Drving faster, in my experience does not make a significant change in mileage...

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>>Not exactly. In US English, "hardtop" is short for "hardtop
>>convertible" i.e. a two-door (or in some rare cases, a 4-door) with no
>>B-pillar, where you can wind down the windows and the window opening is
>>completely unbroken between the windshield post and C-pillar.
>
>
> Hardtop coupe, surely?

I'm pretty sure my etymology is correct, although I'd be willing to be
corrected if you can prove me wrong. AFAIK the term came about because
a hardtop is essentially a convertible body (as opposed to a coupe)
with, well, you know...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> I've cited peer reviewed studies. You haven't.
> Here it is again:
>
> I'm just going to prove myself correct:
>
> http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/155.pdf

ROTFL! ROTFL! You've proven that you can't read! You've proven that you
don't know the basic economics of technology! You've proven that you are
superficial zealous nutcase! At least it was good for a hearty chuckle.

> -> COST OF INSTALLING AIRBAGS
> -> We assume the same cost estimates as used in an
> -> earlier study2, although these were criticized25 as being
> -> too low. These were that the driver only system cost
> -> $278 and the dual system $410.

This study cites a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
article from 1997! It is EIGHT YEARS OLD! EIGHT YEARS OLD! Did you even
read the footnote?! On top of that the JAMA article was probably written 2
years before it came out!

The very next sentence is "I could find no more specific or current
estimates of cost." That's academic speak for "this is a guess"! That means
this is very very weak data! Academic papers more than 5 years old are often
largely obsolete.

In terms of the economics of technology, EVERY type of technology gets
cheaper over time. Be it the Ford Model T, the personal computer or flat
panel TVs. If airbags follow 99.999% of all technology their costs SHOULD be
perhaps 50% lower by now.

> Read the cost-to-benefit section as well.

Again, the "cost" of injury reduction is a personal thing.

> Oh, how did I find this? Googled for "airbag cost" The first match was
> this file in html without the figures, the second was the PDF with
> figures.

An 8 year old price figure!

> I provided a cite that proves everything I have stated several posts ago.

You've just "proven" that you don't have a clue about reading academic
papers critically. Academic journals are filled with advocacy positions
(I've read plenty!)--peer review just cuts down on obvious bias and sloppy
work. I think you'd have a heart attack if you read all the nanny-state
(left wing bias) stuff in academic journals.

> It's posted above because you can't seem to operate a news reader or are
> just playing ignorant.

My server has been acting up due to their spam filtering, expiration dates,
etc.

>Data is from peer reviewed studies. Highest
> quality out there.

Ok, going on your own citation, from the conclusion: "For the US in 2003,
driver airbags produced an injury reducing benefit estimated at $1.60
billion..." Seems that people have a NET GAIN in terms of injuries. Sure
beats a metal spike in the dashboard. It does in fact cost a lot ($3.0
billion from your article), but who can put a price on another person's pain
and suffering?

We do a pile of things where the costs exceed the benefits, most people will
never benefit from plain old car insurance. From your own source they have a
positive injury prevention role, just an expensive and pitfall-filled one.
This same argument (cost-benefit) has been used across numerous social
issues, even for and against gun control. Naturally left-wing authors find
that guns should be banned due to the costs, while one (John Lott) argued
quite the opposite--that "More guns lead to less crime."

Cost-benefit papers are often best described as
pick-your-ideology-then-work-backwards-to-justify-it.

>You're wrong, face up to it.

Nope, you've made my case conclusively in a most entertaining fashion.
Thanks for the link!

-John

In article > , Generic wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I've cited peer reviewed studies. You haven't.
>> Here it is again:
>>
>> I'm just going to prove myself correct:
>>
>> http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/155.pdf
>
> ROTFL! ROTFL! You've proven that you can't read! You've proven that you
> don't know the basic economics of technology! You've proven that you are
> superficial zealous nutcase! At least it was good for a hearty chuckle.

You've just proven you're a lazy ****tard.

>> -> COST OF INSTALLING AIRBAGS
>> -> We assume the same cost estimates as used in an
>> -> earlier study2, although these were criticized25 as being
>> -> too low. These were that the driver only system cost
>> -> $278 and the dual system $410.

> This study cites a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
> article from 1997! It is EIGHT YEARS OLD! EIGHT YEARS OLD! Did you even
> read the footnote?! On top of that the JAMA article was probably written 2
> years before it came out!

8 years ago, airbags had been in production for 8 years and were mature
commodies. Beyond that, it's better than anything you've produced.
Where's your cite?

> The very next sentence is "I could find no more specific or current
> estimates of cost." That's academic speak for "this is a guess"! That means
> this is very very weak data! Academic papers more than 5 years old are often
> largely obsolete.

What it means is that cost to a manufacturer is not released to the public.
if you have better data PRESENT IT. Show me the cost is trivial. Where's
your cite?

> In terms of the economics of technology, EVERY type of technology gets
> cheaper over time. Be it the Ford Model T, the personal computer or flat
> panel TVs. If airbags follow 99.999% of all technology their costs SHOULD be
> perhaps 50% lower by now.

Where's your cite showing air bags are of trivial cost now? Where is it?

Amazing, you ignored responding to this post and then when you couldn't
overlook it anymore this is the best you can do? Where's your cite?

>> Read the cost-to-benefit section as well.
>
> Again, the "cost" of injury reduction is a personal thing.

Where's your cite?

>> Oh, how did I find this? Googled for "airbag cost" The first match was
>> this file in html without the figures, the second was the PDF with
>> figures.

> An 8 year old price figure!

Where's your cite?

>> I provided a cite that proves everything I have stated several posts ago.

> You've just "proven" that you don't have a clue about reading academic
> papers critically. Academic journals are filled with advocacy positions
> (I've read plenty!)--peer review just cuts down on obvious bias and sloppy
> work. I think you'd have a heart attack if you read all the nanny-state
> (left wing bias) stuff in academic journals.

Where's your cite?

>> It's posted above because you can't seem to operate a news reader or are
>> just playing ignorant.

> My server has been acting up due to their spam filtering, expiration dates,
> etc.

Whatever?

>>Data is from peer reviewed studies. Highest
>> quality out there.

> Ok, going on your own citation, from the conclusion: "For the US in 2003,
> driver airbags produced an injury reducing benefit estimated at $1.60
> billion..." Seems that people have a NET GAIN in terms of injuries. Sure
> beats a metal spike in the dashboard. It does in fact cost a lot ($3.0
> billion from your article), but who can put a price on another person's pain
> and suffering?

You can't read either. Where's your cite?

> We do a pile of things where the costs exceed the benefits, most people will
> never benefit from plain old car insurance. From your own source they have a
> positive injury prevention role, just an expensive and pitfall-filled one.
> This same argument (cost-benefit) has been used across numerous social
> issues, even for and against gun control. Naturally left-wing authors find
> that guns should be banned due to the costs, while one (John Lott) argued
> quite the opposite--that "More guns lead to less crime."

Where's your cite showing the cost is trivial?

> Cost-benefit papers are often best described as
> pick-your-ideology-then-work-backwards-to-justify-it.

Where's your cite showing the cost is trivial?

>>You're wrong, face up to it.

> Nope, you've made my case conclusively in a most entertaining fashion.
> Thanks for the link!

Where's your cite showing airbag cost is trivial?

You don't have one. You've chosen ridicule because you've got nothing
showing the cost to be trivial. What you should have done is come up with
something more recent, at least as good, showing airbag cost was $5.35
per vehicle per system or something like that. You haven't.

I frankly don't care!

Bye bye.

-John

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article > , Generic
wrote:
> >
> > "Brent P" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> I've cited peer reviewed studies. You haven't.
> >> Here it is again:
> >>
> >> I'm just going to prove myself correct:
> >>
> >> http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/155.pdf
> >
> > ROTFL! ROTFL! You've proven that you can't read! You've proven that
you
> > don't know the basic economics of technology! You've proven that you are
> > superficial zealous nutcase! At least it was good for a hearty chuckle.
>
> You've just proven you're a lazy ****tard.
>
> >> -> COST OF INSTALLING AIRBAGS
> >> -> We assume the same cost estimates as used in an
> >> -> earlier study2, although these were criticized25 as being
> >> -> too low. These were that the driver only system cost
> >> -> $278 and the dual system $410.
>
> > This study cites a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
> > article from 1997! It is EIGHT YEARS OLD! EIGHT YEARS OLD! Did you
even
> > read the footnote?! On top of that the JAMA article was probably
written 2
> > years before it came out!
>
> 8 years ago, airbags had been in production for 8 years and were mature
> commodies. Beyond that, it's better than anything you've produced.
> Where's your cite?
>
> > The very next sentence is "I could find no more specific or current
> > estimates of cost." That's academic speak for "this is a guess"! That
means
> > this is very very weak data! Academic papers more than 5 years old are
often
> > largely obsolete.
>
> What it means is that cost to a manufacturer is not released to the
public.
> if you have better data PRESENT IT. Show me the cost is trivial. Where's
> your cite?
>
> > In terms of the economics of technology, EVERY type of technology gets
> > cheaper over time. Be it the Ford Model T, the personal computer or
flat
> > panel TVs. If airbags follow 99.999% of all technology their costs
SHOULD be
> > perhaps 50% lower by now.
>
> Where's your cite showing air bags are of trivial cost now? Where is it?
>
> Amazing, you ignored responding to this post and then when you couldn't
> overlook it anymore this is the best you can do? Where's your cite?
>
> >> Read the cost-to-benefit section as well.
> >
> > Again, the "cost" of injury reduction is a personal thing.
>
> Where's your cite?
>
> >> Oh, how did I find this? Googled for "airbag cost" The first match was
> >> this file in html without the figures, the second was the PDF with
> >> figures.
>
> > An 8 year old price figure!
>
> Where's your cite?
>
> >> I provided a cite that proves everything I have stated several posts
ago.
>
> > You've just "proven" that you don't have a clue about reading academic
> > papers critically. Academic journals are filled with advocacy positions
> > (I've read plenty!)--peer review just cuts down on obvious bias and
sloppy
> > work. I think you'd have a heart attack if you read all the nanny-state
> > (left wing bias) stuff in academic journals.
>
> Where's your cite?
>
> >> It's posted above because you can't seem to operate a news reader or
are
> >> just playing ignorant.
>
> > My server has been acting up due to their spam filtering, expiration
dates,
> > etc.
>
> Whatever?
>
> >>Data is from peer reviewed studies. Highest
> >> quality out there.
>
> > Ok, going on your own citation, from the conclusion: "For the US in
2003,
> > driver airbags produced an injury reducing benefit estimated at $1.60
> > billion..." Seems that people have a NET GAIN in terms of injuries.
Sure
> > beats a metal spike in the dashboard. It does in fact cost a lot ($3.0
> > billion from your article), but who can put a price on another person's
pain
> > and suffering?
>
> You can't read either. Where's your cite?
>
> > We do a pile of things where the costs exceed the benefits, most people
will
> > never benefit from plain old car insurance. From your own source they
have a
> > positive injury prevention role, just an expensive and pitfall-filled
one.
> > This same argument (cost-benefit) has been used across numerous social
> > issues, even for and against gun control. Naturally left-wing authors
find
> > that guns should be banned due to the costs, while one (John Lott)
argued
> > quite the opposite--that "More guns lead to less crime."
>
> Where's your cite showing the cost is trivial?
>
> > Cost-benefit papers are often best described as
> > pick-your-ideology-then-work-backwards-to-justify-it.
>
> Where's your cite showing the cost is trivial?
>
> >>You're wrong, face up to it.
>
> > Nope, you've made my case conclusively in a most entertaining fashion.
> > Thanks for the link!
>
> Where's your cite showing airbag cost is trivial?
>
> You don't have one. You've chosen ridicule because you've got nothing
> showing the cost to be trivial. What you should have done is come up with
> something more recent, at least as good, showing airbag cost was $5.35
> per vehicle per system or something like that. You haven't.
>
>

Generic wrote:

> I frankly don't care!

You are a pitiful debator if I've ever seen one. Why did you not come
up with a citation to back your claim, I don't know. If you want to
prove your claim that they don't add that much to the cost of the car,
call any parts department and ask them what the parts cost is for
replacement parts for an airbag system.

In article > , Generic wrote:
> I frankly don't care!
>
> Bye bye.

This means you don't have anything to back up your claim of trivial cost.
I accept your surrender.

Payoff for seat belt and restraint.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...ar/P106890.asp

Automobile Insurance comparison by state.
http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/artid/34?sid=6858


Top 10 States with the Highest Increase in Premiums 2004
http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/artid/256

NHTSA 01-05
Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Contact: Rae Tyson
Telephone: (202) 366-9550

Mineta Announces Study -- Estimates Lives Saved by Safety Features

Nearly 329,000 lives have been saved by vehicle safety technologies
since 1960, U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta announced
today. A new study by the U.S. Department of Transportation=92s National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates of all the safety
features added since 1960, one =96 safety belts =96 account for over half
of all lives saved.
The study also says government-mandated safety standards have added
about $839 in costs and 125 pounds to the average passenger car when
compared to pre-1968 vehicles.

"The Department has worked diligently to reduce highway deaths", Mineta
said. "Thousands of our friends, neighbors and family members are alive
today because of these safety innovations."

According to the study, the number of lives saved annually increased
steadily from 115 per year in 1960 to nearly 25,000 per year in 2002.

"These reports showcase the achievements of NHTSA and the automotive
industry," said NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey Runge, MD. "Vehicle safety
technology is truly a lifesaver, especially the simple safety belt."

The study examined a myriad of safety features, including braking
improvements, safety belts, air bags, energy-absorbing steering
columns, child safety seats, improved roof strength and side impact
protection, shatter-resistant windshields and instrument panel
upgrades. It did not evaluate relatively new technologies like side air
bags and electronic stability control systems.

Assessing the costs, NHTSA estimated that safety technologies cost
about $544,000 for every life saved. They added about the same cost to
a new vehicle as popular options like CD players, sun roofs, leather
seats or custom wheels.

The complete reports can be found at:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/.

In article .com>, wrote:

> features added since 1960, one ? safety belts ? account for over half
> of all lives saved.

This can also be written as seat belts exceed all other safety features
combined.

Now we need a NHTSA report to explain why Louisiana, Wyoming and
Montana have such high fatalities per capita and New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Utah and Vermont have such low casualties.