Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> > 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!
> :-)
Reminds me of a news clipping that was put up at my church. It cited
the low accident rate of church services and that what injuries that did
happen were minor. the running joke was that if you wanted to stay safe and
healthy, go to church.
Mike
> > 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!
> :-)
Reminds me of a news clipping that was put up at my church. It cited
the low accident rate of church services and that what injuries that did
happen were minor. the running joke was that if you wanted to stay safe and
healthy, go to church.
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> > 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!
> :-)
Reminds me of a news clipping that was put up at my church. It cited
the low accident rate of church services and that what injuries that did
happen were minor. the running joke was that if you wanted to stay safe and
healthy, go to church.
Mike
> > 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!
> :-)
Reminds me of a news clipping that was put up at my church. It cited
the low accident rate of church services and that what injuries that did
happen were minor. the running joke was that if you wanted to stay safe and
healthy, go to church.
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> > 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!
> :-)
Reminds me of a news clipping that was put up at my church. It cited
the low accident rate of church services and that what injuries that did
happen were minor. the running joke was that if you wanted to stay safe and
healthy, go to church.
Mike
> > 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!
> :-)
Reminds me of a news clipping that was put up at my church. It cited
the low accident rate of church services and that what injuries that did
happen were minor. the running joke was that if you wanted to stay safe and
healthy, go to church.
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >just bearly sells at all.
> Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
> H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
> Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that Expeditions
get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73 gears and
5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997 averaged
15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000 miles. CU
averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what they did to
claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5 days a
week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16 pulling a
24 foot sailboat down I-95.
Ed
> >Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >just bearly sells at all.
> Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
> H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
> Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that Expeditions
get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73 gears and
5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997 averaged
15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000 miles. CU
averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what they did to
claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5 days a
week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16 pulling a
24 foot sailboat down I-95.
Ed
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >just bearly sells at all.
> Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
> H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
> Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that Expeditions
get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73 gears and
5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997 averaged
15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000 miles. CU
averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what they did to
claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5 days a
week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16 pulling a
24 foot sailboat down I-95.
Ed
> >Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >just bearly sells at all.
> Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
> H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
> Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that Expeditions
get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73 gears and
5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997 averaged
15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000 miles. CU
averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what they did to
claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5 days a
week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16 pulling a
24 foot sailboat down I-95.
Ed
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >just bearly sells at all.
> Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
> H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
> Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that Expeditions
get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73 gears and
5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997 averaged
15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000 miles. CU
averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what they did to
claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5 days a
week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16 pulling a
24 foot sailboat down I-95.
Ed
> >Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >just bearly sells at all.
> Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
> H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
> Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that Expeditions
get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73 gears and
5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997 averaged
15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000 miles. CU
averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what they did to
claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5 days a
week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16 pulling a
24 foot sailboat down I-95.
Ed
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>
>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>blinders.
Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
the truthfulness of my statement.
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>
>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>blinders.
Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
the truthfulness of my statement.
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>
>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>blinders.
Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
the truthfulness of my statement.
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>
>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>blinders.
Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
the truthfulness of my statement.
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>
>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>blinders.
Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
the truthfulness of my statement.
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>
>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>blinders.
Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
the truthfulness of my statement.
pete fagerlin
::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>
>
>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
People like you tend to think that way.
You're wrong, though.
wrote:
>In article <1Vlkb.814725$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.
