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 : The California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (891)	8/17/2001 2:18:57 PM
From: Quincy	Respond to of 1715

I understand the SUV argument this person is making and why. Actually, its one of my favorite rants. Trucks in southern California have a strange way of disappearing south of the border. Since that was only fun enough to endure once, I will do without. Suddenly, I can fit in regular parking spaces. People in sedans don't cut me off or refuse to let me take the exit lane. They can see traffic ahead through the windows of my Volvo (lowest theft rate in CA). But, he should have checked some actual crash tests (along with a few million fellow citizens). hwysafety.org For those who bought extended-cab Ford F-150 pickup trucks thinking sheet metal is a good thing. hwysafety.org The person who stole mine will get crushed to death after all. At 40mph. Compare to the new Volkswagon Beetle. hwysafety.org Actual videotape of crash tests aired on Dateline NBC performed on 1/4 ton pickups from Ford, GM, Chrysler and Toyota left only the Toyota with acceptable crash worthiness. The others were rather horrifying. I didn't get my wish this summer: $4 a gallon for gas. Would have contributed towards a glut in used Suburbans. There will always be next summer. In the meantime, hwysafety.org This full-sized rental gave me 27-30mpg in city/highway driving! Not just by the computer thingy on the dash but by requiring $15 to refill the tank after a week!!!

To: miraje who wrote (891)	8/21/2001 1:20:27 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 1715

Even when such "reasonable" mandated standards kill thousands of people? Dirty air, oil wars and climate change kill people too. Alcohol and cigarettes kill a lot more people than fuel efficient cars. Equating fuel efficiency with death is a bit absurd. The writer has an obvious bias in favor of large fuel inefficient vehicles. He probably drives a sixties Cadillac. Cars can be large, safe and fuel efficient. They can also be small, unsafe and fuel inefficient. Zeuspaul

To: miraje who wrote (891)	8/21/2001 12:38:27 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

Re: Tonnage Rules! Hi James, Loved the argument in favor of the goliath SUVs. This is the same kind of thinking that created MAD, Mutally Assured Destruction, and the 6,000 nuclear tipped missiles we have currently got aimed at the people of Russia and the FSU, guaranteed to kill 'em 12 times over! They don't call it MAD for nothing. The Copley piece reminded me of a favorite ballcap embroidery I saw while living in SE Alaska. "Tonnage Rules!" refers to the bending the 'rules of the road' on the high seas. Seems that we want to apply the same standard to our freeways and highways. Transportation by intimidation seems somehow less that civilized, BWDIK? James, have you considered that if everyone were required to downsize to sensible vehicles, and the insanity of allowing Californians to drive 75 MPH in Tule fogs were ended, that we'd all be a lot safer, and saner? OTOH, I recently heard that Joni Mitchell (you recall her lament "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot") has recently been spotted driving around Malibu in a...... SUV. I'm investing in paving contractors. Ciao!