Mike Hunter wrote:
> There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause,"
> but one can not escape the laws of physics!
>
> The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best design
> features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision rather
> than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
>
> I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
> engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
> absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
> speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
> one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger compartment
> is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
> the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
> fewer injuries.

i remember you bullshitting on this stuff before. /you/ must have been
the guy that designed the f150 because /you/ don't seem to know wtf
you're talking about.



>
> In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger the
> safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one would
> you rather be an occupant?

based on the actual facts, not suppositional underinformed bullshit, the
smart. any day.



> If you still believe what you choose to
> believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
> smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.

actually, i am a guy that's spent a whole -load of time in junk
yards looking at smashed vehicles. i'll take a vehicle whose exterior
gets all ed up absorbing energy and whose passenger cell remains
intact over /ANY/ detroit piece of that looks ok-ish, is heavy, but
has amputated my legs.


>
> If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle
> costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.

what a crock! have you even insured a freakin' car?


>
> As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding in
> a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel,
> or allow my family members to do so.

i won't allow my family to drive detroit garbage that doesn't perform
satisfactorily in crashes. that's real world crashes, not suppositional
crashes by trolls that can't accept the fact that maybe they're
underinformed.


>
>
>
> "jim beam" <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:UIudnYtCx7lIkEnUnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 1, 8:47?am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
>>> driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.
>> really? have you seen this?
>> http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>>
>> crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with
>> energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the
>> vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to absorb
>> energy, thus keep deceleration rates down.
>>
>
>
>>> Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration:
>>> http://izismile.com/2009/03/31/road_...is_7_pics.html
>> exactly as above.
>>
>> oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to stop
>> [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road hazard, not
>> decrease it.
>>
>> are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a HUGE
>> vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the extra
>> fuel consumption.
>
>

 

Mike Hunter wrote:
> The point is dummy if you ARE involved in an accident you want to be in the
> one that is offers the greatest protection to properly belted passengers, in
> the third collision.

er, listen "dummy", your so-called "third crash" is predicated by the
deceleration rate. deceleration rate is determined by energy
absorption. energy absorption is predicated by deformation. thus you
want a car which bends, not some hunking great lump of detroit crap that
remains rigidly undeformed. duh.


>
> Many small and midget car drivers/passengers are killed in single
> vehicle crashes.

not as many as big heavy suv's and trucks!


> Which would you rather be in, the Camry that drove by the
> accident
> or the Smart Car that was run over by a Camry? LOL
>
>
>
> "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:rjvat49ov37tgsd57p0p4iidkjlkgmh9gv@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger
>>> the
>>> safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one
>>> would
>>> you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
>>> believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
>>> smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
>> In the real world, the safest car is the one that avoids the crash
>> entirely. Many SUV/pickup drivers/passengers are killed in single
>> vehicle crashes. Which would you rather be in, the F150 that flipped
>> over or the Smart Car that drove by the accident?
>>
>
>

 

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:WvfBl.97636$4m1.3554@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>>
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
>>> news:UIudnYtCx7lIkEnUnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>>>
>>>
>>>> fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 1, 8:47�am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of
>>>>>>> other vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999
>>>>>>> vehicle models.
>>>>>>> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...-Safety-newWin.
>>>>>>> h tml For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and
>>>>>>> others pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled
>>>>>>> though. What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe
>>>>>>> than Corolla, according to them. Is there a likely mechanical
>>>>>>> explanation (dual airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the
>>>>>>> quality is different), or is this a statistical artifact due to
>>>>>>> the poorer and thus younger people buying Prizms?
>>>>>>> By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date
>>>>>>> study? I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included
>>>>>>> with the data given per mile traveled.
>>>>>> In terms of your own safety, select a vehicle based on the IIHS and
>>>>>> NHTSA crash test ratings. For mid-size cars, the Subaru Legacy did
>>>>>> the best when you look at both ratings.
>>>>> Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
>>>>> driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.
>>>> really? have you seen this?
>>>> http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>>>>
>>>> crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with
>>>> energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the
>>>> vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to
>>>> absorb energy, thus keep deceleration rates down.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you are a good driver and live in an urban area, you are probably
>>>>> more likely to be in an accident involving another car than a
>>>>> concrete wall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration:
>>>>> http://izismile.com/2009/03/31/road_...suzuki_ignis_7
>>>>> _ pics.html
>>>> exactly as above.
>>>>
>>>> oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to
>>>> stop [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road
>>>> hazard, not decrease it.
>>>>
>>>> are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a
>>>> HUGE vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of
>>>> the extra fuel consumption.
>>>>
>>>
>>> SUVs have lower tolerance for driver errors.
>>> It's high center of gravity makes it prone to rollovers,and it must
>>> slow down more to make turns.Easier to lose control in a SUV,and
>>> harder to recover from it. Higher bumpers means other vehicles are at
>>> more risk.
>
> they also block the view ahead for regular passenger vehicles,increasing
> risk.
>>
>>
>> Nicely stated.
>>
>> A small car like a Civic is much better at avoidance assuming that the
>> driver has capacity to do so.
>
> plus there's incentive to avoid rather than take a hit. ;-)
> every driver has "capacity"(ability),it's that many don't exercise the
> skill.
>
>> OTOH, if all conditions were equal such as a head-on crash, I'll take
>> the bigger, badder, mass of iron any day.
>
> And thus LESS incentive to avoid a collision.
> Ordinary drivers in large cars/SUVs tend to not maneuver.

that's because they can't. if you have 100% more weight on the road but
only 50% more rubber [if that], it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to
figure out which vehicle can be best stopped or maneuvered. [hint -
it's not the suv.]



>> One of my favorite utterances is, "My '55 Studebaker President state
>> sedan will take full advantage of the other guy's econobox's crumple
>> zone!"
>
> And add to -everyone's- risk in the process.
> (selfish,besides being wasteful and costly to everyone.)
>
> Since smaller cars have to have additional refinforcements and safety gear
> like air bags to partially compensate for the more dangerous large
> vehicles others drive,their weight goes up and their fuel economy drops
> too.
>
> since much of our petro is imported,larger vehicles that get lower mileage
> contribute to more imports,lessening our national security.
> It's patriotic to drive a small car! Besides being better environmentally.
> More oil tankers means more risk of spills.
>

this is something that blows my mind - modern engines are /way/ more
efficient than old ones, yet because modern cars have all this "safety
weight", their fuel consumption is actually /worse/ than older vehicles.
check out the fuel consumption on the crx hf vs. the fit or civic hybrid.

 

On Apr 3, 5:50 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Ron Peterson wrote:

> > What would be the purpose of those regulations?

> To make it financially advantageous to purchase smaller, more
> fuel-efficient vehicles.

What is wrong with a gas tax? Registration fees, once paid, don't
discourage anyone from driving.

--
Ron

 

Ron Peterson wrote:
> On Apr 3, 5:50�pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>
>>> What would be the purpose of those regulations?
>
>> To make it financially advantageous to purchase smaller, more
>> fuel-efficient vehicles.
>
> What is wrong with a gas tax? Registration fees, once paid, don't
> discourage anyone from driving.
>
> --
> Ron


iirc, they do _two_ such things in europe:

1. heavily tax gas.

2. tax based on engine size or vehicle weight.

such a policy here would have a much the same effect as there you have
to suppose - many more smaller more fuel efficient vehicles.

 

Ron Peterson wrote:

> What is wrong with a gas tax? Registration fees, once paid, don't
> discourage anyone from driving.

The gas tax is such a distributed expense that it's of limited value in
changing behavior. Also, the chances of getting a gas tax that is high
enough to change behavior is highly unlikely at either the federal or
state level given the influence of the oil companies. The big 3
automakers have a lot less money to purchase influence these days, and
the other automakers might not be against weight or MPG based vehicle
license fees.

When you get hit with a $500 extra fee for registration when you
purchase the car, with the knowledge that that fee will be assessed
every year, it will have more of an effect.

 

jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:AeudnZ0X5N8FO0vUnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net:

> Jim Yanik wrote:

>> since much of our petro is imported,larger vehicles that get lower
>> mileage contribute to more imports,lessening our national security.
>> It's patriotic to drive a small car! Besides being better
>> environmentally. More oil tankers means more risk of spills.
>>
>
> this is something that blows my mind - modern engines are /way/ more
> efficient than old ones, yet because modern cars have all this "safety
> weight", their fuel consumption is actually /worse/ than older
> vehicles.
> check out the fuel consumption on the crx hf vs. the fit or civic
> hybrid.
>

I agree completely!

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:d5qdnfZ2L59tPkvUnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:

> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their
>> "cause," but one can not escape the laws of physics!
>>
>> The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best
>> design features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the
>> collision rather than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
>>
>> I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive
>> design engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of
>> vehicle to absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely
>> reduce the terminal speed of the "third collision," where one body
>> strikes their skeleton, the one that kills even properly belted
>> occupants when the passenger compartment is not impinged upon. It is
>> an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle the more likely that
>> properly belted passengers will survive or sustain fewer injuries.

Why in the hell do people need to be driving TANKS on our public roads?
It just increases the danger for the rest of us.
EVERYONE would be safer if they went back to sensibly sized cars.
Leave the SUVs for their original limited TRUCK uses.
>
> i remember you bullshitting on this stuff before. /you/ must have
> been the guy that designed the f150 because /you/ don't seem to know
> wtf you're talking about.
>
>
>
>>
>> In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the
>> bigger the safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided
>> in which one would you rather be an occupant?

It's more likely the F150 will be ramming the Smart,because the Smart can
be controlled,and the F150 is more likely the one to be OUT OF CONTROL.

so,with his insane logic,we should make the Smart bigger and heavier....
and less fuel efficient.

also,the F150 driver is more likely to consider himself well-protected and
become more careless about how he drives.

>
> based on the actual facts, not suppositional underinformed bullshit,
> the smart. any day.
>
>
>
>> If you still believe what you choose to
>> believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at
>> the smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have
>> been riding.
>
> actually, i am a guy that's spent a whole -load of time in junk
> yards looking at smashed vehicles. i'll take a vehicle whose exterior
> gets all ed up absorbing energy and whose passenger cell remains
> intact over /ANY/ detroit piece of that looks ok-ish, is heavy,
> but has amputated my legs.
>
>
>>
>> If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD
>> vehicle costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive
>> RWD vehicle.
>
> what a crock! have you even insured a freakin' car?
>
>
>>
>> As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider
>> riding in a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars
>> a year of fuel, or allow my family members to do so.

and put all the rest of us at increased risk,along with wasting
fuel,risking ocean pollution,and enriching our enemies.

Very unpatriotic.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

>
> i won't allow my family to drive detroit garbage that doesn't perform
> satisfactorily in crashes. that's real world crashes, not
> suppositional crashes by trolls that can't accept the fact that maybe
> they're underinformed.

 

On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:

> When you get hit with a $500 extra fee for registration when you
> purchase the car, with the knowledge that that fee will be assessed
> every year, it will have more of an effect.

Families may own two or more vehicles, one of which, needs to be
larger for carrying the whole family and towing a boat or trailer.
Your solution doesn't match the needs of those families.

--
Ron

 

Ron Peterson wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> When you get hit with a $500 extra fee for registration when you
>> purchase the car, with the knowledge that that fee will be assessed
>> every year, it will have more of an effect.
>
> Families may own two or more vehicles, one of which, needs to be
> larger for carrying the whole family and towing a boat or trailer.
> Your solution doesn't match the needs of those families.

OMG, that's terrible--charging people extra when they need a large car
to tow a boat!

For large families, there are ways to offset the cost with tax credits
or tax deductions for large families. Similarly, for vehicles used
commercially, the increase in fees can be offset with tax deductions.

 

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
wrote:

>I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL

Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds and
credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated cowboy
mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a recent change
in management in DC.

And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts
fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming
that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and
you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?







>
>
>"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>news:muubt4l5trvlajc2i1g734okdp0l3najid@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause,"
>>>but one can not escape the laws of physics!
>>>
>>>The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best
>>>design
>>>features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision
>>>rather
>>>than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
>>>
>>>I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
>>>engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
>>>absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
>>>speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
>>>one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger
>>>compartment
>>>is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
>>>the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
>>>fewer injuries.
>>>
>>>In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger
>>>the
>>>safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one
>>>would
>>>you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
>>>believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
>>>smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
>>>
>>>If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle
>>>costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.
>>>
>>>As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding
>>>in
>>>a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel,
>>>or allow my family members to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the
>> other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare
>> our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest
>> piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes.
>> Great logic.
>>
>> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to
>> prevent people like you from killing the planet.
>

 

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:36:54 -0700 (PDT), Ron Peterson
<ron@shell.core.com> wrote:

>On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> When you get hit with a $500 extra fee for registration when you
>> purchase the car, with the knowledge that that fee will be assessed
>> every year, it will have more of an effect.
>
>Families may own two or more vehicles, one of which, needs to be
>larger for carrying the whole family and towing a boat or trailer.
>Your solution doesn't match the needs of those families.

Big families might just be one of the things we need to discourage
most. As for boats, if you want that luxury you are just going to
have to pay (a lot) for it.

 

Ron Peterson wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:26�pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> When you get hit with a $500 extra fee for registration when you
>> purchase the car, with the knowledge that that fee will be assessed
>> every year, it will have more of an effect.
>
> Families may own two or more vehicles, one of which, needs to be
> larger for carrying the whole family and towing a boat or trailer.
> Your solution doesn't match the needs of those families.
>
> --
> Ron


yet another giant myth. european vehicles load families, and tow
trailers up the pyrenees and the alps. that's why so many euro cars,
even little ones like civics and fits, have tow hitches out there.

yes, you read right, small cars tow trailers*. check out the towing
specs of vehicles on honda.co.uk and compare them to the same vehicles
sold here. notice the difference?

either us or the europeans are being ripped off with this ridiculous
b.s. about needing a honking great monster to tow stuff. i don't think
it's them.


* - i think one of the reasons, apart from u.s. oilcos, er,
"influencing" road safety laws in favor of larger thirstier vehicles, is
that /their/ trailers have brakes. for some reason i simply fail to
understand - unless you're paranoid and believe the previous statement -
ours don't. you /do/ need a bigger vehicle with more braking capability
if your trailer doesn't have brakes, so fit brakes and use a smaller
vehicle!

 

SMS wrote:
> Ron Peterson wrote:
>
>> What is wrong with a gas tax? Registration fees, once paid, don't
>> discourage anyone from driving.
>
> The gas tax is such a distributed expense that it's of limited value in
> changing behavior.

have you ever been to europe? gas taxes have a *dramatic* effect over
there!


> Also, the chances of getting a gas tax that is high
> enough to change behavior is highly unlikely at either the federal or
> state level given the influence of the oil companies.

you're dead right there.


> The big 3
> automakers have a lot less money to purchase influence these days, and
> the other automakers might not be against weight or MPG based vehicle
> license fees.

all detroit has to do is import the smaller more economic vehicles they
already make and sell very profitably in europe. the only reason they
haven't done it so far is because mercenary jerks like wagoner were
trying to get taxpayers to /pay/ him to do it! incredible chutzpah.


>
> When you get hit with a $500 extra fee for registration when you
> purchase the car, with the knowledge that that fee will be assessed
> every year, it will have more of an effect.

only if it's loaded on the heavy thirsty vehicles.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
> wrote:
>
>> I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL
>
> Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds and
> credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated cowboy
> mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a recent change
> in management in DC.
>
> And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts
> fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming
> that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and
> you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?

bankruptcy is not liquidation.

but you're dead right - gm should have the plug pulled on their life
support. they have all the tools they need - including a full lineup of
cheaper more fuel efficient vehicles they make in europe - to get back
and survive if we stop giving them handouts.

only thing they seem to lack is willpower. and frankly, you can't
really blame them - making money from showing up in washington and
whining is a /lot/ easier than having to get up early in the morning and
go bash metal for 8 hours a day.



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> "dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:muubt4l5trvlajc2i1g734okdp0l3najid@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause,"
>>>> but one can not escape the laws of physics!
>>>>
>>>> The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best
>>>> design
>>>> features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision
>>>> rather
>>>> than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
>>>>
>>>> I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
>>>> engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
>>>> absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
>>>> speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
>>>> one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger
>>>> compartment
>>>> is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
>>>> the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
>>>> fewer injuries.
>>>>
>>>> In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger
>>>> the
>>>> safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one
>>>> would
>>>> you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
>>>> believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
>>>> smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
>>>>
>>>> If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle
>>>> costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding
>>>> in
>>>> a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel,
>>>> or allow my family members to do so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the
>>> other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare
>>> our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest
>>> piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes.
>>> Great logic.
>>>
>>> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to
>>> prevent people like you from killing the planet.