Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:W4mdnX8MseBxy0rUnZ2dnUVZ_gSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:

> 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.

Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)
>
> 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.


GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't going to
help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in the US,employing
US workers,who would then have money to buy new cars.
No job,no new car,or many other purchases.

At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in the
US,using(paying) US workers.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
> news:W4mdnX8MseBxy0rUnZ2dnUVZ_gSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>> 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.
>
> Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)

liquidation is liquidation, /not/ bankruptcy. admittedly, bankruptcy
law has different chapters which includes liquidation, but practitioners
don't use the words interchangeably.



>> 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.
>
>
> GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't going to
> help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in the US,employing
> US workers,who would then have money to buy new cars.
> No job,no new car,or many other purchases.

that is my point - they /can/ and /should/ make them here. they have
all the designs, tooling, labor, r&d, testing EVERYTHING already done
for their euro operations. all they need to do is retool domestic
operations. all this whining about "oh, it'll take us time and money to
redesign" is complete and utter BULLSHIT.



>
> At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in the
> US,using(paying) US workers.

damned right.

yet another reason to pull the plug on detroit. /we/ taught the
japanese how to make cars, but apparently we can't be bothered to learn
our own lessons because whining in washington gives a much better return
on investment. politicians have significant culpability in this debacle
- as long as they respond to lobbying dollars, and lobbying pays back
about 1000:1 [which it commonly does - at taxpayer expense] - we'll
never wean corporate america off the lobbying welfare teat.

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:jc6dnRhLjr1_wErUnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
>> news:W4mdnX8MseBxy0rUnZ2dnUVZ_gSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)
>
> liquidation is liquidation, /not/ bankruptcy. admittedly, bankruptcy
> law has different chapters which includes liquidation, but
> practitioners don't use the words interchangeably.

"bankruptcies" DO use the word for both reorgs and liquidations.

See the very recent Ritz Camera bankruptcy;they're -liquidating- 300 of 700
stores inventories.
(TODAY,FYI! there's a list of stores online.)

>
>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't
>> going to help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in
>> the US,employing US workers,who would then have money to buy new
>> cars. No job,no new car,or many other purchases.
>
> that is my point - they /can/ and /should/ make them here. they have
> all the designs, tooling, labor, r&d, testing EVERYTHING already done
> for their euro operations. all they need to do is retool domestic
> operations. all this whining about "oh, it'll take us time and money
> to redesign" is complete and utter BULLSHIT.

It DOES take money and time to retool/reconfigure a production line.
stamping dies are different,castings are different,etc.


>>
>> At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in
>> the US,using(paying) US workers.
>
> damned right.
>
> yet another reason to pull the plug on detroit. /we/ taught the
> japanese how to make cars, but apparently we can't be bothered to
> learn our own lessons because whining in washington gives a much
> better return on investment. politicians have significant culpability
> in this debacle - as long as they respond to lobbying dollars, and
> lobbying pays back about 1000:1 [which it commonly does - at taxpayer
> expense] - we'll never wean corporate america off the lobbying welfare
> teat.
>

I don't disagree with this.
(*corporate* lobbying AND "sweetheart deals" like BHOblama got for his
wife's job and the property his Chicago house is on.)

IMO,people should be able to group together and lobby Congress;it's part of
free speech.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

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 .net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.

Those SUVs don't maneuver very well and when they try, they tend to roll
over.

Shortly after I put the '83 Civic FE on the road, I encountered a
situation that it easily dealt with but a full sized car/truck could
have had an unfortunate conclusion.

Accident avoidance sure has its advantages.


>>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.)

Uh, I said earlier that only in situations of equal circumstances. If
it's gonna happen, give me more iron for protection. (The '55 has
shoulder belts).


> 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.

A circumstance that few want to admit to.

AFAIC, the guv'ment should get out of the business of tightly regulating
mileage/safety standards to the point of micromanaging. If I were to buy
a new vehicle where choice was available, it would only have seat belts
period. Cost to benefit ratio just doesn't work (for me) otherwise.

I'm by nature a defensive driver. While others are chatting, texting,
eating and are otherwise pre-occupied, I'm looking down the road a
quarter of a mile anticipating potential disaster.


> 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.

Yes, this country needs an energy program to largely replace fossil
fuels not because of "sky is falling" climate change hysteria, but
because of economic reasons to end the economic blacmail being imposed
on us by every two bit dictatorship internationally.

Of course, if the world had two or three billion less in the way of
population, most of today's problems wouldn't exist...

JT

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
> news:jc6dnRhLjr1_wErUnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
>>> news:W4mdnX8MseBxy0rUnZ2dnUVZ_gSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)
>> liquidation is liquidation, /not/ bankruptcy. admittedly, bankruptcy
>> law has different chapters which includes liquidation, but
>> practitioners don't use the words interchangeably.
>
> "bankruptcies" DO use the word for both reorgs and liquidations.
>
> See the very recent Ritz Camera bankruptcy;they're -liquidating- 300 of 700
> stores inventories.
> (TODAY,FYI! there's a list of stores online.)

the legal difference for a company is that with a liquidation means the
company shuts down and all assets are sold. bankruptcy, chapter 11,
means relief from debt and intention to continue in some modified form.



>
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't
>>> going to help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in
>>> the US,employing US workers,who would then have money to buy new
>>> cars. No job,no new car,or many other purchases.
>> that is my point - they /can/ and /should/ make them here. they have
>> all the designs, tooling, labor, r&d, testing EVERYTHING already done
>> for their euro operations. all they need to do is retool domestic
>> operations. all this whining about "oh, it'll take us time and money
>> to redesign" is complete and utter BULLSHIT.
>
> It DOES take money and time to retool/reconfigure a production line.
> stamping dies are different,castings are different,etc.

yes, but they've had two years already - they've simply FAILED to make a
freakin' decision! and again, they do NOT have to design and test -
they already have all the patterns ready to roll.


>
>
>>> At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in
>>> the US,using(paying) US workers.
>> damned right.
>>
>> yet another reason to pull the plug on detroit. /we/ taught the
>> japanese how to make cars, but apparently we can't be bothered to
>> learn our own lessons because whining in washington gives a much
>> better return on investment. politicians have significant culpability
>> in this debacle - as long as they respond to lobbying dollars, and
>> lobbying pays back about 1000:1 [which it commonly does - at taxpayer
>> expense] - we'll never wean corporate america off the lobbying welfare
>> teat.
>>
>
> I don't disagree with this.
> (*corporate* lobbying AND "sweetheart deals" like BHOblama got for his
> wife's job and the property his Chicago house is on.)
>
> IMO,people should be able to group together and lobby Congress;it's part of
> free speech.

yeah, any person should be able to show up and make their point. but
when money changes hands, that's a fundamental perversion of the point.
i know - i've been in on stuff like this. you show up, a
"contribution" is made, and you get what you want. freakin'
ridiculously easy. and a fantastic system for those with money. but
it's freakin' sucky system for those with only principles.

example: elsewhere in the world, auditors have unlimited personal
liability for accounts they certify. here, auditors have limited
liability. so, at the end of the day, wtf do they care if the accounts
they sign and on which shareholders, pension funds, etc., are bullshit?
the result is that company accounts are unreliable and opaque. that
hurts the nation as we're seeing right now. but have you seen any
accountants, apart from madoff's, finding themselves in the spotlight
for presiding over what is effectively massive fraud? no, and the
reason is that they show up in d.c., hand over a few more dollars, host
a few more parties, and quietly lobby for what they want - immunity from
having the buck stop on their desk. it's absolute bullshit and we all
pay for it. reality is, they are the only people with the expertise to
do that job - which is theoretically why auditors exist in the first
place - they are very well compensated for it, and the principle is that
someone outside a corporation can certify whether accounts are accurate.
without that being reliable, corporations may as well certify their
own accounts and let's all stop the charade. right now, the charade is
that accountant audit is reliable. it isn't because they have no skin
in the game. that needs to end. and the politicians that accept
auditor dollars for enabling that charade need to be fired too.

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

jim beam wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
>> news:jc6dnRhLjr1_wErUnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>>> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
>>>> news:W4mdnX8MseBxy0rUnZ2dnUVZ_gSWnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)
>>> liquidation is liquidation, /not/ bankruptcy. admittedly, bankruptcy
>>> law has different chapters which includes liquidation, but
>>> practitioners don't use the words interchangeably.
>>
>> "bankruptcies" DO use the word for both reorgs and liquidations.
>>
>> See the very recent Ritz Camera bankruptcy;they're -liquidating- 300
>> of 700 stores inventories. (TODAY,FYI! there's a list of stores online.)
>
> the legal difference for a company is that with a liquidation means the
> company shuts down and all assets are sold. bankruptcy, chapter 11,
> means relief from debt and intention to continue in some modified form.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't
>>>> going to help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in
>>>> the US,employing US workers,who would then have money to buy new
>>>> cars. No job,no new car,or many other purchases.
>>> that is my point - they /can/ and /should/ make them here. they have
>>> all the designs, tooling, labor, r&d, testing EVERYTHING already done
>>> for their euro operations. all they need to do is retool domestic
>>> operations. all this whining about "oh, it'll take us time and money
>>> to redesign" is complete and utter BULLSHIT.
>>
>> It DOES take money and time to retool/reconfigure a production line.
>> stamping dies are different,castings are different,etc.
>
> yes, but they've had two years already - they've simply FAILED to make a
> freakin' decision! and again, they do NOT have to design and test -
> they already have all the patterns ready to roll.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in
>>>> the US,using(paying) US workers.
>>> damned right.
>>>
>>> yet another reason to pull the plug on detroit. /we/ taught the
>>> japanese how to make cars, but apparently we can't be bothered to
>>> learn our own lessons because whining in washington gives a much
>>> better return on investment. politicians have significant culpability
>>> in this debacle - as long as they respond to lobbying dollars, and
>>> lobbying pays back about 1000:1 [which it commonly does - at taxpayer
>>> expense] - we'll never wean corporate america off the lobbying welfare
>>> teat.
>>
>> I don't disagree with this.
>> (*corporate* lobbying AND "sweetheart deals" like BHOblama got for his
>> wife's job and the property his Chicago house is on.)
>>
>> IMO,people should be able to group together and lobby Congress;it's
>> part of free speech.
>
> yeah, any person should be able to show up and make their point. but
> when money changes hands, that's a fundamental perversion of the point.
> i know - i've been in on stuff like this. you show up, a
> "contribution" is made, and you get what you want. freakin'
> ridiculously easy. and a fantastic system for those with money. but
> it's freakin' sucky system for those with only principles.
>
> example: elsewhere in the world, auditors have unlimited personal
> liability for accounts they certify. here, auditors have limited
> liability. so, at the end of the day, wtf do they care if the accounts
> they sign and on which shareholders, pension funds, etc.,

insert: "rely"


> are bullshit?
> the result is that company accounts are unreliable and opaque. that
> hurts the nation as we're seeing right now. but have you seen any
> accountants, apart from madoff's, finding themselves in the spotlight
> for presiding over what is effectively massive fraud? no, and the
> reason is that they show up in d.c., hand over a few more dollars, host
> a few more parties, and quietly lobby for what they want - immunity from
> having the buck stop on their desk. it's absolute bullshit and we all
> pay for it. reality is, they are the only people with the expertise to
> do that job - which is theoretically why auditors exist in the first
> place - they are very well compensated for it, and the principle is that
> someone outside a corporation can certify whether accounts are accurate.
> without that being reliable, corporations may as well certify their own
> accounts and let's all stop the charade. right now, the charade is that
> accountant audit is reliable. it isn't because they have no skin in the
> game. that needs to end. and the politicians that accept auditor
> dollars for enabling that charade need to be fired too.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

On Apr 4, 7:40 am, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:

> * - 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!

Most states require brakes on trailers over a certain weight.

--
Ron

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

I'm beginning to think that lowered heavy but unibody SUV would be the
safest vehicle of all. What's the heaviest car-based SUV, by the way?

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

Ron Peterson wrote:
> On Apr 4, 7:40 am, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> * - 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!
>
> Most states require brakes on trailers over a certain weight.
>
> --
> Ron
>

maybe, but that weight is freakin' HUGE. ridiculously so. there's no
reason, other than a few hundred bucks, why /every/ trailer shouldn't
have brakes. and thus almost every car be able to pull one.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/the...ng-conspiracy/

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm beginning to think that lowered heavy but unibody SUV would be the
> safest vehicle of all. What's the heaviest car-based SUV, by the way?

forget the suv - minivans are the way to go if you want capacity in a
safe vehicle.

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:l%KBl.522734$Mh5.159095@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:

>> And thus LESS incentive to avoid a collision.
>> Ordinary drivers in large cars/SUVs tend to not maneuver.
>
> Those SUVs don't maneuver very well and when they try, they tend to
> roll over.
>
> Shortly after I put the '83 Civic FE on the road, I encountered a
> situation that it easily dealt with but a full sized car/truck could
> have had an unfortunate conclusion.
>
> Accident avoidance sure has its advantages.
>
>
>>>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.)
>
> Uh, I said earlier that only in situations of equal circumstances. If
> it's gonna happen, give me more iron for protection. (The '55 has
> shoulder belts).

The idea is to drive so it doesn't happen.(high energy impacts.)

>
>
>> 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.
>
> A circumstance that few want to admit to.
>
> AFAIC, the guv'ment should get out of the business of tightly
> regulating mileage/safety standards to the point of micromanaging. If
> I were to buy a new vehicle where choice was available, it would only
> have seat belts period. Cost to benefit ratio just doesn't work (for
> me) otherwise.

I agree.
I want a car that weighs around 2500 lbs.,no more than 2.5 L,and has ~250
HP. B-)
Actually,I want a 2001 Prelude with a turbo motor. ;-)
>
> I'm by nature a defensive driver. While others are chatting, texting,
> eating and are otherwise pre-occupied, I'm looking down the road a
> quarter of a mile anticipating potential disaster.

that's my style,too. Look ahead,think ahead,plan ahead.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, this country needs an energy program to largely replace fossil
> fuels not because of "sky is falling" climate change hysteria, but
> because of economic reasons to end the economic blacmail being imposed
> on us by every two bit dictatorship internationally.


We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives simply
don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to open up our
DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the environuts.

For fixed electric power generation,nuclear is the way to go;Best energy
density of all,reliable,clean. I note solar proponents are not mentioning
that solar panels only have a 30 yr life before they degrade,and also need
WATER to keep them clean.

>
> Of course, if the world had two or three billion less in the way of
> population, most of today's problems wouldn't exist...
>
> JT
>

IMO,it's not the population,but their leaders that are the problem.
Too many are kleptocracies,tyrannies,etc that do little or nothing to
improve their citizens lives.

Zimbabwe is a fine example;as Rhodesia,it was the breadbasket of Africa,now
they must import food. Farms that were productive are now underproducing,if
producing at all.
Extreme inflation rate,much suffering.
But they have great natural resources.

Watch Martin Yan's food show on PBS,and see how many Chinese actually
live;very primitive conditions.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:t_qdnWPaoJG7FErUnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:

> fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm beginning to think that lowered heavy but unibody SUV would be the
>> safest vehicle of all. What's the heaviest car-based SUV, by the way?
>
> forget the suv - minivans are the way to go if you want capacity in a
> safe vehicle.
>

SUV's original purpose was mainly off-road. Like the old Army Jeep and Land
Rovers.Few people use them for that stuff these days.

and the old Land Rovers were only 4 cylinder! they still hauled a lot.

(just saw a neat PBS "Great Cars" show last week about Land Rovers!
Today's was about BMW.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

Thus spake jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> :

>fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 5:59?pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> 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.
>>
>> Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. All things being equal, heavier
>> will be safer for you (less safe to others).
>
>except for the fact that you're more likely to crash in the first place.
> heavier vehicles are harder to stop. they tend to roll more easily too.

My Fit can drive circles around an F150. I'm more likely to avoid the
accident.

>
>
>>
>>> really? ?have you seen this?http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>>
>> But have they tried crashing Cooper into F150 head on at the same
>> speed?
>
>why would they? can you not see the difference?
>
>
>>
>>> are you shilling for an oil company by any chance?
>>
>> Are you serious?
>
>yes indeed i am.
>
>
>>
>>> ?oilcos have a HUGE
>>> vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the extra
>>> fuel consumption.
>>
>> I bet, but what does this have to do with issue?
>
>you're advocating heavy vehicles. that's very uninformed because just
>weight doesn't enhance survivability, it's passenger cell design and
>energy absorption that do that.

Somewhere I have some pictures I took during my days as an
investigator for the Federal Railroad Administration. One was of a
Suburban vs. an SD40. The burb is huge, but it's weight didn't do
for it.

The claim of "heavy weight = safety" only hold up when you smack the
heavy critter into or with a lighter car. Somebody is always heavier
than you.

>
>otoh, increased vehicle weight increases gas consumption. if you were
>to, er, "encourage" incorporation of "safety features" that added
>400-600lbs weight to every vehicle in the nation, which we are, you're
>talking very significant additional gasoline consumption. [and of
>course increasing crash propensity for the reasons above.]
>
>/your/ only winner seems to be the oilco.

Well, for years the "Toast 3" were winners, touting the "greater
safety" of their high margin trucks. Whcih they now can't give away.
$12K off a Ram? WTF?!
--

- dillon I am not invalid

Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only
Gold I'm thinking of.

Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and when I'm on Maui, Wowwie.

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

Thus spake "fft1976@gmail.com" <fft1976@gmail.com> :

>On Apr 1, 8:10 pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Apr 1, 5:59 pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> 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.
>>
>> > Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. All things being equal, heavier
>> > will be safer for you (less safe to others).
>>
>> except for the fact that you're more likely to crash in the first place.
>> heavier vehicles are harder to stop.
>
>What makes you think that? Some grade school physics:
>http://www.physicsforums.com/archive.../t-194158.html
>
>> they tend to roll more easily too.
>
>Not if "all other things are equal", like the center of mass.

The center of mass of my Fit is about 14 inches off the deck, two
inches left of midline and about 11 inches ahead of the center of the
car. My B-i-L's F350 is 44 inches up, about 4 inches left and about
18 inches aft of the front axle. Guess which is more stable.

>
>> >> really? have you seen this?http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>>
>> > But have they tried crashing Cooper into F150 head on at the same
>> > speed?
>>
>> why would they? can you not see the difference?
>
>They were crashed into a cement wall at THE SAME SPEED, presumably.
>But if they were crashed into each other, the effective speed would be
>lower for F150.
>
>effective speed == speed relative to the center of mass of two
>vehicles

"Effective speed"? I shall peruse some of the SAE journals I have
access to for this term.

BTW, why does California require more liability coverage for vehicles
with a GVW of greater than 4400 lbs? Because they kill people?
--

- dillon I am not invalid

Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only
Gold I'm thinking of.

Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and when I'm on Maui, Wowwie.

Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
 

On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives simply
>don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to open up our
>DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the environuts.

Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it
increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite
resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out.

The economics of a pure electric vehicle pretty much limits it to the
golf-cart city cars for the foreseeable future. No one I know is
going to pay the cost for a highway capable electric car with a range
of 100 miles between charges. (Although I did see a Tesla on the
expressway the other day.) Hybrids are practical now and will only
become more so as the price of oil increases.

>For fixed electric power generation,nuclear is the way to go;Best energy
>density of all,reliable,clean. I note solar proponents are not mentioning
>that solar panels only have a 30 yr life before they degrade,and also need
>WATER to keep them clean.

Nuclear reactors only have a 30-50 year life and they are a lot bigger
problem to dispose of. They also require water to cool them.