Obama's CAFE Standards May Put More Lives in Danger - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

CYDdharta · #46 (**permalink**) 05-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Actually Abrams tanks are far more dangerous than ordinary cars.
If you hit a solid object in a tank, such as a bridge piling, you are going to die in a tank.
The tank becomes as stationary as the bridge piling, and your head makes contact with it with enough energy to kill you, even at slow speed.
That is why tank crews wear padded helmets, and still have a high mortality rate from accidents.

Well, that explains why it was such a prominent problem for our Sherman tanker crews during WWII; and why the California police had to shoot the meth-head who went on a rampage thru downtown San Diego. If you knew anything about the M-1 Abrams, you would have known they’re pretty spacious inside, and the only thing the driver might hit in the event of a collision is a padded shock-absorbing head rest for the Driver's Integrated Display

Maat222 · #47 (**permalink**) 05-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

It's all BS. Fact is bigger cars are safer than smaller cars. Anyone who argues that is an idiot. The new standards are a creation of the what is now known as the enviro-industrial complex.

Then why is it that cars have gotten so much smaller in the last 50 years, and also have a much better safety record?

Did you ever see a caddie hit something solid?
The rear end crushes the passengers on the engine.

But I saw a little VW bug that was squashed flat up to the windshield from a head on, and the passengers walked away.

Survivability is not from weight, size, or even strength; but from ability to absorb shock and impact.
Otherwise the passengers die when the car itself becomes like a brick wall.

Maat222 · #48 (**permalink**) 05-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

Well, that explains why it was such a prominent problem for our Sherman tanker crews during WWII; and why the California police had to shoot the meth-head who went on a rampage thru downtown San Diego. If you knew anything about the M-1 Abrams, you would have known they’re pretty spacious inside, and the only thing the driver might hit in the event of a collision is a padded shock-absorbing head rest for the Driver's Integrated Display

Sherman tanks could not go very fast, but any tank hitting a solid enough object is going to have a crew in very bad shape.
The tank in the rampage did not go fast or hit any solid object.
Many tank crew member have died from impacts in Iraq.

Slon · #49 (**permalink**) 05-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

So you use a Cadillac to transport bricks?

Generally, trucks are used, and trucks burn a lot of gas.

Quote:

What does transporting bricks have to do with passenger vehicles?

It doesn't. What you fail to realize is that plenty of people make a living transporting stuff in trucks. And the $10 per gallon you seem to be so fond of will affect them the most.

Quote:

If you need to transport a couple of tons of bricks at a time a truck capable of carrying a couple of tons of bricks would make sense.
You can't carry that many bricks in an SUV, you'll wreck the suspension with the weight of the bricks before you get anywhere near filling the cargo area.

So trucks would somehow be immune to the $10 per gallon price?

Quote:

I'm just saying that gasoline is going to cost a lot more than it does now and most people will have smaller cars than they do now.
And people are arguing with that.

And how exactly do you plan to get around the need to transport things?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Home Depot rents trucks for only $19/day, so there is no reason to drive one all the time, just to be able to haul bricks 2 times a year.

So Home Depot gives you gas for free? Damn!

Maat222 · #50 (**permalink**) 05-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurf

I don't know where you drive, but in my neck of the woods, walls don't suddenly appear on the highway in front of me when I am driving 65 mph.

....

If you think that I am going to voluntarily sacrifice the safety of my family and myself so that some total stranger has a better chance of survival in his sub-compact, you are quite wrong.

If you veer off the highway, there are always solid obstacles to hit.
That is what happened to Lady Di.
But even in your neck of the woods, there are trees on the side of the road, that are essentially solid obstacles.
You are better off in a smaller vehicle, if you hit one.
The total death rate is lower as all vehicles become smaller.

CYDdharta · #51 (**permalink**) 05-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Sherman tanks could not go very fast, but any tank hitting a solid enough object is going to have a crew in very bad shape.
The tank in the rampage did not go fast or hit any solid object.
Many tank crew member have died from impacts in Iraq.

Tanks don't go very fast, period. The tank in the video came to a dead stop when the driver tried to plow thru a house. If you have anything to back up your claim, please share it.

Maat222 · #52 (**permalink**) 05-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurf

No, it is not foolish in the least. It is factual in the REAL world in which I live. Good job completely ignoring the scenarios that I proposed, by the way.

Yes, sometimes the cause of the injuries between an 18 wheeler and a motorcycle is the weight of the 18 wheeler, but sometimes the cause of the injuries is the ground, or a tree. It is also true when a sub-compact and a motorcycle collide, or when two motorcycles collide, that the ground and trees can, and do, cause injuries.

But we will never "all drive cars as light as motorcycles", so your assertion is moot.

I'm not sure that fewer deaths per driver in Europe and Asia proves anything. Regardless, do you have statistics on deaths per miles driven by continent? That might be a more meaningful comparison.

There would still be the least number of deaths if all cars were smaller.

I did not have time to look for too many stats, so this is the first I found:
Road Crash Fatality Rates for all American States and Thirty Countries, 2003

Vincent. · #53 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurf

I don't know where you drive, but in my neck of the woods, walls don't suddenly appear on the highway in front of me when I am driving 65 mph.

I'll take my half ton 4x4 against a small car rather than hitting another truck.

There are very few walls, but there are enough trees. With a wall I ment an unmovable object. You're better off in a small car when crashing into an tree. If impacts with deer are more common then impacts with trees then you're better off in a big car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurf

Agreed, but that is not the real world. In the real world, there are vehicles of many different sizes sharing the same roads. In the real world, there are large animals that suddenly appear before you on the highway. If you think that I am going to voluntarily sacrifice the safety of my family and myself so that some total stranger has a better chance of survival in his sub-compact, you are quite wrong.

Seeing as (at least in general) impacts with large animals are more uncommon then impacts with trees walls, ground etc. you might want if the chance of hitting a tree in your area isn't bigger then hitting a deer.

The argument that you need a larger car because the other guy also has a larger car is logical in the short term. But when you apply this logic to large numbers it doesn't hold up (more people will die), therefor the government should stimulate smaller cars. This is just on the safety aspect, not about convenience, money or environment.

Slon · #54 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent.

There are very few walls, but there are enough trees. With a wall I ment an unmovable object. You're better off in a small car when crashing into an tree. If impacts with deer are more common then impacts with trees then you're better off in a big car.

Seeing as (at least in general) impacts with large animals are more uncommon then impacts with trees walls, ground etc. you might want if the chance of hitting a tree in your area isn't bigger then hitting a deer.

The argument that you need a larger car because the other guy also has a larger car is logical in the short term. But when you apply this logic to large numbers it doesn't hold up (more people will die), therefor the government should stimulate smaller cars. This is just on the safety aspect, not about convenience, money or environment.

If people want to stay unsafe, it should be their right. Who is the government to dictate what one may or may not do to himself?

Mrs. M · #55 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Then why is it that cars have gotten so much smaller in the last 50 years, and also have a much better safety record?

The reason cars have a much better safety record today is because they are made to absorb the majority of the impact which lessens the injuries to the occupants.
The car below is a 1962 Mercury Comet and was considered a small car for it's time. A 1978 mid-size car hit me head on as we were both traveling approximately 40 mph. Both cars were totaled but I spent a week in the hospital because I wasn't wearing the lap belt which was the only type of seat belt in the car, the steering wheel was huge and I hit it with my throat, tearing a hole inside of it, and the bottom of the wheel bruised my bladder. If you'll look on the driver's side windshield, you'll see a where my head hit, leaving me with cuts to my forehead. The difference in cars today and the '62 is that the '62 was all metal and didn't absorb as much of the impact as the plastic and fiberglass cars, no matter the size, of today do. The three point seat belts and air bags of today's car also add much to the safety factor.

SamInTheSouth · #56 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

$10/gallon - you still thinking about that Escalade?

Ok, pimps, rap stars, and the wealthy will still have their big cars and SUVs.
But as gasoline climbs back up, the trend is to smaller fuel efficient vehicles.
So yeah, somewhere there will be a Shelby GT Mustang sucking gasoline and burning rubber, but most people will do what people do when gas is expensive, and drive small cars.
This won't be the case in Saudi Arabia where gas is still 29 cents a gallon, or in Venezuela where you can fill up a Hummer for $5. But in the US gas prices are heading to small car territory, because this is no longer a petroleum producing nation, we are a petroleum importing nation and the sooner we face up to that the better for everyone.

So in the other words, the free market will create a need for these cars when the time is right and these CAFE standards aren't needed. You just made a case for Capitalism, Goober. Are you feeling alright?

SamInTheSouth · #57 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

I hope that good feeling keeps the smile on your face as the pump goes by $100 without slowing down. I guess you'll get a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that Hugo Chavez needs the money.

And now you just made a case for drilling more of our own oil, to keep the money from going to Chavez and other nations that don't like us.

SamInTheSouth · #58 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

That is foolish.
The cause of the injuries when a 18 wheeler hits a motorcycle is the weight of the 18 wheeler.
If we all drove cars as light as motorcycles, then there would be far fewer deaths.
And smaller cars also are much better at avoiding the accidents in the first place.

This is easily proven by Europe and Asia, where cars are much smaller and there are far fewer fatalities per driver.

You, of course, can provide a source for all of these claims, right?

SamInTheSouth · #59 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

No, they are not wrong because they carefully say ambiguous things that make us make false assumptions.

Every one of your posts are nothing more than assumptions. You haven't provided a shred of evidence to any of your claims, other than taking your word for it and when confronted with the claims of several government agencies you state that it's a conspiracy theory.

SamInTheSouth · #60 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Then get an Escalade, it will look good in your driveway, and you should be able to pick up a used one at a reasonable price.
But if you don't drive much, then you won't be on the road much.
The point is, the average car will get smaller and lighter as gasoline increases in price, and with the decline of the dollar, gasoline is going to increase in price.

You will still be able to buy a huge car or SUV, but if you do you'll be shelling out a couple of hundred bucks every time you stop for gas.
But it's still a free country, and if you want to spend your money on gas, go ahead.

What makes you think that it's going to cost a couple of hundred bucks to fill up an SUV Goober?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode