Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1581
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
About that much of the 2x4 and 4x4 timber but not the sheets on the top...
damn stupid chap that. cheaper to hire a U-Haul than replace a car.
rhys
"Garth Almgren" <nospam@v6stang.com> wrote in message
news:bn4f4s$sq0rt$1@ID-55124.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Around 10/21/2003 3:22 PM, rnf2 wrote:
>
> > loads of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension,
>
> Like this?
>
> http://www.snopes.com/photos/lumber.asp ;)
>
>
> --
> ~/Garth
>
damn stupid chap that. cheaper to hire a U-Haul than replace a car.
rhys
"Garth Almgren" <nospam@v6stang.com> wrote in message
news:bn4f4s$sq0rt$1@ID-55124.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Around 10/21/2003 3:22 PM, rnf2 wrote:
>
> > loads of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension,
>
> Like this?
>
> http://www.snopes.com/photos/lumber.asp ;)
>
>
> --
> ~/Garth
>
#1582
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
About that much of the 2x4 and 4x4 timber but not the sheets on the top...
damn stupid chap that. cheaper to hire a U-Haul than replace a car.
rhys
"Garth Almgren" <nospam@v6stang.com> wrote in message
news:bn4f4s$sq0rt$1@ID-55124.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Around 10/21/2003 3:22 PM, rnf2 wrote:
>
> > loads of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension,
>
> Like this?
>
> http://www.snopes.com/photos/lumber.asp ;)
>
>
> --
> ~/Garth
>
damn stupid chap that. cheaper to hire a U-Haul than replace a car.
rhys
"Garth Almgren" <nospam@v6stang.com> wrote in message
news:bn4f4s$sq0rt$1@ID-55124.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Around 10/21/2003 3:22 PM, rnf2 wrote:
>
> > loads of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension,
>
> Like this?
>
> http://www.snopes.com/photos/lumber.asp ;)
>
>
> --
> ~/Garth
>
#1583
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> And the Billy Bob I was using as an exampe wasn't driving a semi
> truck. He was driving a 40 foot long cracker box, ie: recreational
> vehicle. I forget that our European friends may not be familar with
> all the deragotory slang terms in use in the US. The term cracker
> box came about because the giant RV's look like saltine cracker
> boxes with wheels, going down the road.
Doubtless also beause of their occupants.
--Aardwolf.
#1584
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> And the Billy Bob I was using as an exampe wasn't driving a semi
> truck. He was driving a 40 foot long cracker box, ie: recreational
> vehicle. I forget that our European friends may not be familar with
> all the deragotory slang terms in use in the US. The term cracker
> box came about because the giant RV's look like saltine cracker
> boxes with wheels, going down the road.
Doubtless also beause of their occupants.
--Aardwolf.
#1585
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> And the Billy Bob I was using as an exampe wasn't driving a semi
> truck. He was driving a 40 foot long cracker box, ie: recreational
> vehicle. I forget that our European friends may not be familar with
> all the deragotory slang terms in use in the US. The term cracker
> box came about because the giant RV's look like saltine cracker
> boxes with wheels, going down the road.
Doubtless also beause of their occupants.
--Aardwolf.
#1586
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:3F931487.433F88FB@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us.. .
> >
> > The safest strategy overall would be to repeal CAFE so that people with
> > large families can go back to buying station wagons instead of SUVs.
>
> 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.
>
> All that repeal of CAFE would do is allow the automakers to build bigger
> sedans. So, today's "full size" sedan would become tomorrow's mid-size,
> and todays mid-size would become tomorrow's economy sedan, and
> today's economy sedan would disappear.
Not a bad thing in the U.S.A. Because even if that happened, none of them
would still have to be as large as something like a '73 Imperial.
> You might then get a small percentage of SUV buyers to buy the largest
> sedans that would become available, but that's about it.
I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what they're
told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to the
point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-*** they
thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from suddently
stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy trucks
to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they always
have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
They'd be gone.
--Aardwolf.
#1587
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:3F931487.433F88FB@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us.. .
> >
> > The safest strategy overall would be to repeal CAFE so that people with
> > large families can go back to buying station wagons instead of SUVs.
>
> 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.
>
> All that repeal of CAFE would do is allow the automakers to build bigger
> sedans. So, today's "full size" sedan would become tomorrow's mid-size,
> and todays mid-size would become tomorrow's economy sedan, and
> today's economy sedan would disappear.
Not a bad thing in the U.S.A. Because even if that happened, none of them
would still have to be as large as something like a '73 Imperial.
> You might then get a small percentage of SUV buyers to buy the largest
> sedans that would become available, but that's about it.
I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what they're
told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to the
point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-*** they
thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from suddently
stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy trucks
to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they always
have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
They'd be gone.
--Aardwolf.
#1588
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "John David Galt" <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:3F931487.433F88FB@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us.. .
> >
> > The safest strategy overall would be to repeal CAFE so that people with
> > large families can go back to buying station wagons instead of SUVs.
>
> 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.
>
> All that repeal of CAFE would do is allow the automakers to build bigger
> sedans. So, today's "full size" sedan would become tomorrow's mid-size,
> and todays mid-size would become tomorrow's economy sedan, and
> today's economy sedan would disappear.
Not a bad thing in the U.S.A. Because even if that happened, none of them
would still have to be as large as something like a '73 Imperial.
> You might then get a small percentage of SUV buyers to buy the largest
> sedans that would become available, but that's about it.
I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what they're
told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to the
point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-*** they
thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from suddently
stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy trucks
to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they always
have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
They'd be gone.
--Aardwolf.
#1589
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:24:20 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>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.
Another gross generalization. That's why folks call you on this kind
of drivel.
>I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque
rant
>at this point.
You and Judy and Carl Taylor, and sundry other clueless folks share
the same trait actually.
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?
When folks with a very good grasp of driving dynamics, car control,
and physics (not to mention the fact that they have tens of thousands
of miles in SUVs that don't fit into your strident little pidgeon
hole) know that your gross generalizations are silly, you should start
questioning your assumptions, lest you continue to be lumped in with
the clueless trolls.
>*bangs head on desk*
It's apparently not helping your thought proccesses in the least bit.
Try something different.
wrote:
>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.
Another gross generalization. That's why folks call you on this kind
of drivel.
>I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque
rant
>at this point.
You and Judy and Carl Taylor, and sundry other clueless folks share
the same trait actually.
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?
When folks with a very good grasp of driving dynamics, car control,
and physics (not to mention the fact that they have tens of thousands
of miles in SUVs that don't fit into your strident little pidgeon
hole) know that your gross generalizations are silly, you should start
questioning your assumptions, lest you continue to be lumped in with
the clueless trolls.
>*bangs head on desk*
It's apparently not helping your thought proccesses in the least bit.
Try something different.
#1590
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:24:20 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>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.
Another gross generalization. That's why folks call you on this kind
of drivel.
>I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque
rant
>at this point.
You and Judy and Carl Taylor, and sundry other clueless folks share
the same trait actually.
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?
When folks with a very good grasp of driving dynamics, car control,
and physics (not to mention the fact that they have tens of thousands
of miles in SUVs that don't fit into your strident little pidgeon
hole) know that your gross generalizations are silly, you should start
questioning your assumptions, lest you continue to be lumped in with
the clueless trolls.
>*bangs head on desk*
It's apparently not helping your thought proccesses in the least bit.
Try something different.
wrote:
>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.
Another gross generalization. That's why folks call you on this kind
of drivel.
>I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque
rant
>at this point.
You and Judy and Carl Taylor, and sundry other clueless folks share
the same trait actually.
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?
When folks with a very good grasp of driving dynamics, car control,
and physics (not to mention the fact that they have tens of thousands
of miles in SUVs that don't fit into your strident little pidgeon
hole) know that your gross generalizations are silly, you should start
questioning your assumptions, lest you continue to be lumped in with
the clueless trolls.
>*bangs head on desk*
It's apparently not helping your thought proccesses in the least bit.
Try something different.