T1B

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:52 pm**

"Many of the same people who cry ‘No blood for oil!’ also want higher gas-mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and flimsier cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents — in other words, trading blood for oil.”

Hat tip - Thomas Sowell

Brutal.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:00 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:"Many of the same people who cry ‘No blood for oil!’ also want higher gas-mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and flimsier cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents — in other words, trading blood for oil.”

Hat tip - Thomas Sowell

Brutal.

That is a fallacious assumption if I ever saw one. Lighter does not necessarily mean flimsier. There have been some advances in metallurgy over the past 50 years. Also, as the number of lighter vehicles on the road increases, the likelihood of a lighter vehicle crashing with a heavier vehicle goes down substantially.

Furthermore, what ever happened to being able to DRIVE? Or is it too much to ask car owners to take responsibility for the handling of their vehicle? Let's be real, the average Escalade owner could probably stand for some time in a Ford Escort. It would teach them how to drive.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:23 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:"Many of the same people who cry ‘No blood for oil!’ also want higher gas-mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and flimsier cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents — in other words, trading blood for oil.”

Hat tip - Thomas Sowell

Brutal.

Brutally stupid.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:47 pm**

Mikey wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:"Many of the same people who cry ‘No blood for oil!’ also want higher gas-mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and flimsier cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents — in other words, trading blood for oil.”

Hat tip - Thomas Sowell

Brutal.
Brutally stupid.

What Mikey said.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:50 pm**

Apparently, lefties ignore the relationship between the introduction of lighter vehicles and the increase in traffic injury and death.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:53 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Apparently, lefties ignore the relationship between the introduction of lighter vehicles and the increase in traffic injury and death.

And you ignore driver error. Next?

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:00 pm**

No, I don't ignore it, and neither does the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis that concluded in 2002 that CAFE standards accounted for an additional 2000 - 3000 traffic fatalities.

You do know statistical analysis, right, B?

Nonetheless, the bottomline is you're playing the role of the ostrich and ignoring data that goes undisputed except by the wackiest of the wacky.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:20 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:No, I don't ignore it, and neither does the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis that concluded in 2002 that CAFE standards accounted for an additional 2000 - 3000 traffic fatalities.

You do know statistical analysis, right, B?

Nonetheless, the bottomline is you're playing the role of the ostrich and ignoring data that goes undisputed except by the wackiest of the wacky.

I'm sure that study discounted fatalities related to driver error?

What? It didn't?

Now STFU.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:33 pm**

Link??

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:41 pm**

B, you're going to quibble with Harvard, not me, about their results. However, it should go without saying that their results are not unique and a simple Google search reveals that CBO concludes the same, NHTSA has concluded the same.

You're simply sticking your head in the sand and ignoring what no one else is.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:47 pm**

Maybe it's just me, but in today's world of 18-wheelers, H2s, Excursions, Suburbans and Durangos, driving on the freeway in a Honda Insight or Toyota Prius is a big risk. Coke can with wheels some?

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:48 pm**

Variable wrote:Maybe it's just me, but in today's world of 18-wheelers, H2s, Excursions, Suburbans and Durangos, driving on the freeway in a Honda Insight or Toyota Prius is a big risk. Coke can with wheels some?

I drove a Tracer for 8 years. If you know how to drive it isn't a big deal.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:59 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:B, you're going to quibble with Harvard, not me, about their results. However, it should go without saying that their results are not unique and a simple Google search reveals that CBO concludes the same, NHTSA has concluded the same.

You're simply sticking your head in the sand and ignoring what no one else is.

I'm not even going to address the studies you cite until you answer my question. Was driver error factored into the study? If people are not making sound decisions behind the wheel, they will get into accidents. That is not the fault of the designer, that is the fault of the idiot behind the wheel.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:05 pm**

B, I do not know the answer to your question. Besides, I do no think it is relevant. Smaller cars kill. That is what the data shows.

Driver error is irrelevant here. No matter if the driver made an error or not, the fact remains that since CAFE vehicles have become lighter and smaller and the NHTSA, Harvard, et al have all concluded that CAFE standards have contributed to traffic fatalities.

Deal with it.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:07 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Variable wrote:Maybe it's just me, but in today's world of 18-wheelers, H2s, Excursions, Suburbans and Durangos, driving on the freeway in a Honda Insight or Toyota Prius is a big risk. Coke can with wheels some?
I drove a Tracer for 8 years. If you know how to drive it isn't a big deal.

Right, but the point is that you can only control your actions and your vehicle and can only protect yourself so much from the stupid, those on cell phones, etc. Also, I pride myself on being a good driver as well, but most people are not good drivers...they're average or worse. You need to think in terms of the majority on an issue like this, not just in terms of yourself.

edit: Don't make me retell my Volkswagen Bug near death story when it died on me in LA at the bottom of the Grapevine on a 6% grade. :D Now I know why the car was free.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:11 pm**

Variable wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Variable wrote:Maybe it's just me, but in today's world of 18-wheelers, H2s, Excursions, Suburbans and Durangos, driving on the freeway in a Honda Insight or Toyota Prius is a big risk. Coke can with wheels some?
I drove a Tracer for 8 years. If you know how to drive it isn't a big deal.
Right, but the point is that you can only control your actions and your vehicle and can only protect yourself so much from the stupid, those on cell phones, etc. Also, I pride myself on being a good driver as well, but most people are not good drivers...they're average or worse. You need to think in terms of the majority on an issue like this, not just in terms of yourself.

Which only illustrates my point that poor driving, not poor design is to blame for the accidents.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:19 pm**

Dumbshit, the conclusion reached by these researchers is that an additional 2 to 3 thousand fatalities are attributable to CAFE.

No one is blaming CAFE as the cause of the accidents. They are simply concluding that CAFE standards led to smaller and lighter vehicle less able to protect occupants and, therefore, can attribute an additional level of deaths to CAFE.

What are you struggling to understand here? You're purposely distorting the point I made in attempting to shift it. Who is arguing that CAFE is the cause of accidents?

The argument is that an additional # of traffic accident fatalities can be attributed to CAFE.

get it, yet?

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:33 pm**

BSmack wrote:Which only illustrates my point that poor driving, not poor design is to blame for the accidents.

Who was arguing that poor design is to blame for accidents? The argument is that a smaller, more lightweight vehicle, especially at today's higher speeds, puts the occupants of the car at a significantly higher risk.

Even with higher-grade materials, at a certain point, we're talking about basic physics here.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:01 pm**

You promised us a point, and now I want it........

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:14 pm**

Felix wrote:You promised us a point, and now I want it........

Who are you addressing?

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:26 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
Felix wrote:You promised us a point, and now I want it........
Who are you addressing?

Why you of course......

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:38 pm**

This Thread:

Posted: **Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:11 am**

I knew the rebuttal to this idiotic point of Detards would pop up sometime. Here it is.

I bet your surveys never took into account pedestrian deaths.

By Patricia Reaney Fri Oct 7, 3:40 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Sports utility vehicles (SUVs) may feel safer for their drivers but they are more deadly than other cars for pedestrians, Irish scientists said on Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT
[0]

Research has shown that the chance of killing or seriously injuring a pedestrian is two to four times higher for someone driving an SUV, or 4X4 vehicle, than a car.

"There is clearly a higher risk for pedestrians when they are struck by a light truck or SUV compared to a passenger car," Dr. Ciaran Simms, an expert in mechanical engineering at Trinity College in Dublin, told Reuters.

Elderly pedestrians and children are most at risk.

In an editorial in The British Medical Journal medical journal, Simms and Desmond O'Neill, a professor of medical gerontology at Trinity College, called for warnings on SUVs to inform buyers of the increased risk the vehicles pose to pedestrians.

They also recommended a higher road tax and called for all SUVs involved in accidents to be documented.

The researchers, who studied accidents involving SUVs to determine why they are so deadly for pedestrians, said size didn't matter.

The main problem was the height and shape of the front of vehicle. The hood, or bonnet, is higher than on cars and has a more severe impact when it strikes the center of the body and upper legs and pelvis.

Raising the edge of the front hood or bonnet of a vehicle from 600-850 mm (24-33 inches) increases the impact by a factor of two, which results in a doubling of injuries to vulnerable parts of the body such as the head and abdomen.

The vehicles are increasingly popular. Sales of SUVs in Europe have risen by 15 percent in the last year while demand for cars has slumped by 4 percent, according to the scientists.

"In the United States, 40 percent of new vehicles are classified as light trucks or vans (many of which are SUVs)," they said in the editorial.

Elderly pedestrians are more vulnerable to the dangers of SUVs because they are weaker, less agile and may have poorer reactions that may make them less likely to avoid being struck and more at risk of suffering serious injuries and dying.

The increased height may also make it more difficult for drivers to see young children in front of or around the vehicle, according to the researchers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051007/hl_ ... ns____s_dc

BTW: Mike, its called Firefox with Adblock. So shove your oversize pic up your ass.

Posted: **Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:24 pm**

Dumbshit.

Posted: **Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:30 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Dumbshit.

Keep spinning dumbfuck. It beats the hell out of rebutting the facts.

Posted: **Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:53 pm**

Fuck off, mvscal. You not rebutting any facts that I have posted. You're now talking about pedestrian incidents in a conversation about the increase in traffic fatalities connected to smaller vehicles???

Unfuck yourself, jig.

T1B

Today's thought

Today's thought

Re: Today's thought

Re: Today's thought

Re: Today's thought