America... Watch Out!
You spew some links to lab based testing that have nothing to do with real life driving. If your contention is that it is safer to be in a small car than a larger vehicle, then I simply disagree. I could go on a tangent about the physics of mass and velocity, but I’m certain that I will not change your mind. I appreciate that you feel that you are better able to determine the safest vehicle for my family…but I reserve my right to make that decision myself!
I’ve no interest in spending my day defending a perfectly reasonable and fact-based decision I made! There is plenty of information out there IF you are interested in learning the fatality rates in the USA…
In collisions between passenger cars and light trucks (SUVs, pickup trucks and vans), occupants of cars were more than four times as likely to die compared to occupants of SUVs. Such crashes caused 5,579 deaths in the U.S. in 2003, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). Just over 80% of the deaths were car occupants.
http://www.mrtraffic.com/suv.htm
http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/08/20/cx_da_0820suv.htmlI’m
I’m not getting dragged into a name-calling and personal battle with you! I again reiterate that I respect your right to your opinion. I wish you could do the same! At this point of time it is just silly to continue.
Which is of COURSE very thoughtful, unreactive, calm, well-planned, fact-based commentary, right? Right?
If you believe that terms like "jackass”, Satin’s plan, “obnoxious vehicles”, et al are reasonable to use because somebody buys a vehicle that you do no approve, then I’m not sure what else to say…? I do indeed stand by what I said. You may see it as wrong, but I see it as truth.
Yes, small cars are BUILT to kill small children, right Jeffery?!?
These would be your words, not mine! I merely believe that the laws of physics dictate that a vehicle with more mass will inherently be safer (all things equal) in the event of an accident! I made the decision to protect my family based upon my beliefs. What is wrong with such action?
Which brings me to my conclusion…I did not start this thread. I merely responded to posts that I found to be rather extreme. I am one of a handful that offers dissenting views on the board. I am not the type to bite my tongue when I see that to which I disagree! I ignored your first attempt to insult me so as to not sink into a personal battle. I’ve been strong with my tongue, but respectful of those I disagree with, including you. You may call it "smug"---but I dare say you do not know me... I appreciate and understand that given my history of challenging the prevailing ideology on CB that there are those that take pleasure in attacking my character (moreso than my views I might say)! As much as you might hope...I'm rather comfortable with disagreement and do not harbor ill will or feelings for anybody. I enjoy the art of debate and will always give my opinion and defend most (as time will allow) mischaracterizations that you or any others may choose to engage! But I've learned long ago that these heated left versus right discussions will not change minds and /or opinions!
Good luck and happy coaster-riding!
*** Edited 8/30/2005 11:49:56 PM UTC by Jeffrey R Smith*** (link edited for formatting -J) *** Edited 8/31/2005 2:37:50 AM UTC by Jeff***
I merely believe that the laws of physics dictate that a vehicle with more mass will inherently be safer (all things equal) in the event of an accident!
Well, sure, but all things aren't equal. What matters is the data, not "what should happen." Because, often, what we are convinced should happen is not what actually happens---a collision between two cars can hardly be modeled as the collision between two frictionless incompressible spheres of differing masses one might learn in a first-year mechanics course.
In fact, as I understand it, the ability of a car to dissipate the kinetic energy in a crash (via crumple zones and the like) is a much better indicator of its collision safety than mere mass.
As an analogy, I'll point you at a particularly bombastic (if not unclever) article by Tierney in today's Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/opinion/30tierney.html
The hypothesis is that allowing hybrids with single passengers in HOV lanes increases congestion, slowing traffic in those lanes, and therefore increases pollution.
It's an interesting hypothesis, stated as fact (as OpEd columnists are wont) but utterly without any supporting evidence. Does an idling Prius generate more pollution than a speeding Escalade? Maybe, but maybe not. Who knows?
Likewise, your hypothesis that larger cars are inherently safer sounds plausible, but unless you see the crash data (and the DOT fatalities per passenger mile numbers, and ...) you don't actually know.
(Edited to add: On top of that, he mis-identifies this as a tragedy of the commons, as each driver can only consume at most a fixed amount of roadway---once everyone is a single driver, you can't get any more out of the road. It's more properly an example of the law of unintended consequences.)
*** Edited 8/31/2005 12:16:07 AM UTC by Brian Noble***
Front-and-side impact tests: Five star government rating
Post-blowout Gymnastic floor-tumbling: Oooh! A little sloppy on the triple flip! That's gonna cost a few points--I mean heads, Bob...
-'Playa
*** Edited 8/31/2005 12:15:43 AM UTC by CoastaPlaya***
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
As with the number of licks to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
RideMan said:
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy began as a BBC radio series--Dave Althoff, Jr.
So stop stealing our good stuff already ;) It's ours, ours I tell ya!
Just a thought but... when I was a kid I walked the half mile to school and back four times a day - nowadays, all you see at schools is big cars dropping off small chubby, designer clad kids...
Oh, and I've never been a fan of bush, I just avoid it these days ;)
-Jimvy! (trying to sub for Moosh but just not getting there lol)
Personally I would not have a gas guzzler (SUV, Minivan, whateva) but that's my choice. To each his own. I would own a Rio or a Focus.
I have a friend who owns a Hybrid and swears by it. His choice.
Hummers are kind of fun, well, at least the military one my brother "borrowed" one day. He took me for a joy ride. Talk about a blast!
He wouldn't let me operate the machine gun though. >:-(
-Tina
I'm sorry, can you show me where I can get off the planet and go to another one? See previous point about considering the bigger picture.
HeyIsntThatRob? said:
Quit ripping on people who made their own choice and mind your own business.
I totally disagree. Detroit hasn't responded to consumer preferences the right way in decades, and that's why Toyota is flirting with the top position now. Toyota hasn't been able to keep up with hybrid demand, and they're introducing 20 new models in the next few years. GM is even licensing their software for hybrids (that's the magic formula that finds where the electric motor stops and the gas motor starts). They aren't marketing the hybrids to niche markets, they've been marketing them to test markets. You don't announce 20 new models because you're satisfying a niche market. Not in the auto industry, anyway.
Brian Noble said:
If there were a market for more fuel-efficient vehicles, Detroit would move to supply it.
You probably should have done more research because both cars have five-star crash safety ratings.
Jeffrey R Smith said:
I have a Civic and a Pilot (SUV). We bought the Pilot just prior to the birth of my son 17 months ago. The primary reason for this choice was the safety issue. I felt it was best that my son be in a larger vehicle with good safety features.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Hybrids: Toyota's cars are outstanding right now, and their hybrid technology is great as well. But many people I know have had cars that topped 50mpg that werent hybrids. Consumer Reports actually did a neat article on hybrids recently, and though our current hybrids don't get "super, super great" gas milage, they get good enough for the size of their engines.
Heres where my point comes in: Many of the older cars that got high gas milage, first, had smaller engines. The cars were slow and had virtually no extras and had pretty bad safty features, but noneoftheless, still got great gas milage. Other cars featured diesel engines which give great milage as well.
So you take todays cars, which have serious horsepower, and you add more features, and the car gets heavier and burns more fuel, so now the hybrids come in getting pretty good milage.
untrimmed quote eliminated -J
You have mentioned about refinining oil and lack of it and now we temporary lost one due to the hurricane. At work today a few guys were chatting with the lunch wagon vendor outside and one of them mentioned that Bush was trying to get the government to build some new refineries to increase domestic oil production. As much as I can't stand Bush and other members of the republican party this would be one of the very rare moves I'd support him on! We need the high paying jobs and increased supplies of oil from building new refineries. I'd be glad to trad my $12-14 an hr factory job for a $22-30 an hr refinery job anyday. BTW I think the last new refinery built was in the late 1970s from what I also heard at work. *** Edited 8/31/2005 3:15:11 PM UTC by Jeff***
It's so strange - gas prices rise, the atmosphere warms, air pollution increases, and still these car companies (all of them) are outdoing each other producing the thickest, fattest "boat of the road" "rolling fortress" vehicles in history.
Part of it is safety&comfort, of course.
And as well - it's true that in the U.S. cars are much more essential to everyday life - just the way the cities and suburbs are layed out (thanks to Mr Griffin & friends) everything is just made for the car.
Almost as if in the 1950ies a new species of man was born that was actually a really comfy car with a human inside.
Something really basic needs to happen - a new concept!
Maybe Hydrogen will be part of the solution.
But apart from that:
Why on earth would a catastrophe like Hurricane Katrina raise the oil price?
Next time the oil price would rise when Angela Jolie gets married to Brad Pitt?
What on earth is the factor comining those completely unrelated (apart from the fossil fuels -> global warming -> severe weather connection) events?
Hydrogen, as was mentioned before, is probably the least viable of the alternative fuels out there. The only reason it's supported by the US government is that it's the least developed, the least likely to actually produce results, and the least likely to compete with oil anytime soon. The government has absolutely no desire to see our reliance on oil fall, so the only way to show the dumb public that they DO support alternative fuels while still NOT supporting it is to throw their weight behind the least likely to work solution! It really is a thing of beauty sometimes ...
I was not trying to show that small cars are safer than SUVs (although they are because people don't drive them like idiots and roll them cause they think they're driving a car that has stability). I was trying to show that a smaller car is just as safe, if not in some areas safer, than an SUV ... even from the same company. And don't talk to me of insignificant lab tests ... those are the same crash test ratings that show up in car ads, that determine your insurance cost, that cause manufacturers to be sued over the safety features of their vehicles ... yea, those are just insignificant figures, right?
And your defense of SUVs is that when they hit cars the SUV occupant is safer?!? Are you KIDDING me?! You're more like a politican with every single post! That's like telling me that getting hit with a 2x4 is going to hurt more than getting hit with a twig! Of course the car occupant's going to get hurt more often, the SUV is so much bigger, so uselessly bigger, because the folks in inside that have made themselves "safer" with of course NO thought given to what their monstrous, unncessary vehicle has done to the safety of folks who either chose not to drive SUVs, or can't afford one! Never though of that angle did ya? Or maye you did, but including that distinction in your post would have lessened the effect of a "statistic" that on the surface looks GREAT for your point of view, but when you really dig deep, actually supports the complete opposite!
I never said the words you called out were right ... I was saying you're using the exact same wording, albeit more eloquently, to spew the same babble.
More would come, but work calls ... until 5 folks ...
Impulse-ive said:
Um, have you seen a news report? A map? The biggest center of oil and gas production (both crude and refined) is the northern Gulf of Mexico, and southern Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama ...
Alright, I guess I need to brush up my knowledge in American geography a little - sorry about that. It just seems so overdimensioned for it to have such a big effect on the global price of oil - but I maybe I was wrong.
Impulse-ive said:
The government has absolutely no desire to see our reliance on oil fall, so the only way to show the dumb public that they DO support alternative fuels while still NOT supporting it is to throw their weight behind the least likely to work solution! It really is a thing of beauty sometimes ...
But once it would work, Hydrogen would be really great - no CO2, and none of all the other bad pollutants from the fossil fuels.
At the world Expo 2000 there were cars and a gas station for hydrogen shown.
But you are right, the automotive industry could build cars that use much less gas and that last much longer as well - and I am sure there are other alternatives as well.
I wonder why I don't hear much about hybrid cars over here in Germany though. *** Edited 8/31/2005 12:23:47 PM UTC by superman***
Uh, Maybe cause your VWs and Mercedes diesels have been getting 30-50 mpg for over twenty years.
Chuck
Anyways... Alot of you speaking about global warming. I think Gobal Warming is a real issue, but I don't think it's as bad as we make it out to be. It COULD be just a heating, and cooling trend the Earth goes through. It COULD be the green house effect. But it it were either of those two, it wouldn't change that drasticly. We would have saw several (SEVERAL) years of stronger, and stronger Hurricanes. So I don't think Global Warming is to blame for our CURRENT weather conditions. Just somthing that happens, and nothing we have control over.
Also, the US needs to switch to an alternitive fuel solution, as some have mentioned, and soon. Because one day, we'll run out of oil. Myabe not tomarrow, maybe not in 100 years. But if you look at the trend of automoblies, they have always been powered by gas, and that won't change if the government does somthing about it. It SHOULDN'T (Although are taking responsablitity) be up to the car manufactors to do so. Also, another point we have to look at is the Baby-boomers. They grew up when cars were main-streem. One of the first generations of teens to get behind the wheel, ect. And I have heard many say they are relucted to change fuel sources. *** Edited 8/31/2005 12:36:31 PM UTC by Keith2005***
*** Edited 8/31/2005 12:44:11 PM UTC by Gemini***
Walt Schmidt - Co-Publisher, PointBuzz
British driver, used to being screwed for gas. Our price is currently equivalent to $7.17 / gal.
You must be logged in to post
