Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1371
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F94665E.3090100@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>>>
>> been
>>
>>>>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>>
>>>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
>>
>> no
>>
>>>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
>>
>> produced.
>>
>>>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and
every
>>>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>>>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
>>
>> Australia.
>>
>>>Unfortunately it won't fly.
>>
>>
>> OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
>> value, as is done now in a lot of states.
>
>Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
>the heavily subsidized cost.
>
>
>Matt
>
Air travellers too, then.
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>>>
>> been
>>
>>>>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>>
>>>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
>>
>> no
>>
>>>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
>>
>> produced.
>>
>>>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and
every
>>>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>>>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
>>
>> Australia.
>>
>>>Unfortunately it won't fly.
>>
>>
>> OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
>> value, as is done now in a lot of states.
>
>Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
>the heavily subsidized cost.
>
>
>Matt
>
Air travellers too, then.
#1372
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F94665E.3090100@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>>>
>> been
>>
>>>>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>>
>>>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
>>
>> no
>>
>>>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
>>
>> produced.
>>
>>>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and
every
>>>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>>>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
>>
>> Australia.
>>
>>>Unfortunately it won't fly.
>>
>>
>> OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
>> value, as is done now in a lot of states.
>
>Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
>the heavily subsidized cost.
>
>
>Matt
>
Air travellers too, then.
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>>>
>> been
>>
>>>>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>>
>>>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
>>
>> no
>>
>>>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
>>
>> produced.
>>
>>>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and
every
>>>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>>>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
>>
>> Australia.
>>
>>>Unfortunately it won't fly.
>>
>>
>> OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
>> value, as is done now in a lot of states.
>
>Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
>the heavily subsidized cost.
>
>
>Matt
>
Air travellers too, then.
#1373
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F946E95.9C972B16@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Douglas A. Shrader" wrote:
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:bn0u86$pdq$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >
>> > Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for
>> 9/11.
>>
>> That's true, he never once claimed that.
>
>Yeah, but Lloyd thought it in his mind (funny how Bush, who is
>supposedly dumb, is clever enough to make Lloyd, who is supposedly
>brilliant, think things like that), so that makes it reality and
>therefore Bush is guilty of it.
Come on, Bush and his people keep linking Saddam and 9/11 by mentioning them
in the same sentence. No wonder 70% or so of Americans think Saddam was
behind 9/11.
>
>So, Lloyd, what about Sadam offering to and actually paying families of
>homocide bombers as a reward?
The Saudi royal family did that too.
> Does that make him a supporter of
>terrorism and therefore a legitmate target in an all-out war on
>terrorism? (Lloyd will come back with something suggesting that Bush is
>evil and Sadam is good and innocent. Or he won't just to make me wrong;
>but now he will because I said that; now he won't...)
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Douglas A. Shrader" wrote:
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:bn0u86$pdq$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >
>> > Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for
>> 9/11.
>>
>> That's true, he never once claimed that.
>
>Yeah, but Lloyd thought it in his mind (funny how Bush, who is
>supposedly dumb, is clever enough to make Lloyd, who is supposedly
>brilliant, think things like that), so that makes it reality and
>therefore Bush is guilty of it.
Come on, Bush and his people keep linking Saddam and 9/11 by mentioning them
in the same sentence. No wonder 70% or so of Americans think Saddam was
behind 9/11.
>
>So, Lloyd, what about Sadam offering to and actually paying families of
>homocide bombers as a reward?
The Saudi royal family did that too.
> Does that make him a supporter of
>terrorism and therefore a legitmate target in an all-out war on
>terrorism? (Lloyd will come back with something suggesting that Bush is
>evil and Sadam is good and innocent. Or he won't just to make me wrong;
>but now he will because I said that; now he won't...)
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#1374
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F946E95.9C972B16@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Douglas A. Shrader" wrote:
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:bn0u86$pdq$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >
>> > Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for
>> 9/11.
>>
>> That's true, he never once claimed that.
>
>Yeah, but Lloyd thought it in his mind (funny how Bush, who is
>supposedly dumb, is clever enough to make Lloyd, who is supposedly
>brilliant, think things like that), so that makes it reality and
>therefore Bush is guilty of it.
Come on, Bush and his people keep linking Saddam and 9/11 by mentioning them
in the same sentence. No wonder 70% or so of Americans think Saddam was
behind 9/11.
>
>So, Lloyd, what about Sadam offering to and actually paying families of
>homocide bombers as a reward?
The Saudi royal family did that too.
> Does that make him a supporter of
>terrorism and therefore a legitmate target in an all-out war on
>terrorism? (Lloyd will come back with something suggesting that Bush is
>evil and Sadam is good and innocent. Or he won't just to make me wrong;
>but now he will because I said that; now he won't...)
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Douglas A. Shrader" wrote:
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:bn0u86$pdq$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >
>> > Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for
>> 9/11.
>>
>> That's true, he never once claimed that.
>
>Yeah, but Lloyd thought it in his mind (funny how Bush, who is
>supposedly dumb, is clever enough to make Lloyd, who is supposedly
>brilliant, think things like that), so that makes it reality and
>therefore Bush is guilty of it.
Come on, Bush and his people keep linking Saddam and 9/11 by mentioning them
in the same sentence. No wonder 70% or so of Americans think Saddam was
behind 9/11.
>
>So, Lloyd, what about Sadam offering to and actually paying families of
>homocide bombers as a reward?
The Saudi royal family did that too.
> Does that make him a supporter of
>terrorism and therefore a legitmate target in an all-out war on
>terrorism? (Lloyd will come back with something suggesting that Bush is
>evil and Sadam is good and innocent. Or he won't just to make me wrong;
>but now he will because I said that; now he won't...)
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#1375
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F946E95.9C972B16@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Douglas A. Shrader" wrote:
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:bn0u86$pdq$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >
>> > Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for
>> 9/11.
>>
>> That's true, he never once claimed that.
>
>Yeah, but Lloyd thought it in his mind (funny how Bush, who is
>supposedly dumb, is clever enough to make Lloyd, who is supposedly
>brilliant, think things like that), so that makes it reality and
>therefore Bush is guilty of it.
Come on, Bush and his people keep linking Saddam and 9/11 by mentioning them
in the same sentence. No wonder 70% or so of Americans think Saddam was
behind 9/11.
>
>So, Lloyd, what about Sadam offering to and actually paying families of
>homocide bombers as a reward?
The Saudi royal family did that too.
> Does that make him a supporter of
>terrorism and therefore a legitmate target in an all-out war on
>terrorism? (Lloyd will come back with something suggesting that Bush is
>evil and Sadam is good and innocent. Or he won't just to make me wrong;
>but now he will because I said that; now he won't...)
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Douglas A. Shrader" wrote:
>>
>> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:bn0u86$pdq$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >
>> > Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for
>> 9/11.
>>
>> That's true, he never once claimed that.
>
>Yeah, but Lloyd thought it in his mind (funny how Bush, who is
>supposedly dumb, is clever enough to make Lloyd, who is supposedly
>brilliant, think things like that), so that makes it reality and
>therefore Bush is guilty of it.
Come on, Bush and his people keep linking Saddam and 9/11 by mentioning them
in the same sentence. No wonder 70% or so of Americans think Saddam was
behind 9/11.
>
>So, Lloyd, what about Sadam offering to and actually paying families of
>homocide bombers as a reward?
The Saudi royal family did that too.
> Does that make him a supporter of
>terrorism and therefore a legitmate target in an all-out war on
>terrorism? (Lloyd will come back with something suggesting that Bush is
>evil and Sadam is good and innocent. Or he won't just to make me wrong;
>but now he will because I said that; now he won't...)
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#1376
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lloyd,
>Are you a Lliberal?
Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding fathers.
Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great presidents.
Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>LLOL
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
>not a
>> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
>work,
>> >>>not play.
>> >>
>> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
>as
>> cars
>> >>are used.
>> >
>> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >
>> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>
>> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>>
>> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >people should live there.
>> >
>> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>
>
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lloyd,
>Are you a Lliberal?
Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding fathers.
Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great presidents.
Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>LLOL
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
>not a
>> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
>work,
>> >>>not play.
>> >>
>> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
>as
>> cars
>> >>are used.
>> >
>> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >
>> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>
>> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>>
>> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >people should live there.
>> >
>> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>
>
#1377
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lloyd,
>Are you a Lliberal?
Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding fathers.
Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great presidents.
Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>LLOL
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
>not a
>> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
>work,
>> >>>not play.
>> >>
>> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
>as
>> cars
>> >>are used.
>> >
>> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >
>> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>
>> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>>
>> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >people should live there.
>> >
>> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>
>
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lloyd,
>Are you a Lliberal?
Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding fathers.
Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great presidents.
Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>LLOL
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
>not a
>> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
>work,
>> >>>not play.
>> >>
>> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
>as
>> cars
>> >>are used.
>> >
>> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >
>> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>
>> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>>
>> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >people should live there.
>> >
>> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>
>
#1378
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lloyd,
>Are you a Lliberal?
Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding fathers.
Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great presidents.
Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>LLOL
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
>not a
>> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
>work,
>> >>>not play.
>> >>
>> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
>as
>> cars
>> >>are used.
>> >
>> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >
>> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>
>> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>>
>> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >people should live there.
>> >
>> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>
>
"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lloyd,
>Are you a Lliberal?
Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding fathers.
Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great presidents.
Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>LLOL
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
>not a
>> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
>work,
>> >>>not play.
>> >>
>> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
>as
>> cars
>> >>are used.
>> >
>> >And what would the buyers have done then?
>> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>> >
>> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>>
>> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>>
>> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>> >Why should you get to do that?
>> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>> >people should live there.
>> >
>> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
>
>
#1379
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F94B40E.DE560929@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish to
claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>
>
>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.
>
A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish to
claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
#1380
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F94B40E.DE560929@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish to
claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>
>
>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.
>
A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish to
claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.