Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1221
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lisa Horton wrote:
> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
> Lisa
Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
Prove me wrong.
Ed
#1222
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lisa Horton wrote:
> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
> Lisa
Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
Prove me wrong.
Ed
#1223
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F943ED2.9CD08157@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
>> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>
>> Lisa
>
> Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
> unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
> this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
> into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
> this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
> Prove me wrong.
Rutinely I have drivers of light trucks try to force their way in with
their bigger vehicles. Happened as recently as saturday night to me when
an SUV driver decided that my smaller vehicle was who he was going to
shove aside to cut into the queue at the toll booth. He could have tried
this move on the two *BIGGER* SUVs in front of me and been a couple
slots further up but didn't. I made it so he'd have to hit me to take my
spot, so he found someone else behind me to intimidate.
I see people doing what you describe and cutting off other drivers
equally between passenger cars and light trucks.
>
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
>> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>
>> Lisa
>
> Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
> unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
> this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
> into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
> this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
> Prove me wrong.
Rutinely I have drivers of light trucks try to force their way in with
their bigger vehicles. Happened as recently as saturday night to me when
an SUV driver decided that my smaller vehicle was who he was going to
shove aside to cut into the queue at the toll booth. He could have tried
this move on the two *BIGGER* SUVs in front of me and been a couple
slots further up but didn't. I made it so he'd have to hit me to take my
spot, so he found someone else behind me to intimidate.
I see people doing what you describe and cutting off other drivers
equally between passenger cars and light trucks.
#1224
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F943ED2.9CD08157@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
>> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>
>> Lisa
>
> Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
> unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
> this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
> into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
> this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
> Prove me wrong.
Rutinely I have drivers of light trucks try to force their way in with
their bigger vehicles. Happened as recently as saturday night to me when
an SUV driver decided that my smaller vehicle was who he was going to
shove aside to cut into the queue at the toll booth. He could have tried
this move on the two *BIGGER* SUVs in front of me and been a couple
slots further up but didn't. I made it so he'd have to hit me to take my
spot, so he found someone else behind me to intimidate.
I see people doing what you describe and cutting off other drivers
equally between passenger cars and light trucks.
>
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
>> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>
>> Lisa
>
> Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
> unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
> this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
> into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
> this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
> Prove me wrong.
Rutinely I have drivers of light trucks try to force their way in with
their bigger vehicles. Happened as recently as saturday night to me when
an SUV driver decided that my smaller vehicle was who he was going to
shove aside to cut into the queue at the toll booth. He could have tried
this move on the two *BIGGER* SUVs in front of me and been a couple
slots further up but didn't. I made it so he'd have to hit me to take my
spot, so he found someone else behind me to intimidate.
I see people doing what you describe and cutting off other drivers
equally between passenger cars and light trucks.
#1225
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F943ED2.9CD08157@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
>> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>
>> Lisa
>
> Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
> unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
> this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
> into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
> this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
> Prove me wrong.
Rutinely I have drivers of light trucks try to force their way in with
their bigger vehicles. Happened as recently as saturday night to me when
an SUV driver decided that my smaller vehicle was who he was going to
shove aside to cut into the queue at the toll booth. He could have tried
this move on the two *BIGGER* SUVs in front of me and been a couple
slots further up but didn't. I made it so he'd have to hit me to take my
spot, so he found someone else behind me to intimidate.
I see people doing what you describe and cutting off other drivers
equally between passenger cars and light trucks.
>
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
>> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>
>> Lisa
>
> Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
> unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
> this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
> into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
> this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
> Prove me wrong.
Rutinely I have drivers of light trucks try to force their way in with
their bigger vehicles. Happened as recently as saturday night to me when
an SUV driver decided that my smaller vehicle was who he was going to
shove aside to cut into the queue at the toll booth. He could have tried
this move on the two *BIGGER* SUVs in front of me and been a couple
slots further up but didn't. I made it so he'd have to hit me to take my
spot, so he found someone else behind me to intimidate.
I see people doing what you describe and cutting off other drivers
equally between passenger cars and light trucks.
#1226
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn1er1$d15$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <msWkb.838268$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$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
> ignore
>>>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
> were
>>>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
>>> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
>>> People like you tend to think that way.
>>> You're wrong, though.
>>
>>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
>>What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
>>people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
>>in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
>>The big three had to react, government or not.
> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
Read what I wrote again Parker. Keep in mind Pintos and Vegas were
introduced in 1971 *BEFORE* the crunches.
>>Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
>>We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
>>overseas manufacturers.
>>But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
>>some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
>>of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
> In article <msWkb.838268$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$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
> ignore
>>>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
> were
>>>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
>>> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
>>> People like you tend to think that way.
>>> You're wrong, though.
>>
>>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
>>What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
>>people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
>>in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
>>The big three had to react, government or not.
> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
Read what I wrote again Parker. Keep in mind Pintos and Vegas were
introduced in 1971 *BEFORE* the crunches.
>>Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
>>We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
>>overseas manufacturers.
>>But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
>>some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
>>of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
#1227
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn1er1$d15$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <msWkb.838268$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$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
> ignore
>>>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
> were
>>>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
>>> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
>>> People like you tend to think that way.
>>> You're wrong, though.
>>
>>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
>>What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
>>people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
>>in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
>>The big three had to react, government or not.
> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
Read what I wrote again Parker. Keep in mind Pintos and Vegas were
introduced in 1971 *BEFORE* the crunches.
>>Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
>>We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
>>overseas manufacturers.
>>But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
>>some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
>>of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
> In article <msWkb.838268$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$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
> ignore
>>>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
> were
>>>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
>>> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
>>> People like you tend to think that way.
>>> You're wrong, though.
>>
>>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
>>What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
>>people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
>>in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
>>The big three had to react, government or not.
> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
Read what I wrote again Parker. Keep in mind Pintos and Vegas were
introduced in 1971 *BEFORE* the crunches.
>>Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
>>We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
>>overseas manufacturers.
>>But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
>>some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
>>of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
#1228
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn1er1$d15$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <msWkb.838268$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$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
> ignore
>>>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
> were
>>>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>
>>> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
>>> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
>>> People like you tend to think that way.
>>> You're wrong, though.
>>
>>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
>>What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
>>people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
>>in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
>>The big three had to react, government or not.
> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
Read what I wrote again Parker. Keep in mind Pintos and Vegas were
introduced in 1971 *BEFORE* the crunches.
>>Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
>>We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
>>overseas manufacturers.
>>But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
>>some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
>>of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
> In article <msWkb.838268$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.
Read what I wrote again Parker. Keep in mind Pintos and Vegas were
introduced in 1971 *BEFORE* the crunches.
>>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.
#1229
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> Maybe.
>
> I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
> all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
>
I know what you're implying, but my driving style in trucks and SUVs SHOULD
maximize gas mileage. In contrast, my driving style in cars SHOULD minimize
gas mileage. Since the exact opposite is true, I'd have to conclude that
trucks (and truck-based SUVs) have somewhat optimistic EPA estimates and
cars have somewhat pessimistic EPA estimates. -Dave
> Maybe.
>
> I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
> all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
>
I know what you're implying, but my driving style in trucks and SUVs SHOULD
maximize gas mileage. In contrast, my driving style in cars SHOULD minimize
gas mileage. Since the exact opposite is true, I'd have to conclude that
trucks (and truck-based SUVs) have somewhat optimistic EPA estimates and
cars have somewhat pessimistic EPA estimates. -Dave
#1230
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> Maybe.
>
> I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
> all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
>
I know what you're implying, but my driving style in trucks and SUVs SHOULD
maximize gas mileage. In contrast, my driving style in cars SHOULD minimize
gas mileage. Since the exact opposite is true, I'd have to conclude that
trucks (and truck-based SUVs) have somewhat optimistic EPA estimates and
cars have somewhat pessimistic EPA estimates. -Dave
> Maybe.
>
> I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
> all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
>
I know what you're implying, but my driving style in trucks and SUVs SHOULD
maximize gas mileage. In contrast, my driving style in cars SHOULD minimize
gas mileage. Since the exact opposite is true, I'd have to conclude that
trucks (and truck-based SUVs) have somewhat optimistic EPA estimates and
cars have somewhat pessimistic EPA estimates. -Dave