Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1381
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.
#1382
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <km9apvorj4joq15ied1d3mss3i74tkbg5b@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 15:59:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I think you mis-spelt "for the good of the children".
>>
>>>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?
>
>My SUVs consistantly test far cleaner than the laws permit.
>And I still get to drive what I want.
>You want to end that, based on what *you* think is good for society.
>
Your SUV uses more natural resources, increases our dependence on foreign oil,
forces us to spend more on defending those countries, forces us to risk lives
defending those countries, hurts our balance of payments, and increases global
warming. It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
around with American flags on their SUVs.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 15:59:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I think you mis-spelt "for the good of the children".
>>
>>>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?
>
>My SUVs consistantly test far cleaner than the laws permit.
>And I still get to drive what I want.
>You want to end that, based on what *you* think is good for society.
>
Your SUV uses more natural resources, increases our dependence on foreign oil,
forces us to spend more on defending those countries, forces us to risk lives
defending those countries, hurts our balance of payments, and increases global
warming. It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
around with American flags on their SUVs.
#1383
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <km9apvorj4joq15ied1d3mss3i74tkbg5b@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 15:59:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I think you mis-spelt "for the good of the children".
>>
>>>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?
>
>My SUVs consistantly test far cleaner than the laws permit.
>And I still get to drive what I want.
>You want to end that, based on what *you* think is good for society.
>
Your SUV uses more natural resources, increases our dependence on foreign oil,
forces us to spend more on defending those countries, forces us to risk lives
defending those countries, hurts our balance of payments, and increases global
warming. It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
around with American flags on their SUVs.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 15:59:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I think you mis-spelt "for the good of the children".
>>
>>>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?
>
>My SUVs consistantly test far cleaner than the laws permit.
>And I still get to drive what I want.
>You want to end that, based on what *you* think is good for society.
>
Your SUV uses more natural resources, increases our dependence on foreign oil,
forces us to spend more on defending those countries, forces us to risk lives
defending those countries, hurts our balance of payments, and increases global
warming. It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
around with American flags on their SUVs.
#1384
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <km9apvorj4joq15ied1d3mss3i74tkbg5b@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 15:59:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I think you mis-spelt "for the good of the children".
>>
>>>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?
>
>My SUVs consistantly test far cleaner than the laws permit.
>And I still get to drive what I want.
>You want to end that, based on what *you* think is good for society.
>
Your SUV uses more natural resources, increases our dependence on foreign oil,
forces us to spend more on defending those countries, forces us to risk lives
defending those countries, hurts our balance of payments, and increases global
warming. It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
around with American flags on their SUVs.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 15:59:11 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I think you mis-spelt "for the good of the children".
>>
>>>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?
>
>My SUVs consistantly test far cleaner than the laws permit.
>And I still get to drive what I want.
>You want to end that, based on what *you* think is good for society.
>
Your SUV uses more natural resources, increases our dependence on foreign oil,
forces us to spend more on defending those countries, forces us to risk lives
defending those countries, hurts our balance of payments, and increases global
warming. It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
around with American flags on their SUVs.
#1385
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <xdalb.843740$uu5.149257@sccrnsc04>, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>Aardwolf 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.
>>
> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
>its time for emissions inspection.
>
So you're breaking the law and polluting the air we breathe. How does it feel
to be a criminal?
>Aardwolf 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.
>>
> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
>its time for emissions inspection.
>
So you're breaking the law and polluting the air we breathe. How does it feel
to be a criminal?
#1386
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <xdalb.843740$uu5.149257@sccrnsc04>, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>Aardwolf 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.
>>
> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
>its time for emissions inspection.
>
So you're breaking the law and polluting the air we breathe. How does it feel
to be a criminal?
>Aardwolf 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.
>>
> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
>its time for emissions inspection.
>
So you're breaking the law and polluting the air we breathe. How does it feel
to be a criminal?
#1387
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <xdalb.843740$uu5.149257@sccrnsc04>, Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>Aardwolf 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.
>>
> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
>its time for emissions inspection.
>
So you're breaking the law and polluting the air we breathe. How does it feel
to be a criminal?
>Aardwolf 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.
>>
> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
>its time for emissions inspection.
>
So you're breaking the law and polluting the air we breathe. How does it feel
to be a criminal?
#1388
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Hear hear!
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9464E0.5080509@computer.org...
.........................
>
> Or hotel rooms... :-)
>
>
> Matt
>
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9464E0.5080509@computer.org...
.........................
>
> Or hotel rooms... :-)
>
>
> Matt
>
#1389
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Hear hear!
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9464E0.5080509@computer.org...
.........................
>
> Or hotel rooms... :-)
>
>
> Matt
>
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9464E0.5080509@computer.org...
.........................
>
> Or hotel rooms... :-)
>
>
> Matt
>
#1390
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Hear hear!
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9464E0.5080509@computer.org...
.........................
>
> Or hotel rooms... :-)
>
>
> Matt
>
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:3F9464E0.5080509@computer.org...
.........................
>
> Or hotel rooms... :-)
>
>
> Matt
>