|
GM declares bankruptcy (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by schrödingerwin
I know you're a cool guy but c'mon man no one does that, it's unbecoming and a bit rude if you ask me, but what do i know? |
Nothing. Otherwise you would have asked rather than assume, and you'd find out it was because my wife's mother fell suddenly ill and was on her death bed, and we had to jump in the car and drive up right away.... not because I'm an inconsiderate person. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Nothing. Otherwise you would have asked rather than assume, and you'd find out it was because my wife's mother fell suddenly ill and was on her death bed, and we had to jump in the car and drive up right away.... not because I'm an inconsiderate person. |
Don't be silly; you drive an F-150. Of course you're an inconsiderate person. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
You are correct, but others such as Delta and Northwest have. |
i wouldn't jump on the bandwagon to be a shareholder :p |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
1. Longer stopping distance.
How are you going to stop yourself rear-ending that person or sliding off that icy road when your stopping distance is twice that of a smaller, more sensible sized car?
|
This is partly untrue. Most large cars have 4-wheel drive and incredible traction, so as long as they're driving a reasonable speed on an icy road, then should be safe. In large snowfalls, my friends with big cars actually become my best friends :p
| quote: | | 2. Higher centre of gravity |
Unfortunately, very very true. My cousin rolled his pickup truck, going the speed limit on the expressway. He hit a pothole and instead of getting a flat tire or having just a nasty bump, his car flipped about 600 times and he totaled it.
| quote: | | 3. Greater weight means greater danger for other vehicles. |
Quite true, F = ma, as m increases, your F is going to increase in ways you probably wouldn't want it to if you had a small car.
| quote: | | 5. Size impairs other drivers’ vision. |
I support our country's truckers, because our country would immediately collapse without them. Unfortunately, large pickups and semis block the stop light from my maxima, so I have turned left in front of traffic or ran a red light if the driver ahead of me did also. Unfortunately in city areas or heavy traffic, it's hard to keep a larger distance between you and the car ahead of you.
I see most of these points are pretty obvious, but unless we're talking strictly city environments with way fewer large vehicles (garbage trucks, semi's, concrete mixers, etc), vision impairment isn't near as much of a factor on the expressway or roads past city limits.
Good article just the same tho. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| american manufacturers should certainly be moving towards more fuel-efficient cars. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
I also forgot to mention that larger cars have larger blind spots, meaning that their drivers are more likely to be unaware of what's around them. Again, this equals more accidents.
Also, plenty of people struggle to know where the extents of their car are, even in sedans. This creates problems when parking and moving through traffic. Larger cars exacerbate this issue. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
There it is again, the old US ‘I’m entitled’ attitude. You want something, so you think you should be able to have it. While that attitude may have been acceptable in the ‘90s, it’s certainly not acceptable now. This concept could also be applied to jewellery, houses and clothes, but cars are different because you’re out there every day interacting with other people on the road, and the vehicle you drive has a direct effect on safety, peace of mind and hip-pocket of others, for reasons I’ll explain. To say ‘I want it’ is a disgusting attitude and one that is slowly destroying America, and indeed, the Western World.
You have a very twisted view of ‘freedom’ if you believe it means being able to drive a car you don’t need.
Putting aside the issues of your car on the road, what about your car on the environment? I’m by no means a hippie, but your car burns far more petrol than a more sensibly sized one; it costs more resources to manufacture and generally has a worse effect on the Earth. Granted, if you use take this reasoning to the extreme, then we should all be using bicycles or driving horse and cart, but people need to get around, and it’s not unreasonable to suggest that people are driving cars twice as large as they need should cut back. |
What the? What is disgusting about wanting to drive a vehicle that I like? It's not a sense of entitlement at all... I don't expect anything, and I never look for handouts. I'm talking about strait up consumer driven supply and demand. I'm talking about car companines making a prduct that their consumers want... that's what happens in a (soon to be formerly) free market economy. When you take away a company's ability to produce what the people want to buy, you are cutting out some basic freedoms. And based on the numbers, people want to buy SUV's and trucks, NOT the types of cars that are going to be forced on them. I don't have a garage full of 12 SUV's that I don't need, I have one ing car that I love and should be allowed to buy if I want it. Christ.
| quote: | | Exactly. This is the same argument as with guns. If you take away guns from EVERYONE, then people’s methods of injuring one another are lessened, but the playing field is still equal, with no parties having an advantage over the other. It also applies perfectly here. |
By that rationale, we should take away knives too... plastic wear at the tables from now on. It's a slippery slope, what you speak of. In a free society, people are awarded with the individual responsibility to make decisions for themselves... that must be a foreign idea to you. With that responsibility come inherant problems, but overall it makes the society better. I for one, do not believe that a government/buracracy can better decide for an individual what they should drive, what they should eat, what is taught in school, etc.
| quote: | | That’s an awful argument. There are plenty of four wheel drive sedans of reasonable size and power on the market. Subaru, Audi, Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, Mercury, Ford, Dodge, Chrysler and Lincoln all make mid-sized sedans with all wheel drive. |
You're totally missing the point again. I don't WANT a midsize vehicle... I want what I legally have the right to choose. I'd be more happy of those golf carts masquerading as cars were taken off the road too, but guess what... if a person wants to drive one of those, I am in no position to impose my beliefs on them and affect their choice, just as the government shouldn't do the same to me.
| quote: | Really? Take a look at this:
You’re just a typical exponent of the “big equals better” movement, which is an awful assumption. Here’s why LTVs and SUVs are bad:
So, even if you’re selfish enough to actually disregard that you’re more dangerous to others on the road, you should at least be able to acknowledge that you’re unsafe to yourself. While heavier vehicles may perform better when they DO crash, they are far more likely to get into crashes in the first place, as illustrated by this study:
It debunks your claims regarding CAFE quite well. |
I've head that for years about the dangers of SUV's. Who published that list, the Sierra Club? There are dangers driving any vehidle. But if you think for a second there is any real validity to the idea that SUV's are more dangerous for people to drive than a Smartcar or an Aveo or a Mini Cooper, you're insane. I am not more dangerous to others on the road for the simple fact that I am a responsible driver.
I would be willing to bet you that more deaths happen from an increase in smaller cars due to imposed CAFE standards than SUV rollovers. Add I would be willing to bet that number will greatly increase for those smaller cars once the 2016 CAFE standards are imposed. I don't actually have to bet though... you must not have read from my earlier post the study conducted by Harvard's Brookings Institute:
| quote: | | CAFE kills up to 3,900 extra people each year, a study by Harvard and the Brookings Institution states. It finds that for every 100 pounds less that an auto weighs, up to 780 more people die in traffic accidents in a year. |
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30850102
It also explains how, since 1975, 50,000 more people have died that otherwise wouldn't because of driving boxes in the spirit of getting higher gas mileage due to CAFE.
Ignore those facts though dude. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
I also forgot to mention that larger cars have larger blind spots, meaning that their drivers are more likely to be unaware of what's around them. Again, this equals more accidents.
Also, plenty of people struggle to know where the extents of their car are, even in sedans. This creates problems when parking and moving through traffic. Larger cars exacerbate this issue. |
Jesus... you sound like a high school driving instructor. It's called responsible driving! I know the blind spots are larger, therefore I take extra precautions making sure I don't rely on the mirrors when changing lanes, etc.
Why don't we all just drive big furry pillows that max out at 10 mph, while wearing bomb-squad protective suits? That way nobody will EVER get hurt! |
|
|
| Renzo |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Why don't we all just drive big furry pillows that max out at 10 mph, while wearing bomb-squad protective suits? |
I've tried. Trust me, you look ridiculous. Not going down that route again. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30850102
It also explains how, since 1975, 50,000 more people have died that otherwise wouldn't because of driving boxes in the spirit of getting higher gas mileage due to CAFE.
Ignore those facts though dude. |
Ignore the facts?!
You posted one ty link which was from a pseudo news article with no actual source backing it up.
All of the FIVE links I posted were to reputable sources with actual facts and figures (one of which debunks your CAFE argument), and I see you haven't bothered to comment on any of those. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Jesus... you sound like a high school driving instructor. It's called responsible driving! I know the blind spots are larger, therefore I take extra precautions making sure I don't rely on the mirrors when changing lanes, etc. |
Good for you, but I'm sure you can agree that most people are awful drivers and don't take these kinds of things into consideration. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Ignore the facts?!
You posted one ty link which was from a pseudo news article with no actual source backing it up.
All of the FIVE links I posted were to reputable sources with actual facts and figures (one of which debunks your CAFE argument), and I see you haven't bothered to comment on any of those. |
Link to the CNBC article works fine. If it's too much trouble to google "Harvard Brookings Institute CAFE standards kill", then let me provide a link for you with references and quotes from SEVERAL safety industry sources.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html
My CAFE argument is not debunked and you can't admit it.
Edit: And that article is from 2006! |
|
|
|
|
