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
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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
> 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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>>
> been
>
>>>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
>
> no
>
>>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
>
> produced.
>
>>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
>
> Australia.
>
>>Unfortunately it won't fly.
>
>
> OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
> value, as is done now in a lot of states.
Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
the heavily subsidized cost.
Matt
> In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>>
> been
>
>>>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
>
> no
>
>>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
>
> produced.
>
>>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
>
> Australia.
>
>>Unfortunately it won't fly.
>
>
> OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
> value, as is done now in a lot of states.
Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
the heavily subsidized cost.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>>
> been
>
>>>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
>
> no
>
>>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
>
> produced.
>
>>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
>
> Australia.
>
>>Unfortunately it won't fly.
>
>
> OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
> value, as is done now in a lot of states.
Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
the heavily subsidized cost.
Matt
> In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>>
> been
>
>>>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
>
> no
>
>>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
>
> produced.
>
>>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
>
> Australia.
>
>>Unfortunately it won't fly.
>
>
> OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
> value, as is done now in a lot of states.
Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
the heavily subsidized cost.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>>
> been
>
>>>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
>
> no
>
>>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
>
> produced.
>
>>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
>
> Australia.
>
>>Unfortunately it won't fly.
>
>
> OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
> value, as is done now in a lot of states.
Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
the heavily subsidized cost.
Matt
> In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>>
> been
>
>>>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
>
> no
>
>>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
>
> produced.
>
>>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
>
> Australia.
>
>>Unfortunately it won't fly.
>
>
> OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
> value, as is done now in a lot of states.
Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
the heavily subsidized cost.
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
> 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
>
Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
at work!
Matt
> 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
>
Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
at work!
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
> 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
>
Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
at work!
Matt
> 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
>
Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
at work!
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
> 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
>
Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
at work!
Matt
> 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
>
Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
at work!
Matt
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3F92DF96.423518D7@lisahorton.net>,
> 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.
> >
>
> Of course, right-wing radicals like Putney and bin Laden just have to spew
> hatred.
How clever, Lloyd. I'm still reeling from that one. 8^)
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3F92DF96.423518D7@lisahorton.net>,
> 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.
> >
>
> Of course, right-wing radicals like Putney and bin Laden just have to spew
> hatred.
How clever, Lloyd. I'm still reeling from that one. 8^)
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----