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

"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Actually, I have to apologize to all you folks. I have *no idea* why I
> even bothered to read this thread, much less respond to it. Every car
> Magnulus is considering is *too* 'safe', *too* slow, *too*
> 'economical', and *too* boring.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

You might like sports cars or muscle cars or whatever. I don't. And if
you speed, I hope you get busted. Drive safely, or not at all.

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Bernard Farquart" > wrote in message
> news:K43Fd.16135$lG.15257@trnddc03...
>> Well, you said that the citizens had decided upon these ridiculously
>> low speed limits, I was pointing out the obvious fallicy of your
>> "position"
>
> Few people even if they speed, will admit to it. We all want some rules.
> If there were no speed limits, no rules for traffic, the roads would be
> alot
> more dangerous.

Have you ever been on an interstate? In my city, the average traffic
speed is seven to ten MPH over the "limit" if anyone is actually travelling
the "limit" traffic is flowing around them like a stone in a stream.

>
>>
>> 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.
>
> It's statistical. People in SUV's are more likely to kill other drivers
> in a multi-vehicle crash.
>
>> 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.
>
> People had the erroneous belief that SUV's were safer. They aren't. In
> fact, the highest occupant death rate, after light trucks, are light
> SUV's.
> The lowest death rates are found among sedans, because they roll over
> less.
>

Well, my *point* was that you can not find the same large selection of full
size sedans due to CAFE requirements. THAT is the reason people are
buying SUVs, they want the same thing they always did, a good sized
station wagon, basically. Now that vehicle has been legislated into a
"truck" due to it's lack of mileage restrictions, or a minivan, same reason.


>>
>> still "your" desicion, just like the speed limits, right?
>>
>
> SUV's are killing machines, and people who drive them and injure others
> in
> collisions should be held financially accountable for lost wages and pain
> and suffering that they produce. The people driving SUV's could be
> driving
> a sedan or station wagon, but they choose not to, because they are stupid.
> If the governmets refuse to act, the courts must.
>
>> No, trying to exert control over large parts of other
>> people's lives is what makes you a control freak.
>
> Driving is a privilege, not a right, idiot. You have no right to drive a
> killing machine like an SUV.
>
That is obviously a falshood, as SUVs, whatever your opinion, do in fact
exist.

BTW is disagreeing with you what makes me an "idiot" ?
I actually do not drive anything you could classify as an
SUV, but thanks for letting me know where you are coming from.

Bernard


>

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Bernard Farquart" > wrote in message
> news:K43Fd.16135$lG.15257@trnddc03...
>> Well, you said that the citizens had decided upon these ridiculously
>> low speed limits, I was pointing out the obvious fallicy of your
>> "position"
>
> Few people even if they speed, will admit to it. We all want some rules.
> If there were no speed limits, no rules for traffic, the roads would be
> alot
> more dangerous.

Have you ever been on an interstate? In my city, the average traffic
speed is seven to ten MPH over the "limit" if anyone is actually travelling
the "limit" traffic is flowing around them like a stone in a stream.

>
>>
>> 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.
>
> It's statistical. People in SUV's are more likely to kill other drivers
> in a multi-vehicle crash.
>
>> 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.
>
> People had the erroneous belief that SUV's were safer. They aren't. In
> fact, the highest occupant death rate, after light trucks, are light
> SUV's.
> The lowest death rates are found among sedans, because they roll over
> less.
>

Well, my *point* was that you can not find the same large selection of full
size sedans due to CAFE requirements. THAT is the reason people are
buying SUVs, they want the same thing they always did, a good sized
station wagon, basically. Now that vehicle has been legislated into a
"truck" due to it's lack of mileage restrictions, or a minivan, same reason.


>>
>> still "your" desicion, just like the speed limits, right?
>>
>
> SUV's are killing machines, and people who drive them and injure others
> in
> collisions should be held financially accountable for lost wages and pain
> and suffering that they produce. The people driving SUV's could be
> driving
> a sedan or station wagon, but they choose not to, because they are stupid.
> If the governmets refuse to act, the courts must.
>
>> No, trying to exert control over large parts of other
>> people's lives is what makes you a control freak.
>
> Driving is a privilege, not a right, idiot. You have no right to drive a
> killing machine like an SUV.
>
That is obviously a falshood, as SUVs, whatever your opinion, do in fact
exist.

BTW is disagreeing with you what makes me an "idiot" ?
I actually do not drive anything you could classify as an
SUV, but thanks for letting me know where you are coming from.

Bernard


>

Magnulus wrote:
> "Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Actually, I have to apologize to all you folks. I have *no idea*
why I
> > even bothered to read this thread, much less respond to it. Every
car
> > Magnulus is considering is *too* 'safe', *too* slow, *too*
> > 'economical', and *too* boring.
>
> Driving is a privilege, not a right.

You're not just dull. You're stupid. Read these:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...rch+this+group

> You might like sports cars or muscle cars or whatever. I don't.
And if
> you speed, I hope you get busted.

Every half decade or so, I do. It's kind of a 'road tax' of, say,
$30-40/year to go everywhere at ~10 mph over the limit.

> Drive safely, or not at all.

I do. Lots. Quickly.
<PLONK>
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; got bored)

Magnulus wrote:
> "Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Actually, I have to apologize to all you folks. I have *no idea*
why I
> > even bothered to read this thread, much less respond to it. Every
car
> > Magnulus is considering is *too* 'safe', *too* slow, *too*
> > 'economical', and *too* boring.
>
> Driving is a privilege, not a right.

You're not just dull. You're stupid. Read these:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...rch+this+group

> You might like sports cars or muscle cars or whatever. I don't.
And if
> you speed, I hope you get busted.

Every half decade or so, I do. It's kind of a 'road tax' of, say,
$30-40/year to go everywhere at ~10 mph over the limit.

> Drive safely, or not at all.

I do. Lots. Quickly.
<PLONK>
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; got bored)

"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> One of the keys to driving safely and well, regardless of speed, is to
> always be moving your focus of vision (that <5 deg cone) and to always
> be *analyzing* what you see, whether close, distant, to either side, or
> behind.

You are confusing periphreal vision with a null point (point at which the
nystagmus is dampened- this point is relative to the head, not the eyes).
One some people they can even do surgery to move the muscles around to alter
the null point- this is most often done though in cases of where the
nystagmus is resulting in an extreme head posture that causes neck problems.
In my case, the surgery would be invasive and likely not benefit much, as my
null point head position is mainly something affecting me when I look
through only one eye, and it is not so extreme.

My periphreal vision is quite good, probably above average. But my
central, binocular vision is best within about a 20 degree cone in front of
my nose. If an object starts moving out of that cone, I find myself
grradually having to switch which eye is dominant- sometimes when I am tired
the other eye will drift towards the side (becaues of a condition called
strabismus) and I will see very little- it's not true amblyopia because I
still am seeing some stuff through the eye, and both eyes are about equal in
strength (true amblyopia results in blindness in one eye, but as a little
kid my parents patched my eyes). This dominance switching is something that
happens automatically for me- I use the opposite eye to see the opposite
side.

"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> One of the keys to driving safely and well, regardless of speed, is to
> always be moving your focus of vision (that <5 deg cone) and to always
> be *analyzing* what you see, whether close, distant, to either side, or
> behind.

You are confusing periphreal vision with a null point (point at which the
nystagmus is dampened- this point is relative to the head, not the eyes).
One some people they can even do surgery to move the muscles around to alter
the null point- this is most often done though in cases of where the
nystagmus is resulting in an extreme head posture that causes neck problems.
In my case, the surgery would be invasive and likely not benefit much, as my
null point head position is mainly something affecting me when I look
through only one eye, and it is not so extreme.

My periphreal vision is quite good, probably above average. But my
central, binocular vision is best within about a 20 degree cone in front of
my nose. If an object starts moving out of that cone, I find myself
grradually having to switch which eye is dominant- sometimes when I am tired
the other eye will drift towards the side (becaues of a condition called
strabismus) and I will see very little- it's not true amblyopia because I
still am seeing some stuff through the eye, and both eyes are about equal in
strength (true amblyopia results in blindness in one eye, but as a little
kid my parents patched my eyes). This dominance switching is something that
happens automatically for me- I use the opposite eye to see the opposite
side.

"Bernard Farquart" > wrote in message
news:j0oFd.13743$ig7.11230@trnddc04...
>
> We are done here, go read about the MPG rules (called CAFE) and
> what effect they had on manufacturers and why it made sense for them
> to *offer* more truck based vehicles, due to large monetary penalties
> for having too many large *cars* in thier fleet.
>
> http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=2248
>


The implication is that only heavy, gas guzzling cars are safe... and this
simply is not necessarily true. You can make a car both safe and fuel
efficient, without having it be heavy. 86 percent of the increase in fuel
efficiency in cars has not been due to weight reduction, either, but due to
better engineering. If you look at vehicle occupant death rates, some of
the highest are for trucks. In fact, some of the smaller cars have much
lower death rates (Honda Civic, Volkswagen Jetta, and so on). Some cars
actually have increased in weight to add reinforcement, especially to doors-
yet it hasn't hurt fuel efficiency to a noticeable degree.

Many of the old, heavy cars were unsafe. The old 84 Crown Victoria I
occasionally drive has a pretty mediocre crash rating of about 3 stars. Yet
it looks very solid. You can have a very rigid, sturdy design, but if the
occupant gets thrown around like a tennis ball inside the car or crushed by
the steering column or intrusion into the cabin, it's no good. Yet this is
what happens in many SUV's. They look sturdy, but the roof is weak, or
there is alot of intrusion into the cabin.

The solution to CAFE is to either make cars and trucks/SUV's equal in
CAFE requirements, or to scrap CAFE and directly increase the price of
gasoline via taxation. Encouraging automakers to build better SUV's that
are more crashworthy and less aggressive would also be a doable solution
(such as mandating bumper height limits and reinforcement of the front end
of cars and SUV's to encourage crash compatability).

What did the minivan/station wagon in was marketting. Nobody wants a car
assosciated with soccer moms and middle-age, even if that's the demographic
that buys them.

Detroit resisted change, wheather it was seatbelts, frontwheel drive, fuel
injectien, or airbags. The SUV is the ultimate institutionalization of the
outdated American auto industry.

"Bernard Farquart" > wrote in message
news:j0oFd.13743$ig7.11230@trnddc04...
>
> We are done here, go read about the MPG rules (called CAFE) and
> what effect they had on manufacturers and why it made sense for them
> to *offer* more truck based vehicles, due to large monetary penalties
> for having too many large *cars* in thier fleet.
>
> http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=2248
>


The implication is that only heavy, gas guzzling cars are safe... and this
simply is not necessarily true. You can make a car both safe and fuel
efficient, without having it be heavy. 86 percent of the increase in fuel
efficiency in cars has not been due to weight reduction, either, but due to
better engineering. If you look at vehicle occupant death rates, some of
the highest are for trucks. In fact, some of the smaller cars have much
lower death rates (Honda Civic, Volkswagen Jetta, and so on). Some cars
actually have increased in weight to add reinforcement, especially to doors-
yet it hasn't hurt fuel efficiency to a noticeable degree.

Many of the old, heavy cars were unsafe. The old 84 Crown Victoria I
occasionally drive has a pretty mediocre crash rating of about 3 stars. Yet
it looks very solid. You can have a very rigid, sturdy design, but if the
occupant gets thrown around like a tennis ball inside the car or crushed by
the steering column or intrusion into the cabin, it's no good. Yet this is
what happens in many SUV's. They look sturdy, but the roof is weak, or
there is alot of intrusion into the cabin.

The solution to CAFE is to either make cars and trucks/SUV's equal in
CAFE requirements, or to scrap CAFE and directly increase the price of
gasoline via taxation. Encouraging automakers to build better SUV's that
are more crashworthy and less aggressive would also be a doable solution
(such as mandating bumper height limits and reinforcement of the front end
of cars and SUV's to encourage crash compatability).

What did the minivan/station wagon in was marketting. Nobody wants a car
assosciated with soccer moms and middle-age, even if that's the demographic
that buys them.

Detroit resisted change, wheather it was seatbelts, frontwheel drive, fuel
injectien, or airbags. The SUV is the ultimate institutionalization of the
outdated American auto industry.

In article >,
Magnulus > wrote:
>
> The implication is that only heavy, gas guzzling cars are safe... and this
>simply is not necessarily true.

It's the way the smart money bets.

>lower death rates (Honda Civic, Volkswagen Jetta, and so on). Some cars
>actually have increased in weight to add reinforcement, especially to doors-
>yet it hasn't hurt fuel efficiency to a noticeable degree.

It has hurt fuel efficiency to a _measurable_ degree, however.

> Many of the old, heavy cars were unsafe. The old 84 Crown Victoria I
>occasionally drive has a pretty mediocre crash rating of about 3 stars.

Based on a fixed-barrier collision. However, collide with another car
or a deformable object (e.g. guardrail) and the heavier car wins.