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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (191608)	10/12/2001 8:18:46 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Wish I would have read this first before I just posted. It makes a lot of sense to me Buddy. Another question to consider is this. How many people are we willing to see die by raising MPG standards? I believe there is enough anecdotal evidence which supports the notion that heavier vehicles are on average safer to drive. Therefore, since higher MPG numbers mean lighter vehicles, we will likely have more deaths as a result of more regulations passing. Should we sacrifice 1000 people a year? 10,000, or none at all? I believe it's a legitimate question which should also be tossed into the discussion.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (191608)	10/12/2001 8:26:33 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You make sense, and I understand your perspective. I was just throwing my 2 cents in. Michael D. Cummings post is an interesting way to look at it also. My point in general is, get some of the clowns that don't need these vehicles out of them (through pr and education) and the overall fuel consumption savings would be the same (or better) as adding new regulations.