Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1541
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Lloyd,
> >>Are you a Lliberal?
> >
> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
>
> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
> get your panties in a bunch:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>
> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>
> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
> republican.....
Very nice links, I'll save them for sure. Thank you.
#1542
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Lloyd,
> >>Are you a Lliberal?
> >
> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
>
> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
> get your panties in a bunch:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>
> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>
> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
> republican.....
Very nice links, I'll save them for sure. Thank you.
#1543
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Lloyd,
> >>Are you a Lliberal?
> >
> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
>
> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
> get your panties in a bunch:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>
> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>
> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
> republican.....
Very nice links, I'll save them for sure. Thank you.
#1544
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>
>
> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>
> Ed
>
They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
obscure to the general public?
*bangs head on desk*
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>
>
> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>
> Ed
>
They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
obscure to the general public?
*bangs head on desk*
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
#1545
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>
>
> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>
> Ed
>
They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
obscure to the general public?
*bangs head on desk*
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>
>
> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>
> Ed
>
They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
obscure to the general public?
*bangs head on desk*
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
#1546
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
C. E. White wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>
>
> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>
> Ed
>
They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
obscure to the general public?
*bangs head on desk*
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>
>
> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd routinely repeats.
> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>
> Ed
>
They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be obvious.
I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque rant
at this point. This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
obscure to the general public?
*bangs head on desk*
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
#1547
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
> like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
> could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
> production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
> a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
> believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
> station wagons.
You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
> like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
> could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
> production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
> a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
> believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
> station wagons.
You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
#1548
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
> like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
> could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
> production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
> a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
> believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
> station wagons.
You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
> like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
> could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
> production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
> a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
> believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
> station wagons.
You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
#1549
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
> like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
> could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
> production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
> a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
> believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
> station wagons.
You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
> like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
> could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
> production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
> a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
> believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
> station wagons.
You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
#1550
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
>>like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
>>could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
>>production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
>>a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
>>believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
>>station wagons.
>
>
> You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
>
>
Hmmm... better fuel economy, better performance and handling, easier to
load sproggen into and out of back seat and stuff in and out of the
cargo area... yeah, we screwed ourselves with CAFE didn't we. Oh well,
there's always Audi.
I still see old, square full size GM wagons on the road occasionally,
usually as taxis. Surely if SUVs were better suited to such usage,
they'd be used by taxi companies... but all the newer ones are Crown
Vics for the most part...
Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
and tow a trailer with it?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
>>Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
>>like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
>>could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
>>production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
>>a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
>>believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
>>station wagons.
>
>
> You don't have a family, do you. (not a question) -Dave
>
>
Hmmm... better fuel economy, better performance and handling, easier to
load sproggen into and out of back seat and stuff in and out of the
cargo area... yeah, we screwed ourselves with CAFE didn't we. Oh well,
there's always Audi.
I still see old, square full size GM wagons on the road occasionally,
usually as taxis. Surely if SUVs were better suited to such usage,
they'd be used by taxi companies... but all the newer ones are Crown
Vics for the most part...
Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
and tow a trailer with it?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.