Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

While you are partly right, I again refer everyone to the HLDI studies of
actual loss information, SUVs come out very well compared to medium, and
small cars. The latter HORRID in any form of crash, and the real-world stats
prove it.

This is all just a stupid argument, bigger is safer, get over it!

 

Gas taxes seem nice, but they are subject to the same law of
unintendced consequences as most other things.
For example, the higher gas tax means one thing in the Northeast
corridor, but something very different in many areas of the West,
where distances to anywhere are much longer.

Europe is much like the American Northeast corridor; they simply don't
have the vast areas that the US has, and the population density is
higher than in vast areas of the American West. What works well there
won't translate well to here.

So, yes, a high gas tax does mean the more you use, the more you pay.
But that doesn't make it fair when other things (like the distances
that need to be travelled) are taken into consideration.

 

As far as the war in Europe is concerned, we declared war on Germany
*after* Germany declared war on us.

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/us_war.htm

 

They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.

 

I agree fully.
"Given my druthers" doesn't mean that I *expect* it, just that I
*want* it.

 

But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
SUVs.

 

I knew they had really early requirements for PCV setups, but I didn't know
about EGR setups that early on. I guess all bets are off when it comes to
California.

--Aardwolf.

 

Quite to the contrary:
More people die in bed than anywhere else!
Hospitals have the highest rate of deaths per occupancy.
Being in a bed in a hospital, well, forget it!

 

SUVs generally have a higher center of gravity than the pickups of the same
platform whether the pickup is loaded or not. As far as minivans go, the
people that drive them around here tend to drive like old ladies, whereas
many of the SUV drivers seem to think they own the road and drive the
stinkin things like a Ferrari instead of a truck.

 

I think so too.
And I bought the Camaro in Georgia! Figger that out!?

 

All right, poor choice of words. But a whole lot more equitable than what we have
now, that I'll stand behind.

So is charging for gas, by that measure.


--Aardwolf.

 

Big? Heavy?

You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/home/products/trucks/actros/index.html

I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".


DAS

 

I don't think so!
http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/home/products/trucks/actros/index.html


;-)
DAS
--

 

So in one post you explicitly equate Bush with Hitler; your very next
post you say that Americans make bullshit parallels to Hitler. I rest
my case (about your being an idiot). My bringing up Hitler was only to
illustrate that in some situations, tyranny has to be faced down and to
do that, unfortunately, blood has to be shed - short term losses
(deaths) for long term gains (fewer deaths over the long haul, plus
freedom for people). If you want to call that a parallel, then OK - but
it is valid, unless in your mind Bush is bad and Osama Bin Laden (9/11)
and Sadam Hussein (swimming pool acid baths; put people into tree
shredders, sometimes head first, sometimes feet first, depending on his
mood, idolized Stalin, etc.) are good. Your call.

Then you were the one who made the, in your words, bullshit parallel to
Hitler.

Again - we're well past the Godwin's law criteria here.

And if we sit back and let them rape us, the numbers will go down. I
see. Again, thanks for making my case.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I was just pointing out one more typical liberal logic dilemma (of which
there are countless). This particular one is similar to the one about
ending the welfare state (you know - the one about: "We have to continue
rewarding women who continue having numerous children out of wedlock who
can't afford them but who don't have self-control because if we don't
their innocent children will suffer").

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

No, raise the truck CAFE -- it's not ridiculously low.

 

And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.

 

Not necessarily -- a comparable car might come in well below the limit.

But your vehicle does contribute more to (1) using up our natural resources,
(2) importing foreign oil (with the accompanying foreign policy and defense
ramifications and adverse balance of trade), (3) putting out more greenhouse
gases, thus contributing more to global warming.

 

Irrelevant. Like saying, "since an imac is faster than a 486, Apple makes
faster computers."

 

Need I remind you of:

1. The "moose" test which Swedish journalists subject cars to, which the
A-class flunked and led to its redesign;
2. The avoidance test in which Autoweek rolled a 2wd Jeep Liberty, which led
to its suspension lowering.
3. The slalom test in which C/D had 2 modified M-classes slide into and
destroy their timing lights.