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

"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.
>

Magnulus wrote:
>
> The nystagmus causes things to the side (about 30 degrees or so)
to lack
> definition- I can see them and know they are there, but I really
cannot
> focus my eye on them for more than a brief second before they move
away. I
> might see a word and know it is a word, but I couldn't actually read
it. So
> my head and neck do alot more work to follow things.

Someone's feeding you a line of crap. I'm a high performance driving
instructor with two 'Bavarian' marque car clubs. One part of our
training long ago included the study of physiological aspects of
driving, including the most effective use of vision.

*No one* (even with perfect vision) can focus more than 5 degrees away
from center. There are lots of informal proofs of this that anyone can
dream up. If you're honest, you'll find I'm right (meaning: my
teachers were right). We *move our eyes* as well as our heads lots
more than we think we do.

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. While it may become an automatic habit (it is with me), it
shouldn't be ignored - and *most* drivers ignore it. They fail to
*notice* what they can see and therefore fail to analyze what they see.
This problem has been characterized here as 'a small bubble of
awareness' because these people generally don't react until far later
than the truly attentive driver will. This is why such drivers on
highways will 'suddenly' notice they've come upon slower traffic in
their lane and quickly change lanes - cutting off someone like me who
has been in the lane for some time (they also tend not to check their
mirrors first and they *sure* as hell don't already *know* I'm there)
in anticipation of my pass. Of course, I tend to *expect* that idiotic
behavior, so I've never been hit - but I've worn out a few sets of
*horns* ...
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that - fast)

Magnulus wrote:
>
> The nystagmus causes things to the side (about 30 degrees or so)
to lack
> definition- I can see them and know they are there, but I really
cannot
> focus my eye on them for more than a brief second before they move
away. I
> might see a word and know it is a word, but I couldn't actually read
it. So
> my head and neck do alot more work to follow things.

Someone's feeding you a line of crap. I'm a high performance driving
instructor with two 'Bavarian' marque car clubs. One part of our
training long ago included the study of physiological aspects of
driving, including the most effective use of vision.

*No one* (even with perfect vision) can focus more than 5 degrees away
from center. There are lots of informal proofs of this that anyone can
dream up. If you're honest, you'll find I'm right (meaning: my
teachers were right). We *move our eyes* as well as our heads lots
more than we think we do.

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. While it may become an automatic habit (it is with me), it
shouldn't be ignored - and *most* drivers ignore it. They fail to
*notice* what they can see and therefore fail to analyze what they see.
This problem has been characterized here as 'a small bubble of
awareness' because these people generally don't react until far later
than the truly attentive driver will. This is why such drivers on
highways will 'suddenly' notice they've come upon slower traffic in
their lane and quickly change lanes - cutting off someone like me who
has been in the lane for some time (they also tend not to check their
mirrors first and they *sure* as hell don't already *know* I'm there)
in anticipation of my pass. Of course, I tend to *expect* that idiotic
behavior, so I've never been hit - but I've worn out a few sets of
*horns* ...
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that - fast)

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.

Look for me in my *bagless*, *ABS-less* (It broke.), Damn Fast <TM>,
21-mpg-on-a-good-day, *RED* '88 535is. I'll be blithely passing or
deftly dodging around every problem he's anticipating.

Life's too short to drive boring cars.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that - fast)

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.

Look for me in my *bagless*, *ABS-less* (It broke.), Damn Fast <TM>,
21-mpg-on-a-good-day, *RED* '88 535is. I'll be blithely passing or
deftly dodging around every problem he's anticipating.

Life's too short to drive boring cars.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that - fast)

In article .com>,
Motorhead Lawyer > wrote:
>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.

He's considering cars? I thought he was bitching about speeders. I
didn't even see a car post.

>Look for me in my *bagless*, *ABS-less* (It broke.), Damn Fast <TM>,
>21-mpg-on-a-good-day, *RED* '88 535is. I'll be blithely passing or
>deftly dodging around every problem he's anticipating.


Well, I'll look for you, but as we're likely to be doing similar
speeds in traffic, I doubt we'll see each other unless you blow my doors off on
an otherwise empty stretch :-)

In article .com>,
Motorhead Lawyer > wrote:
>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.

He's considering cars? I thought he was bitching about speeders. I
didn't even see a car post.

>Look for me in my *bagless*, *ABS-less* (It broke.), Damn Fast <TM>,
>21-mpg-on-a-good-day, *RED* '88 535is. I'll be blithely passing or
>deftly dodging around every problem he's anticipating.


Well, I'll look for you, but as we're likely to be doing similar
speeds in traffic, I doubt we'll see each other unless you blow my doors off on
an otherwise empty stretch :-)

"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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

"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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

"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.