gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Shawn Hirn
> wrote:
> >> And yet there are consumers that would gladly buy a car without airbags,
> >> traction control, etc. were they available.
>
> > Fewer and fewer consumers would buy such a vehicle. Most consumers
> > prefer to drive a reasonable safe vehicle. Just look at the sticker on
> > any new car where the auto manufacturer touts all the safety features as
> > if they are doing the consumer a favor by putting them there, when in
> > fact, they are federally mandated.
>
> And you just destroyed your own government regulation stance and made a
> free market argument.

Not really. Better bumpers, improved fuel economy, and seat belts were
all mandated by government before the auto manufacturers got the idea to
market them in a positive light. Let's face it, the average consumer
isn't that bright that they can understand the complexities involved
with auto safety technology, fuel economy, etc.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:
>
> There is a wide variety of such things people buy without mandate right
> now making that moot.

Such as?

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>
>>Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
>>>>>and coupes.
>>>>
>>>>Um, no they don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>They don't now, but future models (say in about five years) ought to be
>>>mandated to meet far better fuel economy standards.
>>
>>Thus making them useless. You're a genius.
>
>
> Thus making them produce less pollution. The nay-sayers said the same
> thing when the idea of setting fuel economy limits for cars was first
> considered, but now lots of car companies are finding a hot demand for
> economical cars. The fact is, if we hold the auto manufacturers to a
> higher standard, they will find a way to meet that standard, assuming
> its not ridiculously out of whack with reality. If Ford can put out a
> hybrid SUV, why not GM, Chrysler, and the other manufacturers?

You didn't say pollution, you said fuel economy. And the truth is, that
trucks are designed to haul and tow. Accelerating more mass takes more
energy takes more fuel. Period. If you force trucks to conform to the
same fuel economy standards as cars they won't be able to haul or tow
any more than cars. Thus making them useless.

But, of course, since CO2 has been defined as "pollution," it really is
the same thing now. Pretty soon people are going to have no choice but
to restore old trucks if they actually need a truck to use as a truck.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article >, Shawn Hirn
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>And yet there are consumers that would gladly buy a car without airbags,
>>>>traction control, etc. were they available.
>>
>>>Fewer and fewer consumers would buy such a vehicle. Most consumers
>>>prefer to drive a reasonable safe vehicle. Just look at the sticker on
>>>any new car where the auto manufacturer touts all the safety features as
>>>if they are doing the consumer a favor by putting them there, when in
>>>fact, they are federally mandated.
>>
>>And you just destroyed your own government regulation stance and made a
>>free market argument.
>
>
> Not really. Better bumpers, improved fuel economy, and seat belts were
> all mandated by government before the auto manufacturers got the idea to
> market them in a positive light.

Quite simply false. It just wasn't *successfully* marketed to the
public. Seat belts have been optional equipment since at least the
mid-50's if not earlier (I used to own a '56 Studebaker which was
factory equipped with seat belts) to give just one example.

> Let's face it, the average consumer
> isn't that bright that they can understand the complexities involved
> with auto safety technology, fuel economy, etc.

And they'll only get dumber when you take that decision making power
away from them.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
> Thus making them produce less pollution.

CO2 is _NOT_ pollution.
Other compounds are regulated in mass per mile and all cars have to meet
the same standards.


> The nay-sayers said the same
> thing when the idea of setting fuel economy limits for cars was first
> considered, but now lots of car companies are finding a hot demand for
> economical cars.

Then you don't need a stupid system like CAFE.

In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:

> Not really. Better bumpers,

Bumper regulation has nothing to do with crash protection. It's about
preventing large body shop bills for cosmetic damage at very low speed.

> improved fuel economy, and seat belts were
> all mandated by government before the auto manufacturers got the idea to
> market them in a positive light.

Wrong. I already enlightened you on Ford's attempt to sell safety in the
1950s. I can also point you to cars that were sold on fuel economy in the
1950s and 1960s.

> Let's face it, the average consumer
> isn't that bright that they can understand the complexities involved
> with auto safety technology, fuel economy, etc.

So you control freaks will do it for them. I am bright enough, keep your
government out of my life.

In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> There is a wide variety of such things people buy without mandate right
>> now making that moot.
>
> Such as?

traction control
vehicle stability system
side air bags
ABS

Just to name a few. Most things that became mandated were available long
before they were as I've already pointed out to you with regards to
airbags.

* US * wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 05:32:56 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> ... on wait times ...
>
> Uninsured Americans

....**** away their money on the foolish indulgences of
the indolent.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 06:18:36 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>...**** away their money on the foolish indulgences of
>the indolent.

So you support the illegal invasion of Iraq.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 05:32:56 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>... on wait times ...

Uninsured Americans get to wait until they die.

" Nearly half of all uninsured, non-elderly adults report having a chronic condition.•
Many uninsured adults with chronic conditions do not have a usual source for health care.
• Almost half of uninsured adults with chronic conditions forgo needed medical care or
prescription drugs, due to cost.• Uninsured adults with chronic conditions forgo needed
medical care and prescription drugs at much higher rates than their insured counterparts.•
Chronically ill, uninsured adults are far less likely to visit a health professional than
their insured counterparts.• Uninsured adults with common chronic conditions (diabetes,
hypertension, arthritis-related conditions, high cholesterol, asthma, and heart disease)
suffer serious,identifiable gaps in needed medical care."

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411..._americans.pdf


They're already confronted with environmental toxins
and a lack of nourishment, too.

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:58:19 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> wrote:

>
>
>Dave Head wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:45:01 -0400, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >And yet there are consumers that would gladly buy a car without airbags,
>> >traction control, etc. were they available.
>> >
>> >nate
>>
>> Me me me me me....
>>
>> I haven't needed air bags in any of my cars since I started driving. And,
>> thanks to the air bag, if I ever do have an accident on a road rally, I'm
>> probably going to die 'cuz the road rally computer is between me and the air
>> bag, since I navigate and sit in the right seat. There's just no other place
>> to put it, and that air bag will pick it up and jam it thru my teeth. Our only
>> chance is _not_ to have an accident.
>>
>I can't believe that you'd have an airbag in such a circumstance. First
>of all, if you don't crash while rallying, you aren't really trying hard
>enough. The co-driver certainly can get hurt compared to the driver
>since the driver has to remember the rule, hold on to the steering
>wheel.

These ain't those kinda rallies. The kind you're talking about are known as
"Pro Rallies" in the USA. The kind I do are simply precision driving contests
- Maintain an average of 43.7 mph until you turn left after the red church,
then maintain an average of 38.3 mph. Pause 2.25 minutes at the third narrow
bridge."

>> Traction control? Something else to go wrong. If I can't keep the damn thing
>> going straight with my driving skills, I don't _deserve_ to not crash. Traction
>> control is for incompetents and wimps.
>>
>It also makes it hard to throw the rear end out and drift around the
>corner.

That too, although it ain't easy with my WRX's AWD.

>> And... I don't like antilock brakes, either...
>>
>Similar problems.

Yep. Latter two problems are not any impediment to road rallying, but still...
there's times that it is fun to do, and instructive for recovery when things go
suddenly wrong.

Dave Head