say goodbye to safety

[danielost]

Safety? Why not drive a semi then? Why not a street legal tank?

Honestly, I'm a bit ticked that he gave them till 2016 to do this change. Light a fire under their buns and give them only a few years or give them the full time to 2016 but give them tiers of mpg's to match with each round.

he gave them till 2016 so he wouldn't be around when the crap hits the fan.

[Leonardo]

So you rather go with the collision since it is only 60 MPH instead of being able to accelerate and avoid?

Do you have a clue what damage 35 MPH can do? dont be decieved that 60MPH is a lot more dangerous.

Okay, where in my posts did I say that governing top speed would mean more collisions?

If you have the same acceleration as before, but the oncoming vehicle can only travel at 60mph max, then you have a BETTER chance of avoiding a collision than if the oncoming vehicle has an 80mph (or ungoverned) top speed.

[MARAB0D]

Hi Danielost. Long time no see! I actually found a very interesting feature in the news you have quoted...

DETROIT – Some soccer moms will have to give up hulking SUVs. Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more. Nearly everybody else will drive smaller cars, and more of them will run on electricity.The higher mileage and emissions standards set by the Obama administration on Tuesday, which begin to take effect in 2012 and are to be achieved by 2016, will transform the American car and truck fleet.

I am not an American, as you know, but I have heard that Obama was elected in 2008... Does it make the 1st milestone to be the end of his presidential term, and the second to be the end of his 2nd presidential term? Marvellous! He is not planning to be assassinated or somehow else removed from his position, means he believes in stability of USA and its economy! As for the actual cars, I think we should not be too excited, its only 2009 around.

[danielost]

In terms of passenger car fatalities, subcompact vehicles had the most fatalities (4,417), followed by compact cars (6,718), Intermediate vehicles (5,401), and full sized cars (3,168). Full size cars were cars with a wheelbase of 110 inches or greater. 529 passenger car fatalities could not be attributed to a specific type of vehicle.

http://www.texasattorneystoday.com/caracci...autodeaths.html

Now correct me if i am wrong but full sized cars are bigger than intermediate cars, compact cars, and compared to subcompacts they are monsters. If you look at the wheelbase you will see that this includes the SUVs. I also believe that 3,168 deaths is less than 4,417 deaths, which is less than 5,401 deaths and 6,781 deaths which means then that those death traps the SUVs are a lot safer than the smaller cars. Of course this is only in texas and i am sure that someone will find one or two states that reverse that number.

But unlike anyone else so far as I have read none of given any links to their claims.

[Leonardo]

In terms of passenger car fatalities, subcompact vehicles had the most fatalities (4,417), followed by compact cars (6,718), Intermediate vehicles (5,401), and full sized cars (3,168). Full size cars were cars with a wheelbase of 110 inches or greater. 529 passenger car fatalities could not be attributed to a specific type of vehicle.

http://www.texasattorneystoday.com/caracci...autodeaths.html

Now correct me if i am wrong but full sized cars are bigger than intermediate cars, compact cars, and compared to subcompacts they are monsters. If you look at the wheelbase you will see that this includes the SUVs. I also believe that 3,168 deaths is less than 4,417 deaths, which is less than 5,401 deaths and 6,781 deaths which means then that those death traps the SUVs are a lot safer than the smaller cars. Of course this is only in texas and i am sure that someone will find one or two states that reverse that number.

But unlike anyone else so far as I have read none of given any links to their claims.

Firstly, while the drive to more efficient vehicles does include more smaller cars on the road, the legislation in your OP does not explicitly require that. It is about making existing types of vehicles more efficient.

Secondly, the fatality figures are skewed towards the smaller vehicles because, in a collision between a smaller and a larger vehicle, the chance of injury or death in the smaller vehicle is greater. It also may simply be an indicator that most vehicles on the road are smaller vehicles (I notice your link does not provide a rate of fatality - just an absolute figure).

If there were fewer large vehicles on the road, the total fatality figure would probably reduce (it would require other factors as well, such as speed limiters, etc).

Edited May 20, 2009 by Leonardo

[danielost]

What has top speed got to do with acceleration?

Acceleration is about the power the engine can deliver to the drive-system of the vehicle. Top speed is about the mph it can go. A car can have incredible acceleration and be limited to 60mph top speed.

As for those arguing about electric cars, the new legislation proposed nothing about those - in fact the Volt (which I believe was Chrysler's project) was shelved because the Government Committee overseeing the car-makers bail-out could not see it being profitable, so required Chrysler to bin it.

The legislation is about making combustion engines more fuel efficient and set targets for lowering emissions. It will have no impact on safety regulations.

A car that is governed to 60 mph and is traveling at 60 mph has 0 acceleration.

Firstly, while the drive to more efficient vehicles does include more smaller cars on the road, the legislation in your OP does not explicitly require that. It is about making existing types of vehicles more efficient.

Secondly, the fatality figures are skewed towards the smaller vehicles because, in a collision between a smaller and a larger vehicle, the chance of injury or death in the smaller vehicle is greater. It also may simply be an indicator that most vehicles on the road are smaller vehicles (I notice your link does not provide a rate of fatality - just an absolute figure).

If there were fewer large vehciles on the road, the total fatality figure would probably reduce (it would require other factors as well, such as speed limiters, etc).

then make bigger cars cheaper. where is your link????????

Edited May 20, 2009 by danielost

[Space Commander Travis]

Some people may have to give up cars all together.

Good thing too, frankly. Not to do with emissions, necessarily, because of the moronic stupidity of the vast majority of car drivers. It should be a skill, not a right.

Edited May 20, 2009 by 747400

[danielost]

Good thing too, frankly. Not to do with emissions, necessarily, because of the moronic stupidity of the vast majority of car drivers. It should be a skill, not a right.

I sorta have to agree with this. Problem is to develop said skill you have to drive more than 3 hours a day to get it. I drove taxi for twenty years so i am very skilled at driving. My father drive a big rig for a year and thinks he has more skill than i do. He doesn't I have never trusted his driving ever since i was old enough to know better.

[Leonardo]

A car that is governed to 60 mph and is traveling at 60 mph has 0 acceleration.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here, daniel?

then make bigger cars cheaper. where is your link????????

The purpose of cutting emissions is... well.... to cut emissions. Making bigger vehicles cheaper will not do anything to achieve that, nor will it likely help the car manufacturers themselves.

Daniel, the legislation is nothing to do with car safety. It does not affect car safety. Any site screaming that it does is lying.

[danielost]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here, daniel?

The purpose of cutting emissions is... well.... to cut emissions. Making bigger vehicles cheaper will not do anything to achieve that, nor will it likely help the car manufacturers themselves.

Daniel, the legislation is nothing to do with car safety. It does not affect car safety. Any site screaming that it does is lying.

The point is if your traveling at 60 mph and you need to accelerate to get out of the way of that land slide kiss your butt goodbye.

I still want you link for your claim on car safety.

[Leonardo]

The point is if your traveling at 60 mph and you need to accelerate to get out of the way of that land slide kiss your butt goodbye.

Daniel,

If you are travelling at 60mph and so is the other vehicle (both are speed limited) then:

1) It can't tail-end you.

2) You can brake to avoid collisions from other directions.

If the other vehicle is so close to you that braking won't get you out of its path, then accelerating would not have any effect either.

Speed limiting will not prevent collisions, it would reduce them.

I still want you link for your claim on car safety.

Which claim?

[Lord Umbarger]

Electric cars sounds great but, where do you think all that extra electricity is going to be coming from? Coal fired plants! LOL! Then what are we going to do with all those hyper toxic batteries that Obama wants us to use? You know, the ones that poison the ground water and all?

Electric cars look good on paper but, in all truth, all you are doing is transfering the pollution to a venue and in a far more dangerous form.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

I hate to trot out an old stand-by, but:

danielost, "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Honestly man. The article you linked to had more of a point than you did and cited no sources, no proof, no true ideas other than comments such as America's favorite, one Miss Dixie Bishop:

"Dixie Bishop, who runs a plumbing business in San Antonio that uses vans, worries the new requirements will drive up her costs at a time when customers are cutting back on repairs.

"Are they going to take my horsepower down?" she asked."

Ah god that's hard hitting reporting there. "Are they going to take my horsepower down" indeed!

When Dixie Bishop (who uses vans) has to question her horsepower, this country is dead. It's dead danielost and you were here to see it. God bless you for making note.

Dude, You went Billy Madison on him?

Outstanding sir!!!!!!!

Edited May 20, 2009 by Dr. Peter Venkman

[danielost]

Daniel,

If you are travelling at 60mph and so is the other vehicle (both are speed limited) then:

1) It can't tail-end you.

2) You can brake to avoid collisions from other directions.

If the other vehicle is so close to you that braking won't get you out of its path, then accelerating would not have any effect either.

Speed limiting will not prevent collisions, it would reduce them.

Which claim?

Why don't you reread my post there are more dangers out there besides other cars and big rigs. and not all accidents happen front to front or front to back. I know I was run off the road by an idiot once. I couldn't speed up there was a car in front of me. I almost died that day came within 5 feet of going off a bridge(overpass) shoulder.

Edited May 20, 2009 by danielost

[AROCES]

Okay, where in my posts did I say that governing top speed would mean more collisions?

If you have the same acceleration as before, but the oncoming vehicle can only travel at 60mph max, then you have a BETTER chance of avoiding a collision than if the oncoming vehicle has an 80mph (or ungoverned) top speed.

OR the car is coming from your side and braking will mean a solid hit and accelerating is your only option.

OR the car is oncoming as you see and your only option is to accelerate and swerve in front of another vehicle.

[AROCES]

If you are travelling at 60mph and so is the other vehicle (both are speed limited) then:

1) It can't tail-end you.

You are assuming all cars are are doing 60MPH and no ones feet ease of the accelerator and goes 58MPH.

Seems like you never driven before.

2) You can brake to avoid collisions from other directions.

As long as you choose to drive only on 4 lane highway with little traffic.

If the other vehicle is so close to you that braking won't get you out of its path, then accelerating would not have any effect either.

Unless you want to accelerate to get in front of the car beside you to avoid being rear ended.

Speed limiting will not prevent collisions, it would reduce them.

do you know that there are more accident on city driving than freeway?

[danielost]

Even if you can't stop the accident by speeding up you can leason the affect of the accident by reducing the amount of force between the two cars.

[acidhead]

What has top speed got to do with acceleration?

Acceleration is about the power the engine can deliver to the drive-system of the vehicle. Top speed is about the mph it can go. A car can have incredible acceleration and be limited to 60mph top speed.

As for those arguing about electric cars, the new legislation proposed nothing about those - in fact the Volt (which I believe was Chrysler's project) was shelved because the Government Committee overseeing the car-makers bail-out could not see it being profitable, so required Chrysler to bin it.

The legislation is about making combustion engines more fuel efficient and set targets for lowering emissions. It will have no impact on safety regulations.

Thanks Leo, top speed had nothing to do with acceleration.... some posters confuse video games with real safe driving..... which brings me to my point.....

The public roads are NOT race tracks..... lowering overall top speed on vehicles would save many more lives on average..... and to me this would be more important

than reaching destination a few minutes sooner... people who like to drive over the speed limit are breaking the law everytime they do it and endangering the lives of everybody around them.

.. and the plus electronic governing devices would also mean saving money at the pump on fuel... no matter ho one feels about the "carbon crisis".

--And you are absolutely correct.... The legislation is about making combustion engines more fuel efficient and set targets for lowering emissions. It will have no impact on safety regulations.

Remember: The cigarette lighter was invented and installed in vehicles before the common safety seat belt..... go figure

Edited May 20, 2009 by acidhead

[Leonardo]

You are assuming all cars are are doing 60MPH and no ones feet ease of the accelerator and goes 58MPH.

Seems like you never driven before.

I was responding to Daniel's query about if you were already travelling at 60mph, AROCES. If you had read the post maybe you would have realised that, or maybe you did and are simply trying a wind-up?

As long as you choose to drive only on 4 lane highway with little traffic.

Really? So, if you're at an X intersection going stright ahead and a car speeds out of the road to your right (or left, cause you all drive on the wrong side of the road over there) to cross the intersection you cannot brake to avoid that car hitting you?

That's news to me, because I thought you could brake to avoid that sort of collision. Maybe you're right, and I have never driven, or maybe you're wrong and you simply have never had a real thought?

Edited May 20, 2009 by Leonardo

[acidhead]

The point is if your traveling at 60 mph and you need to accelerate to get out of the way of that land slide kiss your butt goodbye.

I still want you link for your claim on car safety.

How about a LINK or a STATISTIC to back up the claim of how many times does a driver have to avoid a 'land slide' per year...

.... personally I live with mountains all around me..... Vancouver Island, CANADA... NEVER EVER had to avoid a landslide EVER... don't know anybody who did either.

Hell.... in wind storms trees sometimes fall over.... AGAIN I never EVER had to avoid a falling tree while driving.......

[danielost]

Thanks Leo, top speed had nothing to do with acceleration.... some posters confuse video games with real safe driving..... which brings me to my point.....

The public roads are NOT race tracks..... lowering overall top speed on vehicles would save many more lives on average..... and to me this would be more important

than reaching destination a few minutes sooner... people who like to drive over the speed limit are breaking the law everytime they do it and endangering the lives of everybody around them.

.. and the plus electronic governing devices would also mean saving money at the pump on fuel... no matter ho one feels about the "carbon crisis".

--And you are absolutely correct.... The legislation is about making combustion engines more fuel efficient and set targets for lowering emissions. It will have no impact on safety regulations.

Remember: The cigarette lighter was invented and installed in vehicles before the common safety seat belt..... go figure

I already use a speed limit devise almost every car has one it is called cruise control. by the way when they increased the speed limit from 55 to 65/75 number of deaths went down. why because more people were driving the same speed than before.

[acidhead]

I already use a speed limit devise almost every car has one it is called cruise control. by the way when they increased the speed limit from 55 to 65/75 number of deaths went down. why because more people were driving the same speed than before.

You're almost there Daniel.... one more step.... HINT..... What if everybody used a device similar to cruise control? What direction would the death rate go?

[danielost]

I was responding to Daniel's query about if you were already travelling at 60mph, AROCES. If you had read the post maybe you would have realised that, or maybe you did and are simply trying a wind-up?

Really? So, if you're at an X intersection going straight ahead and a car speeds out of the road to your right (or left, cause you all drive on the wrong side of the road over there) to cross the intersection you cannot brake to avoid that car hitting you?

That's news to me, because I thought you could brake to avoid that sort of collision. Maybe you're right, and I have never driven, or maybe you're wrong and you simply have never had a real thought?

if your already in front of said car braking would be the worse thing you could do. true you will probable get hit but i would rather take the hit on as little of the car as possible.

http://www.texasattorneystoday.com/caracci...autodeaths.html

And I was in an accident like that. I was turning left on when a car coming from the opposite direction ran the red light. I was able to turn my van enough so that the other driver didn't hit me straight on and i did speed up slightly didn't have much time. Turned out that the other driver had blacked out and by hitting my van the way she did it slowed her down enough for a third driver to run over and stop her car

[The Silver Thong]

Even if you can't stop the accident by speeding up you can leason the affect of the accident by reducing the amount of force between the two cars.

What ?How does one lesson an impact by speeding up? the impact would be greater. Speeding up befor a collision is the absalute last thing you want to do and if your caught in a landslide well that example you gave was kinda funny cause just last week I had to out run a landslide.................NOT LOL

Lordy U as far as transfering the polution coal power has become a lot cleaner lately and nuclear power is awsome. Getting rid of the millions and millions of gas pigs out there can only be good.

[danielost]

You're almost there Daniel.... one more step.... HINT..... What if everybody used a device similar to cruise control? What direction would the death rate go?

use of cruise control would drop the amount of fuel you use on the highway doesn't help in town. Just as it has always been said save fuel by using ac on the interstate. but the mythbusters disproved that theory. sorry no link