Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:07:21 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
wrote:

>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel
<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous
to
>>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>>
>>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>>
>>>
>>>*sigh*
>>
>>
>> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your
cluelessness?
>>
>>
>>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>>
>> everything
>>
>>>to do with physics.
>>>
>>>Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
>>
>> track
>>
>>>ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control?
>>
>>
>> It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't
that
>> obvious?
>>
>> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
>> question above.
>
>Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
>Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the
fact
>that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.

HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I was
replying)?

">>>Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
>>
>> track
>>
>>>ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "


>> Is it not also a
>>
>>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control
and
>>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>>
>>
>> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you
think
>> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At
least
>> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based
upon
>> your posts.
>
>Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time.

LOL. "quite a bit of the time" How do you quantify that?

Even if you can cherrypick
>some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
>SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
>are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
>necessitated by the basic SUV shape.

Your cluelessness continues to manifest itself in an amusing way.

Can you grasp the fact that there is more to the way some SUVs
handle/react in transient maneuvers than your simplistic "basic SUV
shape"?

>>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same
safety
>>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>>
>> classified
>>
>>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a
car,
>>
>> as
>>
>>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been
addressed
>>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>>
>>
>> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
>> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>>
>
>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.


AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his hilarious
gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.

That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
into the same group does it Nate?

"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.

>
>>
>>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>>
>> discuss
>>
>>>driving at some point.
>>
>>
>> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>>
>> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
>> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless
someone
>> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
>> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
>> hypocrite.
>>
>> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
>> very amusing though.
>>
>
>Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
>way?

Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
apparently just can't resist!

I enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
>flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
>sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
>crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive
on
>public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
>However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV
because
>you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
>belongs in a newsgroup about driving.

It belongs in a newsgroup about driving because a) it was in respnse
to more siilly claims about the eviol of SUVs and b) because my
truthful comments caused myopic folks like to to flail around
spectacularly and c) because it's quite true that I bought my SUV
because it's a very safe vehicle (poor form Nate to try to recast my
comments using the absolute "safest" tsk, tsk, tsk).


The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
>leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of
people
>who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
>driving as much as possible.

At least you're consistent in your cluelessness.

Why do you assume that my SUV is "on-road-only" and that folks who
happen to own an SUV, or any SUV for that matter, want to be
insulated from the task of driving?

Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.

Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!

Lloyd,
Are you a Lliberal?
LLOL

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
not a
> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
work,
> >>>not play.
> >>
> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
as
> cars
> >>are used.
> >
> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >
> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>
> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>
> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >Why should you get to do that?
> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >people should live there.
> >
> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?

I've an SUV, and it spends a lot of time offroad.
I got it cause it could get up to the deer hunting areas so I didn't have to
haul a carcase miles, but it handles onroad as sweet as you please.

rhys

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:07:21 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel
> <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous
> to
> >>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
> >>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
> >>>>
> >>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
> >>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>*sigh*
> >>
> >>
> >> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your
> cluelessness?
> >>
> >>
> >>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
> >>
> >> everything
> >>
> >>>to do with physics.
> >>>
> >>>Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
> >>
> >> track
> >>
> >>>ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control?
> >>
> >>
> >> It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't
> that
> >> obvious?
> >>
> >> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
> >> question above.
> >
> >Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
> >Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the
> fact
> >that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.
>
> HuH? Where do you mention other traffic in this tidbit (to which I was
> replying)?
>
> ">>>Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
> >>
> >> track
> >>
> >>>ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "
>
>
> >> Is it not also a
> >>
> >>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control
> and
> >>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
> >>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
> >>
> >>
> >> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you
> think
> >> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At
> least
> >> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based
> upon
> >> your posts.
> >
> >Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time.
>
> LOL. "quite a bit of the time" How do you quantify that?
>
> Even if you can cherrypick
> >some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
> >SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
> >are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
> >necessitated by the basic SUV shape.
>
> Your cluelessness continues to manifest itself in an amusing way.
>
> Can you grasp the fact that there is more to the way some SUVs
> handle/react in transient maneuvers than your simplistic "basic SUV
> shape"?
>
> >>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same
> safety
> >>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
> >>
> >> classified
> >>
> >>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a
> car,
> >>
> >> as
> >>
> >>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been
> addressed
> >>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
> >>
> >>
> >> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
> >> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
> >>
> >
> >Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
> >points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
>
>
> AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his hilarious
> gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
>
> That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> into the same group does it Nate?
>
> "rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
> >>
> >> discuss
> >>
> >>>driving at some point.
> >>
> >>
> >> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
> >>
> >> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
> >> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless
> someone
> >> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
> >> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
> >> hypocrite.
> >>
> >> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
> >> very amusing though.
> >>
> >
> >Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
> >way?
>
> Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
> indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
> apparently just can't resist!
>
> I enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
> >flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
> >sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
> >crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive
> on
> >public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
> >However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV
> because
> >you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
> >belongs in a newsgroup about driving.
>
> It belongs in a newsgroup about driving because a) it was in respnse
> to more siilly claims about the eviol of SUVs and b) because my
> truthful comments caused myopic folks like to to flail around
> spectacularly and c) because it's quite true that I bought my SUV
> because it's a very safe vehicle (poor form Nate to try to recast my
> comments using the absolute "safest" tsk, tsk, tsk).
>
>
> The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
> >leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of
> people
> >who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
> >driving as much as possible.
>
> At least you're consistent in your cluelessness.
>
> Why do you assume that my SUV is "on-road-only" and that folks who
> happen to own an SUV, or any SUV for that matter, want to be
> insulated from the task of driving?
>
> Damn. That's hilarious stuff Nate.
>
> Thanks again you "driving enthusiast" you! ROTFLMAO!
>
>

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > 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
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?

The best I can find for a V8 is 14/19 EPA rating. Your mileage seems
anomalous.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>> I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
>
>Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
>that.

The conservatives wouldn't allow it until we privatized the police. They
all watch RoboCop and wish that all police departments could be as
efficient as OCP.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just
> _comparing_ it to
> >them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a
> gross
> >polluter.
> >
> >--Aardwolf.
> >
> >
> Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.

Which doesn't change the veracity of my original statement.

--Aardwolf.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> newsine.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.
> >>
> >
> >It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
> problem--probably
> >more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
> >vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply
> do
> >to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
> >running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
> >anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
> >car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> >pollution-spewing wrecks.
> >
> >--Aardwolf
> >
> >
> Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?

1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make up?

2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the magnitude of
the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not false.

--Aardwolf.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <msWkb.838268$uu5.148319@sccrnsc04>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
> >
> >>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
> >>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to
> ignore
> >>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
> >>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
> were
> >>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
> >>
> >> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
> >> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
> >> People like you tend to think that way.
> >> You're wrong, though.
> >
> >That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
> >
> >What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
> >people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
> >in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
> >The big three had to react, government or not.
>
> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.
>

And what was wrong w/ Pintos and Gremlins? Anybody I knew that had either
thought they were tough little cars.
Heard horror stories about the Vega though.

> >
> >Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in
business.
> >We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
> >overseas manufacturers.
> >
> >But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
> >some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
> >of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
> >

"John David Galt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The safest strategy overall would be to repeal CAFE so that people with
> large families can go back to buying station wagons instead of SUVs.

Back when station wagons were popular, there were no SUV's (at least not
like they are known today with interior A/C and DVD player, etc.) If you
could mandate that all SUV production be replaced by station wagon
production, you might have something there. But given a choice between
a large station wagon and a SUV I think your smoking weed if you seriously
believe that a large market segment would give their SUV's up to go to
station wagons.

All that repeal of CAFE would do is allow the automakers to build bigger
sedans. So, today's "full size" sedan would become tomorrow's mid-size,
and todays mid-size would become tomorrow's economy sedan, and
today's economy sedan would disappear.

You might then get a small percentage of SUV buyers to buy the largest
sedans that would become available, but that's about it.

Ted

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> > Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
> > keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
>
> Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
> reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
> in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
> better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
> restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
> least the innocent children would not be punished."
>

It's actually the conservatives that are anti-government and want to
repeal all government regulations, Bill. (except those dealing with
flag burning and medical marijuana, of course)

The State of Washington (our northern neighbors) tried last year to
bring some money in to pay for road upkeep and such by raising
the vehicle registration fees. Do you know who fought that and
managed to get it repealed? It wasn't the liberals.

Ted

"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
> the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
> for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.

That is a point. However, it's not that strong a point and here is why.
For
starters, when we are talking expendables, the only ones that really matter
here are fuel, as vehicle fuel dwarfs the expendable consumption of every
other expendable on the vehicle. So let's be honest and say gas/fuel.

In the world, (not just the US) just about every non-mideast country is a
net importer of oil. There are a few notable exceptions of course, but
they don't set the world oil price, OPEC does.

So here is the problem from the US's side. Every barrel of oil
consumed that is over the US max production is subject to
artifical price control by OPEC, which is accomplished by artifical
limiting of the oil supply. Simply put, that price control is bad for
the US's economy. The upshot is that even though Billy Bob might have
to pay more for fuel, the fact that he is consuming more fuel and
thus helping to increase the oil demand past what the US can supply
makes prices rise for ALL fuel purchasers.

>
> Rad repair? The roads are built to handle semis.

People drive on more than just roads, there's bridges, traffic
control devices like speed bumps, and street signage such as
crosswalk stripes, etc. Heavier vehicles wear more. Look at
any major intersection and you will see the lines worn, in many
cases worn right away. Heavier traffic wears more. Granted,
semitrucks wear the streets out far more than SUV's do, but
when was the last time you ever saw a bicyle lane that had a
big groove worn away on the pictures of bikes and the wording
"bike lane" where the tires of the bicycle had worn away the wording.

> Fuel? Possibly.
> Insurance? I'm sure insurance premiums are based on the risk
> presented, so that's already done.

No, because as the numbers of large, heavy vehicles on the road
increase, the average injuries and deaths increase for the sedan
drivers, thus driving up their insurance.

>
> That's sort of strange thinking, to me.
> While a minority, they are still popular. They don't need to be a
> majority to be popular.

The context of your post made it sound like you were arguing that light
trucks and SUV's are more popular than sedans, that is what I was
objecting to.

>
> So they *are* popular? Didn't you just say they weren't?

No I said they aren't "so popular"

> Wait a minute...
> Why are so many complaining that light trucks/SUVs are bought just out
> of vanity, if, according to you, they are being bought for their
> utility?

I didn't say that they are all being bought for their vanity. I said
"everyone who has a light truck or
an SUV are going to give them up" in my statement above.

I do allow that if bigger sedans were available that some SUV purchasers
would elect to buy a big sedan. Espically if the sedan has a drivers seat
in it that is a foot higher than the average sedan today. But I don't
think that a majority of SUV purchasers AS A WHOLE are vanity purchasers.
Keep in mind the large number of SUV's purchased in rural areas where they
are needed.

But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.

> Are you saying that all (or even most) light trucks/SUVs are bought
> for their utility?

I would say that just about all light trucks and SUV's purchased in towns
smaller than 20,000 people and in rural areas are bought for their utility.
I would say that the large majority of them purchased in big cities are
vanity
purchases. Taking the total SUV's and light trucks sold in both areas and
averaging them together, I think you probably would find that a majority of
them are utility purchases -
if there was any way to reliably survey such a thing which there really
isn't,
as your basically asking people if they are idiots or not -
but NOT that big of a majority.

Ted

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> you get my point though.
>

No, actually what your arguing, far from being sarcastic, is the truth.
Obese
people (I notice you use the politically loaded term fat, rather than the
term obese) have more medical problems espically as they age than
people who aren't obese. If every obese person could completely
pay their way through every health care facility they go through then
there would be no problem. But, the fact is that in the US, the majority
of people are covered under some sort of group health policy. The
insurance companies that write those are prohibited by law from
charging more money to obese people, so the thin people end up
funding the medical problems of the obese people. (can you
say heart bypass operations?)

And the Billy Bob I was using as an exampe wasn't driving a semi
truck. He was driving a 40 foot long cracker box, ie: recreational
vehicle. I forget that our European friends may not be familar with
all the deragotory slang terms in use in the US. The term cracker
box came about because the giant RV's look like saltine cracker
boxes with wheels, going down the road.

And as for semi-truck drivers, do they really pay their way? let's
see, how many states have repealed weight-mile taxes due to
pressure from the trucking industry? And as for semitrucks bringing
me a service, well yes they do, I would prefer to pay for it through
higher prices for consumer items, than higher taxes paid to the
government that are then spent on roads. That way I have a choice
to not purchase the consumer item if I choose.

Ted

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There has to be a balance in all this. You can micromanage all costs so
> that no-one has one penny advantage over anyone else, but eventually,
> and very quickly, you reach the point of diminishing returns.
>
> By that I mean that the mechanisms and government beaurocracies... uh,
> beurocracies... uh bu**sh** that have to be set up to manage and
> micromanage everything is a net loss to society, government grows
> bigger, and the average citizen becomes resentful of the overhead costs
> (taxes) and intrusive visibilty by those administering all the crap into
> their lives (kind of like Europe).
>
> I think we've already surpassed that point in many areas (and it's only
> going to get worse). There's something to be said for letting the costs
> inherent in any given decision or path take care of themselves.

Geeze, Bill, did you take Liberal pills this morning? Your starting to
sound
like a goddam tree hugger!

I think you forget that the conservatives are the ones that spearheaded
lowering government taxes across the board (thank you Mr. Regan)
beginning in 1980. The argument was that private industry would take
care of the problem better. Thus now we all pay admissions to get into
the national parks, fees for kids to do sports in school, etc. etc. because
the government has been cutting the taxes paid into the general fund,
and increasing the usage taxes for specific things, to do as you put it,
"micromanage all costs so that no-one has one penny advantage
over anyone else" This is all straight conservative dogma.

> Yeah -
> maybe it's not 100% fair, but is it fair to drag the whole of society
> down with all the costs and intrusion (i.e., fair to the point of
> bringing everyone down to the same level of intense misery)?
>

The liberals that have been telling your friends in the White House
to stay out of micromamaging California's medical marjuana laws
are most definitely against further federal government intrusion.
So are the flag burners. So are the people who are opposed to the
federal government mandating the phrase "under god" in the
Pledge of Allegance.

Funny how both the liberals and conservatives will drag out the
arguments of "let's not micromanage" whenever their particular
ox is being gored.

Ted

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

>
> And if we sit back and let them rape us, the numbers will go down. I
> see. Again, thanks for making my case.
>

Speaking as someone who had cancer I am somewhat amused at
these arguments. I don't recall reading that we only have a pot of
a fixed amount of money and we can either spend it on cancer or
spend it on fighting terrorism.

It seems to me that cancer spending hasn't been much affected by
anything else going on, and that when the US government decided
to spend a bunch of money on terrorism, they just did the usual
thing of firing up the printing presses and printing more money
(ie: deficit spending)

One other thing you might consider is the law of diminishing returns.
So far it appears that we are a long, long way from hitting the area
of diminishing returns on anti-terrorism spending, or for that matter,
spending on fighting crime of any kind. It seems pretty clear right
now that law enforcement has had 20 years of budget cutting
to the point that most police departments in the country are totally
incapabable of capturing more than 10% of all criminals, and only
the stupid ones at that. How many times do we read in the papers of
yet another group of people defrauded by some scammer that
disappears into the night?

By contrast, cancer research can only proceed as fast as it can proceed.
We all want to be well and many people want to believe that throwing
money at a problem like researching cancer is going to somehow make
the research go faster. However I think all it does is flood the granting
institutions with money they have no use for, so as a result they end up
funding these redicuous grants for research like that "thrill research"
that some joker posted in this NG a week or so back. In any case,
the major pharmecutical companies have plenty of money that they
have been throwing at drug research on cancer drugs for the last 50
years.

Ted

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Not if the polution standards are based on grams per mile, which I
> believe they are. The tailpipe sniffer doesn't care how much gas you
> put in, only how much pollution per mile you put out. These are
> independent issues.
>

Last time I took my Datsun 210 through emissions they did not dyno it,
only used a tailpipe sniffer and tachometer. This may have changed by
now, that was a couple years ago. They did dyno the 84 Chevy, though.
No doubt testing methodology is different in different states, but I had
thought that the EPA only mandates the state do emissions testing
for certain areas, and leaves a lot of the methodology up to the states.
Fore sure, in Oregon if your registered in certain counties you are not
required to pass emissions inspection.

Ted

Hear hear!

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

.........................
>
> Or hotel rooms...
>
>
> Matt
>

I gather that the diesel fuel available in the US is still the old-style
sulfurous stuff, which would preclude many/all modern diesel engines.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Plenty decent that runs on diesel, they're just not released in the US
cause
> petrol is so cheap and people don't buy em.
>
> rhys
>
> "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >>
> > >> >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.
> > >>
> > >
> > >And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
> >
> > There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
> > "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> > of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit
> of
> > a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
>
>

On Mon, 20 Oct 03 15:59:11 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>>not play.
>>>
>>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as
>cars
>>>are used.
>>
>>And what would the buyers have done then?
>>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>>
>>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>
>No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.

I think you mis-spelt "for the good of the children".
>
>>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>>Why should you get to do that?
>>Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
>>may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
>>people should live there.
>>
>So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?

My SUVs consistantly test far cleaner than the laws permit.
And I still get to drive what I want.
You want to end that, based on what *you* think is good for society.

Where are these built/sold?

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---

"rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
[...................................]>

> Lobby GM to build LHD versions of the Commodore, Berlina, or Calais sedans
> and stationwagons.
>
> rhys
>
>

They need to carry their bales of hay from their Chelsea and Upper West Side
farms to the markets of Harrods and Bloomingdale's respectively....

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[........................]
>
> But I would definitely argue that the majority of SUV owners who live IN
> THE MAJOR CITIES OF THE COUNTRY are in fact, vanity purchasers.
[...............]