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.

Biotech / Medical : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: squetch who wrote (4423)	3/20/1998 1:33:00 PM
From: Rocketman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

Thanks Squetch, I'll have to pick up a copy today. I think they are all incredibly safe relative to the cars you are up against. In general, the more mass, the more the other guy gets creamed while you just go through him. Plus the height levels of the impact make a difference. There are a few of the smaller SUVs that are rollover prone, but I'll only buy a monster. Plus, when you figure in bad weather driving, the SUVs are far superior. What cracks me up is the latest media hype/scare about how since the SUVs are so much better in crashes and that the people in little cars keep getting killed by them that they need to find a way to even it out and imply that they need to make the SUVs less safe. They basically want to rewrite the laws of physics! The fact is that when something massive hits something less massive, the less massive takes the brunt of the impact. All it takes is a few minutes of watching the NFL to see a great illustration of it.....when a 280 lb Tight End hits a 180 lb Cornerback, it's pretty obvious who takes the brunt of the hit. Hit a nail with a hammer, and it's the nail that deforms, not the hammer. What they are unwilling to accept is that it costs money to have a massive vehicle, both in mfg cost and operating cost. Another solution would be to greatly improve the smaller cars, but that costs money and then drives up the weight, prices, and operating costs, so you get to a circular argument. While we're at it why don't we outlaw 18 wheelers, they really hurt ya when they hit ya. We can move goods in the trunks of Yugos.......and while I'm on a good rant, why the hell do they keep giving driving licenses to old people who are no longer competent to drive without even requiring driving tests. Talk about danger on the roads. Of course the old people never want to give up driving and have one of the most powerful lobbies in the business, the AARP. Everytime I've ever driven in Florida, it's kind of like driving Dodg'em cars, and I'm not talking about a Chrysler product, but an amusement ride that isn't so amusing when it's happening at freeway speeds. I've seen some hammering on SUVs because they aren't required to meet the higher car standards for crash protection yet, implying they aren't as safe, but the statistics show that is a BS argument. Basically the problem is the democratic free market capitalist system. People with money who are willing to spend it can buy more protection than people without money (or those too tight to spend it). The real solution is socialism, and we can all drive identical government produced cars that are all equally safe, then everyone will be happy......NOT! RocketRantOver