Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:01:42 -0700, 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.
>>>
What a shocker that is. Who would have guessed.



>>>I think that a lot of us know that the real problem isn't so much the
>>>SUV's themselves, but SOME of the people who drive them. The people who
>>>don't understand, or don't care, that their vehicle does not have the
>>>turning or stopping ability of a road car. The people who take 2 spaces
>>>in a crowded parking lot because they can't operate their vehicle well
>>>enough to fit in 1 space. The not too good driver, normally (and
>>>wisely) timid who suddenly becomes super confident. Oh, I could go on
>>>an on.
>>>
>>>Lisa
>>
>>But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>>SUVs.
>
>
> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
> Lisa

 

Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:01:42 -0700, 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.
>>>
What a shocker that is. Who would have guessed.



>>>I think that a lot of us know that the real problem isn't so much the
>>>SUV's themselves, but SOME of the people who drive them. The people who
>>>don't understand, or don't care, that their vehicle does not have the
>>>turning or stopping ability of a road car. The people who take 2 spaces
>>>in a crowded parking lot because they can't operate their vehicle well
>>>enough to fit in 1 space. The not too good driver, normally (and
>>>wisely) timid who suddenly becomes super confident. Oh, I could go on
>>>an on.
>>>
>>>Lisa
>>
>>But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>>SUVs.
>
>
> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
> Lisa

 

Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:01:42 -0700, 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.
>>>
What a shocker that is. Who would have guessed.



>>>I think that a lot of us know that the real problem isn't so much the
>>>SUV's themselves, but SOME of the people who drive them. The people who
>>>don't understand, or don't care, that their vehicle does not have the
>>>turning or stopping ability of a road car. The people who take 2 spaces
>>>in a crowded parking lot because they can't operate their vehicle well
>>>enough to fit in 1 space. The not too good driver, normally (and
>>>wisely) timid who suddenly becomes super confident. Oh, I could go on
>>>an on.
>>>
>>>Lisa
>>
>>But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>>SUVs.
>
>
> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
> Lisa

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn0u86$pdq$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F91E695.8080508@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
> >>
> >>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> >>>>lighter passenger cars.
> >>>
> >>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
> >>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they
can
> >>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
> >>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
> >>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
> >>>their agenda is correct.
> >>
> >>
> >> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
> >> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
> >>
> >> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
> >> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
> >> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
> >> or even of considerable less weight.
> >>
> >> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
> >> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
> >> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
> >> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
> >>
> >> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
> >> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
> >> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
> >
> >Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
> >SUVs are safer than cars.
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >
> Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for
9/11.

That's true, he never once claimed that.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn0u86$pdq$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F91E695.8080508@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
> >>
> >>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> >>>>lighter passenger cars.
> >>>
> >>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
> >>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they
can
> >>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
> >>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
> >>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
> >>>their agenda is correct.
> >>
> >>
> >> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
> >> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
> >>
> >> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
> >> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
> >> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
> >> or even of considerable less weight.
> >>
> >> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
> >> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
> >> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
> >> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
> >>
> >> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
> >> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
> >> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
> >
> >Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
> >SUVs are safer than cars.
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >
> Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for
9/11.

That's true, he never once claimed that.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn0u86$pdq$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3F91E695.8080508@computer.org>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
> >>
> >>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> >>>>lighter passenger cars.
> >>>
> >>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
> >>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they
can
> >>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
> >>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
> >>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
> >>>their agenda is correct.
> >>
> >>
> >> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
> >> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
> >>
> >> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
> >> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
> >> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
> >> or even of considerable less weight.
> >>
> >> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
> >> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
> >> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
> >> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
> >>
> >> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
> >> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
> >> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
> >
> >Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
> >SUVs are safer than cars.
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >
> Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for
9/11.

That's true, he never once claimed that.

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:hg08pvca8d24jcms35heaalof28ofn45gm@4ax.com...
> 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"

18 wheelers pay much higher road use taxes than cars do to offset that extra
damage. Excise taxes run several thousand dollars per year, compared to cars
which, in Indiana, run from around $30.00 for older cars to several Hundred
dollars for new cars.

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:hg08pvca8d24jcms35heaalof28ofn45gm@4ax.com...
> 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"

18 wheelers pay much higher road use taxes than cars do to offset that extra
damage. Excise taxes run several thousand dollars per year, compared to cars
which, in Indiana, run from around $30.00 for older cars to several Hundred
dollars for new cars.

 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:hg08pvca8d24jcms35heaalof28ofn45gm@4ax.com...
> 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"

18 wheelers pay much higher road use taxes than cars do to offset that extra
damage. Excise taxes run several thousand dollars per year, compared to cars
which, in Indiana, run from around $30.00 for older cars to several Hundred
dollars for new cars.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn0uim$pdq$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <MPG.19fbd425bcc7fbbb989e1c@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
> >spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >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.

To borrow a phrase from you Lloyd, your lying.
And it isn't even a convincing lie.