Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement?

wrote:
> Since large vehicles are safer for the occupants, would
> it not make more sense to get rid of the more dangerous smaller
> cars?

OK, then we need government-subsidized SUVs for all. Even the poor
ought to have one!

> wrote in message
...
> Since large vehicles are safer for the occupants, would
> it not make more sense to get rid of the more dangerous smaller
> cars?
>
>
> mike hunt
>
Of course not. Fewer people = less pollution. -

> wrote in message
...
> Since large vehicles are safer for the occupants, would
> it not make more sense to get rid of the more dangerous smaller
> cars?
>
>
> mike hunt
>
Of course not. Fewer people = less pollution. -

George Conklin wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Since large vehicles are safer for the occupants, would
> > it not make more sense to get rid of the more dangerous smaller
> > cars?
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> Of course not. Fewer people = less pollution. -

Do you think a Dutch riding a bicycle does the same damage as a mental
midget driving a 10MPG SUV? It's not fewer people, but fewer of the
wrong kind of people.

George Conklin wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Since large vehicles are safer for the occupants, would
> > it not make more sense to get rid of the more dangerous smaller
> > cars?
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> Of course not. Fewer people = less pollution. -

Do you think a Dutch riding a bicycle does the same damage as a mental
midget driving a 10MPG SUV? It's not fewer people, but fewer of the
wrong kind of people.

"DonQuixote-v-Windmills" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
> > Since large vehicles are safer for the occupants, would
> > it not make more sense to get rid of the more dangerous smaller
> > cars?
>
> OK, then we need government-subsidized SUVs for all. Even the poor
> ought to have one!
>

They do. Older ones.

"DonQuixote-v-Windmills" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
> > Since large vehicles are safer for the occupants, would
> > it not make more sense to get rid of the more dangerous smaller
> > cars?
>
> OK, then we need government-subsidized SUVs for all. Even the poor
> ought to have one!
>

They do. Older ones.

"DonQuixote-v-Windmills" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> George Conklin wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Since large vehicles are safer for the occupants, would
> > > it not make more sense to get rid of the more dangerous smaller
> > > cars?
> > >
> > >
> > > mike hunt
> > >
> > Of course not. Fewer people = less pollution. -
>
> Do you think a Dutch riding a bicycle does the same damage as a mental
> midget driving a 10MPG SUV? It's not fewer people, but fewer of the
> wrong kind of people.
>

Here we go again: bicycle riders are morally superior. I guess when all
else fails, you just claim moral superiority.

"DonQuixote-v-Windmills" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> George Conklin wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Since large vehicles are safer for the occupants, would
> > > it not make more sense to get rid of the more dangerous smaller
> > > cars?
> > >
> > >
> > > mike hunt
> > >
> > Of course not. Fewer people = less pollution. -
>
> Do you think a Dutch riding a bicycle does the same damage as a mental
> midget driving a 10MPG SUV? It's not fewer people, but fewer of the
> wrong kind of people.
>

Here we go again: bicycle riders are morally superior. I guess when all
else fails, you just claim moral superiority.

Only in your small mind is that an option.


mike hunt



DonQuixote-v-Windmills wrote:
>
> wrote:
> > Since large vehicles are safer for the occupants, would
> > it not make more sense to get rid of the more dangerous smaller
> > cars?
>
> OK, then we need government-subsidized SUVs for all. Even the poor
> ought to have one!