CNET: your '92 Civic may get far better MPG than a new car, but it still sucks!

[aerohead]

A couple days ago,the University of North Texas' KNTU Radio,carried a spot which I believe was from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.Basically,they slammed "small fuel-efficient vehicles".The spirit of the piece was that if you owned and drove a high mpg car,you were flirting with death.---------- I don't know if this is a backdoor move to cast an unfavorable light on the new 35-mpg CAFE standards.I thought it interesting that something would be broadcast,unilateraly,with no forum for rebuttal,nor no real context for which the claims were made.--------- Anyone seeing stuff like this in the media?

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by shovel

Personally what I'm saying is as long as adults in the so-called land of the free are free to choose to buy a no-safety-features motorcycle, adults are free to choose to drive a 40 year old car with lap belts, adults are free to choose to buy a convertible, adults are free to drive a beat-up car with sloppy worn out suspension and brakes,

You should try driving in a India or any other third world country some time. I bet you would love. All the freedom your body can handle.

[joey]

^ 45,000 people die due to cars right here in this country every year. Not too many other countries can top that. Go USA, right?

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by joey

^ 45,000 people die due to cars right here in this country every year. Not too many other countries can top that. Go USA, right?

^^^Clueless^^^






And keep in mind that all through the 80s and the early part of the 90s we had a national 55mph speed limit. Speed kills? LOL! So please, keep diluting yourself into thinking you are safe in your little 80s death trap.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by tjts1

So please, keep diluting yourself

[joey]

Originally Posted by shovel

I'm already at 70% water. Maybe I should aim for 80? :O)

[wdb]

Originally Posted by shovel

As long as it's still legal to drive a 65 horsepower 1980 slowmobile on the road, it should be legal to sell a brand new version of the exact same thing. Why the hell not? There should be no LEGAL difference whatsoever between restoring a 30 year old "unsafe" car to brand new condition, and building a brand new "unsafe" car.

But there is. It's called the insurance industry, and it's favorite mouthpiece is the IIHS.

There's no way to win this argument, not in the US at any rate -- what with the baby boomers' babies having babies. Gotta keep all those babies wrapped up nice and safe.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by wdb

But there is. It's called the insurance industry, and it's favorite mouthpiece is the IIHS.

There's no way to win this argument, not in the US at any rate -- what with the baby boomers' babies having babies. Gotta keep all those babies wrapped up nice and safe.

True, though I think the lawsuit industry is retarded - here's why:

It's a fact that convertibles are less safe than minivans from every angle. But you can buy a convertible. Everyone knows that convertibles are less safe than minivans. But they still buy them. Why doesn't anyone sue a convertible manufacturer for not including a roof on the vehicle? Oh yeah, because it's a convertible.

Same with motorcycles, nobody sues harley davidson for not putting a safety cage and 10 airbags on a motorcycle, because it's a motorcycle and motorcycles don't have those things.

AAAAAAND.... nobody should sue the maker of a $3000 car for not making it as safe as a $30,000 sedan. Care to guess why? Oh yeah, it's because much like it is OBVIOUS that a motorcycle is less safe than a minivan, it is OBVIOUS that a $3k car is less safe than a $30k car. Any judge who wouldn't throw out a case on that basis has no business wearing a robe. Anyone unable to understand that a $3k car is less safe than a $30k car has no business piloting a motor vehicle, they should be in a cage at the zoo.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by tjts1

You should try driving in a India or any other third world country some time. I bet you would love. All the freedom your body can handle.

That's pretty cool but really has no bearing on this discussion, there are countless other factors to chaotic motoring in developing nations such as livestock being conveyed down public streets, what appears to be utter indifference to lanes and/or lane marking, numerous different kinds of traffic going different directions in the same space, vehicles being overloaded and/or used for other-than-their-intended-purpose, homebuilt cobblejobs, lack of traffic control devices, lack of traffic enforcement.


All of that makes motoring in a developing nation in any kind of vehicle an entirely different animal from motoring in the US with a de-nerfed vehicle.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by shovel

That's pretty cool but really has no bearing on this discussion, there are countless other factors to chaotic motoring in developing nations such as livestock being conveyed down public streets, what appears to be utter indifference to lanes and/or lane marking, numerous different kinds of traffic going different directions in the same space, vehicles being overloaded and/or used for other-than-their-intended-purpose, homebuilt cobblejobs, lack of traffic control devices, lack of traffic enforcement.


All of that makes motoring in a developing nation in any kind of vehicle an entirely different animal from motoring in the US with a de-nerfed vehicle.

Then don't complain about the laws we enforce in this country to protect you from yourself and every other idiot on the road.