Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (44800)	7/11/1999 12:07:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

Thanks, Christine. The truth is never as sexy as the sensational headlines, and I fear that people will not listen, but I am glad to know that there are some who can separate fact from hype.

To: Grainne who wrote (44800)	7/11/1999 1:09:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Proving that the gas tank design could have been better, and that the decision not to make it better was made in cold-blooded fashion, is not the same as proving that this decision was responsible for the injuries suffered in this particular accident. It could be argued that a 70mph rear impact is beyond any normal design parameter. The difference between a 70mph impact and a 50mph impact is enormous, and I don't know that even the best-designed tank would not rupture under the former. It could also have been pointed out that if they had been riding in an average compact or subcompact car, rather than a massive clunker like a Malibu, they would have almost unquestionably been dead on impact. What would have been left of a VW after the same crash?