my Metro wrecked by red light runner

[psyshack]

My turn....

Off the bat,,, sorry for the wreck. They suck big time!

But you made mistakes. NEVER EVER take your eye off the cross traffic. MPG, lights, traffic and all need to be looked after. You have control of whats in front of you. And the ablity to react to behind and side if your aware.

As for the medical issue. It wasn't your fault. Use judgment and do as you want. You did not cause the wreck. So seek the best. If the party's concerned dont want the treatment,,, refuse.... its that damn simple. And as far as Doc's are concerned. Its BULL**** if a court wont listen to and look at any trained person of the body. I wouldn't be walking if it wasn't for a bone popper. And for the record Im a DO supporter. And they DO stand up in court. As does my bone popper. Dont listen to a friggin Lawyer. There like insurance company's. They are only out for them selves's.

Skewbe,,,, Once again you drag out the $5k dollar words and end up as empty as your gf if you have ever had one. You really need to get some life under your belt. You really need to get some life experience....

Mr. I,,,, rock on

[Mayhim]

I'm just here for the FE tips and to offer anything I can do to further the cause.

I knew there were long-hairs here, but, having disassociated myself from them since I got my hair cut 30 years ago, had no idea they'd become so violent in their hatred for All That Consumes. It doesn't surprise as much as it disappoints, as it's contrary to what I remember it to be.

I don't care for the likes of Skewedbe, who hasn't a kind word for anybody and makes me think he stands around striking muscle poses in a mirror after he "slams" some punk who dares to disagree with him. Long on conceit, short on depth.

Perhaps it's the political season drawing out the long knives, or maybe it's Winter Fever. Can't we all just get along?


As for insulting my handle, well, how petty of an argument is that? As if it matters, I got the name from the movie, The Incredibles. But before you dis the movie Mr. I, remember that he drove a FE car...

[GasSavers_bobski]

So this argument is over the sentiment expressed in the original post?

Originally Posted by bzipitidoo

All those people who say bigger = safer, I say that's selfish safety. You have maybe made yourself a little bit safer at the expense of making everyone else a little less safe. And if everyone else goes big to equalize, then you're back where you started on safety, and behind on FE.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with that statement? Or is this argument being driven by the egos that the statement dented?

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

I don't care for the likes of Skewedbe, who hasn't a kind word for anybody [...]

Originally Posted by skewbe

Bravo! Well put!

If you don't want to look like a flamer, attack the subject matter, not the poster(s). If you can't do that, maybe you should examine what drove you to attack in the first place and whether it's justified.

[bzipitidoo]

Now, fellas, don't sink to name calling. Keep the disagreement civil. There are many, many reasons and risks to choose among. Would it be better if I call it the "safety arms race" instead of "selfish safety"? It's like nations choosing whether to buy missiles. Many don't, and save a lot of money, but increase the risk or apparent risk of being attacked. Some do spend, but don't get good results. Saddam Hussein's Iraq vs. the US was rather like an SUV bought for crash safety reasons that met an 18 wheeler. Iraq supposedly had one of the biggest armies in the region. Hussein's behavior was like that of a cocky teen in a game of chicken who thinks air bags make him invincible, and who also thought the 18 wheeler would surely swerve at the last minute. There are studies showing that for many people, knowing your car has airbags causes you to be a little less careful with the driving.

Safety is such a universal part of life. Some increases in safety can be had very cheaply indeed, and a bigger car might seem like just such a no-brainer cheap investment in a little extra safety. But there is always a tradeoff. Apparently safer from crashes in exchange for possibly less safe for the environment and your children's future, and also less safe from auto thieves. Do you put burglar bars on the windows of your home? Safer from burglars, but less safe from fires. Burglar bars have something in common with this safety idea from the '50s, the "deep dish" steering wheel. The idea was that in a collision, the steering wheel would meet you at a greater distance from the steering column, thus reducing the likelihood you would be impaled. Just plain better to have an airbag than a "deep dish". Similarly, better to move to a neighborhood where burglary is uncommon, or perhaps use alarm systems and sensors, rather than put bars on the windows. Possibly the most extreme in car safety has to be for combat like situations, where the user spends a great deal of money for bulletproof windows and bomb resistant armor and extra horsepower to move all that extra weight because he is in a dangerously lawless country such as Columbia.

[cfg83]

Hello -

Might as well put these here ...

The Dangers of SUVs
http://www.bansuvs.com/dangers_of_suvs.html

We've collected many quotes, and linked to their sources, from articles that show just how dangerous Sport Utility Vehicles are on the environment and other people. You can learn more about the specific dangers, uneven emissions standards, tax loopholes and accident fatality statistics. Accident attorneys are well aware of these facts and are fighting tooth and nail to get at the Sport Utility Vehicle manufacturers for big money.

"'Fighting America's oil addiction with these standards is like fighting lung cancer by smoking 49 cigarettes a day instead of 50,' said Don MacKenzie, a Union of Concerned Scientists engineer."

"Those up to 6,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight (which includes passenger and cargo weight in addition to the weight of the vehicle) are known as "light light-duty trucks"; those that are 6,001 to 8,500 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight are known as "heavy light-duty trucks."

"Most SUVs and pickups, and all vans, are permitted to emit 29% to 47% more carbon monoxide (CO) and 75% to 175% more nitrogen oxides (NOx) than passenger cars."

"In the 10-year period during which Ford-Firestone related rollovers caused some 300 deaths, more than 12,000 people -- 40 times as many -- died in SUV rollover crashes unrelated to tire failure."

"Most sport utility vehicles, mini-vans, and pickups are classified as "light trucks" and thus are regulated less stringently than passenger cars under two major laws--the Energy Policy and Conservation Act for fuel economy standards, and the Clean Air Act for emissions standards."

"Most SUVs and pickups, and all vans, are permitted to emit 29% to 47% more carbon monoxide (CO) and 75% to 175% more nitrogen oxides (NOx ) than passenger cars."

"The top U.S. auto-safety regulator said sport/utility vehicles and pickup trucks aren't safe enough due to rollover risks and consumers should think twice about buying them."

It is estimated "that the tax incentive's application to SUVs cost the federal treasury $840 million to $987 million last year."

"There is enough material and poor gas mileage in one SUV to make two safe and efficient modern cars that are more than adequate for most of our transportation needs."

"It does seem woefully inadequate -- especially when you consider how many loopholes have already been driven through by light trucks and SUVs, which are currently allowed to average 7 miles per gallon less than regular cars. And the ultimate absurdity is that if an SUV is massive enough, it is entirely exempt from federal fuel economy standards. That's right, build one with a gross vehicle weight of over 8,500 pounds -- like the Ford Excursion or the new Hummer -- and the leviathan's lousy gas mileage doesn't even have to be reported to the government."

Is Bigger Better? Vehicle Size and Driver Perceptions of Safety
http://www.transportco2.org.nz/Attit...safetyjrad.pdf

5. Conclusions
SUVs have a negative impact on the environment and the general safety of road users. Large SUV drivers are likely to raise safety arguments when defending the use of their SUV, but safety concerns do not appear to motivate drivers to purchase SUVs. In fact, there is some evidence to support the belief that SUV drivers overestimate their driving ability and safety, and are more likely to perform high risk behaviours when driving. The power of a vehicle is also unlikely to be a strong reason for selecting a large SUV. SUV drivers are more likely to be motivated by the reflection of their lifestyle an SUV represents, the utility of their vehicle, in terms of the off-road capabilities and carrying capacity of the vehicle, and their lower concern for the environment. Policy decisions to discourage the use of large vehicles could easily target the vehicle prestige and utility of smaller vehicles and make more prominent the negative environmental impacts of larger vehicles.

CarloSW2

[Mayhim]

Originally Posted by bobski

So this argument is over the sentiment expressed in the original post?

Is there something fundamentally wrong with that statement? Or is this argument being driven by the egos that the statement dented?

If you don't want to look like a flamer, attack the subject matter, not the poster(s). If you can't do that, maybe you should examine what drove you to attack in the first place and whether it's justified.

To recap, the thought of selfish safety led me to express my disbelief that somebody actually said that.

Then Skewbe pipes up with his usual shinola. I'm not dented in any way, ego or otherwise, and shouldn't expect anything else from him. His hatred and corrosiveness just gets tiresome.

And the information posted about the evils of SUVs is only more of the usual stuff from the sandal-wearers and earth-first crowd. More of the same that brings about a "selfish safety" comment.

No, our differences are simply two different world views that sometimes can meet in the middle. Sometimes not. More not lately, I think. It's sad, really, that it all too often seems to turn out that way, but we are who we are. I don't want to hear yours any more than you care to hear mine. Any brand of Assumed Moral Superiority is grating to those who aren't followers of that cult.

My sincere apologies to the originator of this thread for the defacto hijack. It devolved quickly. But FE is not just for the hemp wearing crowd. SUVs serve a purpose that you may not require, but just because you don't want it doesn't mean it should be forbidden. And just because we wouldn't agree to live the lives of the others doesn't mean we can't keep Fuel Efficiency a little more the main topic.


I'd rather talk about nuts and bolts than world-view any day. Cheers.

[kamesama980]

I don't have long hair, I don't wear sandals, my car has the same engine as a supra so don't call me a hippy. I'm just calling it like i see it.

nuts and bolts: I've driven the range of vehicles allowed without a CDL (and once or twice vehicles that I shouldn't have) and worked at car dealers as well as owned econoboxes and trucks. I don't care what you call it...safety arms race, selfish safety. larger vehicles are not any better in bad weather than someone who knows how to drive in it. I can do circles around a 4x4 SUV in the snow in my 5-speed RWD (relatively light) car. as far as crashes go, the big SUV just makes a bigger hole from inertia and is more likely to roll over.

and as far as I'm concerned he is pretty insecure because when logical arguements are given, he just resorts to name calling and denial. "I have evidence X, Y, and Z against your opinion" "no...you suck"

[GasSavers_bobski]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

we are who we are.

Bull. We are who we choose to be. Individuals may have pre-dispositions to certain behavior, but only the most imbalanced, dysfunctional or weak willed of individuals would be unable to overcome those predispositions if they chose to do so. Stating "we are who we are" attempts to elevate individual will (or lack thereof) to the level of a force of nature - something that cannot be reasoned with.
If someone is in the moral wrong and stubbornly refuses to self-examine or even consider changing their ways, those affected by the wrong have every reason to be angry with the stubborn individual. Just saying "we are who we are" is an attempt to halt examination - An attempt to ignore the problem at hand rather than following through to a resolution. Such a cop-out stinks of guilt - the person speaking knows they're in the wrong, has an idea of what the resolution would be, doesn't like it and so tries to push attention away from the subject.

I say again, attack the subject, if you can.

[Mayhim]

Well, then, Bobski, perhaps I didn't explain things to your satisfaction with the phrase, "We are who we are." Doesn't it shine through to anyone that has gone through the idea that it really IS "We are who we make ourselves be?" Sometimes you guys think too much and work too hard banging on things until they fit into shapes you like to look at.

And exactly who is the stubborn one? Me for not agreeing with you or you for not agreeing with me? Neither, of course. We're both right. We're both wrong. We deal with what we can and ignore the rest. I don't like to fight so much any more but that doesn't mean I can't voice disagreement with a concept. Everything doesn't have to be a fight to the death here, does it?

Selfish safety? I disagree. Culminating in an arms race of size? Naturally limited by by money and availability to the masses. Not everybody has the ability to drive a shopping cart at WalMart, let alone a commercial-sized truck. SUVs are the automotive equivalent of the Sam Colts equalizer. Even the little lady can be a safe as the big cowboy. Should everyone be equally safe or should everyone be equally unsafe? How about in the real world?


And, puh-leeze...no need to analyze me by your inferences from a few sentences/paragraphs. There is SO much unsaid. You'd have to come over and have a home brew or ten with me before you'd even start to know who I am. You wasted your time.

I think those of us who gravitated to this site share more than we disagree with. Or we should believe so, anyway, whether we save energy to be cheap or so save humanity.

Kamesama, what constitutes a logical argument to Doomsayers and End of The Worlders doesn't necessarily constitute logic to the rest of the world. One would have to assume true the initial idea that SUVs are evil and should be ripped from the hands of their drivers for any further discussion thereof to be valid. I don't.

[skewbe]

1. Environmental change and it's causes and effects are not your call.

2. Driving a tank in traffic would be classified as sociopathic behavior. Suv's driven for "safety" follow the same line of thinking.

3. The louder you get the more insecure you look. Give the nice gentleman his thread back, please?