainly not because I am saying I would do better with their money.
Actually, I think I would, but English folk don’t do overt confidence very well so I will go back to the meeting I’m supposed to be focusing on.
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 12:04 pmWell Pete, I guess we both know what we’ll be doing tomorrow.
Comment by George November 30, 2012 @ 6:43 amI have no idea if you’re thinking/questioning/muttering is correct Robert, but it has certainly captured my attention.
I will now ruin my families evening by trying to identify all the additional human factors that could be offsetting the benefits of fuel efficient cars.
That said, if societies increasing weight is undermining the benefits of fuel efficient cars, what about the vehicles that are less environmentally respectful?
Yes we do. I’ll be spending the evening doing the same thing as you.
Comment by Pete November 30, 2012 @ 7:16 amso says the fucker that has a prius and a cadi escalade. maccas isnt fucking up fuel efficient cars, midlife bastard crisis are.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 8:10 am2 words.
Porsche Cayenne.
Comment by George November 30, 2012 @ 8:14 am2 words.
fuck. off.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 8:33 amThis sounds like one of those fucked up maths exam questions that were designed to make you feel like a slave to the system. But I was smart, I just ignored them.
Comment by Billy Whizz November 30, 2012 @ 6:46 amAnd then you ended up working with Rob.
Best ad for school ever made.
Comment by DH November 30, 2012 @ 7:03 amFor once Billy, I agree with you … and it has given me the same sort of headache as they used to do as well.
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 8:27 amIt’s easier to invent technology than it is to alter human behaviour. Sad but true.
Comment by John November 30, 2012 @ 6:48 amGood point John, but I’m not sure if that is because of societies stubbornness, the daunting level of investment or the profit potential in creating the illusion of change through products of convenience.
Comment by George November 30, 2012 @ 6:57 amMaybe all 3, but I am increasingly of the opinion it is less societies blinkered ways and more corporations quest for “easier” profit growth.
Maybe so, but if individuals’ stubborness could be easily overcome there would presumably be a big profit to be harvested.
I probably shouldn’t mention driverless cars at this point, should I? Or ask Rob if he found himslel eating more than usual during that doco?
Comment by John November 30, 2012 @ 7:26 amI should rephrase my point. Changing established behaviour patterns is very difficult, but this is unlikely to be a commercial goal when companies can make quicker and easier profits from the creation of products that offer society convenience or the illusion of taking positive action. This, in despite of the fact that the profit potential of creating genuine behaviour change products is astounding. But there’s little point for a CEO to green light these projects if they will not be there to take the credit for it.
Comment by George November 30, 2012 @ 7:36 amAnd not asking me to talk about driverless cars is an excellent idea.
Sorry. I should have understood that. The real problem is, as you say, that it takes so long.
Looking at it more positively, I wonder if we’re guilty of assuming that difficult change has to be expensive change. So, maybe it’s not the CEO, but the more junior executive who aspires to be CEO one day who will drive such change.
Comment by John November 30, 2012 @ 7:48 amOr maybe the belief all change is expensive stops exploration before it even has a chance to begin.
Comment by George November 30, 2012 @ 7:52 amis this the sort of shit you guys turn in to when you dont have my guiding influence? fuck me, you owe me even more than i thought and i thought you owed me a fucking lot.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 8:11 amSpeaking about technology changing life. According to an article in the Times, the next generation educated youngsters born after 1985 in Europe is all about not driving a car and using Facebook and their mobile phones instead to be social. Also, they seem to have viewer activities beyond their own city (it didn’t say whether one was affecting the other). Which, if this remains true, would mean a blow to the automobile industry the next couple of decades. I have put no effort in veryfying if this is true, but I somehow think they will come around as soon they’ll have kids.
Comment by Paul November 30, 2012 @ 9:56 pmyouve not verified any of the bollocks youre quoting? what the fuck are you doing on here when you should be working for some murdoch newspaper. or goldman sachs.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 11:27 pmAnd maccas take the piss by running promotions where you can win a car.
Comment by DH November 30, 2012 @ 7:04 amMaybe we could get Morgan Spurlock to do a follow up to his ‘Supersize Me’ doco?
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 8:29 ammr one hit wonder certainly need the work. hes been whoring himself to production companies left, right and fucking centre.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 8:59 amI read this post while I was eating a quarter pounder with cheese. Seriously. Thanks for ruining the one bit of happiness in my whole day Rob. Way to go.
Comment by DH November 30, 2012 @ 7:05 amhttp://www.slate.com/articles/life/walking/2012/04/why_don_t_americans_walk_more_the_crisis_of_pedestrianism_.html
Googling so you don’t have to
Comment by John November 30, 2012 @ 7:33 amYou are even more efficient than http://googleitfor.me/
Comment by George November 30, 2012 @ 7:38 amWill someone please lower the tone of these comments
Comment by Northern November 30, 2012 @ 7:42 amAnyhow while are on the subject we are not that far off cars making driving safer by thinking for you which may have the opposite effect by making us too complacent
Most accidents happen either close to home where driving can be done on autopilot or through just 3 seconds of distraction like changing the channel on a radio
Driving is a miracle of human skill we take for granted too much
Anyway
Don’t worry Northern, I’m sure the comments standard will be lowered once Andy makes his appearance. Your point about driving complacency is already established. I’m sure I read somewhere that Volvo drivers were disproportionately involved in accidents because the driver felt immune to the dangers of the road because of their safety positioning.
Maybe George is best placed to answer that.
Comment by Pete November 30, 2012 @ 7:50 amI refuse to answer that on the grounds it may incriminate me.
Comment by George November 30, 2012 @ 8:00 amI also read somewhere that putting signs up to warn of dangers ahead means drivers take more risks on stretches without any signs; requiring more signs to be put up later when the accident blackspot moves further along the road.
Comment by Shackleford Hurtmore November 30, 2012 @ 11:11 amYep … but the sort of ‘research’ also encourages the actions that result in a nanny state which is even more dangerous. Possibly.
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 11:39 amyour daily mail subsctiption is having an effect campbell.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 11:46 amAbsolutely right. The article I read suggested taking all the signs down, rather than putting any more up, and leaving Darwinism to improve the driving standards.
Comment by Shackleford Hurtmore November 30, 2012 @ 11:52 amSomeone will very soon.
Comment by John November 30, 2012 @ 7:51 amgood fucking call northern. youre back in my good books. youre still a pervert and a planner but you have your low standards and that counts for something in my book.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 8:12 amYour brain works in strange but interesting ways Robert. The bad news is that this issue, at least from an operational cost perspective, has been discussed by the airline industry for a number of years and the signs suggest the answer is yes.
Comment by Lee Hill November 30, 2012 @ 8:41 amalways the fucking bridesmaid eh, campbell.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 8:43 amI definitely see how it has impacted airlines operational costs, but has the broader economic impact ever been investigated Lee?
Comment by George November 30, 2012 @ 8:47 amI mean investigated in a way that calculates the overall cost/impact/benefit that takes place when all broader issues (ie: increasing levels of obesity) are taken into account?
Comment by George November 30, 2012 @ 8:49 amyawwwwwwwwwwwn.
Comment by andy@cynic November 30, 2012 @ 8:50 amI don’t know, but I will endeavour to ask around.
Comment by Lee Hill November 30, 2012 @ 8:55 amThat’s a great point Lee … I should have thought of that given I have sat in countless meetings about it over the years. That said, it was always from – as you say – operational cost perspective, but it still makes me think I might not be as mad as I thought I was. But that could also be because I have seemingly stolen other people’s discussions and claimed it as my own.
This proves:
1. The power of suggestion.
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 10:02 am2. The brains ability to absorb and store information.
3. The delusion and illusion of the average ad employee.
As a hypothesis, it sounds very plausible. Damn you Rob.
Comment by Bazza November 30, 2012 @ 8:57 amSo does communism but we all know what happens to that in reality.
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 9:59 amWith respect we don’t entirely since its never actually been tried yet
Comment by Northern November 30, 2012 @ 1:05 pmNeither has democracy come to think about
Yes it’s 4am
Yes I’m on a train again
I live in a country where it has. And it doesn’t. Not now anyway … and arguably, never did.
4am? On a train? Is that because it’s the previous days 5pm train that’s just running late. As usual.
Now stop commenting and WRITE YOUR BLOODY JUDGING COMMENTS FOR THE APSOTW FEEDBACK!!!
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 1:10 pmNo I actually intended to travel at this time
Comment by Northern November 30, 2012 @ 1:40 pmAnd yes I’m bloody doing it
I could go into semantics around the actual ideas of Marx v what Lenin and his Chinese mates actually attempted but as you pointed out I have urgent tasks to do
Yes you do.
And you could go on about Lenin, Mao & Timbuktoo for all I care, the perspective should be how the Chinese population view/ed communism rather than why certain leaders tried to enforce it.
Doesn’t matter anyway, as I said, China is – in some respects – more capitalist than the US could ever dream of being.
Now do your bloody judging.
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 1:50 pmYou’re really enjoying your 8 hour journey aren’t you.
And where the hell are you going that takes 8 hours to get to?
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 1:51 pmRob,
This is a Gem 🙂
But you got stuck with one interpretation of ‘Fuel Efficiency’,which is ‘agile power to move fat/getting obese/seriously outrageously obese n extraordinary ones’. Look at the other dimension,things may look chirpier
‘Fuel Efficiency’ as ‘agile power that could tolerate + sustain abnormal weights’ or as ‘agile power that could trigger huge pangs of remorse n grief to two-legged elephantinehumans’ (do a quick math or psychographic profiling of Buyers/Regular drivers of these fuel efficient cars. In all probability, well am in poor India,most Toyota owners could b flaunting chiselled,lick worthy tummies n asses.
Love the image
Jyothsna
Comment by jyothsnay10 November 30, 2012 @ 10:12 amHello there, great to have you comment.
Of course there are many factors and definitions of ‘fuel efficiency’ and the evolution of power management is, without doubt, a good thing. My issue was less about the evolution of industry and more the fact it is potentially just keeping the environmental status quo because societies ‘devolution’ is stopping the benefits of efficiency making greater inroads into correcting the wrongs of our current circumstances.
But it could also be flawed logic. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 10:23 am“For every additional 100 pounds, a vehicles’ fuel economy drops 2 per cent.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215419/Fatter-drivers-eating-efforts-make-cars-fuel-efficient-lightweight.html
Comment by Marcus November 30, 2012 @ 4:23 pmThat would be even more awesome if it wasn’t from the Daily Mail, ha!
Comment by Rob November 30, 2012 @ 5:56 pmI know.
Comment by Marcus November 30, 2012 @ 6:06 pmOn a similar note I loved the campaign by (I think) Kia, where they gave away a free bike with every car in order to encourage people to drive less.
So maybe if we say, lose weight and your car will go faster?
Comment by Rob Mortimer December 3, 2012 @ 9:41 amYes, that was very nice. I wish they’d taken that point on in their comms rather than treat it more as a ‘free gift’.
Still, it was a lovely move.
Comment by Rob December 3, 2012 @ 10:25 amNow if Toyota could just design an engine that runs on High Fructose Corn Syrup …
Comment by Ian Gee December 3, 2012 @ 10:59 amOr a car that doesn’t need recalling.
Comment by Rob December 3, 2012 @ 11:09 amIronically HFCS wouldn’t be passed as safe for a metal engine…
Comment by Rob Mortimer December 4, 2012 @ 10:38 am