Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)

Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds and
credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated cowboy
mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a recent change
in management in DC.

And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts
fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming
that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and
you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?

 

Big families might just be one of the things we need to discourage
most. As for boats, if you want that luxury you are just going to
have to pay (a lot) for it.

 

yet another giant myth. european vehicles load families, and tow
trailers up the pyrenees and the alps. that's why so many euro cars,
even little ones like civics and fits, have tow hitches out there.

yes, you read right, small cars tow trailers*. check out the towing
specs of vehicles on honda.co.uk and compare them to the same vehicles
sold here. notice the difference?

either us or the europeans are being ripped off with this ridiculous
b.s. about needing a honking great monster to tow stuff. i don't think
it's them.


* - i think one of the reasons, apart from u.s. oilcos, er,
"influencing" road safety laws in favor of larger thirstier vehicles, is
that /their/ trailers have brakes. for some reason i simply fail to
understand - unless you're paranoid and believe the previous statement -
ours don't. you /do/ need a bigger vehicle with more braking capability
if your trailer doesn't have brakes, so fit brakes and use a smaller
vehicle!

 

have you ever been to europe? gas taxes have a *dramatic* effect over
there!

you're dead right there.

all detroit has to do is import the smaller more economic vehicles they
already make and sell very profitably in europe. the only reason they
haven't done it so far is because mercenary jerks like wagoner were
trying to get taxpayers to /pay/ him to do it! incredible chutzpah.

only if it's loaded on the heavy thirsty vehicles.

 

bankruptcy is not liquidation.

but you're dead right - gm should have the plug pulled on their life
support. they have all the tools they need - including a full lineup of
cheaper more fuel efficient vehicles they make in europe - to get back
and survive if we stop giving them handouts.

only thing they seem to lack is willpower. and frankly, you can't
really blame them - making money from showing up in washington and
whining is a /lot/ easier than having to get up early in the morning and
go bash metal for 8 hours a day.

 

Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)

GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't going to
help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in the US,employing
US workers,who would then have money to buy new cars.
No job,no new car,or many other purchases.

At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in the
US,using(paying) US workers.

 

liquidation is liquidation, /not/ bankruptcy. admittedly, bankruptcy
law has different chapters which includes liquidation, but practitioners
don't use the words interchangeably.

that is my point - they /can/ and /should/ make them here. they have
all the designs, tooling, labor, r&d, testing EVERYTHING already done
for their euro operations. all they need to do is retool domestic
operations. all this whining about "oh, it'll take us time and money to
redesign" is complete and utter BULLSHIT.

damned right.

yet another reason to pull the plug on detroit. /we/ taught the
japanese how to make cars, but apparently we can't be bothered to learn
our own lessons because whining in washington gives a much better return
on investment. politicians have significant culpability in this debacle
- as long as they respond to lobbying dollars, and lobbying pays back
about 1000:1 [which it commonly does - at taxpayer expense] - we'll
never wean corporate america off the lobbying welfare teat.

 

"bankruptcies" DO use the word for both reorgs and liquidations.

See the very recent Ritz Camera bankruptcy;they're -liquidating- 300 of 700
stores inventories.
(TODAY,FYI! there's a list of stores online.)

It DOES take money and time to retool/reconfigure a production line.
stamping dies are different,castings are different,etc.

I don't disagree with this.
(*corporate* lobbying AND "sweetheart deals" like BHOblama got for his
wife's job and the property his Chicago house is on.)

IMO,people should be able to group together and lobby Congress;it's part of
free speech.

 

Those SUVs don't maneuver very well and when they try, they tend to roll
over.

Shortly after I put the '83 Civic FE on the road, I encountered a
situation that it easily dealt with but a full sized car/truck could
have had an unfortunate conclusion.

Accident avoidance sure has its advantages.

Uh, I said earlier that only in situations of equal circumstances. If
it's gonna happen, give me more iron for protection. (The '55 has
shoulder belts).

A circumstance that few want to admit to.

AFAIC, the guv'ment should get out of the business of tightly regulating
mileage/safety standards to the point of micromanaging. If I were to buy
a new vehicle where choice was available, it would only have seat belts
period. Cost to benefit ratio just doesn't work (for me) otherwise.

I'm by nature a defensive driver. While others are chatting, texting,
eating and are otherwise pre-occupied, I'm looking down the road a
quarter of a mile anticipating potential disaster.

Yes, this country needs an energy program to largely replace fossil
fuels not because of "sky is falling" climate change hysteria, but
because of economic reasons to end the economic blacmail being imposed
on us by every two bit dictatorship internationally.

Of course, if the world had two or three billion less in the way of
population, most of today's problems wouldn't exist...

JT

 

the legal difference for a company is that with a liquidation means the
company shuts down and all assets are sold. bankruptcy, chapter 11,
means relief from debt and intention to continue in some modified form.

yes, but they've had two years already - they've simply FAILED to make a
freakin' decision! and again, they do NOT have to design and test -
they already have all the patterns ready to roll.

yeah, any person should be able to show up and make their point. but
when money changes hands, that's a fundamental perversion of the point.
i know - i've been in on stuff like this. you show up, a
"contribution" is made, and you get what you want. freakin'
ridiculously easy. and a fantastic system for those with money. but
it's freakin' sucky system for those with only principles.

example: elsewhere in the world, auditors have unlimited personal
liability for accounts they certify. here, auditors have limited
liability. so, at the end of the day, wtf do they care if the accounts
they sign and on which shareholders, pension funds, etc., are bullshit?
the result is that company accounts are unreliable and opaque. that
hurts the nation as we're seeing right now. but have you seen any
accountants, apart from madoff's, finding themselves in the spotlight
for presiding over what is effectively massive fraud? no, and the
reason is that they show up in d.c., hand over a few more dollars, host
a few more parties, and quietly lobby for what they want - immunity from
having the buck stop on their desk. it's absolute bullshit and we all
pay for it. reality is, they are the only people with the expertise to
do that job - which is theoretically why auditors exist in the first
place - they are very well compensated for it, and the principle is that
someone outside a corporation can certify whether accounts are accurate.
without that being reliable, corporations may as well certify their
own accounts and let's all stop the charade. right now, the charade is
that accountant audit is reliable. it isn't because they have no skin
in the game. that needs to end. and the politicians that accept
auditor dollars for enabling that charade need to be fired too.

 

insert: "rely"

 

Most states require brakes on trailers over a certain weight.

 

I'm beginning to think that lowered heavy but unibody SUV would be the
safest vehicle of all. What's the heaviest car-based SUV, by the way?

 

maybe, but that weight is freakin' HUGE. ridiculously so. there's no
reason, other than a few hundred bucks, why /every/ trailer shouldn't
have brakes. and thus almost every car be able to pull one.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/the-great-american-anti-towing-conspiracy/

 

forget the suv - minivans are the way to go if you want capacity in a
safe vehicle.

 

The idea is to drive so it doesn't happen.(high energy impacts.)

I agree.
I want a car that weighs around 2500 lbs.,no more than 2.5 L,and has ~250
HP. B-)
Actually,I want a 2001 Prelude with a turbo motor. ;-)

that's my style,too. Look ahead,think ahead,plan ahead.

We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives simply
don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to open up our
DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the environuts.

For fixed electric power generation,nuclear is the way to go;Best energy
density of all,reliable,clean. I note solar proponents are not mentioning
that solar panels only have a 30 yr life before they degrade,and also need
WATER to keep them clean.

IMO,it's not the population,but their leaders that are the problem.
Too many are kleptocracies,tyrannies,etc that do little or nothing to
improve their citizens lives.

Zimbabwe is a fine example;as Rhodesia,it was the breadbasket of Africa,now
they must import food. Farms that were productive are now underproducing,if
producing at all.
Extreme inflation rate,much suffering.
But they have great natural resources.

Watch Martin Yan's food show on PBS,and see how many Chinese actually
live;very primitive conditions.

 

SUV's original purpose was mainly off-road. Like the old Army Jeep and Land
Rovers.Few people use them for that stuff these days.

and the old Land Rovers were only 4 cylinder! they still hauled a lot.

(just saw a neat PBS "Great Cars" show last week about Land Rovers!
Today's was about BMW.)

 

My Fit can drive circles around an F150. I'm more likely to avoid the
accident.

Somewhere I have some pictures I took during my days as an
investigator for the Federal Railroad Administration. One was of a
Suburban vs. an SD40. The burb is huge, but it's weight didn't do
shit for it.

The claim of "heavy weight = safety" only hold up when you smack the
heavy critter into or with a lighter car. Somebody is always heavier
than you.

Well, for years the "Toast 3" were winners, touting the "greater
safety" of their high margin trucks. Whcih they now can't give away.
$12K off a Ram? WTF?!
--

- dillon I am not invalid

Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only
Gold I'm thinking of.

Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and when I'm on Maui, Wowwie.

 

The center of mass of my Fit is about 14 inches off the deck, two
inches left of midline and about 11 inches ahead of the center of the
car. My B-i-L's F350 is 44 inches up, about 4 inches left and about
18 inches aft of the front axle. Guess which is more stable.

"Effective speed"? I shall peruse some of the SAE journals I have
access to for this term.

BTW, why does California require more liability coverage for vehicles
with a GVW of greater than 4400 lbs? Because they kill people?
--

- dillon I am not invalid

Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only
Gold I'm thinking of.

Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and when I'm on Maui, Wowwie.

 

Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it
increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite
resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out.

The economics of a pure electric vehicle pretty much limits it to the
golf-cart city cars for the foreseeable future. No one I know is
going to pay the cost for a highway capable electric car with a range
of 100 miles between charges. (Although I did see a Tesla on the
expressway the other day.) Hybrids are practical now and will only
become more so as the price of oil increases.

Nuclear reactors only have a 30-50 year life and they are a lot bigger
problem to dispose of. They also require water to cool them.