Obama's CAFE Standards May Put More Lives in Danger - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Steve · #61 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by mechadave

While its true that a tiny car is at a disadvantage against a large SUV, when the SUVs are gone from the nation's roads, that situation expires.

Either we buy more efficient autos or... what? Continue driving 3 ton tanks that get under 10 MPG?

What will be the next garbage thread slamming Obama for not being McCain?

Who's mentioned McCain?

Steve · #62 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Because large cars cause far more deaths.
When large cars hit permanent obstacles, they crumple up and collapse more than a small car, because small cars have better strength to weight ratios.
It is the tail end of a large car that crushes the passengers in the large car.

If 2 large cars hit together head on, there are much more likely to be fatalities than if 2 small cars hit head on.

Large cars are killers.

Sorry, but if I'm driving my gas guzzling SUV, and someone coming the other way in a Prius crosses over into my lane and hits me head on, any death in that accident was not caused by my SUV...

Steve · #63 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

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

Tank Rampage In San Diego

goober · #64 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Generally, trucks are used, and trucks burn a lot of gas.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.So trucks would somehow be immune to the $10 per gallon price?
And how exactly do you plan to get around the need to transport things?

So Home Depot gives you gas for free? Damn!

So you are suggesting that national energy policy should be based on the need to transport bricks?
If $10/gallon reduces the number of trucks on the road, it will be because local producers gain a pricing advantage, and because long haul freight transport goes by rail again.
$10/gallon doesn't have much impact on the cost of a building, the major cost of bricks in place will still be brick masons.
It will have an impact on the balance of payments, it will have an impact on CO2 production, and it will have an impact on National Security.

Maybe instead of blindly repeating the talking points of the Party of No, you might want to think the problem through.

Why should petroleum use be subsidized by income taxes and sales taxes?
If you are the president of Texaco, getting your product subsidized by income tax payers makes sense.
But you are a taxpayer, not an oil executive, so why are you clamoring to subsidize petroleum use?

Maat222 · #65 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

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?

Because you put every one else at risk as well.
If everyone had smaller cars, everyone would then be safer.

In fact, is all cars were smaller, then there would be far fewer accident all together, because there would be less traffic density and more ability to avoid accidents.

MattLarson · #66 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Because you put every one else at risk as well.
If everyone had smaller cars, everyone would then be safer.

In fact, is all cars were smaller, then there would be far fewer accident all together, because there would be less traffic density and more ability to avoid accidents.

And if we had no cars at all, we'd all be super-extra safe!

Sorry, but a small car just doesn't work for everyone.

Matt

Maat222 · #67 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

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.

Yes, I agree that much of the problem in the past was that cars were too rigid.
The ability of the car to absorb impact is what makes the driver safest.
Otherwise the inside of the car becomes essentially an extension of the obstacle you impacted. Small cars are stronger because of shape instead of steel mass, so have less energy to absorb.

Maat222 · #68 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Generally, trucks are used, and trucks burn a lot of gas.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.So trucks would somehow be immune to the $10 per gallon price?
And how exactly do you plan to get around the need to transport things?

So Home Depot gives you gas for free? Damn!

I don't know whether it is better to mandate smaller cars or to raise the gas tax as a penalty.
Either way, commercial drivers will need protection, whether it is a waiver or a tax rebate, because there will always be a need for large commercial carriers.

What we need to reduce is like when OJ drove his V8, 4x4 Bronco alone, on dry, flat, pavement, because it was exempt from CAFE ratings.

Maat222 · #69 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheSouth

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?

The problem with waiting for the free market, is that this oil and gas is also necessary for things like defense, plastics, fertilizer, etc., so the gas hog drivers are going to severely impact our safety and quality of life in too many ways to allow.

ApolloMike · #70 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by mechadave

While its true that a tiny car is at a disadvantage against a large SUV, when the SUVs are gone from the nation's roads, that situation expires.

Either we buy more efficient autos or... what? Continue driving 3 ton tanks that get under 10 MPG?

What will be the next garbage thread slamming Obama for not being McCain?

Not all large vehicles get bad gas mileage. I have a 5500 pound truck, V8, can tow 8800 lbs, and it gets a combined 20mpg, okay 19.7, according to the onboard computer. I would say that is pretty damn good for almost 3 tons. And the wifes little Toyota gets near 35. I will take the chances in an accident in my truck over her Toyota.

ApolloMike · #71 (**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.

Most pumps cut-off at about $100, then I just slide the credit card a second time. But, I do not go to Citgo, so Chavez doesnt get my money.

Maat222 · #72 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

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.

An Abrams has plenty of horsepower, and can reach a speed of 42 MPH easily.

Quote:

Speed:
Maximum: 42 miles (67.72 kilometers) per hour (Governed)

Abrams

At that speed, you can easily die from concussion.

Maat222 · #73 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheSouth

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.

No, I have shown that cars are getting safer and safer, and while I can't prove it is because they are also getting smaller, that is the most likely conclusion you should be making as well.

The government agencies that state smaller will be more deadly, do not have anything to base that one, because it has not happened yet.
They are making a prediction, not giving actual data, so you should not be accepting it as proof of anything.

If you look at the only actual data we have, such as the smaller trend in the US and Europe, then the actual data implies smaller is safer.

I know personally that I have avoided accidents many times because of the ability to swerve into a smaller space, with a smaller car, that I could not have done with my truck.

Steve · #74 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

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.

An Abrams weighs in at over 60 tons. 45 mph is fuckin' flying for something that big.

As for the video, the guy who was driving it was whacked out of his mind on drugs at the time. His operator skills likely suffered a tad due to that...

Steve · #75 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

No, I have shown that cars are getting safer and safer, and while I can't prove it is because they are also getting smaller, that is the most likely conclusion you should be making as well.

The government agencies that state smaller will be more deadly, do not have anything to base that one, because it has not happened yet.
They are making a prediction, not giving actual data, so you should not be accepting it as proof of anything.

If you look at the only actual data we have, such as the smaller trend in the US and Europe, then the actual data implies smaller is safer.

I know personally that I have avoided accidents many times because of the ability to swerve into a smaller space, with a smaller car, that I could not have done with my truck.

If I'm going to be in a wreck, I'd rather be in my SUV than in a Honda Insight when it happens...

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