Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#331
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <nBekb.306369$mp.245290@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
> >>
> >> Ted
> >>
> >>
> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
> >
> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and
> all the other 60s crap.
>
I wish I had a four speed manual in my three quarter ton four wheel drive
1989 Suburban, but even by 1989 they were few and far between. I wish also
that you would go back to torturing graduate students or begging for grant
money.
Earle
news:bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <nBekb.306369$mp.245290@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
> >>
> >> Ted
> >>
> >>
> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
> >
> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and
> all the other 60s crap.
>
I wish I had a four speed manual in my three quarter ton four wheel drive
1989 Suburban, but even by 1989 they were few and far between. I wish also
that you would go back to torturing graduate students or begging for grant
money.
Earle
#332
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Another stupid cross poster, who doesn't know what the f**k he's
talking about. Why do you think every '69 Chevy pickup has a bent hood?
Because it bends right at the crumple zone just ahead of the hinge. Plus
it's got a totally isolated cab if you've ever seen a pickup after it's
been hit by a train.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
talking about. Why do you think every '69 Chevy pickup has a bent hood?
Because it bends right at the crumple zone just ahead of the hinge. Plus
it's got a totally isolated cab if you've ever seen a pickup after it's
been hit by a train.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
#333
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Another stupid cross poster, who doesn't know what the f**k he's
talking about. Why do you think every '69 Chevy pickup has a bent hood?
Because it bends right at the crumple zone just ahead of the hinge. Plus
it's got a totally isolated cab if you've ever seen a pickup after it's
been hit by a train.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
talking about. Why do you think every '69 Chevy pickup has a bent hood?
Because it bends right at the crumple zone just ahead of the hinge. Plus
it's got a totally isolated cab if you've ever seen a pickup after it's
been hit by a train.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
#334
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Another stupid cross poster, who doesn't know what the f**k he's
talking about. Why do you think every '69 Chevy pickup has a bent hood?
Because it bends right at the crumple zone just ahead of the hinge. Plus
it's got a totally isolated cab if you've ever seen a pickup after it's
been hit by a train.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
talking about. Why do you think every '69 Chevy pickup has a bent hood?
Because it bends right at the crumple zone just ahead of the hinge. Plus
it's got a totally isolated cab if you've ever seen a pickup after it's
been hit by a train.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
#335
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
news:FwZjb.24$uG.123727@news.abs.net...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > Georgoudis) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >>car.
> >
> >
> > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > bought a very safe SUV.
> >
> > Go figure.
> >
>
> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> handling for crash safety.
>
> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
newsgroups.
news:FwZjb.24$uG.123727@news.abs.net...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > Georgoudis) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >>car.
> >
> >
> > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > bought a very safe SUV.
> >
> > Go figure.
> >
>
> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> handling for crash safety.
>
> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
newsgroups.
#336
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
news:FwZjb.24$uG.123727@news.abs.net...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > Georgoudis) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >>car.
> >
> >
> > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > bought a very safe SUV.
> >
> > Go figure.
> >
>
> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> handling for crash safety.
>
> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
newsgroups.
news:FwZjb.24$uG.123727@news.abs.net...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > Georgoudis) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >>car.
> >
> >
> > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > bought a very safe SUV.
> >
> > Go figure.
> >
>
> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> handling for crash safety.
>
> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
newsgroups.
#337
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
news:FwZjb.24$uG.123727@news.abs.net...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > Georgoudis) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >>car.
> >
> >
> > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > bought a very safe SUV.
> >
> > Go figure.
> >
>
> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> handling for crash safety.
>
> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
newsgroups.
news:FwZjb.24$uG.123727@news.abs.net...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > Georgoudis) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >>car.
> >
> >
> > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > bought a very safe SUV.
> >
> > Go figure.
> >
>
> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> handling for crash safety.
>
> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
newsgroups.
#338
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
I know of no enviro-wackos that like it. In fact, the only people that
liked it when it was passed were the Big 3 (though they said otherwise).
They has a medium percentage of the car market, but falling. They had a
large percentage of the truck market. With the split-level CAFE, more
people bought vehicles labeled as trucks and the Big-3 benefited.
Everyone that likes the idea of CAFE hates the way it was implemented. I
know of no one that supports the way it is, other than claiming that
changing it would be worse than leaving it alone, so it continues to
persist.
When there are two separate standards for minor cosmetic differences in
passenger vehicles, there will be an inequitable and arbitrary (to the
point of being counter-productive) application of rules.
So, whine all you like about CAFE, but the enviro-wackos don't like CAFE as
it stands any more than you do.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
I know of no enviro-wackos that like it. In fact, the only people that
liked it when it was passed were the Big 3 (though they said otherwise).
They has a medium percentage of the car market, but falling. They had a
large percentage of the truck market. With the split-level CAFE, more
people bought vehicles labeled as trucks and the Big-3 benefited.
Everyone that likes the idea of CAFE hates the way it was implemented. I
know of no one that supports the way it is, other than claiming that
changing it would be worse than leaving it alone, so it continues to
persist.
When there are two separate standards for minor cosmetic differences in
passenger vehicles, there will be an inequitable and arbitrary (to the
point of being counter-productive) application of rules.
So, whine all you like about CAFE, but the enviro-wackos don't like CAFE as
it stands any more than you do.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#339
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
I know of no enviro-wackos that like it. In fact, the only people that
liked it when it was passed were the Big 3 (though they said otherwise).
They has a medium percentage of the car market, but falling. They had a
large percentage of the truck market. With the split-level CAFE, more
people bought vehicles labeled as trucks and the Big-3 benefited.
Everyone that likes the idea of CAFE hates the way it was implemented. I
know of no one that supports the way it is, other than claiming that
changing it would be worse than leaving it alone, so it continues to
persist.
When there are two separate standards for minor cosmetic differences in
passenger vehicles, there will be an inequitable and arbitrary (to the
point of being counter-productive) application of rules.
So, whine all you like about CAFE, but the enviro-wackos don't like CAFE as
it stands any more than you do.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
I know of no enviro-wackos that like it. In fact, the only people that
liked it when it was passed were the Big 3 (though they said otherwise).
They has a medium percentage of the car market, but falling. They had a
large percentage of the truck market. With the split-level CAFE, more
people bought vehicles labeled as trucks and the Big-3 benefited.
Everyone that likes the idea of CAFE hates the way it was implemented. I
know of no one that supports the way it is, other than claiming that
changing it would be worse than leaving it alone, so it continues to
persist.
When there are two separate standards for minor cosmetic differences in
passenger vehicles, there will be an inequitable and arbitrary (to the
point of being counter-productive) application of rules.
So, whine all you like about CAFE, but the enviro-wackos don't like CAFE as
it stands any more than you do.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#340
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
I know of no enviro-wackos that like it. In fact, the only people that
liked it when it was passed were the Big 3 (though they said otherwise).
They has a medium percentage of the car market, but falling. They had a
large percentage of the truck market. With the split-level CAFE, more
people bought vehicles labeled as trucks and the Big-3 benefited.
Everyone that likes the idea of CAFE hates the way it was implemented. I
know of no one that supports the way it is, other than claiming that
changing it would be worse than leaving it alone, so it continues to
persist.
When there are two separate standards for minor cosmetic differences in
passenger vehicles, there will be an inequitable and arbitrary (to the
point of being counter-productive) application of rules.
So, whine all you like about CAFE, but the enviro-wackos don't like CAFE as
it stands any more than you do.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
I know of no enviro-wackos that like it. In fact, the only people that
liked it when it was passed were the Big 3 (though they said otherwise).
They has a medium percentage of the car market, but falling. They had a
large percentage of the truck market. With the split-level CAFE, more
people bought vehicles labeled as trucks and the Big-3 benefited.
Everyone that likes the idea of CAFE hates the way it was implemented. I
know of no one that supports the way it is, other than claiming that
changing it would be worse than leaving it alone, so it continues to
persist.
When there are two separate standards for minor cosmetic differences in
passenger vehicles, there will be an inequitable and arbitrary (to the
point of being counter-productive) application of rules.
So, whine all you like about CAFE, but the enviro-wackos don't like CAFE as
it stands any more than you do.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"