On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:06:45 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:

>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.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>
>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?

Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
amount/type of safety equipment?

Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve the
same amount/type of safety equipment?

 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:06:45 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:

>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.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>
>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?

Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
amount/type of safety equipment?

Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve the
same amount/type of safety equipment?

 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:06:45 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:

>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.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>
>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?

Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
amount/type of safety equipment?

Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve the
same amount/type of safety equipment?

 

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:06:45 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>
>>>
>>
>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>
>
> Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
> amount/type of safety equipment?
>
> Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve the
> same amount/type of safety equipment?
>

*sigh*

it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and everything
to do with physics.

Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? Is it not also a
fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
vehicle and/or its occupants?

To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle classified
as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car, as
cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
somewhat in recent years, however.)

Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to discuss
driving at some point.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:06:45 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>
>>>
>>
>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>
>
> Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
> amount/type of safety equipment?
>
> Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve the
> same amount/type of safety equipment?
>

*sigh*

it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and everything
to do with physics.

Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? Is it not also a
fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
vehicle and/or its occupants?

To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle classified
as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car, as
cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
somewhat in recent years, however.)

Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to discuss
driving at some point.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:06:45 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>
>>>
>>
>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>
>
> Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
> amount/type of safety equipment?
>
> Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve the
> same amount/type of safety equipment?
>

*sigh*

it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and everything
to do with physics.

Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? Is it not also a
fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
vehicle and/or its occupants?

To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle classified
as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car, as
cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
somewhat in recent years, however.)

Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to discuss
driving at some point.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

"CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote

> getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
> were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
> point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they
were
> no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.


What you seem to need is a car that can carry as many and as much as a SUV.

Lobby GM to build LHD versions of the Commodore, Berlina, or Calais sedans
and stationwagons.

rhys

 

"CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote

> getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
> were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
> point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they
were
> no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.


What you seem to need is a car that can carry as many and as much as a SUV.

Lobby GM to build LHD versions of the Commodore, Berlina, or Calais sedans
and stationwagons.

rhys

 

"CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote

> getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
> were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
> point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they
were
> no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.


What you seem to need is a car that can carry as many and as much as a SUV.

Lobby GM to build LHD versions of the Commodore, Berlina, or Calais sedans
and stationwagons.

rhys

 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:


>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>> amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>> Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
the
>> same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>
>*sigh*

Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?

>
>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
everything
>to do with physics.
>
>Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
track
>ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control?

It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
obvious?

See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
question above.

Is it not also a
>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>vehicle and/or its occupants?

"If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
your posts.

>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
classified
>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
as
>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>somewhat in recent years, however.)

And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.

>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
discuss
>driving at some point.

LOL. What a sad little whiner.

If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
hypocrite.

Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
very amusing though.

Thanks.