Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1351
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
#1352
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:nfzkb.2655$VQ.22478963@news-text.cableinet.net...
> you get my point though.
>
No, actually what your arguing, far from being sarcastic, is the truth.
Obese
people (I notice you use the politically loaded term fat, rather than the
term obese) have more medical problems espically as they age than
people who aren't obese. If every obese person could completely
pay their way through every health care facility they go through then
there would be no problem. But, the fact is that in the US, the majority
of people are covered under some sort of group health policy. The
insurance companies that write those are prohibited by law from
charging more money to obese people, so the thin people end up
funding the medical problems of the obese people. (can you
say heart bypass operations?)
And the Billy Bob I was using as an exampe wasn't driving a semi
truck. He was driving a 40 foot long cracker box, ie: recreational
vehicle. I forget that our European friends may not be familar with
all the deragotory slang terms in use in the US. The term cracker
box came about because the giant RV's look like saltine cracker
boxes with wheels, going down the road.
And as for semi-truck drivers, do they really pay their way? let's
see, how many states have repealed weight-mile taxes due to
pressure from the trucking industry? And as for semitrucks bringing
me a service, well yes they do, I would prefer to pay for it through
higher prices for consumer items, than higher taxes paid to the
government that are then spent on roads. That way I have a choice
to not purchase the consumer item if I choose.
Ted
#1353
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:nfzkb.2655$VQ.22478963@news-text.cableinet.net...
> you get my point though.
>
No, actually what your arguing, far from being sarcastic, is the truth.
Obese
people (I notice you use the politically loaded term fat, rather than the
term obese) have more medical problems espically as they age than
people who aren't obese. If every obese person could completely
pay their way through every health care facility they go through then
there would be no problem. But, the fact is that in the US, the majority
of people are covered under some sort of group health policy. The
insurance companies that write those are prohibited by law from
charging more money to obese people, so the thin people end up
funding the medical problems of the obese people. (can you
say heart bypass operations?)
And the Billy Bob I was using as an exampe wasn't driving a semi
truck. He was driving a 40 foot long cracker box, ie: recreational
vehicle. I forget that our European friends may not be familar with
all the deragotory slang terms in use in the US. The term cracker
box came about because the giant RV's look like saltine cracker
boxes with wheels, going down the road.
And as for semi-truck drivers, do they really pay their way? let's
see, how many states have repealed weight-mile taxes due to
pressure from the trucking industry? And as for semitrucks bringing
me a service, well yes they do, I would prefer to pay for it through
higher prices for consumer items, than higher taxes paid to the
government that are then spent on roads. That way I have a choice
to not purchase the consumer item if I choose.
Ted
#1354
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:nfzkb.2655$VQ.22478963@news-text.cableinet.net...
> you get my point though.
>
No, actually what your arguing, far from being sarcastic, is the truth.
Obese
people (I notice you use the politically loaded term fat, rather than the
term obese) have more medical problems espically as they age than
people who aren't obese. If every obese person could completely
pay their way through every health care facility they go through then
there would be no problem. But, the fact is that in the US, the majority
of people are covered under some sort of group health policy. The
insurance companies that write those are prohibited by law from
charging more money to obese people, so the thin people end up
funding the medical problems of the obese people. (can you
say heart bypass operations?)
And the Billy Bob I was using as an exampe wasn't driving a semi
truck. He was driving a 40 foot long cracker box, ie: recreational
vehicle. I forget that our European friends may not be familar with
all the deragotory slang terms in use in the US. The term cracker
box came about because the giant RV's look like saltine cracker
boxes with wheels, going down the road.
And as for semi-truck drivers, do they really pay their way? let's
see, how many states have repealed weight-mile taxes due to
pressure from the trucking industry? And as for semitrucks bringing
me a service, well yes they do, I would prefer to pay for it through
higher prices for consumer items, than higher taxes paid to the
government that are then spent on roads. That way I have a choice
to not purchase the consumer item if I choose.
Ted
#1355
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F92B8B4.D10CD68E@kinez.net...
>
> There has to be a balance in all this. You can micromanage all costs so
> that no-one has one penny advantage over anyone else, but eventually,
> and very quickly, you reach the point of diminishing returns.
>
> By that I mean that the mechanisms and government beaurocracies... uh,
> beurocracies... uh bu**sh** that have to be set up to manage and
> micromanage everything is a net loss to society, government grows
> bigger, and the average citizen becomes resentful of the overhead costs
> (taxes) and intrusive visibilty by those administering all the crap into
> their lives (kind of like Europe).
>
> I think we've already surpassed that point in many areas (and it's only
> going to get worse). There's something to be said for letting the costs
> inherent in any given decision or path take care of themselves.
Geeze, Bill, did you take Liberal pills this morning? Your starting to
sound
like a goddam tree hugger!
I think you forget that the conservatives are the ones that spearheaded
lowering government taxes across the board (thank you Mr. Regan)
beginning in 1980. The argument was that private industry would take
care of the problem better. Thus now we all pay admissions to get into
the national parks, fees for kids to do sports in school, etc. etc. because
the government has been cutting the taxes paid into the general fund,
and increasing the usage taxes for specific things, to do as you put it,
"micromanage all costs so that no-one has one penny advantage
over anyone else" This is all straight conservative dogma.
> Yeah -
> maybe it's not 100% fair, but is it fair to drag the whole of society
> down with all the costs and intrusion (i.e., fair to the point of
> bringing everyone down to the same level of intense misery)?
>
The liberals that have been telling your friends in the White House
to stay out of micromamaging California's medical marjuana laws
are most definitely against further federal government intrusion.
So are the flag burners. So are the people who are opposed to the
federal government mandating the phrase "under god" in the
Pledge of Allegance.
Funny how both the liberals and conservatives will drag out the
arguments of "let's not micromanage" whenever their particular
ox is being gored.
Ted
#1356
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F92B8B4.D10CD68E@kinez.net...
>
> There has to be a balance in all this. You can micromanage all costs so
> that no-one has one penny advantage over anyone else, but eventually,
> and very quickly, you reach the point of diminishing returns.
>
> By that I mean that the mechanisms and government beaurocracies... uh,
> beurocracies... uh bu**sh** that have to be set up to manage and
> micromanage everything is a net loss to society, government grows
> bigger, and the average citizen becomes resentful of the overhead costs
> (taxes) and intrusive visibilty by those administering all the crap into
> their lives (kind of like Europe).
>
> I think we've already surpassed that point in many areas (and it's only
> going to get worse). There's something to be said for letting the costs
> inherent in any given decision or path take care of themselves.
Geeze, Bill, did you take Liberal pills this morning? Your starting to
sound
like a goddam tree hugger!
I think you forget that the conservatives are the ones that spearheaded
lowering government taxes across the board (thank you Mr. Regan)
beginning in 1980. The argument was that private industry would take
care of the problem better. Thus now we all pay admissions to get into
the national parks, fees for kids to do sports in school, etc. etc. because
the government has been cutting the taxes paid into the general fund,
and increasing the usage taxes for specific things, to do as you put it,
"micromanage all costs so that no-one has one penny advantage
over anyone else" This is all straight conservative dogma.
> Yeah -
> maybe it's not 100% fair, but is it fair to drag the whole of society
> down with all the costs and intrusion (i.e., fair to the point of
> bringing everyone down to the same level of intense misery)?
>
The liberals that have been telling your friends in the White House
to stay out of micromamaging California's medical marjuana laws
are most definitely against further federal government intrusion.
So are the flag burners. So are the people who are opposed to the
federal government mandating the phrase "under god" in the
Pledge of Allegance.
Funny how both the liberals and conservatives will drag out the
arguments of "let's not micromanage" whenever their particular
ox is being gored.
Ted
#1357
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F92B8B4.D10CD68E@kinez.net...
>
> There has to be a balance in all this. You can micromanage all costs so
> that no-one has one penny advantage over anyone else, but eventually,
> and very quickly, you reach the point of diminishing returns.
>
> By that I mean that the mechanisms and government beaurocracies... uh,
> beurocracies... uh bu**sh** that have to be set up to manage and
> micromanage everything is a net loss to society, government grows
> bigger, and the average citizen becomes resentful of the overhead costs
> (taxes) and intrusive visibilty by those administering all the crap into
> their lives (kind of like Europe).
>
> I think we've already surpassed that point in many areas (and it's only
> going to get worse). There's something to be said for letting the costs
> inherent in any given decision or path take care of themselves.
Geeze, Bill, did you take Liberal pills this morning? Your starting to
sound
like a goddam tree hugger!
I think you forget that the conservatives are the ones that spearheaded
lowering government taxes across the board (thank you Mr. Regan)
beginning in 1980. The argument was that private industry would take
care of the problem better. Thus now we all pay admissions to get into
the national parks, fees for kids to do sports in school, etc. etc. because
the government has been cutting the taxes paid into the general fund,
and increasing the usage taxes for specific things, to do as you put it,
"micromanage all costs so that no-one has one penny advantage
over anyone else" This is all straight conservative dogma.
> Yeah -
> maybe it's not 100% fair, but is it fair to drag the whole of society
> down with all the costs and intrusion (i.e., fair to the point of
> bringing everyone down to the same level of intense misery)?
>
The liberals that have been telling your friends in the White House
to stay out of micromamaging California's medical marjuana laws
are most definitely against further federal government intrusion.
So are the flag burners. So are the people who are opposed to the
federal government mandating the phrase "under god" in the
Pledge of Allegance.
Funny how both the liberals and conservatives will drag out the
arguments of "let's not micromanage" whenever their particular
ox is being gored.
Ted
#1358
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F93ABF6.1A2557D7@kinez.net...
>
>
> And if we sit back and let them rape us, the numbers will go down. I
> see. Again, thanks for making my case.
>
Speaking as someone who had cancer I am somewhat amused at
these arguments. I don't recall reading that we only have a pot of
a fixed amount of money and we can either spend it on cancer or
spend it on fighting terrorism.
It seems to me that cancer spending hasn't been much affected by
anything else going on, and that when the US government decided
to spend a bunch of money on terrorism, they just did the usual
thing of firing up the printing presses and printing more money
(ie: deficit spending)
One other thing you might consider is the law of diminishing returns.
So far it appears that we are a long, long way from hitting the area
of diminishing returns on anti-terrorism spending, or for that matter,
spending on fighting crime of any kind. It seems pretty clear right
now that law enforcement has had 20 years of budget cutting
to the point that most police departments in the country are totally
incapabable of capturing more than 10% of all criminals, and only
the stupid ones at that. How many times do we read in the papers of
yet another group of people defrauded by some scammer that
disappears into the night?
By contrast, cancer research can only proceed as fast as it can proceed.
We all want to be well and many people want to believe that throwing
money at a problem like researching cancer is going to somehow make
the research go faster. However I think all it does is flood the granting
institutions with money they have no use for, so as a result they end up
funding these redicuous grants for research like that "thrill research"
that some joker posted in this NG a week or so back. In any case,
the major pharmecutical companies have plenty of money that they
have been throwing at drug research on cancer drugs for the last 50
years.
Ted
#1359
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F93ABF6.1A2557D7@kinez.net...
>
>
> And if we sit back and let them rape us, the numbers will go down. I
> see. Again, thanks for making my case.
>
Speaking as someone who had cancer I am somewhat amused at
these arguments. I don't recall reading that we only have a pot of
a fixed amount of money and we can either spend it on cancer or
spend it on fighting terrorism.
It seems to me that cancer spending hasn't been much affected by
anything else going on, and that when the US government decided
to spend a bunch of money on terrorism, they just did the usual
thing of firing up the printing presses and printing more money
(ie: deficit spending)
One other thing you might consider is the law of diminishing returns.
So far it appears that we are a long, long way from hitting the area
of diminishing returns on anti-terrorism spending, or for that matter,
spending on fighting crime of any kind. It seems pretty clear right
now that law enforcement has had 20 years of budget cutting
to the point that most police departments in the country are totally
incapabable of capturing more than 10% of all criminals, and only
the stupid ones at that. How many times do we read in the papers of
yet another group of people defrauded by some scammer that
disappears into the night?
By contrast, cancer research can only proceed as fast as it can proceed.
We all want to be well and many people want to believe that throwing
money at a problem like researching cancer is going to somehow make
the research go faster. However I think all it does is flood the granting
institutions with money they have no use for, so as a result they end up
funding these redicuous grants for research like that "thrill research"
that some joker posted in this NG a week or so back. In any case,
the major pharmecutical companies have plenty of money that they
have been throwing at drug research on cancer drugs for the last 50
years.
Ted
#1360
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Putney" <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F93ABF6.1A2557D7@kinez.net...
>
>
> And if we sit back and let them rape us, the numbers will go down. I
> see. Again, thanks for making my case.
>
Speaking as someone who had cancer I am somewhat amused at
these arguments. I don't recall reading that we only have a pot of
a fixed amount of money and we can either spend it on cancer or
spend it on fighting terrorism.
It seems to me that cancer spending hasn't been much affected by
anything else going on, and that when the US government decided
to spend a bunch of money on terrorism, they just did the usual
thing of firing up the printing presses and printing more money
(ie: deficit spending)
One other thing you might consider is the law of diminishing returns.
So far it appears that we are a long, long way from hitting the area
of diminishing returns on anti-terrorism spending, or for that matter,
spending on fighting crime of any kind. It seems pretty clear right
now that law enforcement has had 20 years of budget cutting
to the point that most police departments in the country are totally
incapabable of capturing more than 10% of all criminals, and only
the stupid ones at that. How many times do we read in the papers of
yet another group of people defrauded by some scammer that
disappears into the night?
By contrast, cancer research can only proceed as fast as it can proceed.
We all want to be well and many people want to believe that throwing
money at a problem like researching cancer is going to somehow make
the research go faster. However I think all it does is flood the granting
institutions with money they have no use for, so as a result they end up
funding these redicuous grants for research like that "thrill research"
that some joker posted in this NG a week or so back. In any case,
the major pharmecutical companies have plenty of money that they
have been throwing at drug research on cancer drugs for the last 50
years.
Ted