Smart cars coming to the US

"Grendel" > wrote:

>
>B1ackwater wrote:
>> On 29 Jun 2006 07:08:13 -0700, "Grendel" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >B1ackwater wrote:
>> >> On 28 Jun 2006 12:42:47 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Grendel wrote:
>> >> >> Eeyore wrote:
>> >> >> > Roedy Green wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > 4.2 litres per 100 km.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Americans won't have a clue what that means though !
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Some will, some wont. That would equate to 56 mpg here in the states.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's it? For that, I'd rather take a VW TDI which is a Real Car(tm)
>> >> >and get almost the same fuel mileage.
>> >>
>> >> A Harley is more fun than either ...
>> >
>> >I agree, and in certain parts of the country I would be driving one in
>> >a heartbeat (the Dakotas, Montana and/or Colorado). But, in the South
>> >at least, riding a hog is asking for trouble. SOMEONE is going to run
>> >into you and/or pull out in front of you, and for the person on the
>> >Harley it's a loosing proposition.
>>
>> Odd ... I've got at least 800,000 miles on bikes without
>> anyone squashing me. That's way beyond mere "luck". Clearly
>> I'm doing something right. There are plenty of bikers in
>> the same category, many in the million-mile club.
>>
>> Then there are the idiots ... but there are always some
>> idiots everywhere you go.
>
>Yes, there are idiots. Unfortunately I live in an area of the country
>where a lot of idiots do not know how to drive. People around here
>can't see a Fire Truck well enough not to pull out in front of it
>(actually happened). If I were to live in another part of the country
>I would probably have a bike (if I lived in the Dakotas you'd have a
>hard time getting me off of one). But not here.

Clue : People see what they're LOOKING FOR. They're
looking for automobiles - not motorcycles, not fire-
trucks. Faced with what they're not looking for they
may as well be blind. Consider this and its implications ...

>> >So, I forgo the fun of a two-wheeler for the safety of heavy
>> >metal (dirt bikes are another story).
>>
>> "Safety" For WHOM ???
>
>For ME, and MY family. THAT is the only ones I need be worried about
>and THEY are the only ones who are MY responsibility.

Choke 'em on pollution ... yea, that's "safe" ...

>> You're operating a device that's
>> destroying the earth by bletching out mass quantities of
>> CO2 and horrible poisons,
>
>Get back to me when you give up any and all internal combustion
>engines, stop using any electricity (after all, that puts out
>particulates or damages nature or created radioactive waste) and stop
>making use of any plastics, polyesters, refrigeration, most medicines
>and any labor saving device.

Inadequate argument. QUANTITY is relevant here. Automobiles
pump out four times the pollution of motorcycles.

>After all, you need to do it 'for the
>children and/or environment.' Hell, you're not even allowed a fire
>to warm your cave in the winter (particulates, dontcha know). Better
>yet, quit breathing (CO2).

Have your car crushed into a little cube - do the world
a favor.

>I found it hilarious when the Earth Liberation torched all those nice
>Hummers in California so they wouldn't pollute.

Actually they produced vastly less pollution burning
them than the Hummers would have produced in an average
year of driving.

That aside, those people are fanatics.

>What they were too
>stupid to realize is that by burning the Hummers, with their plastics,
>polyethalines, hydrocarbons and all the other nice, chemical based
>structure, they put more particulates and pollution in the atmosphere
>than if those same vehicles had been driven for over 150 years. But,
>hey, it made them 'feel good' and that's all that counts...right?

Wrong. The Hummers burning hundreds of gallons of gasoline
would have produced far more pollution.

>You are not allowed to control my life just because of your silly assed
>beliefs.

Why not ? Others do it all the time.

>> its sheer size and weight
>> requiring considerable collateral damage to many aspects
>> of nature -
>
>Any technology effects

"affects"

>it's

"its"

>surroudings. Let me know when you start
>living in caves and wiping your ass with poison oak. After all, YOU
>want to be nature friendly, right?

Again, the false argument. Quantity is relevant, remember
that.

>> not to mention the damage such a big heavy
>> thing can do to other people and/or their property.
>
>It is not my concern, nor my responsibility, what damage happens to
>other people and/or their property.

REALLY now ? The judge may disagree ...

>It IS my responsibility that the
>least amount of damage happens to MY family.

Insanely selfish argument ... untenable as a member of
a society. Sorry, but you ARE responsible for others,
like it or not. The degree to which you are responsible
is debatable however.

>I don't give a **** about
>damage to my vehicle, either, as its express purpose is to transport
>us. OTHERS are responsible for their safety.

YOU can't have safety unless THEY are thinking safe.
THEY can't have safety unless YOU are thinking safe.

See how it works ?

>I drive defensively and have managed to go through life with only one,
>minor accident (Chick rear ended me, I hat a slightly bent bumper and
>she lost her radiator) and one major one. I was T-boned by a Semi
>running a red light. Had I been in a Civic I would be dead. As it
>was, my truck was destroyed and I got a trip to the emergency room.
>BUT, I lived. Tell me, how would it have been better to have been hit
>by a Semi while driving a Yugo?

Why were you in the path of the big truck ? Just ASSUMED it
was gonna stop ?

Good way to wind up dead.

>> Cars are NOT "safe" - except in the most selfish meaning
>> of the word.
>
>Then, feel free to do without. But you have no say so as to what I
>drive. And that bugs the **** out of you.

What you, and so many others, drive is wrecking the planet
(not to mention the local economy). I live on the planet.
Therefore I am concerned and will continue to assert some
degree of control.

>> Now, admittedly, a bike isn't the best option for a
>> ice-covered road in the middle of a Minnesota winter.
>
>And, because of the attitude of local drivers, it's not the best option
>for daily driving in my town.

Hell, my town is full of aged retirees ...

Nevertheless I've survived quite well.

Maybe I should write a book on how to do it ... ?

Clue : nobody can ride WITH me ... my riding style
is very 'adaptive' - I might pull into a business
or driveway or turn lane at any moment if I don't
like the vibes I'm getting from the traffic column.
I use the whole lane - shifting as necessary to best
see and be seen. I make a big buffer space. I wait
a few seconds after the light turns green. I weave a
bit as I apply the brakes - alerting the person behind.
I waggle my handlebars when someone is about to turn
left in front of me - shining my light in their eyes.

I once took a college course on visual perception. The
material borrowed heavily from old Air-Force data gathered
in the 50s when jet planes were new. They very carefully
studied just what and how people see things - and what
they don't see. This info has been of practical use to me.

>> They tend to slip and slide along a whole extra axis
>> compared to cars. Of course that's what sidecar rigs
>> were made for - some of those old/new Russian jobs
>> even have 2-wheel drive in the rear.
>>
>> Oh, ever seen a "Carver" 3-wheeler ? Stylish - and the
>> best of car and bike combined. Some Dutch company makes
>> them. I hope they make a lot more.
>
>Wasn't familiar with them, so I looked them up so as not to be
>talking from a point of ignorance. Nice little vehicle. Looks like it
>would be fun to drive and easy on the gas. I might consider one for
>commuting just to and from work on days when I didn't have to carry
>anything (seldom).

I drive nothing but motorcycles. Oddly enough, I discovered
that anything that won't fit on a bike ... you REALLY don'
need it. This has held true for over a decade now. If I need
a washing maching I'll have it delivered ...

>I'd like to have the little sport three wheeler,
>"T-rex'. It's fast, light and mean looking. Both would be fun,
>but wouldn't want to go up against even a Civic in one.

Spend lots of time tilting at windmills ?

Don't "go up against" cars.

>Again, you have no say it what I drive.

We'll see ...

>I choose to drive what I want,
>a big truck. If you are so worried about nature, then YOU make
>allowances in your life. Don't try to dictate any in mine.

Not good enough for just ME to adopt an ultra-high-mileage
vehicle. YOU have to do it too ... and 300,000,000 others.
I'll keep lobbying my congressmen - see if I can find a way
for them to make money/votes from adopting my position.
I know how it works ...