C. E. White wrote:
>
> Dori Schmetterling wrote:
>
>
>>Big? Heavy?
>>
>>You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
>>http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...ros/index.html
>>
>>I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".
>
>
> I never fail to be amused by what Europeans call cars.

Or hotel rooms... :-)


Matt

 

C. E. White wrote:
>
> Dori Schmetterling wrote:
>
>
>>Big? Heavy?
>>
>>You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
>>http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...ros/index.html
>>
>>I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".
>
>
> I never fail to be amused by what Europeans call cars.

Or hotel rooms... :-)


Matt

 

C. E. White wrote:
>
> Dori Schmetterling wrote:
>
>
>>Big? Heavy?
>>
>>You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
>>http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...ros/index.html
>>
>>I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".
>
>
> I never fail to be amused by what Europeans call cars.

Or hotel rooms... :-)


Matt

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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?

Maybe you should go after the polution and not the vehicle size.

Your railing against the Crown Victoria LTD stationwagons of yesteryear were
sized based arguments. You came along after the arguments started and went
after the pollution and gas guzzling issues. Eventually, Detroit stopped
building the Crown Victoria LTD and after a few years somebody offered up
the Mini Van. A few years after that, the SUV was born. Then the SUV concept
was applied to larger and larger platforms until we got the grandaddy of
behemoths, the Chevy Suburban. Now, you are going after the size again, and
the gas guzzling is an apparent afterthought.

You are part of the very problem you are complaining about, and this is the
problem you refuse to recognize.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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?

Maybe you should go after the polution and not the vehicle size.

Your railing against the Crown Victoria LTD stationwagons of yesteryear were
sized based arguments. You came along after the arguments started and went
after the pollution and gas guzzling issues. Eventually, Detroit stopped
building the Crown Victoria LTD and after a few years somebody offered up
the Mini Van. A few years after that, the SUV was born. Then the SUV concept
was applied to larger and larger platforms until we got the grandaddy of
behemoths, the Chevy Suburban. Now, you are going after the size again, and
the gas guzzling is an apparent afterthought.

You are part of the very problem you are complaining about, and this is the
problem you refuse to recognize.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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?

Maybe you should go after the polution and not the vehicle size.

Your railing against the Crown Victoria LTD stationwagons of yesteryear were
sized based arguments. You came along after the arguments started and went
after the pollution and gas guzzling issues. Eventually, Detroit stopped
building the Crown Victoria LTD and after a few years somebody offered up
the Mini Van. A few years after that, the SUV was born. Then the SUV concept
was applied to larger and larger platforms until we got the grandaddy of
behemoths, the Chevy Suburban. Now, you are going after the size again, and
the gas guzzling is an apparent afterthought.

You are part of the very problem you are complaining about, and this is the
problem you refuse to recognize.

 

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <3F908A56.7040704@computer.org>,
> Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
>>some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
>>etc.)
>
>
> Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
> size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
> can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.
>

Depends on the speed. Above about 35 MPH, an SUV size vehicle will snap
the average telephone pole clean off. I see it once or twice a year
around here. A heavier vehicle will snap the pole at a slower speed. A
2,000 lb. car would probably not fair well against a pole at anything
less than 50 MPH or better.


Matt

 

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <3F908A56.7040704@computer.org>,
> Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
>>some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
>>etc.)
>
>
> Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
> size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
> can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.
>

Depends on the speed. Above about 35 MPH, an SUV size vehicle will snap
the average telephone pole clean off. I see it once or twice a year
around here. A heavier vehicle will snap the pole at a slower speed. A
2,000 lb. car would probably not fair well against a pole at anything
less than 50 MPH or better.


Matt

 

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <3F908A56.7040704@computer.org>,
> Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
>>some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
>>etc.)
>
>
> Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
> size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
> can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.
>

Depends on the speed. Above about 35 MPH, an SUV size vehicle will snap
the average telephone pole clean off. I see it once or twice a year
around here. A heavier vehicle will snap the pole at a slower speed. A
2,000 lb. car would probably not fair well against a pole at anything
less than 50 MPH or better.


Matt

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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.

I'm sorry you are so gullible.

Matt