Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#81
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 17:52:34 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.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.
>>>
>>
>>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.
>
> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>>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.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:52:34 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.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.
>>>
>>
>>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.
>
> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>>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.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
#82
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 17:52:34 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.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.
>>>
>>
>>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.
>
> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>>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.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:52:34 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.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.
>>>
>>
>>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.
>
> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>>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.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Agreed, at least these ecoterrorist didn't distort this as much.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Agreed, at least these ecoterrorist didn't distort this as much.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Agreed, at least these ecoterrorist didn't distort this as much.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Milne wrote:
>
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Robert A. Matern" wrote:
>
> ...Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as
> well.
Actually, if you're sending up trial balloons to see how gullible,
stupid, or ready for the next legislative step in your political agenda
the public is, it could prove useful to a particular political movement,
party, presidential candidate, etc.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Robert A. Matern" wrote:
>
> ...Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as
> well.
Actually, if you're sending up trial balloons to see how gullible,
stupid, or ready for the next legislative step in your political agenda
the public is, it could prove useful to a particular political movement,
party, presidential candidate, etc.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----