Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#391
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough
> to avoid all those big, bad SUVs.
> The junk yards are full of such cars.
>
If your point is that ---- happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
---- happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
fringe benefits. -Dave
> to avoid all those big, bad SUVs.
> The junk yards are full of such cars.
>
If your point is that ---- happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
---- happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
fringe benefits. -Dave
#392
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
So Dave, you're saying you're an abnormal driver?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
#393
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
So Dave, you're saying you're an abnormal driver?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
#394
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
So Dave, you're saying you're an abnormal driver?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
#395
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
What's the black stuff between elephants toes?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> If your point is that ---- happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
> ---- happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
> upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
> fringe benefits. -Dave
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> If your point is that ---- happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
> ---- happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
> upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
> fringe benefits. -Dave
#396
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
What's the black stuff between elephants toes?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> If your point is that ---- happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
> ---- happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
> upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
> fringe benefits. -Dave
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> If your point is that ---- happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
> ---- happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
> upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
> fringe benefits. -Dave
#397
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
What's the black stuff between elephants toes?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> If your point is that ---- happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
> ---- happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
> upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
> fringe benefits. -Dave
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Dave C." wrote:
>
> If your point is that ---- happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
> ---- happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
> upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
> fringe benefits. -Dave
#398
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Cafe and pollution?? I don't know how they test where you live.....but
here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions? CAFE did nothing
for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to do
with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is
Sean.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> > > 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
>
> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
less
> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
CAFE,
> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
> replaced them.
>
> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
AND
> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
> ymore. -Dave
>
>
here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions? CAFE did nothing
for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to do
with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is
Sean.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> > > 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
>
> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
less
> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
CAFE,
> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
> replaced them.
>
> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
AND
> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
> ymore. -Dave
>
>
#399
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Cafe and pollution?? I don't know how they test where you live.....but
here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions? CAFE did nothing
for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to do
with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is
Sean.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> > > 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
>
> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
less
> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
CAFE,
> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
> replaced them.
>
> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
AND
> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
> ymore. -Dave
>
>
here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions? CAFE did nothing
for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to do
with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is
Sean.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> > > 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
>
> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
less
> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
CAFE,
> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
> replaced them.
>
> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
AND
> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
> ymore. -Dave
>
>
#400
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Cafe and pollution?? I don't know how they test where you live.....but
here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions? CAFE did nothing
for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to do
with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is
Sean.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> > > 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
>
> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
less
> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
CAFE,
> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
> replaced them.
>
> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
AND
> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
> ymore. -Dave
>
>
here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions? CAFE did nothing
for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to do
with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is
Sean.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> > > 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
>
> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
less
> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
CAFE,
> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
> replaced them.
>
> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
AND
> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
> ymore. -Dave
>
>