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 <nBekb.306369$mp.245290@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net> ,
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>>
>>>CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>>>been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
60s crap.
CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>>
>>>CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>>>been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
60s crap.
CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <nBekb.306369$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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>
>You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>replaced them.
>
>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>ymore. -Dave
And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>
>You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>replaced them.
>
>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>ymore. -Dave
And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>
>You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>replaced them.
>
>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>ymore. -Dave
And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>
>You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>replaced them.
>
>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>ymore. -Dave
And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>
>You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>replaced them.
>
>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>ymore. -Dave
And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>
>You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>replaced them.
>
>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>ymore. -Dave
And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
> "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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
> "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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
> "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.
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 12:26:03 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> >> Georgoudis) wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >> >car.
> >>
> >> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> >> bought a very safe SUV.
> >>
> >> Go figure.
> >
> >Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic, this is
> >Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time.
>
> What makes you think my purchase was illogical Ms. Horton?
Because you claim to care about the safety of your family, yet you did
not buy the safest type of vehicle.
>
> It's easy to make silly comments such as yours.
Sure, but not as easy as making silly comments like your SUV handling
better than many cars.
>
> It's much harder to back them up.
And even harder if you use logic and facts, good thing you're not trying
the hard thing.
>
> Best of luck.
>
I think it's you and your family that will need the luck, as you roll
roll roll down the road, but not on the wheels.
Lisa
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 12:26:03 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> >> Georgoudis) wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >> >car.
> >>
> >> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> >> bought a very safe SUV.
> >>
> >> Go figure.
> >
> >Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic, this is
> >Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time.
>
> What makes you think my purchase was illogical Ms. Horton?
Because you claim to care about the safety of your family, yet you did
not buy the safest type of vehicle.
>
> It's easy to make silly comments such as yours.
Sure, but not as easy as making silly comments like your SUV handling
better than many cars.
>
> It's much harder to back them up.
And even harder if you use logic and facts, good thing you're not trying
the hard thing.
>
> Best of luck.
>
I think it's you and your family that will need the luck, as you roll
roll roll down the road, but not on the wheels.
Lisa