Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2841
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Actually, humans as we know t hem have been around how long?
And who said that the five days preceding were 'days' as we know them...?
Wasn't time a bit different in the first microseconds of Big Bang? Or maybe
Fred Hoyle was right and then where do we start?
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrh4$8h4$14@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <7cwmb.25220$e01.49323@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> >>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
> >>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
> >>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
> >>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
> >>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
> >>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
> >>>
> >>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
> >>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments
that
> >>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
> >>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
> >>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
> >>
> >> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
> >> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
> >> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
> >
> >It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
> >of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
> >Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
> >as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
> >etc etc...
> >
> >
> Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old.
Biblical
> infallability, you know.
And who said that the five days preceding were 'days' as we know them...?
Wasn't time a bit different in the first microseconds of Big Bang? Or maybe
Fred Hoyle was right and then where do we start?
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrh4$8h4$14@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <7cwmb.25220$e01.49323@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> >>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
> >>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
> >>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
> >>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
> >>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
> >>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
> >>>
> >>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
> >>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments
that
> >>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
> >>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
> >>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
> >>
> >> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
> >> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
> >> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
> >
> >It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
> >of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
> >Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
> >as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
> >etc etc...
> >
> >
> Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old.
Biblical
> infallability, you know.
#2842
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Actually, humans as we know t hem have been around how long?
And who said that the five days preceding were 'days' as we know them...?
Wasn't time a bit different in the first microseconds of Big Bang? Or maybe
Fred Hoyle was right and then where do we start?
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrh4$8h4$14@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <7cwmb.25220$e01.49323@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> >>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
> >>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
> >>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
> >>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
> >>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
> >>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
> >>>
> >>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
> >>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments
that
> >>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
> >>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
> >>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
> >>
> >> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
> >> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
> >> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
> >
> >It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
> >of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
> >Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
> >as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
> >etc etc...
> >
> >
> Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old.
Biblical
> infallability, you know.
And who said that the five days preceding were 'days' as we know them...?
Wasn't time a bit different in the first microseconds of Big Bang? Or maybe
Fred Hoyle was right and then where do we start?
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrh4$8h4$14@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <7cwmb.25220$e01.49323@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> >>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
> >>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
> >>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
> >>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
> >>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
> >>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
> >>>
> >>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
> >>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments
that
> >>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
> >>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
> >>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
> >>
> >> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
> >> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
> >> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
> >
> >It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
> >of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
> >Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
> >as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
> >etc etc...
> >
> >
> Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old.
Biblical
> infallability, you know.
#2843
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
rickety wrote:
> Was any organisation (such as the NUTS) used to validate what Ford did, or
> was it just evaluated within Ford that this would be sufficient to avoid
> losing other cases?
>
Do you mean NHTSA? NHTSA forced the recall. There is plenty of evidence to
support the notion that Ford (and other manufacturers) lobbied against the
implementation of safety standards that would have forced all cars, including
the Pinto, to have better protection for the fuel tanks. I can understand the
companies motivation. However why do we have giant bureaucracies to protect us,
if they roll over and play dead every time some executive whines about a new
standard. If NHTSA had done its job, the Pinto would have had the gas tank
shield and longer filler neck from day one. Even without the shield the total
number of Pinto fire related death was probably less than 30 (and don't forget
there were millions of Pintos). I am not saying that 30 is an acceptable number,
but it is not a number that sets the Pinto apart as an especially dangerous
vehicle for its time.
As I recall (and this is from memory), the case that garnered the most publicity
involved a Pinto backing down an expressway that was rammed by a dump truck
moving at highway speed. The gas cap was not on the vehicle. Ford contended that
it had been left off and this was a major contributor to the fuel spill and
fire. The plaintiffs lawyers claimed that it was detached in the accident
(although it was never found) and that it was irrelevant anyway since the tank
had ruptured - not surprising since it was mostly pushed into the rear seat.
After losing a 100+ million dollar case (in 1978 dollars), the guys at Ford just
threw every fix at the gas tank they could think of - at least short of
installing NASCAR style fuel cells.
GM had a similar problem with early Chevettes. A suspension bolt would puncture
the fuel tanks in relatively minor collisions. GM never fought any of the cases
in court and quietly recalled the Chevettes to change the fasteners and had a
shield to the tank (this recall was in 1978). No one ever mentions the Chevette
as a fire bomb, yet the early Chevettes were at least as dangerous as the Pinto.
If you do a Google search, you can still find a number of very inflammatory
articles on the subject. Mother Jones created one worthy of Dateline. If you can
find the article it may convince you to drive to Dearborn and try to torch Ford
World Headquarters. The fact that a lot of it is creative journalism should
probably stop you. The Pinto was, and still is, a favorite poster child for
Trail Lawyers that want to encourage otherwise honest people to treat every
misfortunate like a winning lottery ticket. They exaggerate the danger and
exaggerate the pay out in a blatant attempt to recruit client that they use to
enrich themselves. People need a way of punishing manufacturers who knowingly
build dangerous products. I just don't think that every honest engineering
decision that goes wrong rises to the level of a capital offense. I drove a
Pinto for 5 years, and my Sisters drove one for almost 10. None of use worried
about the potential for a gas tank fire. When the recall was announced in 1978
we had both of our Pintos updated. However, I would not have spend $10 to do the
upgrade if it had not been free. The risk was below the noise level as far as I
was concerned.
Millions of Pintos drove billions of miles and never burst into flames.
Regards,
Ed White
#2844
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
rickety wrote:
> Was any organisation (such as the NUTS) used to validate what Ford did, or
> was it just evaluated within Ford that this would be sufficient to avoid
> losing other cases?
>
Do you mean NHTSA? NHTSA forced the recall. There is plenty of evidence to
support the notion that Ford (and other manufacturers) lobbied against the
implementation of safety standards that would have forced all cars, including
the Pinto, to have better protection for the fuel tanks. I can understand the
companies motivation. However why do we have giant bureaucracies to protect us,
if they roll over and play dead every time some executive whines about a new
standard. If NHTSA had done its job, the Pinto would have had the gas tank
shield and longer filler neck from day one. Even without the shield the total
number of Pinto fire related death was probably less than 30 (and don't forget
there were millions of Pintos). I am not saying that 30 is an acceptable number,
but it is not a number that sets the Pinto apart as an especially dangerous
vehicle for its time.
As I recall (and this is from memory), the case that garnered the most publicity
involved a Pinto backing down an expressway that was rammed by a dump truck
moving at highway speed. The gas cap was not on the vehicle. Ford contended that
it had been left off and this was a major contributor to the fuel spill and
fire. The plaintiffs lawyers claimed that it was detached in the accident
(although it was never found) and that it was irrelevant anyway since the tank
had ruptured - not surprising since it was mostly pushed into the rear seat.
After losing a 100+ million dollar case (in 1978 dollars), the guys at Ford just
threw every fix at the gas tank they could think of - at least short of
installing NASCAR style fuel cells.
GM had a similar problem with early Chevettes. A suspension bolt would puncture
the fuel tanks in relatively minor collisions. GM never fought any of the cases
in court and quietly recalled the Chevettes to change the fasteners and had a
shield to the tank (this recall was in 1978). No one ever mentions the Chevette
as a fire bomb, yet the early Chevettes were at least as dangerous as the Pinto.
If you do a Google search, you can still find a number of very inflammatory
articles on the subject. Mother Jones created one worthy of Dateline. If you can
find the article it may convince you to drive to Dearborn and try to torch Ford
World Headquarters. The fact that a lot of it is creative journalism should
probably stop you. The Pinto was, and still is, a favorite poster child for
Trail Lawyers that want to encourage otherwise honest people to treat every
misfortunate like a winning lottery ticket. They exaggerate the danger and
exaggerate the pay out in a blatant attempt to recruit client that they use to
enrich themselves. People need a way of punishing manufacturers who knowingly
build dangerous products. I just don't think that every honest engineering
decision that goes wrong rises to the level of a capital offense. I drove a
Pinto for 5 years, and my Sisters drove one for almost 10. None of use worried
about the potential for a gas tank fire. When the recall was announced in 1978
we had both of our Pintos updated. However, I would not have spend $10 to do the
upgrade if it had not been free. The risk was below the noise level as far as I
was concerned.
Millions of Pintos drove billions of miles and never burst into flames.
Regards,
Ed White
#2845
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
rickety wrote:
> Was any organisation (such as the NUTS) used to validate what Ford did, or
> was it just evaluated within Ford that this would be sufficient to avoid
> losing other cases?
>
Do you mean NHTSA? NHTSA forced the recall. There is plenty of evidence to
support the notion that Ford (and other manufacturers) lobbied against the
implementation of safety standards that would have forced all cars, including
the Pinto, to have better protection for the fuel tanks. I can understand the
companies motivation. However why do we have giant bureaucracies to protect us,
if they roll over and play dead every time some executive whines about a new
standard. If NHTSA had done its job, the Pinto would have had the gas tank
shield and longer filler neck from day one. Even without the shield the total
number of Pinto fire related death was probably less than 30 (and don't forget
there were millions of Pintos). I am not saying that 30 is an acceptable number,
but it is not a number that sets the Pinto apart as an especially dangerous
vehicle for its time.
As I recall (and this is from memory), the case that garnered the most publicity
involved a Pinto backing down an expressway that was rammed by a dump truck
moving at highway speed. The gas cap was not on the vehicle. Ford contended that
it had been left off and this was a major contributor to the fuel spill and
fire. The plaintiffs lawyers claimed that it was detached in the accident
(although it was never found) and that it was irrelevant anyway since the tank
had ruptured - not surprising since it was mostly pushed into the rear seat.
After losing a 100+ million dollar case (in 1978 dollars), the guys at Ford just
threw every fix at the gas tank they could think of - at least short of
installing NASCAR style fuel cells.
GM had a similar problem with early Chevettes. A suspension bolt would puncture
the fuel tanks in relatively minor collisions. GM never fought any of the cases
in court and quietly recalled the Chevettes to change the fasteners and had a
shield to the tank (this recall was in 1978). No one ever mentions the Chevette
as a fire bomb, yet the early Chevettes were at least as dangerous as the Pinto.
If you do a Google search, you can still find a number of very inflammatory
articles on the subject. Mother Jones created one worthy of Dateline. If you can
find the article it may convince you to drive to Dearborn and try to torch Ford
World Headquarters. The fact that a lot of it is creative journalism should
probably stop you. The Pinto was, and still is, a favorite poster child for
Trail Lawyers that want to encourage otherwise honest people to treat every
misfortunate like a winning lottery ticket. They exaggerate the danger and
exaggerate the pay out in a blatant attempt to recruit client that they use to
enrich themselves. People need a way of punishing manufacturers who knowingly
build dangerous products. I just don't think that every honest engineering
decision that goes wrong rises to the level of a capital offense. I drove a
Pinto for 5 years, and my Sisters drove one for almost 10. None of use worried
about the potential for a gas tank fire. When the recall was announced in 1978
we had both of our Pintos updated. However, I would not have spend $10 to do the
upgrade if it had not been free. The risk was below the noise level as far as I
was concerned.
Millions of Pintos drove billions of miles and never burst into flames.
Regards,
Ed White
#2846
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
what he believes himself.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
and
: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
: one would be genuinely interested.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
: :
: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
:
:
when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
what he believes himself.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
and
: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
: one would be genuinely interested.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
: :
: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
:
:
#2847
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
what he believes himself.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
and
: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
: one would be genuinely interested.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
: :
: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
:
:
when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
what he believes himself.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
and
: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
: one would be genuinely interested.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
: :
: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
:
:
#2848
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Looks like Lloyd replied to every other post except this one. I guess that
when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
what he believes himself.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
and
: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
: one would be genuinely interested.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
: :
: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
:
:
when he shouts "Learn some science", our educator didn't mean from himself.
Interesting how he is vocal in criticizing other opinions as long as they
don't come from other scientists, and equally has no intention in backing up
what he believes himself.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:d9Ynb.5397$QB7.49790167@news-text.cableinet.net...
: Lloyd, what's your opinion on the sunspot theory ? This has been a long
and
: boring thread, but if you can give us an intelligent critique on it, I for
: one would be genuinely interested.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
: news:3FA03D91.3080807@computer.org...
: : And now another theory as to possible causation for global warming:
: :
: : http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
:
:
#2849
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> And who said that the five days preceding were 'days' as we know them...?
> Wasn't time a bit different in the first microseconds of Big Bang? Or maybe
> Fred Hoyle was right and then where do we start?
Its not the start that worries me....
Ed
#2850
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> And who said that the five days preceding were 'days' as we know them...?
> Wasn't time a bit different in the first microseconds of Big Bang? Or maybe
> Fred Hoyle was right and then where do we start?
Its not the start that worries me....
Ed