Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-17-2003, 11:44 PM
#181
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>
>>>>Go figure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>handling for crash safety.
>>
>>
>> Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
the
>> case.
>
>yes, actually, it is.
Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
just in case.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>>
>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>
>>
>> Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
like
>> yours I suppose.
>>
>>
>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>
>> intended
>>
>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>
>> commuting
>>
>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>
>> What a great country, eh?
>>
>
>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
an
>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
you
>though.
So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
that makes me an ***?
I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>
>>>>Go figure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>handling for crash safety.
>>
>>
>> Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
the
>> case.
>
>yes, actually, it is.
Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
just in case.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>>
>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>
>>
>> Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
like
>> yours I suppose.
>>
>>
>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>
>> intended
>>
>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>
>> commuting
>>
>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>
>> What a great country, eh?
>>
>
>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
an
>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
you
>though.
So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
that makes me an ***?
I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
10-17-2003, 11:46 PM
#182
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:28:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that
this
>would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the
salesman
>told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers.
Whatever.
My comments have nothing to do with "salesman's claims" and everything
to do with pure fact.
Despite that fact that you find my claims incomprehensible.
wrote:
>I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that
this
>would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the
salesman
>told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers.
Whatever.
My comments have nothing to do with "salesman's claims" and everything
to do with pure fact.
Despite that fact that you find my claims incomprehensible.
10-17-2003, 11:46 PM
#183
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:28:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that
this
>would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the
salesman
>told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers.
Whatever.
My comments have nothing to do with "salesman's claims" and everything
to do with pure fact.
Despite that fact that you find my claims incomprehensible.
wrote:
>I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that
this
>would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the
salesman
>told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers.
Whatever.
My comments have nothing to do with "salesman's claims" and everything
to do with pure fact.
Despite that fact that you find my claims incomprehensible.
10-17-2003, 11:46 PM
#184
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:28:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that
this
>would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the
salesman
>told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers.
Whatever.
My comments have nothing to do with "salesman's claims" and everything
to do with pure fact.
Despite that fact that you find my claims incomprehensible.
wrote:
>I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that
this
>would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the
salesman
>told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers.
Whatever.
My comments have nothing to do with "salesman's claims" and everything
to do with pure fact.
Despite that fact that you find my claims incomprehensible.
10-17-2003, 11:49 PM
#185
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:26:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>> sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
>> go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the
guy who
>> hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is
light
>> and nimble.
>>
>> john
>>
>
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
ROTFLMAO!
Key words:
"so far"
If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
wrote:
>> sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
>> go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the
guy who
>> hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is
light
>> and nimble.
>>
>> john
>>
>
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
ROTFLMAO!
Key words:
"so far"
If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
10-17-2003, 11:49 PM
#186
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:26:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>> sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
>> go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the
guy who
>> hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is
light
>> and nimble.
>>
>> john
>>
>
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
ROTFLMAO!
Key words:
"so far"
If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
wrote:
>> sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
>> go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the
guy who
>> hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is
light
>> and nimble.
>>
>> john
>>
>
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
ROTFLMAO!
Key words:
"so far"
If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
10-17-2003, 11:49 PM
#187
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:26:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>> sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
>> go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the
guy who
>> hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is
light
>> and nimble.
>>
>> john
>>
>
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
ROTFLMAO!
Key words:
"so far"
If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
wrote:
>> sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
>> go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the
guy who
>> hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is
light
>> and nimble.
>>
>> john
>>
>
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
ROTFLMAO!
Key words:
"so far"
If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
10-17-2003, 11:54 PM
#188
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>
> the
>
>>>case.
>>
>>yes, actually, it is.
>
>
> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
> just in case.
>
> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>
>
>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>
>>
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>
> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>
>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>
> like
>
>>>yours I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>
>>>intended
>>>
>>>
>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>
>>>commuting
>>>
>>>
>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>
>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>
>>
>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>
> an
>
>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>
> you
>
>>though.
>
>
> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
> that makes me an ***?
>
> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>
> the
>
>>>case.
>>
>>yes, actually, it is.
>
>
> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
> just in case.
>
> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>
>
>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>
>>
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>
> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>
>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>
> like
>
>>>yours I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>
>>>intended
>>>
>>>
>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>
>>>commuting
>>>
>>>
>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>
>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>
>>
>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>
> an
>
>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>
> you
>
>>though.
>
>
> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
> that makes me an ***?
>
> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
10-17-2003, 11:54 PM
#189
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>
> the
>
>>>case.
>>
>>yes, actually, it is.
>
>
> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
> just in case.
>
> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>
>
>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>
>>
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>
> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>
>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>
> like
>
>>>yours I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>
>>>intended
>>>
>>>
>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>
>>>commuting
>>>
>>>
>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>
>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>
>>
>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>
> an
>
>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>
> you
>
>>though.
>
>
> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
> that makes me an ***?
>
> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>
> the
>
>>>case.
>>
>>yes, actually, it is.
>
>
> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
> just in case.
>
> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>
>
>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>
>>
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>
> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>
>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>
> like
>
>>>yours I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>
>>>intended
>>>
>>>
>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>
>>>commuting
>>>
>>>
>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>
>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>
>>
>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>
> an
>
>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>
> you
>
>>though.
>
>
> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
> that makes me an ***?
>
> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
10-17-2003, 11:54 PM
#190
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>
> the
>
>>>case.
>>
>>yes, actually, it is.
>
>
> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
> just in case.
>
> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>
>
>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>
>>
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>
> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>
>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>
> like
>
>>>yours I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>
>>>intended
>>>
>>>
>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>
>>>commuting
>>>
>>>
>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>
>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>
>>
>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>
> an
>
>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>
> you
>
>>though.
>
>
> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
> that makes me an ***?
>
> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>
> the
>
>>>case.
>>
>>yes, actually, it is.
>
>
> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
> just in case.
>
> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>
>
>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>
>>
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>
> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>
>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>
> like
>
>>>yours I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>
>>>intended
>>>
>>>
>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>
>>>commuting
>>>
>>>
>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>
>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>
>>
>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>
> an
>
>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>
> you
>
>>though.
>
>
> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
> that makes me an ***?
>
> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.