Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1141
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <en93pv81husu6kok24jpd6f9eqmnsavnk0@4ax.com>,
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
>>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>I know of no enviro-wackos that like it.
Not anymore, because they want it raised to 40 or more.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
>>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>I know of no enviro-wackos that like it.
Not anymore, because they want it raised to 40 or more.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#1142
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbbdcbbbd459b8989e0b@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#1143
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbbdcbbbd459b8989e0b@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#1144
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbbdcbbbd459b8989e0b@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#1145
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
Whose definition? The Sierra Club's?
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
Whose definition? The Sierra Club's?
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
#1146
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
Whose definition? The Sierra Club's?
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
Whose definition? The Sierra Club's?
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
#1147
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
Whose definition? The Sierra Club's?
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
Whose definition? The Sierra Club's?
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
#1148
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33@qwest.net says...
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
>> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
>> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
>> >> the same thing others do.
>> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
>> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
>> >> ignores reality.
>> >
>> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
>> >with driving a car.
>>
>> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
>> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
>> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
>> that driver uses wheile on the road.
>> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>>
>What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
>it. the more you use the more you are paying.
But damage to the roads is more a function of weight. A loaded 18 wheeler
does much more damage than the sum of small cars that add up to the same
weight. How do you take that into account as well?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33@qwest.net says...
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
>> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
>> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
>> >> the same thing others do.
>> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
>> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
>> >> ignores reality.
>> >
>> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
>> >with driving a car.
>>
>> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
>> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
>> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
>> that driver uses wheile on the road.
>> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>>
>What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
>it. the more you use the more you are paying.
But damage to the roads is more a function of weight. A loaded 18 wheeler
does much more damage than the sum of small cars that add up to the same
weight. How do you take that into account as well?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1149
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33@qwest.net says...
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
>> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
>> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
>> >> the same thing others do.
>> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
>> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
>> >> ignores reality.
>> >
>> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
>> >with driving a car.
>>
>> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
>> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
>> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
>> that driver uses wheile on the road.
>> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>>
>What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
>it. the more you use the more you are paying.
But damage to the roads is more a function of weight. A loaded 18 wheeler
does much more damage than the sum of small cars that add up to the same
weight. How do you take that into account as well?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33@qwest.net says...
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
>> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
>> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
>> >> the same thing others do.
>> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
>> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
>> >> ignores reality.
>> >
>> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
>> >with driving a car.
>>
>> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
>> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
>> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
>> that driver uses wheile on the road.
>> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>>
>What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
>it. the more you use the more you are paying.
But damage to the roads is more a function of weight. A loaded 18 wheeler
does much more damage than the sum of small cars that add up to the same
weight. How do you take that into account as well?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1150
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33@qwest.net says...
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
>> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
>> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
>> >> the same thing others do.
>> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
>> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
>> >> ignores reality.
>> >
>> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
>> >with driving a car.
>>
>> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
>> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
>> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
>> that driver uses wheile on the road.
>> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>>
>What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
>it. the more you use the more you are paying.
But damage to the roads is more a function of weight. A loaded 18 wheeler
does much more damage than the sum of small cars that add up to the same
weight. How do you take that into account as well?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33@qwest.net says...
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
>> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
>> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
>> >> the same thing others do.
>> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
>> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
>> >> ignores reality.
>> >
>> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
>> >with driving a car.
>>
>> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
>> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
>> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
>> that driver uses wheile on the road.
>> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>>
>What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
>it. the more you use the more you are paying.
But damage to the roads is more a function of weight. A loaded 18 wheeler
does much more damage than the sum of small cars that add up to the same
weight. How do you take that into account as well?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"