Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#281
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <qld1pvkrj9jfkgmsps8hmo8umeht079d73@4ax.com>,
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> 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,
Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX, a BMW X5, or a Porsche Cayenne, you're
sadly mistaken.
>
>I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> 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,
Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX, a BMW X5, or a Porsche Cayenne, you're
sadly mistaken.
>
>I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
#282
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <qld1pvkrj9jfkgmsps8hmo8umeht079d73@4ax.com>,
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> 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,
Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX, a BMW X5, or a Porsche Cayenne, you're
sadly mistaken.
>
>I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> 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,
Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX, a BMW X5, or a Porsche Cayenne, you're
sadly mistaken.
>
>I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
#283
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <qld1pvkrj9jfkgmsps8hmo8umeht079d73@4ax.com>,
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> 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,
Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX, a BMW X5, or a Porsche Cayenne, you're
sadly mistaken.
>
>I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> 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,
Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX, a BMW X5, or a Porsche Cayenne, you're
sadly mistaken.
>
>I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
#284
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3he1pv882ierjbgus5vpdlhk9djncs6p66@4ax.com>,
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>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.
>
And you think it outperforms may cars? Hey, want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
>Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
>idiot than you already have.
>
>Cheers!
>
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>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.
>
And you think it outperforms may cars? Hey, want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
>Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
>idiot than you already have.
>
>Cheers!
>
#285
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3he1pv882ierjbgus5vpdlhk9djncs6p66@4ax.com>,
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>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.
>
And you think it outperforms may cars? Hey, want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
>Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
>idiot than you already have.
>
>Cheers!
>
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>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.
>
And you think it outperforms may cars? Hey, want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
>Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
>idiot than you already have.
>
>Cheers!
>
#286
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3he1pv882ierjbgus5vpdlhk9djncs6p66@4ax.com>,
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>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.
>
And you think it outperforms may cars? Hey, want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
>Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
>idiot than you already have.
>
>Cheers!
>
P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>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.
>
And you think it outperforms may cars? Hey, want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
>Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
>idiot than you already have.
>
>Cheers!
>
#287
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>>boasts about.
>
>I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>similar price point.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove fairly
pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>>boasts about.
>
>I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>similar price point.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove fairly
pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.
#288
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>>boasts about.
>
>I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>similar price point.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove fairly
pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>>boasts about.
>
>I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>similar price point.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove fairly
pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.
#289
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>>boasts about.
>
>I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>similar price point.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove fairly
pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>>boasts about.
>
>I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>similar price point.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove fairly
pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.
#290
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <nBekb.306369$mp.245290@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net> ,
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>>
>>>CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>>>been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
60s crap.
CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>>
>>>CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>>>been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
60s crap.
CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.