Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-20-2003, 12:49 AM
#1021
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.
10-20-2003, 12:52 AM
#1022
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:18:02 -0500, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
> >> directly
> >> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
> >
> >I'm not aware of any that did.
>
> I had a '68 Camaro 327/350 that was built to CARB specs.
> It had an EGR setup.
I knew they had really early requirements for PCV setups, but I didn't know
about EGR setups that early on. I guess all bets are off when it comes to
California.
--Aardwolf.
10-20-2003, 12:52 AM
#1023
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:18:02 -0500, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
> >> directly
> >> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
> >
> >I'm not aware of any that did.
>
> I had a '68 Camaro 327/350 that was built to CARB specs.
> It had an EGR setup.
I knew they had really early requirements for PCV setups, but I didn't know
about EGR setups that early on. I guess all bets are off when it comes to
California.
--Aardwolf.
10-20-2003, 12:52 AM
#1024
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:18:02 -0500, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
> >> directly
> >> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
> >
> >I'm not aware of any that did.
>
> I had a '68 Camaro 327/350 that was built to CARB specs.
> It had an EGR setup.
I knew they had really early requirements for PCV setups, but I didn't know
about EGR setups that early on. I guess all bets are off when it comes to
California.
--Aardwolf.
10-20-2003, 12:55 AM
#1025
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:30:01 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote:
>At least around here, the large SUV is THE vehicle of choice for the bad
>drivers. Unfortunate for those who are not bad drivers but do have
>SUV's.
>
>Lisa
I don't know where "here" is for you, but here in the Phoenix area,
the worst drivers are the wannabe gangsters with the small, "sporty"
cars with the loud, raspy exhaust (who have, evidently, never heard
the exhaust of a decent V-8 :-)), 140dB stereo going full blast with
rap playing on it, who think they are God's gift to designers of such
cars, and think they have a divine mandate to drive as fast as they
can, usually after drinking a 40.
Despite their relatively small numbers, they cause an inordinately
large number of crashes, with the attendant injuries and fatalities.
Next in line are those who substitute the compact import trucks for
the cars.
Yes, I see SUVs being driven stupidly.
However, I do not think that this is a characteristic of the vehicle,
unlike a lot of people who seme to like to impart humanity to a
machine.
wrote:
>At least around here, the large SUV is THE vehicle of choice for the bad
>drivers. Unfortunate for those who are not bad drivers but do have
>SUV's.
>
>Lisa
I don't know where "here" is for you, but here in the Phoenix area,
the worst drivers are the wannabe gangsters with the small, "sporty"
cars with the loud, raspy exhaust (who have, evidently, never heard
the exhaust of a decent V-8 :-)), 140dB stereo going full blast with
rap playing on it, who think they are God's gift to designers of such
cars, and think they have a divine mandate to drive as fast as they
can, usually after drinking a 40.
Despite their relatively small numbers, they cause an inordinately
large number of crashes, with the attendant injuries and fatalities.
Next in line are those who substitute the compact import trucks for
the cars.
Yes, I see SUVs being driven stupidly.
However, I do not think that this is a characteristic of the vehicle,
unlike a lot of people who seme to like to impart humanity to a
machine.
10-20-2003, 12:55 AM
#1026
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:30:01 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote:
>At least around here, the large SUV is THE vehicle of choice for the bad
>drivers. Unfortunate for those who are not bad drivers but do have
>SUV's.
>
>Lisa
I don't know where "here" is for you, but here in the Phoenix area,
the worst drivers are the wannabe gangsters with the small, "sporty"
cars with the loud, raspy exhaust (who have, evidently, never heard
the exhaust of a decent V-8 :-)), 140dB stereo going full blast with
rap playing on it, who think they are God's gift to designers of such
cars, and think they have a divine mandate to drive as fast as they
can, usually after drinking a 40.
Despite their relatively small numbers, they cause an inordinately
large number of crashes, with the attendant injuries and fatalities.
Next in line are those who substitute the compact import trucks for
the cars.
Yes, I see SUVs being driven stupidly.
However, I do not think that this is a characteristic of the vehicle,
unlike a lot of people who seme to like to impart humanity to a
machine.
wrote:
>At least around here, the large SUV is THE vehicle of choice for the bad
>drivers. Unfortunate for those who are not bad drivers but do have
>SUV's.
>
>Lisa
I don't know where "here" is for you, but here in the Phoenix area,
the worst drivers are the wannabe gangsters with the small, "sporty"
cars with the loud, raspy exhaust (who have, evidently, never heard
the exhaust of a decent V-8 :-)), 140dB stereo going full blast with
rap playing on it, who think they are God's gift to designers of such
cars, and think they have a divine mandate to drive as fast as they
can, usually after drinking a 40.
Despite their relatively small numbers, they cause an inordinately
large number of crashes, with the attendant injuries and fatalities.
Next in line are those who substitute the compact import trucks for
the cars.
Yes, I see SUVs being driven stupidly.
However, I do not think that this is a characteristic of the vehicle,
unlike a lot of people who seme to like to impart humanity to a
machine.
10-20-2003, 12:55 AM
#1027
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:30:01 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote:
>At least around here, the large SUV is THE vehicle of choice for the bad
>drivers. Unfortunate for those who are not bad drivers but do have
>SUV's.
>
>Lisa
I don't know where "here" is for you, but here in the Phoenix area,
the worst drivers are the wannabe gangsters with the small, "sporty"
cars with the loud, raspy exhaust (who have, evidently, never heard
the exhaust of a decent V-8 :-)), 140dB stereo going full blast with
rap playing on it, who think they are God's gift to designers of such
cars, and think they have a divine mandate to drive as fast as they
can, usually after drinking a 40.
Despite their relatively small numbers, they cause an inordinately
large number of crashes, with the attendant injuries and fatalities.
Next in line are those who substitute the compact import trucks for
the cars.
Yes, I see SUVs being driven stupidly.
However, I do not think that this is a characteristic of the vehicle,
unlike a lot of people who seme to like to impart humanity to a
machine.
wrote:
>At least around here, the large SUV is THE vehicle of choice for the bad
>drivers. Unfortunate for those who are not bad drivers but do have
>SUV's.
>
>Lisa
I don't know where "here" is for you, but here in the Phoenix area,
the worst drivers are the wannabe gangsters with the small, "sporty"
cars with the loud, raspy exhaust (who have, evidently, never heard
the exhaust of a decent V-8 :-)), 140dB stereo going full blast with
rap playing on it, who think they are God's gift to designers of such
cars, and think they have a divine mandate to drive as fast as they
can, usually after drinking a 40.
Despite their relatively small numbers, they cause an inordinately
large number of crashes, with the attendant injuries and fatalities.
Next in line are those who substitute the compact import trucks for
the cars.
Yes, I see SUVs being driven stupidly.
However, I do not think that this is a characteristic of the vehicle,
unlike a lot of people who seme to like to impart humanity to a
machine.
10-20-2003, 12:59 AM
#1028
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:16:18 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <ruDkb.227$4m3.2312319@news-text.cableinet.net>,
>jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
>> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
>> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
>> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
>> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
>> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
>> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
>>
>
>It seems the solution to a long life is not only not driving much, but
>not getting out of bed :)
Quite to the contrary:
More people die in bed than anywhere else!
Hospitals have the highest rate of deaths per occupancy.
Being in a bed in a hospital, well, forget it!
:-)
<Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <ruDkb.227$4m3.2312319@news-text.cableinet.net>,
>jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
>> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
>> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
>> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
>> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
>> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
>> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
>>
>
>It seems the solution to a long life is not only not driving much, but
>not getting out of bed :)
Quite to the contrary:
More people die in bed than anywhere else!
Hospitals have the highest rate of deaths per occupancy.
Being in a bed in a hospital, well, forget it!
:-)
10-20-2003, 12:59 AM
#1029
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:16:18 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <ruDkb.227$4m3.2312319@news-text.cableinet.net>,
>jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
>> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
>> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
>> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
>> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
>> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
>> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
>>
>
>It seems the solution to a long life is not only not driving much, but
>not getting out of bed :)
Quite to the contrary:
More people die in bed than anywhere else!
Hospitals have the highest rate of deaths per occupancy.
Being in a bed in a hospital, well, forget it!
:-)
<Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <ruDkb.227$4m3.2312319@news-text.cableinet.net>,
>jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
>> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
>> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
>> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
>> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
>> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
>> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
>>
>
>It seems the solution to a long life is not only not driving much, but
>not getting out of bed :)
Quite to the contrary:
More people die in bed than anywhere else!
Hospitals have the highest rate of deaths per occupancy.
Being in a bed in a hospital, well, forget it!
:-)
10-20-2003, 12:59 AM
#1030
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:16:18 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <ruDkb.227$4m3.2312319@news-text.cableinet.net>,
>jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
>> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
>> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
>> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
>> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
>> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
>> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
>>
>
>It seems the solution to a long life is not only not driving much, but
>not getting out of bed :)
Quite to the contrary:
More people die in bed than anywhere else!
Hospitals have the highest rate of deaths per occupancy.
Being in a bed in a hospital, well, forget it!
:-)
<Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <ruDkb.227$4m3.2312319@news-text.cableinet.net>,
>jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
>> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
>> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
>> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
>> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
>> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
>> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.
>>
>
>It seems the solution to a long life is not only not driving much, but
>not getting out of bed :)
Quite to the contrary:
More people die in bed than anywhere else!
Hospitals have the highest rate of deaths per occupancy.
Being in a bed in a hospital, well, forget it!
:-)
