Obama's CAFE Standards May Put More Lives in Danger - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Steve · #91 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

You don't need a V8 for visibility.

Who said that?

Quote:

You can get even better visibility in a 4 cylinder VW van, and there are lots of little pickups.

Again, what does the size of the engine have to do with visibility?

Your points are stupid...

Quote:

Others get to make that determination because it is their safety and their future oil that you are compromising.

I'm not compromising their safety, I am ensuring my own.

You seem to have no problem with asking me to compromise my safety, though, so why the fuck should I care about yours?

Oh, and that "future oil" is mine, too...

Maat222 · #92 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

So because the Lincoln costs more, it automatically gets a better safety rating????? You do realize that makes no sense, don't you?

Actually it makes perfect sense.
If Mazda would be able to spend more, it could also do the testing, add padding, more crumble zones, air bags, etc., to also get a better rating.
More expensive cars will probably always be safer than cheap ones.
It has always been that way, regardless of size.

And example was the Bricklen.
It was smaller, but safer than the Lincoln.
It just was expensive.

Bricklin SV-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steve · #93 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

And example was the Bricklen.
It was smaller, but safer than the Lincoln.
It just was expensive.

And uglier than a mud fence...

Mrs. M · #94 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Actually it makes perfect sense.
If Mazda would be able to spend more, it could also do the testing, add padding, more crumble zones, air bags, etc., to also get a better rating.
More expensive cars will probably always be safer than cheap ones.
It has always been that way, regardless of size.

And example was the Bricklen.
It was smaller, but safer than the Lincoln.
It just was expensive.

Bricklin SV-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait....you said that smaller cars were safer than larger cars and now that I've proven otherwise, you're admitting it's not necessarily true?????

Maat222 · #95 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Who said that?

Again, what does the size of the engine have to do with visibility?

Your points are stupid...

I'm not compromising their safety, I am ensuring my own.

You seem to have no problem with asking me to compromise my safety, though, so why the fuck should I care about yours?

Oh, and that "future oil" is mine, too...

Having better visibility is a valid concern, but you don't have to waste gasoline to achieve that.

And since others could buy even larger vehicles in order to counter the threat your large vehicle represents, all you are proposing is a car size war, where your truck will lose eventually. Like the Freightliner Unimog SUV.

And no, that "future oil" is not yours, because you probably used up more than your share already.

D11011101 · #96 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApolloMike

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.

I always find people talking about the fuel efficiency of their cars most fascinating. The average MPG gallon efficiency between 1980 and 2004 has barely changed. In 24 years of improvements in technology and our cars still get the same horrible gas mileage. The only conspiracy theory that I give any credence to is oil company control over fuel efficiency. They can't make any money if people have fuel efficient cars.

D11011101

Reference: Average Gas Mileage Relatively Flat Between 1980 and 2004

Steve · #97 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Having better visibility is a valid concern, but you don't have to waste gasoline to achieve that.

I'm not wasting gasoline.

I use what I need...

Quote:

And since others could buy even larger vehicles in order to counter the threat your large vehicle represents, all you are proposing is a car size war, where your truck will lose eventually. Like the Freightliner Unimog SUV.

I'm comfortable with my vehicle of choice. If someone else is uncomfortable with my choice, that's just tough shit. They can either deal with it, or get a bigger vehicle; makes no difference to me.

But I'm not "proposing" anything...

Quote:

And no, that "future oil" is not yours, because you probably used up more than your share already.

You've already admitted that I'm not putting a lot of miles on my truck, which translates to me not using a great deal of oil. I fill up, on average, twice a month. I see my neighbor at the gas station at least twice a week, and he drives a Chevy Malibu.

Who's using more gas?

You say "You probably used up more than your share already".

What a stupid fucking thing to say; there's not an ounce of intelligence contained in it.

Since you seem to believe I've "probably" used more than my share, surely you're smart enough to explain just how much my "share" is.

Or maybe you're not...

mechadave · #98 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodore

And thats suppose to save the planet, pay someone else to drive me around? Sounds a lot like "carbon credits". Cabs don't come to my house anyway.

You can pry whatever vehicle I choose to drive out of my cold dead hand. And your going to need something a lot bigger than a midget mobile to do it.

I guess that you will drive vehicles that are available for sale- like it or not. If Suburbans aren't sold you will either drive something smaller or you will walk. Your empty (and typical right wing) brag that "they can't make me" is meaningless.

The days of the gas guzzlers are coming to a close for the good of the country and of the world.

MattLarson · #99 (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Others get to make that determination because it is their safety and their future oil that you are compromising.

Nonsense.

Planning on having children? Have you secured the permission of "others" to do so?

If not, what gives you the right to bring another person into the world who will use resources?

Matt

Mrs. M · #**100** (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

Having better visibility is a valid concern, but you don't have to waste gasoline to achieve that.

And since others could buy even larger vehicles in order to counter the threat your large vehicle represents, all you are proposing is a car size war, where your truck will lose eventually. Like the Freightliner Unimog SUV.

And no, that "future oil" is not yours, because you probably used up more than your share already.

Are you going to ignore post #94?

MattLarson · #**101** (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Mat222 and Mechadave,

What on earth are you doing on the Internet? Don't you know you're frivolously wasting electricity, most of which from fossil fuel?

Others may need that fuel in the future!

Steve · #**102** (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Are you going to ignore post #94?

He's going to ignore anything for which he only has a pathetically weak argument...

mechadave · #**103** (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

He's going to ignore anything for which he only has a pathetically weak argument...

Another possibility is that the post was ignored because it was merely a repeat of her last ten posts on this thread? And slightly off topic as well.

Back to the topic, I fail to see how "Obama's CAFE standards may put more lives in danger."

You like to sit way up in the air and drive around in a big empty truck? Enjoy that sensation while you still can- or get a job as a truck driver.

We all (and I mean you) will be driving smaller cars and trucks in the future and our lives won't be in danger because of it.

Steve · #**104** (**permalink**) 05-23-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by mechadave

Another possibility is that the post was ignored because it was merely a repeat of her last ten posts on this thread? And slightly off topic as well.

Actually it wasn't.

You're just afraid to address it.

Noted...

Quote:

You like to sit way up in the air and drive around in a big empty truck?

Yep...

Quote:

Enjoy that sensation while you still can

I shall...

Quote:

- or get job as a truck driver.

No need...

Quote:

We all (and I mean you) will be driving smaller cars and trucks in the future and our lives won't be in danger because of it.

There will always be SUV's; always. I'm not concerned about having to buy a Smart car instead of an Explorer...

SamInTheSouth · #**105** (**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.

You haven't shown it, you have merely said so. I can say anything I want on here. It won't make it true.

Quote:

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.

You have no idea what you're talking about. These studies are based on already existing smaller cars and current CAFE standards that were put into place years ago. They aren't hypothetical. You have just clearly demonstrated that your knowledge is lacking in this area, yet we're suppose to believe the rest of your commentary.

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