Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-20-2003, 11:58 AM
#1161
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>were
>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>
>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>do, too.
Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
> They are now SUV owners. -Dave
>
>
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>were
>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>
>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>do, too.
Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
> They are now SUV owners. -Dave
>
>
10-20-2003, 11:58 AM
#1162
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>were
>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>
>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>do, too.
Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
> They are now SUV owners. -Dave
>
>
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>were
>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>
>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>do, too.
Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
> They are now SUV owners. -Dave
>
>
10-20-2003, 11:59 AM
#1163
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>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 what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
>Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>people should live there.
>
So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>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 what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
>Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>people should live there.
>
So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
10-20-2003, 11:59 AM
#1164
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>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 what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
>Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>people should live there.
>
So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>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 what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
>Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>people should live there.
>
So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
10-20-2003, 11:59 AM
#1165
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>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 what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
>Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>people should live there.
>
So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>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 what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
>Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>people should live there.
>
So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
10-20-2003, 11:59 AM
#1166
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <msWkb.838268$uu5.148319@sccrnsc04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <r5c8pvovm67vpkaclk2ak2our0fn46g4cb@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>>
>>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
ignore
>>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
were
>>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>
>> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
>> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
>> People like you tend to think that way.
>> You're wrong, though.
>
>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
>
>What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
>people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
>in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
>The big three had to react, government or not.
Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>
>Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
>We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
>overseas manufacturers.
>
>But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
>some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
>of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <r5c8pvovm67vpkaclk2ak2our0fn46g4cb@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>>
>>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
ignore
>>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
were
>>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>
>> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
>> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
>> People like you tend to think that way.
>> You're wrong, though.
>
>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
>
>What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
>people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
>in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
>The big three had to react, government or not.
Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>
>Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
>We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
>overseas manufacturers.
>
>But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
>some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
>of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
>
10-20-2003, 11:59 AM
#1167
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <msWkb.838268$uu5.148319@sccrnsc04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <r5c8pvovm67vpkaclk2ak2our0fn46g4cb@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>>
>>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
ignore
>>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
were
>>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>
>> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
>> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
>> People like you tend to think that way.
>> You're wrong, though.
>
>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
>
>What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
>people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
>in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
>The big three had to react, government or not.
Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>
>Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
>We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
>overseas manufacturers.
>
>But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
>some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
>of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <r5c8pvovm67vpkaclk2ak2our0fn46g4cb@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>>
>>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
ignore
>>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
were
>>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>
>> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
>> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
>> People like you tend to think that way.
>> You're wrong, though.
>
>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
>
>What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
>people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
>in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
>The big three had to react, government or not.
Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>
>Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
>We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
>overseas manufacturers.
>
>But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
>some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
>of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
>
10-20-2003, 11:59 AM
#1168
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <msWkb.838268$uu5.148319@sccrnsc04>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <r5c8pvovm67vpkaclk2ak2our0fn46g4cb@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>>
>>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
ignore
>>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
were
>>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>
>> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
>> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
>> People like you tend to think that way.
>> You're wrong, though.
>
>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
>
>What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
>people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
>in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
>The big three had to react, government or not.
Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>
>Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
>We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
>overseas manufacturers.
>
>But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
>some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
>of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <r5c8pvovm67vpkaclk2ak2our0fn46g4cb@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>>
>>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
ignore
>>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
were
>>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>
>> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
>> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
>> People like you tend to think that way.
>> You're wrong, though.
>
>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
>
>What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
>people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
>in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
>The big three had to react, government or not.
Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>
>Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
>We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
>overseas manufacturers.
>
>But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
>some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
>of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
>
10-20-2003, 12:19 PM
#1169
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) writes:
> >
> And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.
Torsional rigidity has very little to do with crush, of course.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair
> >
> And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.
Torsional rigidity has very little to do with crush, of course.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair
10-20-2003, 12:19 PM
#1170
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) writes:
> >
> And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.
Torsional rigidity has very little to do with crush, of course.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair
> >
> And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.
Torsional rigidity has very little to do with crush, of course.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair