People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
#106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yXKAh.2845$ya1.317@news02.roc.ny...
> "Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
> news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
>> I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
>>
>> At one time everyone agreed that :
>> the world was flat
>> Man could not fly
>> we couldn't put a man on the moon
>> we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
>>
>> etc.. etc.. etc..
>>
>> I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
>> economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
>> a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
>>
>> I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
>> had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
>> haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
>> 60's.
>
>
> Vague, but I think two things hinder further improvements: Safety, and
> culture.
>
> Safety: We could build cars out of lightweight composite materials. They
> might end up being as rugged as golf carts, and the death toll from
> accidents would be close to 100%. For lousy drivers, this would be a good
> thing, but not for those of us who happen to be in their way when they run
> stop signs, etc.
>
> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind, clinically
> dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How do we get rid
> of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting chance? That
> would be tough because of:
While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the above
catagories is rather small.
Actually, cars survive pretty well when they crashing into other cars or
into fixed objects. The problem comes when cars crash into big trucks and
SUVs.
> Culture: We have the right to travel anywhere in the U.S. freely. Some
> people think this means we have the right to drive cars. Wrong. We need
> driving tests that are almost impossible to pass. If you fail, not only
> don't you get a license, but you're not allowed to own a car. This will
> raise hell with those who think the right to drive comes from god, but who
> cares?
You forgot price of gas.
Jeff
#107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yXKAh.2845$ya1.317@news02.roc.ny...
> "Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
> news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
>> I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
>>
>> At one time everyone agreed that :
>> the world was flat
>> Man could not fly
>> we couldn't put a man on the moon
>> we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
>>
>> etc.. etc.. etc..
>>
>> I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
>> economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
>> a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
>>
>> I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
>> had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
>> haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
>> 60's.
>
>
> Vague, but I think two things hinder further improvements: Safety, and
> culture.
>
> Safety: We could build cars out of lightweight composite materials. They
> might end up being as rugged as golf carts, and the death toll from
> accidents would be close to 100%. For lousy drivers, this would be a good
> thing, but not for those of us who happen to be in their way when they run
> stop signs, etc.
>
> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind, clinically
> dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How do we get rid
> of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting chance? That
> would be tough because of:
While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the above
catagories is rather small.
Actually, cars survive pretty well when they crashing into other cars or
into fixed objects. The problem comes when cars crash into big trucks and
SUVs.
> Culture: We have the right to travel anywhere in the U.S. freely. Some
> people think this means we have the right to drive cars. Wrong. We need
> driving tests that are almost impossible to pass. If you fail, not only
> don't you get a license, but you're not allowed to own a car. This will
> raise hell with those who think the right to drive comes from god, but who
> cares?
You forgot price of gas.
Jeff
#108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yXKAh.2845$ya1.317@news02.roc.ny...
> "Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
> news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
>> I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
>>
>> At one time everyone agreed that :
>> the world was flat
>> Man could not fly
>> we couldn't put a man on the moon
>> we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
>>
>> etc.. etc.. etc..
>>
>> I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
>> economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
>> a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
>>
>> I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
>> had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
>> haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
>> 60's.
>
>
> Vague, but I think two things hinder further improvements: Safety, and
> culture.
>
> Safety: We could build cars out of lightweight composite materials. They
> might end up being as rugged as golf carts, and the death toll from
> accidents would be close to 100%. For lousy drivers, this would be a good
> thing, but not for those of us who happen to be in their way when they run
> stop signs, etc.
>
> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind, clinically
> dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How do we get rid
> of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting chance? That
> would be tough because of:
While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the above
catagories is rather small.
Actually, cars survive pretty well when they crashing into other cars or
into fixed objects. The problem comes when cars crash into big trucks and
SUVs.
> Culture: We have the right to travel anywhere in the U.S. freely. Some
> people think this means we have the right to drive cars. Wrong. We need
> driving tests that are almost impossible to pass. If you fail, not only
> don't you get a license, but you're not allowed to own a car. This will
> raise hell with those who think the right to drive comes from god, but who
> cares?
You forgot price of gas.
Jeff
#109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yXKAh.2845$ya1.317@news02.roc.ny...
> "Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
> news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
>> I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
>>
>> At one time everyone agreed that :
>> the world was flat
>> Man could not fly
>> we couldn't put a man on the moon
>> we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
>>
>> etc.. etc.. etc..
>>
>> I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
>> economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
>> a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
>>
>> I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
>> had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
>> haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
>> 60's.
>
>
> Vague, but I think two things hinder further improvements: Safety, and
> culture.
>
> Safety: We could build cars out of lightweight composite materials. They
> might end up being as rugged as golf carts, and the death toll from
> accidents would be close to 100%. For lousy drivers, this would be a good
> thing, but not for those of us who happen to be in their way when they run
> stop signs, etc.
>
> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind, clinically
> dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How do we get rid
> of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting chance? That
> would be tough because of:
While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the above
catagories is rather small.
Actually, cars survive pretty well when they crashing into other cars or
into fixed objects. The problem comes when cars crash into big trucks and
SUVs.
> Culture: We have the right to travel anywhere in the U.S. freely. Some
> people think this means we have the right to drive cars. Wrong. We need
> driving tests that are almost impossible to pass. If you fail, not only
> don't you get a license, but you're not allowed to own a car. This will
> raise hell with those who think the right to drive comes from god, but who
> cares?
You forgot price of gas.
Jeff
#110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>
> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
> above catagories is rather small.
Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
- Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
- Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
- People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
- People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
- People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
conditions.
- People who never check their tire inflation
- People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
- Tailgaters (almost all young women)
I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
not.
news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>
> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
> above catagories is rather small.
Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
- Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
- Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
- People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
- People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
- People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
conditions.
- People who never check their tire inflation
- People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
- Tailgaters (almost all young women)
I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
not.
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>
> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
> above catagories is rather small.
Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
- Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
- Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
- People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
- People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
- People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
conditions.
- People who never check their tire inflation
- People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
- Tailgaters (almost all young women)
I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
not.
news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>
> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
> above catagories is rather small.
Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
- Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
- Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
- People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
- People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
- People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
conditions.
- People who never check their tire inflation
- People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
- Tailgaters (almost all young women)
I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
not.
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>
> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
> above catagories is rather small.
Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
- Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
- Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
- People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
- People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
- People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
conditions.
- People who never check their tire inflation
- People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
- Tailgaters (almost all young women)
I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
not.
news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>
> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
> above catagories is rather small.
Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
- Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
- Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
- People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
- People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
- People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
conditions.
- People who never check their tire inflation
- People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
- Tailgaters (almost all young women)
I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
not.
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>
> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
> above catagories is rather small.
Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
- Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
- Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
- People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
- People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
- People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
conditions.
- People who never check their tire inflation
- People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
- Tailgaters (almost all young women)
I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
not.
news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>
> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
> above catagories is rather small.
Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
- Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
- Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
- People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
- People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
- People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
conditions.
- People who never check their tire inflation
- People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
- Tailgaters (almost all young women)
I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
not.
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:0TLAh.4148$E71.1623@trnddc04...
>
> "Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
> news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> > I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
> >
> > At one time everyone agreed that :
> > the world was flat
> > Man could not fly
> > we couldn't put a man on the moon
> > we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
> >
> > etc.. etc.. etc..
> >
> > I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
> > economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
> > a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
> >
> > I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
> > had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
> > haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
> > 60's.
>
> Today, a Pontiac Grand Prix gets 20/30 mpg, about twice what your old car
> got. In UK, they have a Mondeo (which is the later version of the Contour)
> gets about 25/40 mpg with a small (1.8 l gas engine) and 30/50 with a
turbo
> diesel.
>
> In Europe, the price of fuel is significantly more than in the US.
>
> Jeff.
>
>
>
> > *************************************************
> > Scott H. Sexton help@
> > www.sexton.com sexton.com
> > Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
> > *************************************************
My old Impala 1970, got around 25 mpgs combined, and had a 350 ci.
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:0TLAh.4148$E71.1623@trnddc04...
>
> "Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
> news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> > I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
> >
> > At one time everyone agreed that :
> > the world was flat
> > Man could not fly
> > we couldn't put a man on the moon
> > we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
> >
> > etc.. etc.. etc..
> >
> > I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
> > economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
> > a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
> >
> > I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
> > had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
> > haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
> > 60's.
>
> Today, a Pontiac Grand Prix gets 20/30 mpg, about twice what your old car
> got. In UK, they have a Mondeo (which is the later version of the Contour)
> gets about 25/40 mpg with a small (1.8 l gas engine) and 30/50 with a
turbo
> diesel.
>
> In Europe, the price of fuel is significantly more than in the US.
>
> Jeff.
>
>
>
> > *************************************************
> > Scott H. Sexton help@
> > www.sexton.com sexton.com
> > Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
> > *************************************************
My old Impala 1970, got around 25 mpgs combined, and had a 350 ci.
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:0TLAh.4148$E71.1623@trnddc04...
>
> "Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
> news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> > I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
> >
> > At one time everyone agreed that :
> > the world was flat
> > Man could not fly
> > we couldn't put a man on the moon
> > we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
> >
> > etc.. etc.. etc..
> >
> > I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
> > economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
> > a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
> >
> > I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
> > had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
> > haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
> > 60's.
>
> Today, a Pontiac Grand Prix gets 20/30 mpg, about twice what your old car
> got. In UK, they have a Mondeo (which is the later version of the Contour)
> gets about 25/40 mpg with a small (1.8 l gas engine) and 30/50 with a
turbo
> diesel.
>
> In Europe, the price of fuel is significantly more than in the US.
>
> Jeff.
>
>
>
> > *************************************************
> > Scott H. Sexton help@
> > www.sexton.com sexton.com
> > Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
> > *************************************************
My old Impala 1970, got around 25 mpgs combined, and had a 350 ci.
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:0TLAh.4148$E71.1623@trnddc04...
>
> "Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
> news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> > I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
> >
> > At one time everyone agreed that :
> > the world was flat
> > Man could not fly
> > we couldn't put a man on the moon
> > we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
> >
> > etc.. etc.. etc..
> >
> > I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
> > economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
> > a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
> >
> > I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
> > had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
> > haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
> > 60's.
>
> Today, a Pontiac Grand Prix gets 20/30 mpg, about twice what your old car
> got. In UK, they have a Mondeo (which is the later version of the Contour)
> gets about 25/40 mpg with a small (1.8 l gas engine) and 30/50 with a
turbo
> diesel.
>
> In Europe, the price of fuel is significantly more than in the US.
>
> Jeff.
>
>
>
> > *************************************************
> > Scott H. Sexton help@
> > www.sexton.com sexton.com
> > Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
> > *************************************************
My old Impala 1970, got around 25 mpgs combined, and had a 350 ci.
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>
>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>
>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>> above catagories is rather small.
>
>
> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>
> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
Not legally blind.
> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
Small protion, maybe 5%.
> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
> conditions.
> - People who never check their tire inflation
> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
enough to drive a car.
And many tailgater older and/or male.
> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
> not.
If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and everyone
else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high as your
figures would suggest.
All the best,
Jeff
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>
>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>
>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>> above catagories is rather small.
>
>
> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>
> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
Not legally blind.
> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
Small protion, maybe 5%.
> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
> conditions.
> - People who never check their tire inflation
> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
enough to drive a car.
And many tailgater older and/or male.
> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
> not.
If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and everyone
else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high as your
figures would suggest.
All the best,
Jeff
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:L%LAh.2766$B25.2285@news01.roc.ny...
> "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:lXLAh.4149$E71.2334@trnddc04...
>
>>> Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind,
>>> clinically dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How
>>> do we get rid of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting
>>> chance? That would be tough because of:
>>
>> While too many drivers are drunk, the number of people who are in the
>> above catagories is rather small.
>
>
> Actually, wrong. Add together the various categories:
>
> - Elderly drivers with failed peripheral vision, driving while terrified.
Not legally blind.
> - Drunks (all day long - alcoholics often start early)
Small protion, maybe 5%.
> - People distracted by cell phones and other bullshit toys
> - People reading maps, newspaper, etc (yeah...newspapers - I've seen it.)
> - People with zero sense of the physics of cars, especially in adverse
> conditions.
> - People who never check their tire inflation
> - People who think red lights, yield signs and stop signs are for others
> - Tailgaters (almost all young women)
None of these people are too stupid to use a spoon. And obviously smart
enough to drive a car.
And many tailgater older and/or male.
> I say 90%. My son says 95%. Take your pick. If you haven't noticed, it's
> time to notice. And, you *know* that driving exams are a crock. Parallel
> parking means you're qualified to drive on a highway in the snow? I think
> not.
If people are as stupid as you say, they would kill themselves (and everyone
else). While the death rate is too high, it is not nearly as high as your
figures would suggest.
All the best,
Jeff