Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1011
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:51:33 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
<m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
>lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
>defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
>engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
>convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
>or Korea, etc.
>
>Matt
As far as the war in Europe is concerned, we declared war on Germany
*after* Germany declared war on us.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/us_war.htm
<m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
>lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
>defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
>engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
>convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
>or Korea, etc.
>
>Matt
As far as the war in Europe is concerned, we declared war on Germany
*after* Germany declared war on us.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/us_war.htm
#1012
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:51:33 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
<m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
>lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
>defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
>engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
>convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
>or Korea, etc.
>
>Matt
As far as the war in Europe is concerned, we declared war on Germany
*after* Germany declared war on us.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/us_war.htm
<m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
>lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
>defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
>engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
>convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
>or Korea, etc.
>
>Matt
As far as the war in Europe is concerned, we declared war on Germany
*after* Germany declared war on us.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/us_war.htm
#1013
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:46:11 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>The full sized trucks and SUVs that are three-quarter ton or smaller all
>have city mileage from 10-15 and highway mileage from 15-19.
They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>The one-tons
>(trucks only, I know of now SUVs with that title) and some of the "heavy
>duty" 3/4 ton ones are of sufficient GVWR that they do not get listed with
>the EPA as passenger vehicles and are worse for mileage, but they aren't as
>easy to look up for all of them in one place.
>The full sized trucks and SUVs that are three-quarter ton or smaller all
>have city mileage from 10-15 and highway mileage from 15-19.
They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>The one-tons
>(trucks only, I know of now SUVs with that title) and some of the "heavy
>duty" 3/4 ton ones are of sufficient GVWR that they do not get listed with
>the EPA as passenger vehicles and are worse for mileage, but they aren't as
>easy to look up for all of them in one place.
#1014
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:46:11 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>The full sized trucks and SUVs that are three-quarter ton or smaller all
>have city mileage from 10-15 and highway mileage from 15-19.
They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>The one-tons
>(trucks only, I know of now SUVs with that title) and some of the "heavy
>duty" 3/4 ton ones are of sufficient GVWR that they do not get listed with
>the EPA as passenger vehicles and are worse for mileage, but they aren't as
>easy to look up for all of them in one place.
>The full sized trucks and SUVs that are three-quarter ton or smaller all
>have city mileage from 10-15 and highway mileage from 15-19.
They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>The one-tons
>(trucks only, I know of now SUVs with that title) and some of the "heavy
>duty" 3/4 ton ones are of sufficient GVWR that they do not get listed with
>the EPA as passenger vehicles and are worse for mileage, but they aren't as
>easy to look up for all of them in one place.
#1015
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:46:11 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>The full sized trucks and SUVs that are three-quarter ton or smaller all
>have city mileage from 10-15 and highway mileage from 15-19.
They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>The one-tons
>(trucks only, I know of now SUVs with that title) and some of the "heavy
>duty" 3/4 ton ones are of sufficient GVWR that they do not get listed with
>the EPA as passenger vehicles and are worse for mileage, but they aren't as
>easy to look up for all of them in one place.
>The full sized trucks and SUVs that are three-quarter ton or smaller all
>have city mileage from 10-15 and highway mileage from 15-19.
They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>The one-tons
>(trucks only, I know of now SUVs with that title) and some of the "heavy
>duty" 3/4 ton ones are of sufficient GVWR that they do not get listed with
>the EPA as passenger vehicles and are worse for mileage, but they aren't as
>easy to look up for all of them in one place.
#1016
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:31:17 -0400, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
>> keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
>
>Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
>reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
>in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
>better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
>restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
>least the innocent children would not be punished."
I agree fully.
"Given my druthers" doesn't mean that I *expect* it, just that I
*want* it. :-)
wrote:
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
>> keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
>
>Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
>reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
>in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
>better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
>restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
>least the innocent children would not be punished."
I agree fully.
"Given my druthers" doesn't mean that I *expect* it, just that I
*want* it. :-)
#1017
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:31:17 -0400, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
>> keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
>
>Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
>reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
>in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
>better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
>restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
>least the innocent children would not be punished."
I agree fully.
"Given my druthers" doesn't mean that I *expect* it, just that I
*want* it. :-)
wrote:
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
>> keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
>
>Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
>reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
>in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
>better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
>restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
>least the innocent children would not be punished."
I agree fully.
"Given my druthers" doesn't mean that I *expect* it, just that I
*want* it. :-)
#1018
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:31:17 -0400, Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net>
wrote:
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
>> keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
>
>Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
>reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
>in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
>better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
>restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
>least the innocent children would not be punished."
I agree fully.
"Given my druthers" doesn't mean that I *expect* it, just that I
*want* it. :-)
wrote:
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>> Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
>> keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
>
>Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
>reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
>in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
>better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
>restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
>least the innocent children would not be punished."
I agree fully.
"Given my druthers" doesn't mean that I *expect* it, just that I
*want* it. :-)
#1019
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:01:42 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> Dave Milne wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
>>
>> Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
>> that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
>> driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
>> children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
>> continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
>> killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
>> punished."
>>
>
>Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
>tougher licensing requirements.
>
>I think that a lot of us know that the real problem isn't so much the
>SUV's themselves, but SOME of the people who drive them. The people who
>don't understand, or don't care, that their vehicle does not have the
>turning or stopping ability of a road car. The people who take 2 spaces
>in a crowded parking lot because they can't operate their vehicle well
>enough to fit in 1 space. The not too good driver, normally (and
>wisely) timid who suddenly becomes super confident. Oh, I could go on
>an on.
>
>Lisa
But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
SUVs.
wrote:
>
>
>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> Dave Milne wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
>>
>> Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
>> that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
>> driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
>> children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
>> continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
>> killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
>> punished."
>>
>
>Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
>tougher licensing requirements.
>
>I think that a lot of us know that the real problem isn't so much the
>SUV's themselves, but SOME of the people who drive them. The people who
>don't understand, or don't care, that their vehicle does not have the
>turning or stopping ability of a road car. The people who take 2 spaces
>in a crowded parking lot because they can't operate their vehicle well
>enough to fit in 1 space. The not too good driver, normally (and
>wisely) timid who suddenly becomes super confident. Oh, I could go on
>an on.
>
>Lisa
But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
SUVs.
#1020
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:01:42 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> Dave Milne wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
>>
>> Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
>> that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
>> driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
>> children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
>> continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
>> killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
>> punished."
>>
>
>Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
>tougher licensing requirements.
>
>I think that a lot of us know that the real problem isn't so much the
>SUV's themselves, but SOME of the people who drive them. The people who
>don't understand, or don't care, that their vehicle does not have the
>turning or stopping ability of a road car. The people who take 2 spaces
>in a crowded parking lot because they can't operate their vehicle well
>enough to fit in 1 space. The not too good driver, normally (and
>wisely) timid who suddenly becomes super confident. Oh, I could go on
>an on.
>
>Lisa
But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
SUVs.
wrote:
>
>
>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> Dave Milne wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
>>
>> Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
>> that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
>> driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
>> children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
>> continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
>> killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
>> punished."
>>
>
>Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
>tougher licensing requirements.
>
>I think that a lot of us know that the real problem isn't so much the
>SUV's themselves, but SOME of the people who drive them. The people who
>don't understand, or don't care, that their vehicle does not have the
>turning or stopping ability of a road car. The people who take 2 spaces
>in a crowded parking lot because they can't operate their vehicle well
>enough to fit in 1 space. The not too good driver, normally (and
>wisely) timid who suddenly becomes super confident. Oh, I could go on
>an on.
>
>Lisa
But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
SUVs.