Americans (and Canadians since you get the US market scraps)

>>16548707
>Why does a heavily populated modern country with a continental climate and interstate system use a shit ton of oil?
Gee I wonder. kys faggot

>>16548779
second this

>>16548779
>>16548798
A normal heavily populated country should have a developed passenger railway system, kys faggot

>>16548818
Instead of being normal we choose to be exceptional, cuck. Thanks for the rent free room you give us in your head.

>>16548818
Sheridan is literally too spread out to use rail. It would take 15 hours to go from SF to NY by train, if you went nonstop at 200mph. It takes a plane like 5 hours to do the same trip. Places are why our oil consumption is so high

>>16548818

It did

It took 3 days to get anywhere a century ago and then they started ripping up tracks

And then planes happened and killed every railroad in the passenger business

File: cucks.jpg (42KB, 405x388px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 405x388px

>>16548818

>>16548707
it's just planes they probably consume more oil in one day than you will in your live time

It feels great having a fuck huge country and bring able to do whatever
Euromanlets will never understand this feel
This is why Europe is losing the space race I guess

Enjoy not driving your classic through paris on days ending with a y
I'll enjoy flying through Australian outback chugging petty like it ain't shit at 160mph

File: 84864.jpg (411KB, 2048x1363px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 2048x1363px

>>16548818
Whats the point of a huge, expensive railway system where you have folks either living too close to justify a train, or with a very low population density?

Now, I'm from Norway, and as you can tell from the photo we're also on the dark side of the oil consumption per capita, even with our very restrictive laws and taxation on large engines, big cars and all that. You'd think a country with a lot of small, fuel efficient cars, expensive fuel and so on would make us have low consumption, right?

Well, no - we have a very low population density, and its also a country where it will never be cost-effective to put up a railway, wether it be due to geographical or demographical reasons. Buses can run, sure - but thats also generally very little cost-effective due to the low demographical density, relatively long distances between the people you're picking up and such. This results in either insane costs for the ones paying for it if they want buses running regularly enough to be relied upon, or you're gonna have the buses go so rarely that they are kinda pointless outside of a schoolbus twice per day.

File: 15590263_10154732449170030_1950471148408067829_n.jpg (55KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 960x960px

The car is, by all means, the only serious form of transportation in areas like the ones where I live. People here drive quite a lot simply because they have to - and not everybody wants to live in the fucking city. Even so, the government are, as they have been for many years, tightening the ropes around the necks of the car drivers, with the ones in the city suffering the hardest with certain days being off-limits for diesel cars (with about 78% of all cars being diesels) on certain days, heavy road fees and all that. Its almost like we're demonised for driving cars, and we are constantly being urged to switch to greener alternatives - they sent flyers to people saying that we could apply for government funds to purchase electrical bicycles, and suggestions to share cars and "use other means to get to work". Its like they expect people to bicycle 25 kilometres to work in mid-winter, in the fucing dark

Now, when the electric cars start coming to the level where they have enough range to suit daily driving in a place like this properly then sales will go up considerably, but I'd hope that until then we'd be allowed to drive our cars without it being a serious financial toll, unncessarily so