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

[Christ]

I have two things to say about this post above me.

First off, it's been edited, and thankfully so. The originally posted words might have been found offensive by more than just the person they were directed toward, and that's probably not a good thing.

Secondly, "shovel" you don't know that that biker wasn't driving "in accordance with america's traffic laws" as you put it.

What if the roles occurred that the biker was actually driving safely, but the Metro pulled out in front of him, in such a manner that he didn't have time to stop?

Maybe a little more objectivity would stop the situation from flaring... just an outsider's opinion.

In all honesty, it probably isn't likely that the bike would have entered the car that far at only 65 MPH (up to 80 MPH, I suppose, depending on what state), but OTOH, the car could have had a damaged door/structure already, as is all too common with Metros. (Chassis damage, that is.) If that's the case, the bike might well have done exactly that at only 65-70 Miles per hour.

To any extent, you can't subjectively determine what exactly happened in that accident, so you can't disparage the person who posted it, even if it was in response to something you said.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by Christ

To any extent, you can't subjectively determine what exactly happened in that accident, so you can't disparage the person who posted it, even if it was in response to something you said.

You know what offends the hell out of me? Not having the freedom to speak frankly. When we are afraid to "offend" anyone, we are LYING to each other. When I fail to call it how I see it, I am lying to everyone, now THAT is offensive.

Posting a picture of a wreck where nobody knows what happened as an argument is stupid. It doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't indicate anything. I could post a picture of a prius in a wreck, does that make them unsafe?

Tjts has more posts than me, woo. His argument makes no sense and contains no substance. Posting a stupid irrelevant picture to make some sort of a point? Please. Are we here to learn from each other or just blow happy rainbows up each others' low emissions tailpipe?
- if it's the second one, you can keep this forum. I'm here to be serious about ecomodding and my posts prove it.

[joey]

^ I put tjts on ignore after I realized he was just an everyday troll; don't take the bait. He's currently in the hypermiling forum calling people luddites for not using the AC.

Life is too short to waste on folks who say stupid things for attention. Let it go.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by shovel

You know what offends the hell out of me? Not having the freedom to speak frankly. When we are afraid to "offend" anyone, we are LYING to each other. When I fail to call it how I see it, I am lying to everyone, now THAT is offensive.

Posting a picture of a wreck where nobody knows what happened as an argument is stupid. It doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't indicate anything. I could post a picture of a prius in a wreck, does that make them unsafe?

Tjts has more posts than me, woo. His argument makes no sense and contains no substance. Posting a stupid irrelevant picture to make some sort of a point? Please. Are we here to learn from each other or just blow happy rainbows up each others' low emissions tailpipe?
- if it's the second one, you can keep this forum. I'm here to be serious about ecomodding and my posts prove it.

I'm not saying anything against you personally. I'm saying that you are doing exactly what you're disparaging him for in that previous post. You're giving your perspective of a situation that you can't possibly make sense of, and using it as an argument in your favor, which you even say in this post, "It doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't indicate anything"...

We're (mostly) all pretty serious about why we're here... don't let one person's obvious mockery lead you from your goals. Try to keep civil, and you will be treated as such, is all I'm saying.

Try to look at all of the potential sides of what's going on before responding to it. It should have been pretty obvious that what was posted there was an attempt to elicit a less-than-thoughtful response from you (or others) (I don't like to use the word "Troll"), so why not just overlook it?

[Christ]

Originally Posted by shovel

Tjts has more posts than me, woo.

To my knowledge, and reasonably so, post counts here mean nothing, other than which of us has more free time than another, or maybe who types faster.

The fact that a person has a higher post count than someone else doesn't create a "status" for that person, nor should it, in any sense, on any forum, so you don't have to worry about being judged here by a low post count.

You are judged here by what you say, and your apparent attitude in saying it. Conviction is a good thing, but it doesn't give anyone a right to be offensive.

[JacobAziza]

I don't think of safety as the chances you survive a high speed crash.

I would much prefer to not get into the crash in the first place.

A car/suv that weighs twice as much has twice the stopping distance and half the maneuverability.
Trucks and SUVs are also much more prone to flip.

Crash testing does not tell you anything about how safe a car is devoid of actual fatality and injury rates per mile.

Same goes for motorcycles. Of course they are dangerous when driven recklessly - and they are alot more likely to, because of the sort of person who buys a bike in the first place.
Its like claiming sports cars are more dangerous than compact cars even though they tend to have more safety features because of not taking driver choices into account.
Ixion FAQ: Aren't motorcycles dangerous?
QQNL14
Having the big steel cage gives people a false sense of security.
Even with air bags and anti lock brakes being mandated years ago, car crashes remain the #1 cause of death of everyone under 40.
All the safety devices do is make people feel safer which means they end up taking more risks

[99LeCouch]

Bingo for the last line in Jacob's post.

Badly paraphrasing Tom Clancy: "He figured [his caution] came from wearing a shirt on his back and not a foot of steel..." in reference to the difference between infantry and tankers.

Same thing on the roads. Give people a "safer", more tank-like automobile. They'll still figure out some way of killing themselves in it. It's just going to take dumber driving.

And for every big car out there, there's something yet bigger that can crush it into a pancake. Whiz-bang safety features or not.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by 99LeCouch

Give people a "safer", more tank-like automobile. They'll still figure out some way of killing themselves in it.

Even worse, they tend to show less concern for other drivers - and cyclists, pedestrians, etc. It's as though they really want to crush all lesser beings beneath their mighty 33-inch treads...

[LeanBurninating]

In the spirit of this thread....

... I am sure you can build an SUV that weighs twice as much as a metro on bicycle tires that can out-brake and out-maneuver it.








Disclaimer: Please do not take this post seriously.

[Christ]

Well, sure you could.. the extra weight means the tires get more "dig" on the pavement... so with the big, wide tires that need to be on the 4 ton SUV to handle it, when you hit the brakes or turn quickly, of course it will "dig in" to the pavement and out handle/maneuver your little Metro on bicycle tires.

I know this is possible... car makers have been doing it for years now, haven't they? I mean come on... they grip so well that instead of sliding, they FLIP RIGHT OVER!

Edit: Just in case you didn't catch it, this is a joking reply to the sarcasm direcly above. Sorry for any confusion!