Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3281
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Maybe we're both wrong.... It was the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qTcqb.112591$HS4.974062@attbi_s01...
> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
large
> > cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> > regulations.
>
> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s.
>
>
1975.
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qTcqb.112591$HS4.974062@attbi_s01...
> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
large
> > cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> > regulations.
>
> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s.
>
>
#3282
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Maybe we're both wrong.... It was the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qTcqb.112591$HS4.974062@attbi_s01...
> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
large
> > cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> > regulations.
>
> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s.
>
>
1975.
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qTcqb.112591$HS4.974062@attbi_s01...
> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
large
> > cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> > regulations.
>
> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s.
>
>
#3283
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Maybe we're both wrong.... It was the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qTcqb.112591$HS4.974062@attbi_s01...
> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
large
> > cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> > regulations.
>
> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s.
>
>
1975.
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qTcqb.112591$HS4.974062@attbi_s01...
> In article <Sicqb.54272$Ub4.8985@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > Ironically, one of the reasons SUV's are so popular is the supply of
large
> > cars with powerful engines were so restricted starting with the1973 CAFE
> > regulations.
>
> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s.
>
>
#3284
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in the
> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
CO2.
> And on and on.
>
> BrentP nails the issue once again!
He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
>
>
#3285
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in the
> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
CO2.
> And on and on.
>
> BrentP nails the issue once again!
He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
>
>
#3286
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in the
> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
CO2.
> And on and on.
>
> BrentP nails the issue once again!
He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
>
>
#3287
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vqiu9b3fm82i1e@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in the
>> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
>> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
>> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
>> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
>> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
> CO2.
>> And on and on.
>>
>> BrentP nails the issue once again!
>
> He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
Thanks :)
But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been
naive and thought it was science group.
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in the
>> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
>> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
>> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
>> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
>> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
> CO2.
>> And on and on.
>>
>> BrentP nails the issue once again!
>
> He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
Thanks :)
But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been
naive and thought it was science group.
#3288
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vqiu9b3fm82i1e@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in the
>> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
>> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
>> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
>> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
>> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
> CO2.
>> And on and on.
>>
>> BrentP nails the issue once again!
>
> He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
Thanks :)
But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been
naive and thought it was science group.
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in the
>> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
>> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
>> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
>> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
>> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
> CO2.
>> And on and on.
>>
>> BrentP nails the issue once again!
>
> He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
Thanks :)
But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been
naive and thought it was science group.
#3289
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vqiu9b3fm82i1e@corp.supernews.com>, The Ancient One wrote:
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in the
>> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
>> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
>> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
>> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
>> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
> CO2.
>> And on and on.
>>
>> BrentP nails the issue once again!
>
> He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
Thanks :)
But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been
naive and thought it was science group.
>
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bobrok01aff@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > You forget, it's the source and location of the CO2 that matters in the
>> political arguement. Not that it simply takes from a carbon sink and
>> releases CO2 to the atmosphere. A forest fire produces good CO2. An
>> automobile in the USA produces bad CO2. A factory in China produces good
>> CO2. A factory in the USA produces bad CO2. A tractor on a farm in the USA
>> > produces bad CO2. A coal fired electric plant in china produces good
> CO2.
>> And on and on.
>>
>> BrentP nails the issue once again!
>
> He seems to have a knack for it, glad I'm not arguing against him. :-)
Thanks :)
But I have to admit, this is the product of experience. First,
Dr. Parker has been around the auto groups longer than I can
remember so that's old hat. Secondly, I spent a trial by fire in
politics er sci.environment where I learned the hard way how
left-wingers masquading as environmentalists work. I had been
naive and thought it was science group.
#3290
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bobs8601b26@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s. <
>
> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
> Claybrook.
Know it well, I did not know the same people were responsible for CAFE.
But it figures. It's the same sort of half-assed job without thinking
it through. One of these days I should estimate how much extra fuel
is burned due to CAFE by calculating what could be saved using large
passenger cars instead (assuming a 15% market slice for light trucks as
it was before CAFE of course). hmmm....
I've stated it before though, emissions regs required better control
systems and better control systems lead to better fuel economy. A
simplification of course, as in some areas emissions and fuel economy
can conflict. (lean burn, NOx, etc...)
>> 1976. and the required MPG level didn't reach critical levels until the
> mid 1980s. <
>
> Right, and to achieve this result mfrs had to "downsize" all their cars.
> However this put drivers at much elevated risk of death & serious injury,
> even the Clinton-era NHTSA reported findings that concluded the forced
> downsizing resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 20,000 people. They
> concluded the increases in milage achieved by weight reduction could have
> been easily achieved through powertrain management systems that by the time
> of thewir report, 2000, were already in production. You cn stick the entire
> fiasco on the backs of liberals like Hopward Metzenbaum of Ohio (who gave
> us the 55 mph speed limit... remember THAT fiasco?) and that @$$#01e Joan
> Claybrook.
Know it well, I did not know the same people were responsible for CAFE.
But it figures. It's the same sort of half-assed job without thinking
it through. One of these days I should estimate how much extra fuel
is burned due to CAFE by calculating what could be saved using large
passenger cars instead (assuming a 15% market slice for light trucks as
it was before CAFE of course). hmmm....
I've stated it before though, emissions regs required better control
systems and better control systems lead to better fuel economy. A
simplification of course, as in some areas emissions and fuel economy
can conflict. (lean burn, NOx, etc...)