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
FDRanger92 wrote:
> "Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:kvh1svkqne0tqu50v0ce66easicm0hac71@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:28:42 -0400, "rickety"
>> <ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin wrote:
>>>> RJ wrote:
>>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> RJ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
>>>>>>>> plywood and tow a trailer with it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>>>>>>> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
>>>>>>> everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
>>>>>>> wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault
>>>>>> of CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear
>>>>> wheel
>>>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you
>>>> alive.
>>>
>>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel
>>> tank is prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a
>>> big Pinto.
>>
>> They need to be hit pretty hard.
>> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>>
>
> More like 50-70. The ones thar have exploded have been hit at very
> high speeds. Also when you hit cars that tend to have ammunition in
> the trunk you might just get a fire.
It's interesting, as your points are highly believable, but they don't come
up in the news programs. I would have thought that if ammunition was a
contributing factor then Ford would have been highlighting that in public
announcements.
--
Rickety
> "Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:kvh1svkqne0tqu50v0ce66easicm0hac71@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:28:42 -0400, "rickety"
>> <ricklugg@knickers.iname.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin wrote:
>>>> RJ wrote:
>>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> RJ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
>>>>>>>> plywood and tow a trailer with it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
>>>>>>> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
>>>>>>> everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
>>>>>>> wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault
>>>>>> of CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear
>>>>> wheel
>>>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you
>>>> alive.
>>>
>>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel
>>> tank is prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a
>>> big Pinto.
>>
>> They need to be hit pretty hard.
>> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>>
>
> More like 50-70. The ones thar have exploded have been hit at very
> high speeds. Also when you hit cars that tend to have ammunition in
> the trunk you might just get a fire.
It's interesting, as your points are highly believable, but they don't come
up in the news programs. I would have thought that if ammunition was a
contributing factor then Ford would have been highlighting that in public
announcements.
--
Rickety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>> Subaru (any model).
>
> Nope. Even the largest model doesn't seat more than four
> comfortably. Even four are not comfortable in the forester. -Dave
Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from our
family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
--
Rickety
>> Subaru (any model).
>
> Nope. Even the largest model doesn't seat more than four
> comfortably. Even four are not comfortable in the forester. -Dave
Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from our
family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
--
Rickety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>> Subaru (any model).
>
> Nope. Even the largest model doesn't seat more than four
> comfortably. Even four are not comfortable in the forester. -Dave
Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from our
family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
--
Rickety
>> Subaru (any model).
>
> Nope. Even the largest model doesn't seat more than four
> comfortably. Even four are not comfortable in the forester. -Dave
Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from our
family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
--
Rickety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>> Subaru (any model).
>
> Nope. Even the largest model doesn't seat more than four
> comfortably. Even four are not comfortable in the forester. -Dave
Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from our
family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
--
Rickety
>> Subaru (any model).
>
> Nope. Even the largest model doesn't seat more than four
> comfortably. Even four are not comfortable in the forester. -Dave
Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from our
family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
--
Rickety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>than other basic forces.
The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>
>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>behaviors.
No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>
>> Atoms are established fact.
>
>Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
But they don't refute the existence of atoms.
>
>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.
>
>> Global warming from (at
>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>occurs with climate.
No, warming on a global scale.
>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>
>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
Yes it is.
>
>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate degree
in?
>
>Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
>ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
>in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
>you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
>those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
>is politically acceptable.
No, Galileo used science; the ones who went after him refused to see the
science because it contradicted their faith. You're the church here.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>than other basic forces.
The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>
>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>behaviors.
No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>
>> Atoms are established fact.
>
>Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
But they don't refute the existence of atoms.
>
>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.
>
>> Global warming from (at
>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>occurs with climate.
No, warming on a global scale.
>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>
>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
Yes it is.
>
>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate degree
in?
>
>Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
>ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
>in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
>you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
>those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
>is politically acceptable.
No, Galileo used science; the ones who went after him refused to see the
science because it contradicted their faith. You're the church here.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>than other basic forces.
The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>
>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>behaviors.
No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>
>> Atoms are established fact.
>
>Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
But they don't refute the existence of atoms.
>
>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.
>
>> Global warming from (at
>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>occurs with climate.
No, warming on a global scale.
>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>
>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
Yes it is.
>
>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate degree
in?
>
>Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
>ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
>in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
>you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
>those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
>is politically acceptable.
No, Galileo used science; the ones who went after him refused to see the
science because it contradicted their faith. You're the church here.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>than other basic forces.
The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>
>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>behaviors.
No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>
>> Atoms are established fact.
>
>Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
But they don't refute the existence of atoms.
>
>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.
>
>> Global warming from (at
>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>occurs with climate.
No, warming on a global scale.
>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>
>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
Yes it is.
>
>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate degree
in?
>
>Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
>ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
>in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
>you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
>those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
>is politically acceptable.
No, Galileo used science; the ones who went after him refused to see the
science because it contradicted their faith. You're the church here.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>than other basic forces.
The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>
>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>behaviors.
No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>
>> Atoms are established fact.
>
>Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
But they don't refute the existence of atoms.
>
>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.
>
>> Global warming from (at
>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>occurs with climate.
No, warming on a global scale.
>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>
>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
Yes it is.
>
>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate degree
in?
>
>Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
>ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
>in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
>you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
>those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
>is politically acceptable.
No, Galileo used science; the ones who went after him refused to see the
science because it contradicted their faith. You're the church here.
>
>
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Gravity is an established fact.
>
>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>than other basic forces.
The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>
>> Relativity is an established fact.
>
>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>behaviors.
No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>
>> Atoms are established fact.
>
>Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
But they don't refute the existence of atoms.
>
>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.
>
>> Global warming from (at
>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.
>
>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>occurs with climate.
No, warming on a global scale.
>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>
>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.
Yes it is.
>
>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>
>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate degree
in?
>
>Dr. Parker, you are the kind of "scienist" that stifles thought, new
>ideas, new ways of looking at things, and advancement. You are rigid
>in your thinking and believe if it wasn't what the establishment tought
>you it cannot be correct. 4 centuries ago you would have been one of
>those who went after galieo and others. Your idea of science is whatever
>is politically acceptable.
No, Galileo used science; the ones who went after him refused to see the
science because it contradicted their faith. You're the church here.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <2NTlb.3076$I04.786@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>> >
>> Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
>here) -Dave
>
>
Most are less expensive than an SUV with comparable seating or cargo space.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>> >
>> Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
>here) -Dave
>
>
Most are less expensive than an SUV with comparable seating or cargo space.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <2NTlb.3076$I04.786@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>> >
>> Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
>here) -Dave
>
>
Most are less expensive than an SUV with comparable seating or cargo space.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>> >
>> Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
>here) -Dave
>
>
Most are less expensive than an SUV with comparable seating or cargo space.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <2NTlb.3076$I04.786@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>> >
>> Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
>here) -Dave
>
>
Most are less expensive than an SUV with comparable seating or cargo space.
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>> >
>> Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
>here) -Dave
>
>
Most are less expensive than an SUV with comparable seating or cargo space.