Hummercide

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

...

Quoted message said:

Two, how about a head-on collision between the same two vehicles. Again, the Civic's engine
compartment crushes but the passenger compartment remains intact, absorbing the impact and
protecting its driver. But the big SUV, bolstered by rigid frame rails, doesn't crush at all. It
seems hardly damaged, but the force of the impact is transmitted directly to the driver. He dies
of internal injuries where his seat belt practically cuts him in two.

These kinds of things are exactly what happens in the real world.

Not according to the stats I've seen. In car vs big SUV crashes, if both occupants have seat belts
on, the car occupant is much more likely to be seriously injured, because it sustains much higher
G-forces than the SUV. Do a conservation of momentum calculation of a head-on collision between a
2000lb vehicle and a 7000lb one with both traveling at the same speed, and you will see what I mean.
The car ends up going backward while the SUV continues to move forward, and the car has been
subjected to MUCH higher g-forces than the SUV.

Hitting an immovable object, the car's better engineering and crush zones give it an advantage.

....

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

Quoted message said:

W K snipes anonymously:

Quoted message said:

Its another interesting thing I've noticed since the start of this war. Apparantly America is
also the only nation in the world where one is allowed to openly criticise the government.

Oh how patriotic... I guess you didn't go to school and learn about other governments starting
with the Greeks of old. There's more

Largely courtesy of the USA I'd say. Post WWII Pax Americana.

Quoted message said:

democracy in the world than some conservative (right wing) people would have you believe.

Ooooh, those conservative right wing liars!

Just out of curiousity, I wonder how broad minded current Europeans are towards that minority *in
favor* of the war?

I'm hearing nothing but scorn tossed at the US and Americans visiting Euroland. I see no pro-war
demonstrations in Europe, where 80+% of the people are anti (unless they're from "Old Europe", in
which case they should just shut up).

Those left wing, socialist governments must be suppressing any contrary thought!

SMH

"JerZ Fox" <> wrote in message > No one should be driving a Hummer unless they're wearing dog
tags, fatigues,

Quoted message said:

and a flak jacket!

Well said. After my youngest brother came home from Desert Storm, the subject came up about how
Arnold Schwartsnegger had bought a civillian HMV. I said that, I sure hoped that they didn't become
popular, or we would surely have to go back to war. Right now I can go to the grocery store, and
count at least 3 in the lot. Ready,set, Go figure Hope for the best, Len

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Never said that SUVs drove well. Just that if you do need the space, etc. that they are a great
thing to own.

That's the funny thing...SUV's are generally far less space efficient than a similar size minivan.

Actually, once you've been in a mini-van, SUVs seem downright *small* on the inside.

Chris Neary [email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the
elements I loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

W K snipes anonymously:

The name's bill.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Its another interesting thing I've noticed since the start of this war. Apparantly America is
also the only nation in the world where one is allowed to openly criticise the government.

Oh how patriotic...

Actually I view all patriotism as an enemy of sense and reason. It struck me as completely bizarre
that anyone could utter the words above, to such an extent that it was obvious that I don't believe
it. Did you read my post? I was suggesting that there were no countries in the world where SUVs are
banned, disagreeing with someone suggesting that they were and thats why america is great.

Quoted message said:

I guess you didn't go to school and learn about other governments starting with the Greeks of
old. There's more democracy in the world than some conservative (right wing) people would have
you believe.

You may note a reply to a canadian: "its a quote from a US broadcaster"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

More efficient is still more efficient regardless of the expectations.

=v= Get a grip. More efficient than 1990s SUVs is less efficent than 1970s standards.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> ... causes wars ...
I don't remember any SUVs invading Kuwait, or firing Scud missiles, or oppressing a population.
You know of any?

=v= Deing deliberately obtuse? That particular expression of oppression was funded by oil and
originally armed by American foreign policy designed to keep that oil flowing for wasteful citizens.
The current interest in that oppression is based solely on oil, and if you would have us believe
otherwise, please explain the utter DISinterest in over 70 belligerent and oppressive regimes around
the world where oil isn't a factor.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funny, I could care less what you think of me. There are a very limited number of people in this
world whose opinions matter to me.

=v= Yeah, right. This from the guy who wants to drive his toy around "just to prove he can."

Quoted message said:

Ain't America great? We can drive gas-guzzling road hogs if we choose to pay the penalties, or
drive compact cars if we don't.

=v= That would be "great" if true, but it's not. People like you who drive gas-guzzling road hogs
only do so because *others* pay the penalties. Which is the whole point, of course. <_Jym_

Mike S. mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet said:

I started thinking about SUVs. Seems that they've been around for ages. If the Chevy commercials
are to be believed, they've been around since the 20s. The International Harvester Scouts, Jeep
Cherokees/Chiefs, the Ford Broncos, and etc. have been plying our roads for decades before anyone
decided that they were "bad." Hell, up until a few (last oil crisis) years ago, ALL (with a very
few exceptions) cars got [censored]-poor mileage.

SUVs used to be much less common. In part because they were more uncompromisingly trucklike, and did
not have carlike handling nor the carlike interior comforts they now do. When they were uncommon,
nobody was [censored] about them. I do remember that in the mid-80s when I got buzzed by a car while
cycling, it always seemed to be young males in a Bronco or Blazer.

You haven't lived until you've experienced sliding across an icy road in an early '80s GMC
Suburban ... not.

Passenger cars started getting decent gas mileage with the Honda Civic CVCC or thereabouts. That was
a while ago now. Detroit was a little slower to catch on, but they did try to make higher mileage
cars. It's just that their small cars weren't very good (K-cars and Chevettes, anyone?).

Jym Dyer said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> ... causes wars ...
> I don't remember any SUVs invading Kuwait, or firing Scud missiles, or oppressing a
> population. You know of any?

=v= Deing deliberately obtuse? That particular expression of oppression was funded by oil and
originally armed by American foreign policy designed to keep that oil flowing for wasteful
citizens. The current interest in that oppression is based solely on oil, and if you would have us
believe otherwise, please explain the utter DISinterest in over 70 belligerent and oppressive
regimes around the world where oil isn't a factor.

So tell me how many big oil contracts were obtained by the US from a grateful Kuwait after GWI?
(basically none; a large oil exploration contract and that was about it).

So just how many oil producing countries has the US invaded? Invasion seems a rather inefficient and
costly way to obtain oil when all that is usually done is to simply *buy* the oil.

We're involved in Iraq for a myriad of reasons, chief amongst them is stability (clearly for oil
reasons) and security (fear of terrorism aided by Iraq, or, more likely to my mind, *eventually*
supported by Saddam), and some realpolitik and idealistic reasons Arab-Israeli issues, Arab-American
issues, US-Muslim issues, Arab-democracy issues).

Most tyrannical regimes aren't seen to be threatening to the US. NK is probably an exception, but NK
is not really doable at the moment without very, very nasty consequences to ourselves and SK. The US
simply can not get involved in every perceived injustice of the world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ain't America great? We can drive gas-guzzling road hogs if

we choose to pay the penalties, or drive compact cars if we don't.

=v= That would be "great" if true, but it's not. People like you who drive gas-guzzling road hogs
only do so because *others* pay the penalties. Which is the whole point, of course.

In your world anyways.

SMH

Mike S. said:

Quoted message said:

I've got a hint for you SUV-haters out there. If you ignore them, they'll go away faster. SUVs
are a fad, just like anything else.

Jym Dyer replied:

Quoted message said:

=v= I disagree. SUVs broke into the market by a ridiculous doublethink campaign promoting them as
having something to do with loving nature, which is irretrievably idiotic, but it worked: people
lined up to buy them and slap their Sierra Club decals and "Keep Tahoe Blue" stickers on the
bumpers. Now the doublethink selling point is that they're safer (they're not) and make you freer
(just ignore those gas and insurance bills).

A few points to note. When I looked for a car in 1997, I needed a station wagon to move work-related
stuff or the family (wife with wheelchair, 2 infants with camping gear, etc.), and there were very
few such vehicles around. I wonder how many people get a SUV because they _like_ it and how many
people get one because of the trend, because it's the only one that clears their driveway (look at
all GM cars with a low low front end), because it carries a lot of stuff, etc.

Another aspect I was wondering. We used to have high speed limits and uncomfortable/unsteady/noisy
cars. Cars have improved, but maybe too much. I sometimes wonder if the SUVs (especially the compact
ones) are the answer people find to relatively low speed limits and high performance cars: they
select a car that _feels_ fast and sporty on a motorway at 100 km/h (60 mph). Increase speed limits
on motorways (aka freeways, autoroutes...) to 160 km/h (100 mph) or remove speed limits on these
roads, and you might find that people will buy high performance cars instead. Would it be better?
I'm not sure...

Anyway, comparing a car vs a SUV or a truck for personal transportation might be like comparing a
5-lb or a 10-lb sledgehammer to drive a picture nail. Some fingers are bound to get crushed!

Regards,

Michel Gagnon

Quoted message said:

A few points to note. When I looked for a car in 1997, I needed a station wagon to move
work-related stuff or the family (wife with wheelchair, 2 infants with camping gear, etc.), and
there were very few such vehicles around.

Plenty of mini-vans existed at that time. Or were there other criteria which eliminated them from
your choices?

Quoted message said:

Another aspect I was wondering. We used to have high speed limits and uncomfortable/unsteady/noisy
cars. Cars have improved, but maybe too much. I sometimes wonder if the SUVs (especially the
compact ones) are the answer people find to relatively low speed limits and high performance cars:
they select a car that _feels_ fast and sporty on a motorway at 100 km/h (60 mph). Increase speed
limits on motorways (aka freeways, autoroutes...) to 160 km/h (100 mph) or remove speed limits on
these roads, and you might find that people will buy high performance cars instead. Would it be
better? I'm not sure...

Driving studies have established that the closer to the road you are the faster you will perceive
your apparent speed. By this measure, SUV's are about the least "sporty" vehicles you can buy.

In other words, at 60 MPH a Mini Cooper will "feel" faster than a Ford "Lightning" Pickup, even
though the Ford has a much higher HP to Weight ratio.

Because of their height many drivers of SUV perceive they are going slower than they are, and it
wouldn't surprise me if this is one way people get into trouble with them.

OTOH, the Mini-Cooper will be a blast to drive at relatively safe speeds.

Chris Neary [email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the
elements I loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

=v= Unintentional humor in the _New_York_Times_:

"In Their Hummers, Right Beside Uncle Sam" nytimes.com05AUTO.htmlOpen ↗

Some especially choice quotes from idiot Humvee owners:

o "When I turn on the TV, I see wall-to-wall Humvees, and I'm proud. ... "I'm proud of my country,
and I'm proud to be driving a product that is making a significant contribution." [A signficant
contribution to oil consumption, that is.]

o "Those who deface a Hummer in words or deed, deface the American flag and what it stands for."
[I had no idea the American flag stood for gas-guzzling and miniscule penises.]

o "To me, the Hummer, the H1, is the most American vehicle on the planet. It oozes patriotism."
[Newsflash: Patriotism = Exhaust]

=v= Y'know, you can't make up stuff like this. Present satire like this, and people would say you're
exaggerating. <_Jym_

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A few points to note. When I looked for a car in 1997, I needed a station wagon to move
work-related stuff or the family (wife with wheelchair, 2 infants with camping gear, etc.), and
there were very few such vehicles around.

Plenty of mini-vans existed at that time. Or were there other criteria which eliminated them from
your choices?

Quoted message said:

Another aspect I was wondering. We used to have high speed limits and
uncomfortable/unsteady/noisy cars. Cars have improved, but maybe too much. I sometimes wonder if
the SUVs (especially the compact ones) are the answer people find to relatively low speed limits
and high performance cars: they select a car that _feels_ fast and sporty on a motorway at 100
km/h (60 mph). Increase speed limits on motorways (aka freeways, autoroutes...) to 160 km/h (100
mph) or remove speed limits on these roads, and you might find that people will buy high
performance cars instead. Would it be better? I'm not sure...

Driving studies have established that the closer to the road you are the faster you will perceive
your apparent speed. By this measure, SUV's are about the least "sporty" vehicles you can buy.

In other words, at 60 MPH a Mini Cooper will "feel" faster than a Ford "Lightning" Pickup, even
though the Ford has a much higher HP to Weight ratio.

Because of their height many drivers of SUV perceive they are going slower than they are, and it
wouldn't surprise me if this is one way people get into trouble with them.

OTOH, the Mini-Cooper will be a blast to drive at relatively safe speeds.

Chris Neary [email hidden]

Try going 65 in a hummer some time, it's pretty scary. It's like a rocket powered water bed.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗