Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#191
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 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.
>
"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
awareness."
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
didn't he?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> 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.
>
"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
awareness."
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
didn't he?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
#192
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 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.
>
"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
awareness."
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
didn't he?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> 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.
>
"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
awareness."
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
didn't he?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
#193
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 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.
>
"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
awareness."
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
didn't he?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> 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.
>
"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
awareness."
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
didn't he?
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
#194
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:54:22 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>> 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.
Nope. Not car-based. Full ladder frame in fact. Low range, etc.
Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
idiot than you already have.
Cheers!
wrote:
>> 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.
Nope. Not car-based. Full ladder frame in fact. Low range, etc.
Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
idiot than you already have.
Cheers!
#195
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:54:22 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>> 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.
Nope. Not car-based. Full ladder frame in fact. Low range, etc.
Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
idiot than you already have.
Cheers!
wrote:
>> 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.
Nope. Not car-based. Full ladder frame in fact. Low range, etc.
Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
idiot than you already have.
Cheers!
#196
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:54:22 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>> 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.
Nope. Not car-based. Full ladder frame in fact. Low range, etc.
Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
idiot than you already have.
Cheers!
wrote:
>> 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.
Nope. Not car-based. Full ladder frame in fact. Low range, etc.
Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
idiot than you already have.
Cheers!
#197
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:55:29 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
>awareness."
SA is a good thing but still doesn't make you immune from the acts of
others. To claim otherwise is very clueless.
>Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
>Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
>didn't he?
What kind of idiotic assumption is that?
How can you possibly assume that I don't "understand anything about
skill" because I've challenegd your silly assumptions?
SA doesn't make you immune idiot. Since you apparently think it does,
hopefully you won't have a rude awakening that causes you any bodily
harm.
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
>awareness."
SA is a good thing but still doesn't make you immune from the acts of
others. To claim otherwise is very clueless.
>Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
>Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
>didn't he?
What kind of idiotic assumption is that?
How can you possibly assume that I don't "understand anything about
skill" because I've challenegd your silly assumptions?
SA doesn't make you immune idiot. Since you apparently think it does,
hopefully you won't have a rude awakening that causes you any bodily
harm.
#198
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:55:29 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
>awareness."
SA is a good thing but still doesn't make you immune from the acts of
others. To claim otherwise is very clueless.
>Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
>Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
>didn't he?
What kind of idiotic assumption is that?
How can you possibly assume that I don't "understand anything about
skill" because I've challenegd your silly assumptions?
SA doesn't make you immune idiot. Since you apparently think it does,
hopefully you won't have a rude awakening that causes you any bodily
harm.
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
>awareness."
SA is a good thing but still doesn't make you immune from the acts of
others. To claim otherwise is very clueless.
>Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
>Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
>didn't he?
What kind of idiotic assumption is that?
How can you possibly assume that I don't "understand anything about
skill" because I've challenegd your silly assumptions?
SA doesn't make you immune idiot. Since you apparently think it does,
hopefully you won't have a rude awakening that causes you any bodily
harm.
#199
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:55:29 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
>awareness."
SA is a good thing but still doesn't make you immune from the acts of
others. To claim otherwise is very clueless.
>Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
>Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
>didn't he?
What kind of idiotic assumption is that?
How can you possibly assume that I don't "understand anything about
skill" because I've challenegd your silly assumptions?
SA doesn't make you immune idiot. Since you apparently think it does,
hopefully you won't have a rude awakening that causes you any bodily
harm.
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
>awareness."
SA is a good thing but still doesn't make you immune from the acts of
others. To claim otherwise is very clueless.
>Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
>Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
>didn't he?
What kind of idiotic assumption is that?
How can you possibly assume that I don't "understand anything about
skill" because I've challenegd your silly assumptions?
SA doesn't make you immune idiot. Since you apparently think it does,
hopefully you won't have a rude awakening that causes you any bodily
harm.
#200
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Ga2kb.52$uG.163930@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
>> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
>> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
>> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
>> previous threads with cite)
>>
>
> And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
expected.
And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
>> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
>> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
>> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
>> previous threads with cite)
>>
>
> And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
expected.
And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.