Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1341
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$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
> ignore
> >>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
> >>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
> were
> >>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
> >>
> >> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
> >> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
> >> People like you tend to think that way.
> >> You're wrong, though.
> >
> >That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
> >
> >What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
> >people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
> >in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
> >The big three had to react, government or not.
>
> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>
And what was wrong w/ Pintos and Gremlins? Anybody I knew that had either
thought they were tough little cars.
Heard horror stories about the Vega though.
> >
> >Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in
business.
> >We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
> >overseas manufacturers.
> >
> >But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
> >some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
> >of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
> >
#1342
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn1er1$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.
> >
#1343
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3F931487.433F88FB@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us.. .
>
> The safest strategy overall would be to repeal CAFE so that people with
> large families can go back to buying station wagons instead of SUVs.
Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
station wagons.
All that repeal of CAFE would do is allow the automakers to build bigger
sedans. So, today's "full size" sedan would become tomorrow's mid-size,
and todays mid-size would become tomorrow's economy sedan, and
today's economy sedan would disappear.
You might then get a small percentage of SUV buyers to buy the largest
sedans that would become available, but that's about it.
Ted
#1344
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3F931487.433F88FB@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us.. .
>
> The safest strategy overall would be to repeal CAFE so that people with
> large families can go back to buying station wagons instead of SUVs.
Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
station wagons.
All that repeal of CAFE would do is allow the automakers to build bigger
sedans. So, today's "full size" sedan would become tomorrow's mid-size,
and todays mid-size would become tomorrow's economy sedan, and
today's economy sedan would disappear.
You might then get a small percentage of SUV buyers to buy the largest
sedans that would become available, but that's about it.
Ted
#1345
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3F931487.433F88FB@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us.. .
>
> The safest strategy overall would be to repeal CAFE so that people with
> large families can go back to buying station wagons instead of SUVs.
Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
station wagons.
All that repeal of CAFE would do is allow the automakers to build bigger
sedans. So, today's "full size" sedan would become tomorrow's mid-size,
and todays mid-size would become tomorrow's economy sedan, and
today's economy sedan would disappear.
You might then get a small percentage of SUV buyers to buy the largest
sedans that would become available, but that's about it.
Ted
#1346
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F92BC55.91192F00@kinez.net...
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> > Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
> > keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
>
> Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
> reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
> in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
> better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
> restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
> least the innocent children would not be punished."
>
It's actually the conservatives that are anti-government and want to
repeal all government regulations, Bill. (except those dealing with
flag burning and medical marijuana, of course)
The State of Washington (our northern neighbors) tried last year to
bring some money in to pay for road upkeep and such by raising
the vehicle registration fees. Do you know who fought that and
managed to get it repealed? It wasn't the liberals.
Ted
#1347
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F92BC55.91192F00@kinez.net...
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> > Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
> > keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
>
> Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
> reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
> in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
> better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
> restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
> least the innocent children would not be punished."
>
It's actually the conservatives that are anti-government and want to
repeal all government regulations, Bill. (except those dealing with
flag burning and medical marijuana, of course)
The State of Washington (our northern neighbors) tried last year to
bring some money in to pay for road upkeep and such by raising
the vehicle registration fees. Do you know who fought that and
managed to get it repealed? It wasn't the liberals.
Ted
#1348
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F92BC55.91192F00@kinez.net...
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> > Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
> > keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
>
> Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
> reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
> in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
> better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
> restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
> least the innocent children would not be punished."
>
It's actually the conservatives that are anti-government and want to
repeal all government regulations, Bill. (except those dealing with
flag burning and medical marijuana, of course)
The State of Washington (our northern neighbors) tried last year to
bring some money in to pay for road upkeep and such by raising
the vehicle registration fees. Do you know who fought that and
managed to get it repealed? It wasn't the liberals.
Ted
#1349
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com...
>
> But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
> the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
> for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.
That is a point. However, it's not that strong a point and here is why.
For
starters, when we are talking expendables, the only ones that really matter
here are fuel, as vehicle fuel dwarfs the expendable consumption of every
other expendable on the vehicle. So let's be honest and say gas/fuel.
In the world, (not just the US) just about every non-mideast country is a
net importer of oil. There are a few notable exceptions of course, but
they don't set the world oil price, OPEC does.
So here is the problem from the US's side. Every barrel of oil
consumed that is over the US max production is subject to
artifical price control by OPEC, which is accomplished by artifical
limiting of the oil supply. Simply put, that price control is bad for
the US's economy. The upshot is that even though Billy Bob might have
to pay more for fuel, the fact that he is consuming more fuel and
thus helping to increase the oil demand past what the US can supply
makes prices rise for ALL fuel purchasers.
>
> Rad repair? The roads are built to handle semis.
People drive on more than just roads, there's bridges, traffic
control devices like speed bumps, and street signage such as
crosswalk stripes, etc. Heavier vehicles wear more. Look at
any major intersection and you will see the lines worn, in many
cases worn right away. Heavier traffic wears more. Granted,
semitrucks wear the streets out far more than SUV's do, but
when was the last time you ever saw a bicyle lane that had a
big groove worn away on the pictures of bikes and the wording
"bike lane" where the tires of the bicycle had worn away the wording.
> Fuel? Possibly.
> Insurance? I'm sure insurance premiums are based on the risk
> presented, so that's already done.
No, because as the numbers of large, heavy vehicles on the road
increase, the average injuries and deaths increase for the sedan
drivers, thus driving up their insurance.
>
> That's sort of strange thinking, to me.
> While a minority, they are still popular. They don't need to be a
> majority to be popular.
The context of your post made it sound like you were arguing that light
trucks and SUV's are more popular than sedans, that is what I was
objecting to.
>
> So they *are* popular? Didn't you just say they weren't?
No I said they aren't "so popular"
> Wait a minute...
> Why are so many complaining that light trucks/SUVs are bought just out
> of vanity, if, according to you, they are being bought for their
> utility?
I didn't say that they are all being bought for their vanity. I said
"everyone who has a light truck or
an SUV are going to give them up" in my statement above.
I do allow that if bigger sedans were available that some SUV purchasers
would elect to buy a big sedan. Espically if the sedan has a drivers seat
in it that is a foot higher than the average sedan today. :-) But I don't
think that a majority of SUV purchasers AS A WHOLE are vanity purchasers.
Keep in mind the large number of SUV's purchased in rural areas where they
are needed.
But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.
> Are you saying that all (or even most) light trucks/SUVs are bought
> for their utility?
I would say that just about all light trucks and SUV's purchased in towns
smaller than 20,000 people and in rural areas are bought for their utility.
I would say that the large majority of them purchased in big cities are
vanity
purchases. Taking the total SUV's and light trucks sold in both areas and
averaging them together, I think you probably would find that a majority of
them are utility purchases -
if there was any way to reliably survey such a thing which there really
isn't,
as your basically asking people if they are idiots or not -
but NOT that big of a majority.
Ted
#1350
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com...
>
> But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
> the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
> for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.
That is a point. However, it's not that strong a point and here is why.
For
starters, when we are talking expendables, the only ones that really matter
here are fuel, as vehicle fuel dwarfs the expendable consumption of every
other expendable on the vehicle. So let's be honest and say gas/fuel.
In the world, (not just the US) just about every non-mideast country is a
net importer of oil. There are a few notable exceptions of course, but
they don't set the world oil price, OPEC does.
So here is the problem from the US's side. Every barrel of oil
consumed that is over the US max production is subject to
artifical price control by OPEC, which is accomplished by artifical
limiting of the oil supply. Simply put, that price control is bad for
the US's economy. The upshot is that even though Billy Bob might have
to pay more for fuel, the fact that he is consuming more fuel and
thus helping to increase the oil demand past what the US can supply
makes prices rise for ALL fuel purchasers.
>
> Rad repair? The roads are built to handle semis.
People drive on more than just roads, there's bridges, traffic
control devices like speed bumps, and street signage such as
crosswalk stripes, etc. Heavier vehicles wear more. Look at
any major intersection and you will see the lines worn, in many
cases worn right away. Heavier traffic wears more. Granted,
semitrucks wear the streets out far more than SUV's do, but
when was the last time you ever saw a bicyle lane that had a
big groove worn away on the pictures of bikes and the wording
"bike lane" where the tires of the bicycle had worn away the wording.
> Fuel? Possibly.
> Insurance? I'm sure insurance premiums are based on the risk
> presented, so that's already done.
No, because as the numbers of large, heavy vehicles on the road
increase, the average injuries and deaths increase for the sedan
drivers, thus driving up their insurance.
>
> That's sort of strange thinking, to me.
> While a minority, they are still popular. They don't need to be a
> majority to be popular.
The context of your post made it sound like you were arguing that light
trucks and SUV's are more popular than sedans, that is what I was
objecting to.
>
> So they *are* popular? Didn't you just say they weren't?
No I said they aren't "so popular"
> Wait a minute...
> Why are so many complaining that light trucks/SUVs are bought just out
> of vanity, if, according to you, they are being bought for their
> utility?
I didn't say that they are all being bought for their vanity. I said
"everyone who has a light truck or
an SUV are going to give them up" in my statement above.
I do allow that if bigger sedans were available that some SUV purchasers
would elect to buy a big sedan. Espically if the sedan has a drivers seat
in it that is a foot higher than the average sedan today. :-) But I don't
think that a majority of SUV purchasers AS A WHOLE are vanity purchasers.
Keep in mind the large number of SUV's purchased in rural areas where they
are needed.
But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.
> Are you saying that all (or even most) light trucks/SUVs are bought
> for their utility?
I would say that just about all light trucks and SUV's purchased in towns
smaller than 20,000 people and in rural areas are bought for their utility.
I would say that the large majority of them purchased in big cities are
vanity
purchases. Taking the total SUV's and light trucks sold in both areas and
averaging them together, I think you probably would find that a majority of
them are utility purchases -
if there was any way to reliably survey such a thing which there really
isn't,
as your basically asking people if they are idiots or not -
but NOT that big of a majority.
Ted