Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1331
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>> I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
>
>Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
>that.
The conservatives wouldn't allow it until we privatized the police. They
all watch RoboCop and wish that all police departments could be as
efficient as OCP.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>
>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>> I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
>
>Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
>that.
The conservatives wouldn't allow it until we privatized the police. They
all watch RoboCop and wish that all police departments could be as
efficient as OCP.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1332
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>> I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
>
>Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
>that.
The conservatives wouldn't allow it until we privatized the police. They
all watch RoboCop and wish that all police departments could be as
efficient as OCP.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>
>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>> I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
>
>Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
>that.
The conservatives wouldn't allow it until we privatized the police. They
all watch RoboCop and wish that all police departments could be as
efficient as OCP.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1333
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>> I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
>
>Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
>that.
The conservatives wouldn't allow it until we privatized the police. They
all watch RoboCop and wish that all police departments could be as
efficient as OCP.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>
>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>> I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
>
>Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
>that.
The conservatives wouldn't allow it until we privatized the police. They
all watch RoboCop and wish that all police departments could be as
efficient as OCP.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1334
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
> >I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just
> _comparing_ it to
> >them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a
> gross
> >polluter.
> >
> >--Aardwolf.
> >
> >
> Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
Which doesn't change the veracity of my original statement.
--Aardwolf.
#1335
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
> >I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just
> _comparing_ it to
> >them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a
> gross
> >polluter.
> >
> >--Aardwolf.
> >
> >
> Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
Which doesn't change the veracity of my original statement.
--Aardwolf.
#1336
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
> >I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just
> _comparing_ it to
> >them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a
> gross
> >polluter.
> >
> >--Aardwolf.
> >
> >
> Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
Which doesn't change the veracity of my original statement.
--Aardwolf.
#1337
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> >> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
> >> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >>
> >> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
> >> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
> each
> >> year
> >> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
> >> one
> >> thing are balanced by the other.
> >>
> >
> >It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
> problem--probably
> >more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
> >vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply
> do
> >to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
> >running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
> >anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
> >car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> >pollution-spewing wrecks.
> >
> >--Aardwolf
> >
> >
> Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make up?
2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the magnitude of
the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not false.
--Aardwolf.
#1338
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> >> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
> >> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >>
> >> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
> >> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
> each
> >> year
> >> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
> >> one
> >> thing are balanced by the other.
> >>
> >
> >It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
> problem--probably
> >more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
> >vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply
> do
> >to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
> >running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
> >anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
> >car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> >pollution-spewing wrecks.
> >
> >--Aardwolf
> >
> >
> Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make up?
2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the magnitude of
the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not false.
--Aardwolf.
#1339
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> >> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
> >> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >>
> >> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
> >> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
> each
> >> year
> >> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
> >> one
> >> thing are balanced by the other.
> >>
> >
> >It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
> problem--probably
> >more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
> >vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply
> do
> >to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
> >running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
> >anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
> >car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> >pollution-spewing wrecks.
> >
> >--Aardwolf
> >
> >
> Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make up?
2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the magnitude of
the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not false.
--Aardwolf.
#1340
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn1er1$d15$3@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <msWkb.838268$uu5.148319@sccrnsc04>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <r5c8pvovm67vpkaclk2ak2our0fn46g4cb@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
> >
> >>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
> >>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
> ignore
> >>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
> >>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
> were
> >>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
> >>
> >> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
> >> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
> >> People like you tend to think that way.
> >> You're wrong, though.
> >
> >That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
> >
> >What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
> >people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
> >in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
> >The big three had to react, government or not.
>
> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>
And what was wrong w/ Pintos and Gremlins? Anybody I knew that had either
thought they were tough little cars.
Heard horror stories about the Vega though.
> >
> >Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in
business.
> >We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
> >overseas manufacturers.
> >
> >But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
> >some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
> >of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
> >