I want to save the planet/fight oil dependence, but I want a safe car too...

In article >, says...

>Basically, it gives you more control. You're generally overtaking slower
>traffic rather than being overtaken, and an overtaker has more options
>open to them.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that when you are going faster you
don't travel in clumps of cars. So if something does happen, there are
less likely to be cars around you so you have room to move around the
road.

--------------
Alex

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Actually, any intelligent individual would advocate driver training.
>>
>> But since you're far from being an intelligent inividual, you prefer
>> reactive measures as opposed to proactive. You're such a dim-lib.
>>
>
> Why can't we have both? I never said I was against driver training. But
> even the best driver shouldn't speed. It's a public road, not a rally
> stage. The citizens, in the form of a government, decided that there was
> such a thing as a "safe speed" for a given road type, and that's why we
> have
> speed limits.

If that was the truth, then speeders would be eceedingly rare, since we
all "decided" on this safe speed. You can see each and every day that
the majority (very close to *all*) in fact do not obey the speed limits.
Obviously the "desicion" was not really reached by the citizens,
but by narrowly defined intrerests.



Especially now that there are alot of SUV's and trucks on the
> road, we should have speed limits that are enforced.

This has no real meaning, SUVs and trucks may be common, but
stupid people can do damage in a Dodge Monaco just as well as
in an explorer.

>
> If showing a little concern for my fellow citizens and myself makes me a
> "dim liberal", well, I guess that's not such a bad thing, and it reflects
> rather poorly on conservatives.
>
God I hate it when control freaks proudly take the label of "liberal"
People like you are the reason no one will admit to thinking progressive
thought.

Bernard
>

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Actually, any intelligent individual would advocate driver training.
>>
>> But since you're far from being an intelligent inividual, you prefer
>> reactive measures as opposed to proactive. You're such a dim-lib.
>>
>
> Why can't we have both? I never said I was against driver training. But
> even the best driver shouldn't speed. It's a public road, not a rally
> stage. The citizens, in the form of a government, decided that there was
> such a thing as a "safe speed" for a given road type, and that's why we
> have
> speed limits.

If that was the truth, then speeders would be eceedingly rare, since we
all "decided" on this safe speed. You can see each and every day that
the majority (very close to *all*) in fact do not obey the speed limits.
Obviously the "desicion" was not really reached by the citizens,
but by narrowly defined intrerests.



Especially now that there are alot of SUV's and trucks on the
> road, we should have speed limits that are enforced.

This has no real meaning, SUVs and trucks may be common, but
stupid people can do damage in a Dodge Monaco just as well as
in an explorer.

>
> If showing a little concern for my fellow citizens and myself makes me a
> "dim liberal", well, I guess that's not such a bad thing, and it reflects
> rather poorly on conservatives.
>
God I hate it when control freaks proudly take the label of "liberal"
People like you are the reason no one will admit to thinking progressive
thought.

Bernard
>

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure. The money comes from taxes paid by drivers, makes a U-turn at
> the state capitol (or Washington D.C.) and what isn't skimmed off (to
> pay for mass transit among other things) pays for roads.

It comes from gas taxes (it can come from other sources, too). Not
everybody who pays gas/fuel taxes is a "driver". Please put down the
persecution complex.

>
> I don't listen to music.

Your loss.

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure. The money comes from taxes paid by drivers, makes a U-turn at
> the state capitol (or Washington D.C.) and what isn't skimmed off (to
> pay for mass transit among other things) pays for roads.

It comes from gas taxes (it can come from other sources, too). Not
everybody who pays gas/fuel taxes is a "driver". Please put down the
persecution complex.

>
> I don't listen to music.

Your loss.

"Bernard Farquart" > wrote in message
news:X_TEd.11190$ig7.5755@trnddc04...
> If that was the truth, then speeders would be eceedingly rare, since we
> all "decided" on this safe speed. You can see each and every day that
> the majority (very close to *all*) in fact do not obey the speed limits.
> Obviously the "desicion" was not really reached by the citizens,
> but by narrowly defined intrerests.

So what? What does this prove? Only that more enforcement is needed.
They can start by making radar detectors illegal.


> This has no real meaning, SUVs and trucks may be common, but
> stupid people can do damage in a Dodge Monaco just as well as
> in an explorer.

No, you are wrong, and uninformed. An SUV has a higher ride height.
SUV's, when they collide with a car, often will push the top of the SUV into
the window of a car. The passenger sometimes will strike their head against
the SUV, with fatal results. SUV's and trucks often have poor crumple
zones, and the side of a car doesn't crumple much at all by design. An SUV
striking a car can delivers a head injury criterion of 8000 to the driver
or passenger, which is not survivable if the occupant's car doesn't have
some kind of side impact head protection. In contrast, in a simple 35 mph
side collision with a car of equal size, at most a person will usually get
an HIC of about 300-800 in a newer car (even without side airbags, due to
increased used of padding), which is survivable almost always and rarely
results in serious injury.

This is why the death rate in automobiles is actually going up in the last
few years, despite the fact seatbelt use is increasing and drunk driving is
stabilizing. SUV's are killing more passengers in cars. It will only get
worse when people start selling their old SUV's en masse and young drivers
and alcoholics start buying them used.

>
> >
> > If showing a little concern for my fellow citizens and myself makes me
a
> > "dim liberal", well, I guess that's not such a bad thing, and it
reflects
> > rather poorly on conservatives.
> >
> God I hate it when control freaks proudly take the label of "liberal"
> People like you are the reason no one will admit to thinking progressive
> thought.

I'm not a control freak. But if by control freak, you mean I am arguing
from a reasoned position with facts to back it up, and not fairy tales,
well, then I'm a proud control freak. That's better than being an
unthinking sheep.

"Bernard Farquart" > wrote in message
news:X_TEd.11190$ig7.5755@trnddc04...
> If that was the truth, then speeders would be eceedingly rare, since we
> all "decided" on this safe speed. You can see each and every day that
> the majority (very close to *all*) in fact do not obey the speed limits.
> Obviously the "desicion" was not really reached by the citizens,
> but by narrowly defined intrerests.

So what? What does this prove? Only that more enforcement is needed.
They can start by making radar detectors illegal.


> This has no real meaning, SUVs and trucks may be common, but
> stupid people can do damage in a Dodge Monaco just as well as
> in an explorer.

No, you are wrong, and uninformed. An SUV has a higher ride height.
SUV's, when they collide with a car, often will push the top of the SUV into
the window of a car. The passenger sometimes will strike their head against
the SUV, with fatal results. SUV's and trucks often have poor crumple
zones, and the side of a car doesn't crumple much at all by design. An SUV
striking a car can delivers a head injury criterion of 8000 to the driver
or passenger, which is not survivable if the occupant's car doesn't have
some kind of side impact head protection. In contrast, in a simple 35 mph
side collision with a car of equal size, at most a person will usually get
an HIC of about 300-800 in a newer car (even without side airbags, due to
increased used of padding), which is survivable almost always and rarely
results in serious injury.

This is why the death rate in automobiles is actually going up in the last
few years, despite the fact seatbelt use is increasing and drunk driving is
stabilizing. SUV's are killing more passengers in cars. It will only get
worse when people start selling their old SUV's en masse and young drivers
and alcoholics start buying them used.

>
> >
> > If showing a little concern for my fellow citizens and myself makes me
a
> > "dim liberal", well, I guess that's not such a bad thing, and it
reflects
> > rather poorly on conservatives.
> >
> God I hate it when control freaks proudly take the label of "liberal"
> People like you are the reason no one will admit to thinking progressive
> thought.

I'm not a control freak. But if by control freak, you mean I am arguing
from a reasoned position with facts to back it up, and not fairy tales,
well, then I'm a proud control freak. That's better than being an
unthinking sheep.

I was also considering possibly a Volkswagen Golf or Jetta TDI-
turbodiesel. An auto (all I will drive, I have enough to pay attention to
on the road) gets about 35 mpg or so, and all the newer Volkswagens have
good crash ratings and side curtain airbags. Aside from emitting more large
particle soot, diesels emit less CO2 (about 30 percent less, as diesels are
inherently more efficient), and the other emissions are similar to a regular
car. Once the US goes no-sulfur diesel (likely by using biodiesel in small
amounts, as in Europe), they can fit them with catalytic converters and the
soot emissions will be lower.

I believe one of the big car manufacturers is working on a diesel-eletric
hybrid for Europe. It gets about 85mpg.

I was also considering possibly a Volkswagen Golf or Jetta TDI-
turbodiesel. An auto (all I will drive, I have enough to pay attention to
on the road) gets about 35 mpg or so, and all the newer Volkswagens have
good crash ratings and side curtain airbags. Aside from emitting more large
particle soot, diesels emit less CO2 (about 30 percent less, as diesels are
inherently more efficient), and the other emissions are similar to a regular
car. Once the US goes no-sulfur diesel (likely by using biodiesel in small
amounts, as in Europe), they can fit them with catalytic converters and the
soot emissions will be lower.

I believe one of the big car manufacturers is working on a diesel-eletric
hybrid for Europe. It gets about 85mpg.

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bernard Farquart" > wrote in message
> news:X_TEd.11190$ig7.5755@trnddc04...
>> If that was the truth, then speeders would be eceedingly rare, since we
>> all "decided" on this safe speed. You can see each and every day that
>> the majority (very close to *all*) in fact do not obey the speed limits.
>> Obviously the "desicion" was not really reached by the citizens,
>> but by narrowly defined intrerests.
>
> So what? What does this prove? Only that more enforcement is needed.
> They can start by making radar detectors illegal.

Well, you said that the citizens had decided upon these ridiculously
low speed limits, I was pointing out the obvious fallicy of your
"position"

>
>
>> This has no real meaning, SUVs and trucks may be common, but
>> stupid people can do damage in a Dodge Monaco just as well as
>> in an explorer.
>
> No, you are wrong, and uninformed. An SUV has a higher ride height.
> SUV's, when they collide with a car, often will push the top of the SUV
> into
> the window of a car. The passenger sometimes will strike their head
> against
> the SUV, with fatal results. SUV's and trucks often have poor crumple
> zones, and the side of a car doesn't crumple much at all by design. An
> SUV
> striking a car can delivers a head injury criterion of 8000 to the driver
> or passenger, which is not survivable if the occupant's car doesn't have
> some kind of side impact head protection. In contrast, in a simple 35 mph
> side collision with a car of equal size, at most a person will usually get
> an HIC of about 300-800 in a newer car (even without side airbags, due to
> increased used of padding), which is survivable almost always and rarely
> results in serious injury.

Sorry, I think there were large and small cars before CAFE. I think
the people in an MGB who get hit by a '68 fleetwood will die just
like the people in a geo metro when hit by an explorer. If ride
height differences bother you, they shouldn't, you see according to
your logic, we citizens decided to start forcing car makers to put
the large cars we desired on truck chassis' due to "our" decision
to push the CAFE requirement in the way we did.

>
> This is why the death rate in automobiles is actually going up in the
> last
> few years, despite the fact seatbelt use is increasing and drunk driving
> is
> stabilizing. SUV's are killing more passengers in cars. It will only get
> worse when people start selling their old SUV's en masse and young drivers
> and alcoholics start buying them used.


still "your" desicion, just like the speed limits, right?

>
>>
>> >
>> > If showing a little concern for my fellow citizens and myself makes me
> a
>> > "dim liberal", well, I guess that's not such a bad thing, and it
> reflects
>> > rather poorly on conservatives.
>> >
>> God I hate it when control freaks proudly take the label of "liberal"
>> People like you are the reason no one will admit to thinking progressive
>> thought.
>
> I'm not a control freak. But if by control freak, you mean I am arguing
> from a reasoned position with facts to back it up, and not fairy tales,
> well, then I'm a proud control freak. That's better than being an
> unthinking sheep.
>
No, trying to exert control over large parts of other
people's lives is what makes you a control freak.
>