what happened to flight 77?

Rolf Blom wrote:



...until she runs into another Hummer owner of course.

Will she get an Abrahams tank next?

As soon as they make one I can put a license on.

Some
will argue (very strongly and insistently!) that they "have the right" to
own such a vehicle, or whatever vehicle they want, and that is true
(somewhat).

No, actually totally.


However, unless somewhere in there is the concept of
"responsibility" then I think we got ourselves a major problem.

I am responsible to my family, and you to yours.



Back in the '70s, the gas crunches produced demand for efficient cars, but the
American concentration on safety these days seems to have prempted everything else.
As long as people think their kids will be safer in an Explorer than a Focus, they'll
buy the extra gas.

They are safer in an Explorer than a Focus. Many, many times safer.
While only 1.5 more people die per 100,000 passengers in SUV's those
poor saps in the Focus get slaughtered when they crash into something
other than another Focus.

Federal statistics on 2003 death rates for cars, SUVs, other vehicles:

Number of people killed per 100,000 passengers:

- Cars: 14.9

- SUVs: 16.4

- Pickup trucks: 15.2

- Vans: 11.2


Number of people killed in crashes between cars and light truck vehicles
(including vans, pickups, SUVs):

- Cars: 4,481

- Light truck vehicles: 1,098

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

If you chose to drive an unsafe vehicle, then don't blame others.


By that logic, if I drive an Abhrams tank you are driving an unsafe vehicle.

Isn't this just a positive feedback loop which if allowed to run it's course
will result in our economic self-destruction? What is to limit it?

"Newps" wrote in message
...

They are safer in an Explorer than a Focus. Many, many times safer. While
only 1.5 more people die per 100,000 passengers in SUV's those poor saps
in the Focus get slaughtered when they crash into something other than
another Focus.

Aren't you twisting the statistics around a bit? You cannot be many times
safer if the death rate is higher. I could just as well say SUVs are MANY
times more dangerous to their occupants during rollovers, and I could even
point to higher overall fatality rates.

There was a NY Times article a couple months ago on how insurance rates will
be rising for *everyone* due to the reversal of the downward trend in
accident rates due to SUVs. So you are also demanding that I pay for your
higher risk, in addition to assuming a higher risk to my family and self
(not to mention the premium on fuel costs associated with higher consumption
overall).

I guess you are advocating the "Every man for himself, to hell with my
neighbors" attitude. That's cool. I don't happen to agree, though.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

If you chose to drive an unsafe vehicle, then don't blame others.



By that logic, if I drive an Abhrams tank you are driving an unsafe vehicle.

Isn't this just a positive feedback loop which if allowed to run it's course
will result in our economic self-destruction? What is to limit it?

The limit is what do you want to drive?

"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
OK--get ready for this:

I'd really like to hear pilot comments about this.

http://www.overclockedgaming.com/pentagoncrash.html


www.Rosspilot.com



I don't see a thing, not one thing that would indicate anything other than a
large aircraft full of fuel impacting the building a high velocity.
1. Lots of fire, lots of fuel
2. Lots of fire, no airplane parts left. Fire consumes aluminum
3. High velocity, deep penetration, no big pieces left. The video of
accidents with big pieces left were at lower velocities an shallow impact
angles. High velocity at a high angle to very strong walls would turn the
airplane into little pieces of scrap metal that the fire would consume.
4. Statement that pilots were incompetent was certainly based on ability to
takeoff, land, navigate, and handle air traffic control procedures (i.e. be
a real pilot). I could train my 9 year old daughter to crash a plane into a
building.
5. Intact windows indicate no high explosives used. Missile and/or small
aircraft would have needed high explosives to cause that much damage.
6. Eye witnesses saying they heard a missile - how much experience did they
have distinguishing between the sound of a missile and the sound of an
airplane traveling at high speed. Ditto for the smell of explosives.
7. Authorities collecting video of the most horrific "criminal" event of all
times? OF COURSE THE AUTHORITIES WILL COLLECT THE VIDEOS!!!! What do you
think they would do? Drop in and say "Here's my business card. You go
ahead and keep the videos. After you get tired of viewing them drop me a
line and if I am not too busy I will make an effort to come out and get
them".

But all in all, not a bad comedy.

Danny Deger

In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote:

If you chose to drive an unsafe vehicle, then don't blame others.

By that logic, if I drive an Abhrams tank you are driving an unsafe
vehicle.

Isn't this just a positive feedback loop which if allowed to run it's
course
will result in our economic self-destruction? What is to limit it?


look at it this way, you complain that someone driving a big SUV
is endangering you in your little Honda Accord (the SUV might
be what, 4 to 5 times your vehicle weight). Well, that Honda
is at least 5 times the weight of my Honda. Why are you driving
that a vehicle that endangers me?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
look at it this way, you complain that someone driving a big SUV
is endangering you in your little Honda Accord (the SUV might
be what, 4 to 5 times your vehicle weight). Well, that Honda
is at least 5 times the weight of my Honda. Why are you driving
that a vehicle that endangers me?


Heh. Because I got rid of my 350 when I had a family, which was
untransportable on the two wheeler.

But seriously, I would love to use something much smaller for local
transportation. The bike works for just myself, and if there were small
rechargeable electric golf-cart like vehicles that could handle these hills
we would get one for local errands. Boy would parking be easy!!

I think the difference is that I would like to get the smallest vehicle that
will get me and family around and others look to get the biggest one that
can do the job. Around here the big thing is to get the most expensive,
biggest, best equipped vehicle possible and park it in front of your 6000
square foot McMansion on one tenth of an acre. Then the illegal nanny from
El Salvadore who doesn't have a license drives the kids to school while both
parents commute to the city for most of the day and evening.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...
I am very concerned about the average decrease in fuel efficiency and the
effects this has on the country's economics and environment, and I am also
concerned about the increased danger these vehicles pose to others. Some
will argue (very strongly and insistently!) that they "have the right" to
own such a vehicle, or whatever vehicle they want, and that is true
(somewhat). However, unless somewhere in there is the concept of
"responsibility" then I think we got ourselves a major problem.

The Libertarian answer would be that you are free to own an even bigger
vehicle, so get one and make yourself safer, crybaby.

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

The Libertarian answer would be that you are free to own an even bigger
vehicle, so get one and make yourself safer, crybaby.


Ad Hominem attacks do nothing to advance your (or any) argument. Is that
the best you can do?

Go ahead, argue that one group should have to pay for others' "freedoms."
We are all not separate islands here, we have to live together, and where
one person's freedoms impact another person's freedoms is where things get
grey.