Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vp5a8h8mqk63df@corp.supernews.com>,
"CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.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
>>
>>
>
>You are entirely correct, except perhaps the cause and effect is slightly
>different, or maybe I have another byproduct of CAFE to add.
>
>CAFE has taken buyers of cars and turned them into buyers of trucks. I
>specifically remember the arguments of the early to mid '70s where families
>that wanted to drive around in Crown Victoria Stationwagons with 427 ci
>engines were frowned upon to the point that Detroit stopped building them.
>It seemed to me at the time that the idea of people like Lloyd was that if
>we could get rid of the Crown Vic stationwagons, then we wouldn't have
>problems associated with these kinds of cars. What people like Lloyd seem ot
>forget is that families need the space ot haul children and groceries, and
>getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
>were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
>point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they were
>no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.
>
>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>not play.
And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
are used.
>And certainly not for hauling families around town, let alone the
>countryside. We didn't want or need to impose the same kinds of standards on
>truck as we developed for cars because the things that make cars safer make
>trucks weaker and more costly. Since truck buyers were working class
>consumers, we didn't want to impose costly standards on them that didn't do
>anything to help the work they were doing.
>
>Obviously, truck buyers today are not the same as they were in the '70s and
>early '80s. But, a large part of this is because of people with an agenda
>like Lloyd has. Since we have managed to push a huge segment of car buyers
>into the truck marketplace by eliminating the cars that people need and
>want, then we have created a consumer that is forced to forgo safety and
>economy for size. There have been significant improvements in engine
>technology, and that 427 ci carburated engine of the '70s has gone from
>giving 7 ~ 10 mpg to being capable of delivering 15 ~ 20 mpg. While still
>short of the 40 ~ 60 mpg that Lloyd thinks is a reasonable figure, it is
>double what we could get in years past.
>
>Another thing that Lloyd will never admit is the concept of Passenger Miles
>Per Gallon. If a car that can carry 2 passengers gets 30 mpg, then we
>realize a PMPG of 60. That is, two people that go 30 miles on the same
>gallon of gass go 60 PMPG. An SUV that gets 15 mpg, and is carrying 7 people
>is getting 105 PMPG. This is a pretty good bargain, if you ask me. If a car
>that gets 30 mpg can carry 4 people, then it will deliver 120 PMPG, but it
>takes two of them to get the seven passengers where they need to go.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
But most SUVs are used for solo commuting (note how few of them can drive in
an HOV lane), or running errands. Buying an 8-mpg behemoth for the one time a
year you may need to carry 8 people, as I said earlier, is like buying a Cray
supercomputer for your desktop just in case you need to decrypt a message from
Andromeda.
"CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.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
>>
>>
>
>You are entirely correct, except perhaps the cause and effect is slightly
>different, or maybe I have another byproduct of CAFE to add.
>
>CAFE has taken buyers of cars and turned them into buyers of trucks. I
>specifically remember the arguments of the early to mid '70s where families
>that wanted to drive around in Crown Victoria Stationwagons with 427 ci
>engines were frowned upon to the point that Detroit stopped building them.
>It seemed to me at the time that the idea of people like Lloyd was that if
>we could get rid of the Crown Vic stationwagons, then we wouldn't have
>problems associated with these kinds of cars. What people like Lloyd seem ot
>forget is that families need the space ot haul children and groceries, and
>getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
>were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
>point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they were
>no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.
>
>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>not play.
And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
are used.
>And certainly not for hauling families around town, let alone the
>countryside. We didn't want or need to impose the same kinds of standards on
>truck as we developed for cars because the things that make cars safer make
>trucks weaker and more costly. Since truck buyers were working class
>consumers, we didn't want to impose costly standards on them that didn't do
>anything to help the work they were doing.
>
>Obviously, truck buyers today are not the same as they were in the '70s and
>early '80s. But, a large part of this is because of people with an agenda
>like Lloyd has. Since we have managed to push a huge segment of car buyers
>into the truck marketplace by eliminating the cars that people need and
>want, then we have created a consumer that is forced to forgo safety and
>economy for size. There have been significant improvements in engine
>technology, and that 427 ci carburated engine of the '70s has gone from
>giving 7 ~ 10 mpg to being capable of delivering 15 ~ 20 mpg. While still
>short of the 40 ~ 60 mpg that Lloyd thinks is a reasonable figure, it is
>double what we could get in years past.
>
>Another thing that Lloyd will never admit is the concept of Passenger Miles
>Per Gallon. If a car that can carry 2 passengers gets 30 mpg, then we
>realize a PMPG of 60. That is, two people that go 30 miles on the same
>gallon of gass go 60 PMPG. An SUV that gets 15 mpg, and is carrying 7 people
>is getting 105 PMPG. This is a pretty good bargain, if you ask me. If a car
>that gets 30 mpg can carry 4 people, then it will deliver 120 PMPG, but it
>takes two of them to get the seven passengers where they need to go.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
But most SUVs are used for solo commuting (note how few of them can drive in
an HOV lane), or running errands. Buying an 8-mpg behemoth for the one time a
year you may need to carry 8 people, as I said earlier, is like buying a Cray
supercomputer for your desktop just in case you need to decrypt a message from
Andromeda.
#1102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vp5a8h8mqk63df@corp.supernews.com>,
"CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.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
>>
>>
>
>You are entirely correct, except perhaps the cause and effect is slightly
>different, or maybe I have another byproduct of CAFE to add.
>
>CAFE has taken buyers of cars and turned them into buyers of trucks. I
>specifically remember the arguments of the early to mid '70s where families
>that wanted to drive around in Crown Victoria Stationwagons with 427 ci
>engines were frowned upon to the point that Detroit stopped building them.
>It seemed to me at the time that the idea of people like Lloyd was that if
>we could get rid of the Crown Vic stationwagons, then we wouldn't have
>problems associated with these kinds of cars. What people like Lloyd seem ot
>forget is that families need the space ot haul children and groceries, and
>getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
>were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
>point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they were
>no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.
>
>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>not play.
And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
are used.
>And certainly not for hauling families around town, let alone the
>countryside. We didn't want or need to impose the same kinds of standards on
>truck as we developed for cars because the things that make cars safer make
>trucks weaker and more costly. Since truck buyers were working class
>consumers, we didn't want to impose costly standards on them that didn't do
>anything to help the work they were doing.
>
>Obviously, truck buyers today are not the same as they were in the '70s and
>early '80s. But, a large part of this is because of people with an agenda
>like Lloyd has. Since we have managed to push a huge segment of car buyers
>into the truck marketplace by eliminating the cars that people need and
>want, then we have created a consumer that is forced to forgo safety and
>economy for size. There have been significant improvements in engine
>technology, and that 427 ci carburated engine of the '70s has gone from
>giving 7 ~ 10 mpg to being capable of delivering 15 ~ 20 mpg. While still
>short of the 40 ~ 60 mpg that Lloyd thinks is a reasonable figure, it is
>double what we could get in years past.
>
>Another thing that Lloyd will never admit is the concept of Passenger Miles
>Per Gallon. If a car that can carry 2 passengers gets 30 mpg, then we
>realize a PMPG of 60. That is, two people that go 30 miles on the same
>gallon of gass go 60 PMPG. An SUV that gets 15 mpg, and is carrying 7 people
>is getting 105 PMPG. This is a pretty good bargain, if you ask me. If a car
>that gets 30 mpg can carry 4 people, then it will deliver 120 PMPG, but it
>takes two of them to get the seven passengers where they need to go.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
But most SUVs are used for solo commuting (note how few of them can drive in
an HOV lane), or running errands. Buying an 8-mpg behemoth for the one time a
year you may need to carry 8 people, as I said earlier, is like buying a Cray
supercomputer for your desktop just in case you need to decrypt a message from
Andromeda.
"CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.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
>>
>>
>
>You are entirely correct, except perhaps the cause and effect is slightly
>different, or maybe I have another byproduct of CAFE to add.
>
>CAFE has taken buyers of cars and turned them into buyers of trucks. I
>specifically remember the arguments of the early to mid '70s where families
>that wanted to drive around in Crown Victoria Stationwagons with 427 ci
>engines were frowned upon to the point that Detroit stopped building them.
>It seemed to me at the time that the idea of people like Lloyd was that if
>we could get rid of the Crown Vic stationwagons, then we wouldn't have
>problems associated with these kinds of cars. What people like Lloyd seem ot
>forget is that families need the space ot haul children and groceries, and
>getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
>were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
>point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they were
>no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.
>
>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>not play.
And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
are used.
>And certainly not for hauling families around town, let alone the
>countryside. We didn't want or need to impose the same kinds of standards on
>truck as we developed for cars because the things that make cars safer make
>trucks weaker and more costly. Since truck buyers were working class
>consumers, we didn't want to impose costly standards on them that didn't do
>anything to help the work they were doing.
>
>Obviously, truck buyers today are not the same as they were in the '70s and
>early '80s. But, a large part of this is because of people with an agenda
>like Lloyd has. Since we have managed to push a huge segment of car buyers
>into the truck marketplace by eliminating the cars that people need and
>want, then we have created a consumer that is forced to forgo safety and
>economy for size. There have been significant improvements in engine
>technology, and that 427 ci carburated engine of the '70s has gone from
>giving 7 ~ 10 mpg to being capable of delivering 15 ~ 20 mpg. While still
>short of the 40 ~ 60 mpg that Lloyd thinks is a reasonable figure, it is
>double what we could get in years past.
>
>Another thing that Lloyd will never admit is the concept of Passenger Miles
>Per Gallon. If a car that can carry 2 passengers gets 30 mpg, then we
>realize a PMPG of 60. That is, two people that go 30 miles on the same
>gallon of gass go 60 PMPG. An SUV that gets 15 mpg, and is carrying 7 people
>is getting 105 PMPG. This is a pretty good bargain, if you ask me. If a car
>that gets 30 mpg can carry 4 people, then it will deliver 120 PMPG, but it
>takes two of them to get the seven passengers where they need to go.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
But most SUVs are used for solo commuting (note how few of them can drive in
an HOV lane), or running errands. Buying an 8-mpg behemoth for the one time a
year you may need to carry 8 people, as I said earlier, is like buying a Cray
supercomputer for your desktop just in case you need to decrypt a message from
Andromeda.
#1103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bmuf8j02h0d@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>
>
Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>
>
Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
#1104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bmuf8j02h0d@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>
>
Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>
>
Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
#1105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bmuf8j02h0d@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>
>
Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>
>
Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
#1106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92DF96.423518D7@lisahorton.net>,
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.
>
Of course, right-wing radicals like Putney and bin Laden just have to spew
hatred.
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.
>
Of course, right-wing radicals like Putney and bin Laden just have to spew
hatred.
#1107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92DF96.423518D7@lisahorton.net>,
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.
>
Of course, right-wing radicals like Putney and bin Laden just have to spew
hatred.
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.
>
Of course, right-wing radicals like Putney and bin Laden just have to spew
hatred.
#1108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92DF96.423518D7@lisahorton.net>,
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.
>
Of course, right-wing radicals like Putney and bin Laden just have to spew
hatred.
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.
>
Of course, right-wing radicals like Putney and bin Laden just have to spew
hatred.
#1109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> Certainly doesn't sent any more of a message than the Camry commercial
> with the Camry skidding and spinning along on the freeway ... amazingly
> free of any other traffic. All car commercials are full of hype. Any
> consumer who reads stuff into the commercials isn't terribly bright.
>
AND THAT'S WHY ADVERTISING WORKS!!!! (unfortunately) -Dave
> Certainly doesn't sent any more of a message than the Camry commercial
> with the Camry skidding and spinning along on the freeway ... amazingly
> free of any other traffic. All car commercials are full of hype. Any
> consumer who reads stuff into the commercials isn't terribly bright.
>
AND THAT'S WHY ADVERTISING WORKS!!!! (unfortunately) -Dave
#1110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> Certainly doesn't sent any more of a message than the Camry commercial
> with the Camry skidding and spinning along on the freeway ... amazingly
> free of any other traffic. All car commercials are full of hype. Any
> consumer who reads stuff into the commercials isn't terribly bright.
>
AND THAT'S WHY ADVERTISING WORKS!!!! (unfortunately) -Dave
> Certainly doesn't sent any more of a message than the Camry commercial
> with the Camry skidding and spinning along on the freeway ... amazingly
> free of any other traffic. All car commercials are full of hype. Any
> consumer who reads stuff into the commercials isn't terribly bright.
>
AND THAT'S WHY ADVERTISING WORKS!!!! (unfortunately) -Dave