Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#721
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Let's tax fat people because they consume too much food which is delivered
in large trucks which drive up pollution ... Had it occured to you that
Billy Bob needs that truck to supply a service to you ?
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$ahwzmh$5dr1$1@news.ipinc.net...
:
: "Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
: news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com...
: >
: > That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
: > Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
: > same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
: > the same thing others do.
: > The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
: > them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
: > ignores reality.
:
: No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
: with driving a car.
:
: However, keep in mind that everyone breathes the exhaust of everyone
: else's vehicle, and we all held hostage to OPEC, and I have to move
: my fat *** out of your way on the freeway to give you some room, and
: vis-versa.
:
: In short, the concept of limited resources applies to vehicles.
:
: Therefore, why is it fair that just because Billy Bob has a need of
: hauling a big 50 foot crackerbox trailer down the road that he gets
: to suck up tons of gas (thus driving up the price, see law of supply
: and demand) spew out tons of pollution, and occupy tons of
: space, do lots of road damage due to his vehicle weight, and so on,
: whereas someone else who has an econobox
: that they drive a total of 5 miles a week, doesen't get 3 car lengths
: of room around his car when he gets on the freeway (the same amount of
: space Billy Bob gets) is required to fix the emissions stuff on his
: car that breaks even when broken he's still polluting less than
: Billy Bob, pays the same federal taxes even though he's not
: doing the same damage to the freeway Billy Bob is,
: and doesen't get a price break on fuel because
: he's not sucking up all the fuel supply?
:
: If you can devise a system that hit the wallets of all drivers in
: proportion to the amount of money they cost the rest of us,
: then by all means, let everyone drive whatever the hell they want.
:
: But until that time, the people that drive gas-guzzling, heavy
: trucks and SUV's and do it all day long, they are driving up
: road repair, fuel, insurance, and a host of other associated
: costs for the drivers that aren't doing this. So we all have to
: pay for their "needs"
:
: > it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
: > it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
: > vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
:
: Rubbish. Light trucks and SUV's are still a minority of vehicle traffic
: on the road, they are not "so popular" The reason they are popular
: at all is because they have additional utility than just moving people
: around.
:
: Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
: easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
: truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
: an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
: on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.
:
: Ted
:
:
in large trucks which drive up pollution ... Had it occured to you that
Billy Bob needs that truck to supply a service to you ?
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$ahwzmh$5dr1$1@news.ipinc.net...
:
: "Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
: news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com...
: >
: > That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
: > Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
: > same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
: > the same thing others do.
: > The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
: > them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
: > ignores reality.
:
: No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
: with driving a car.
:
: However, keep in mind that everyone breathes the exhaust of everyone
: else's vehicle, and we all held hostage to OPEC, and I have to move
: my fat *** out of your way on the freeway to give you some room, and
: vis-versa.
:
: In short, the concept of limited resources applies to vehicles.
:
: Therefore, why is it fair that just because Billy Bob has a need of
: hauling a big 50 foot crackerbox trailer down the road that he gets
: to suck up tons of gas (thus driving up the price, see law of supply
: and demand) spew out tons of pollution, and occupy tons of
: space, do lots of road damage due to his vehicle weight, and so on,
: whereas someone else who has an econobox
: that they drive a total of 5 miles a week, doesen't get 3 car lengths
: of room around his car when he gets on the freeway (the same amount of
: space Billy Bob gets) is required to fix the emissions stuff on his
: car that breaks even when broken he's still polluting less than
: Billy Bob, pays the same federal taxes even though he's not
: doing the same damage to the freeway Billy Bob is,
: and doesen't get a price break on fuel because
: he's not sucking up all the fuel supply?
:
: If you can devise a system that hit the wallets of all drivers in
: proportion to the amount of money they cost the rest of us,
: then by all means, let everyone drive whatever the hell they want.
:
: But until that time, the people that drive gas-guzzling, heavy
: trucks and SUV's and do it all day long, they are driving up
: road repair, fuel, insurance, and a host of other associated
: costs for the drivers that aren't doing this. So we all have to
: pay for their "needs"
:
: > it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
: > it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
: > vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
:
: Rubbish. Light trucks and SUV's are still a minority of vehicle traffic
: on the road, they are not "so popular" The reason they are popular
: at all is because they have additional utility than just moving people
: around.
:
: Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
: easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
: truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
: an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
: on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.
:
: Ted
:
:
#722
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33
@qwest.net says...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> >news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. .
> >>
> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
> >> the same thing others do.
> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
> >> ignores reality.
> >
> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
> >with driving a car.
>
> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
> that driver uses wheile on the road.
> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>
What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
it. the more you use the more you are paying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
@qwest.net says...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> >news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. .
> >>
> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
> >> the same thing others do.
> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
> >> ignores reality.
> >
> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
> >with driving a car.
>
> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
> that driver uses wheile on the road.
> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>
What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
it. the more you use the more you are paying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#723
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33
@qwest.net says...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> >news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. .
> >>
> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
> >> the same thing others do.
> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
> >> ignores reality.
> >
> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
> >with driving a car.
>
> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
> that driver uses wheile on the road.
> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>
What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
it. the more you use the more you are paying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
@qwest.net says...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> >news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. .
> >>
> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
> >> the same thing others do.
> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
> >> ignores reality.
> >
> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
> >with driving a car.
>
> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
> that driver uses wheile on the road.
> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>
What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
it. the more you use the more you are paying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#724
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33
@qwest.net says...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> >news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. .
> >>
> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
> >> the same thing others do.
> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
> >> ignores reality.
> >
> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
> >with driving a car.
>
> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
> that driver uses wheile on the road.
> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>
What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
it. the more you use the more you are paying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
@qwest.net says...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
> >news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. .
> >>
> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
> >> the same thing others do.
> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
> >> ignores reality.
> >
> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
> >with driving a car.
>
> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
> that driver uses wheile on the road.
> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>
What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
it. the more you use the more you are paying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#725
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9249CA.185973EC@itis.com>, se1aard1@itis.com says...
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> > I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
> > just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> > effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> > sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
>
> How about a "sports tourer"?
>
> They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another poster, 0-60
> in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
>
Again these are great cars, just like many of the great cars that failed
miserably in the US market. If I could get a nice efficient turbo
diesel Land Cruiser here I'd be laughing very time I pulled up to a pump
instead of crying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> > I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
> > just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> > effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> > sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
>
> How about a "sports tourer"?
>
> They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another poster, 0-60
> in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
>
Again these are great cars, just like many of the great cars that failed
miserably in the US market. If I could get a nice efficient turbo
diesel Land Cruiser here I'd be laughing very time I pulled up to a pump
instead of crying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#726
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9249CA.185973EC@itis.com>, se1aard1@itis.com says...
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> > I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
> > just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> > effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> > sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
>
> How about a "sports tourer"?
>
> They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another poster, 0-60
> in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
>
Again these are great cars, just like many of the great cars that failed
miserably in the US market. If I could get a nice efficient turbo
diesel Land Cruiser here I'd be laughing very time I pulled up to a pump
instead of crying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> > I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
> > just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> > effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> > sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
>
> How about a "sports tourer"?
>
> They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another poster, 0-60
> in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
>
Again these are great cars, just like many of the great cars that failed
miserably in the US market. If I could get a nice efficient turbo
diesel Land Cruiser here I'd be laughing very time I pulled up to a pump
instead of crying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#727
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9249CA.185973EC@itis.com>, se1aard1@itis.com says...
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> > I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
> > just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> > effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> > sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
>
> How about a "sports tourer"?
>
> They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another poster, 0-60
> in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
>
Again these are great cars, just like many of the great cars that failed
miserably in the US market. If I could get a nice efficient turbo
diesel Land Cruiser here I'd be laughing very time I pulled up to a pump
instead of crying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> > I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
> > just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> > effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> > sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
>
> How about a "sports tourer"?
>
> They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another poster, 0-60
> in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
>
Again these are great cars, just like many of the great cars that failed
miserably in the US market. If I could get a nice efficient turbo
diesel Land Cruiser here I'd be laughing very time I pulled up to a pump
instead of crying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#728
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >> SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
> >
> >Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> >WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> >appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
Your ignorance is mind boggling. Or maybe your sense of humour is just
to high brow for the rest of us.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#729
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >> SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
> >
> >Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> >WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> >appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
Your ignorance is mind boggling. Or maybe your sense of humour is just
to high brow for the rest of us.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#730
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >> SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
> >
> >Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> >WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> >appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
Your ignorance is mind boggling. Or maybe your sense of humour is just
to high brow for the rest of us.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.