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
In article <3F7108FB.F2C51FD8@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> I'd disagree with the last statement - IME European cars have a *longer*
>> life than American cars. Now Japanese cars, due to their weird laws, do
>> seem to start falling apart around the 10 year mark.
>
> Germans have the same sort of laws as the Japanese. There are very few 9
> year old cars in Germany.
Not from what I saw. I saw lots of old vehicles on the road in northern
Germany. Including an early 80s F-body GM, a GM full size station wagon,
countless old VW products, etc etc.
There were some sort of inspection laws, but hardly the get the 4 year
old cars off the road ones I've heard about for japan.
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> I'd disagree with the last statement - IME European cars have a *longer*
>> life than American cars. Now Japanese cars, due to their weird laws, do
>> seem to start falling apart around the 10 year mark.
>
> Germans have the same sort of laws as the Japanese. There are very few 9
> year old cars in Germany.
Not from what I saw. I saw lots of old vehicles on the road in northern
Germany. Including an early 80s F-body GM, a GM full size station wagon,
countless old VW products, etc etc.
There were some sort of inspection laws, but hardly the get the 4 year
old cars off the road ones I've heard about for japan.
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 <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>blinders.
>
>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>the truthfulness of my statement.
It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
to be alert.
Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
you will be able to predict other drivers.
If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
incompetent.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>blinders.
>
>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>the truthfulness of my statement.
It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
to be alert.
Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
you will be able to predict other drivers.
If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
incompetent.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
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 <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>blinders.
>
>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>the truthfulness of my statement.
It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
to be alert.
Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
you will be able to predict other drivers.
If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
incompetent.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>blinders.
>
>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>the truthfulness of my statement.
It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
to be alert.
Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
you will be able to predict other drivers.
If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
incompetent.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
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 <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>blinders.
>
>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>the truthfulness of my statement.
It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
to be alert.
Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
you will be able to predict other drivers.
If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
incompetent.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>>blinders.
>
>Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
>the truthfulness of my statement.
It doesn't change the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of your statement. It
is a statement about the absurdity of your statement. If someone doesn't
think that they can avoid crashes by being alert, then there is no reason
to be alert.
Like looking at a motorcycle and not really seeing them, then pulling out
and hitting them without ever having seen them (a relatively common cause
of motorcycle crashes), just looking in the right direction is completely
useless. You must also process the information correctly. If you do that,
you will be able to predict other drivers.
If you think that you can not predict other drivers, then you are
incompetent.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>18 wheelers pay much higher road use taxes than cars do to offset that extra
>damage. Excise taxes run several thousand dollars per year, compared to cars
>which, in Indiana, run from around $30.00 for older cars to several Hundred
>dollars for new cars.
And I've heard that even at those prices, the 18 wheelers are still doing
more proportional damage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>18 wheelers pay much higher road use taxes than cars do to offset that extra
>damage. Excise taxes run several thousand dollars per year, compared to cars
>which, in Indiana, run from around $30.00 for older cars to several Hundred
>dollars for new cars.
And I've heard that even at those prices, the 18 wheelers are still doing
more proportional damage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>18 wheelers pay much higher road use taxes than cars do to offset that extra
>damage. Excise taxes run several thousand dollars per year, compared to cars
>which, in Indiana, run from around $30.00 for older cars to several Hundred
>dollars for new cars.
And I've heard that even at those prices, the 18 wheelers are still doing
more proportional damage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>18 wheelers pay much higher road use taxes than cars do to offset that extra
>damage. Excise taxes run several thousand dollars per year, compared to cars
>which, in Indiana, run from around $30.00 for older cars to several Hundred
>dollars for new cars.
And I've heard that even at those prices, the 18 wheelers are still doing
more proportional damage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>18 wheelers pay much higher road use taxes than cars do to offset that extra
>damage. Excise taxes run several thousand dollars per year, compared to cars
>which, in Indiana, run from around $30.00 for older cars to several Hundred
>dollars for new cars.
And I've heard that even at those prices, the 18 wheelers are still doing
more proportional damage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>18 wheelers pay much higher road use taxes than cars do to offset that extra
>damage. Excise taxes run several thousand dollars per year, compared to cars
>which, in Indiana, run from around $30.00 for older cars to several Hundred
>dollars for new cars.
And I've heard that even at those prices, the 18 wheelers are still doing
more proportional damage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <v3gepvsen8str5prbtj3eu58oubmm7kr3j@4ax.com>, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>, "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>>
>>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>>>>do, too.
>>>
>>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>>
>>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>>time I read one of your posts.
>>
>No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
My car is smaller than your car.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <v3gepvsen8str5prbtj3eu58oubmm7kr3j@4ax.com>, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>, "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>>
>>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>>>>do, too.
>>>
>>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>>
>>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>>time I read one of your posts.
>>
>No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
My car is smaller than your car.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <v3gepvsen8str5prbtj3eu58oubmm7kr3j@4ax.com>, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>, "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>>
>>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>>>>do, too.
>>>
>>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>>
>>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>>time I read one of your posts.
>>
>No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
My car is smaller than your car.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <v3gepvsen8str5prbtj3eu58oubmm7kr3j@4ax.com>, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>, "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>>
>>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>>>>do, too.
>>>
>>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>>
>>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>>time I read one of your posts.
>>
>No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
My car is smaller than your car.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <v3gepvsen8str5prbtj3eu58oubmm7kr3j@4ax.com>, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>, "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>>
>>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>>>>do, too.
>>>
>>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>>
>>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>>time I read one of your posts.
>>
>No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
My car is smaller than your car.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <v3gepvsen8str5prbtj3eu58oubmm7kr3j@4ax.com>, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>>lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>, "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>>>
>>>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>>>>do, too.
>>>
>>>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>>>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
>>
>>So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
>>time I read one of your posts.
>>
>No, thinking you need 2 and a half tons to get room does.
My car is smaller than your car.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
