Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Stupid drivers cause the accidents not small cars.
I'm starting to worry about you, Citi...
this is not about causing accidents, but about surviving same.
Cat got your glasses?
but if no one does anything stupid you have virtually no accidents in the first place.
Cell phone jammers when engine is running would save thousands of lives a year.
Electronic speed limit signs that governor the speed of the vehicle would save thousands more.
Crushing for scrap the vehicle anyone driving under the influence is driving would save thousands more.
Not exactly sure what you are looking for here, but it sure puts the Liberal mantra about the judicial system to bed...
...you know, the one that goes like this:
'Better a hunded guilty persons go free than one innocent person be put to death!" (Followed by trumpets and chest thumping.)
What I'm looking for, is how many (i.e. a number) lives will be saved as a result of the diminished dependance on Foreign oil.
If you're going to wri(steal) another opinion piece, at least have the guts to outline all of the facts that are involved. You didn't study the topic thoroughly enough, it seems.
Also, with all of the advancements we have in discovering stronger (yet lighter) metals, the whole idea that lighter cars is equal to less-safe cars may soon be put to bed.
What a dumb post.
Rather than an intelligent discussion, you wasted it on what seems some sort of tortuous attack on me....
and a poorly designed one, at that.
1. "...how many (i.e. a number) lives will be saved as a result of the diminished dependance on Foreign oil."
What, is 'foreign oil' some sort of poison?
Clearly you don't understand that oil is the life's blood of industry.
2. "If you're going to wri(steal) another opinion piece..."
Clearly I've 'stolen' nothing.
You mean you didn't see the link at the bottom?
Jerk.
3. "... have the guts to outline all of the facts that are involved. You didn't study the topic thoroughly enough, it seems."
What a stupid premise. It isn't good enough to provide a piece of some interest, one worthy of discussion, in your warped mind I'm suppose to also provide some
sort of tutorial for you as well.
You lazy sack of fodder, do your own reseach.
Did you need me to give you course credit for it, as well?
4. "Also, with all of the advancements we have in discovering stronger (yet lighter) metals, the whole idea that lighter cars is equal to less-safe cars may soon be put to bed..."
What a vapid, meaningless sentence. And you have the nerve to complain that I didn't give you enough factual information??
Youve shown your customary quick command of unknown facts.
I guess I was wrong...I see why you can't do your own research.
Now, why dont you go wash your mouth out with a revolver.
We are not stabilizing the Middle East. In fact Iraq was much more stable before we invaded.
I want the number of American Deaths per year that are directly related to buying oil since that is your reason to make cars less safe.
The only way to choose the best option is to compare apples to apples.
If you read the whole thread, it's not quantifiable. It was basically a question posed in assumption that the reader would realize that the oil trade costs lives. If you don't know how that is, the middle east wars we're tangled up in is a good indicator for you.
So your reasoning is that an unquantifiable statistic is a better reason than the quantifiable statistic of death from car crashes?
If you read the whole thread, it's not quantifiable. It was basically a question posed in assumption that the reader would realize that the oil trade costs lives. If you don't know how that is, the middle east wars we're tangled up in is a good indicator for you.
So your reasoning is that an unquantifiable statistic is a better reason than the quantifiable statistic of death from car crashes?
It's unquantifiable to an exact degree, but 2, 000 per year it's definitely beating in the Middle East alone.
So your reasoning is that an unquantifiable statistic is a better reason than the quantifiable statistic of death from car crashes?
It's unquantifiable to an exact degree, but 2, 000 per year it's definitely beating in the Middle East alone.
So it is your supposition that we are fighting in Iraq for the sole purpose of buying oil?
You do realize that we get most of our oil from places other than the middle east don't you?
It's unquantifiable to an exact degree, but 2, 000 per year it's definitely beating in the Middle East alone.
So it is your supposition that we are fighting in Iraq for the sole purpose of buying oil?
You do realize that we get most of our oil from places other than the middle east don't you?
Yes, because all of our involvement in the Middle East is ONLY Iraq?
I didn't say that.
I said that the sole reason it is within U.S. interest to fight towards stability in the middle east is because of its resources.
The fact that we get oil elsewhere isn't at issue, because the "elsewhere" would be in the same predicament of U.S. military involvement *if* it were as unstable, also.
I don't, in fact, believe that we are intertwined in M.E. affairs for just being "good guys." I was born, but I wasn't born yesterday.
So it is your supposition that we are fighting in Iraq for the sole purpose of buying oil?
You do realize that we get most of our oil from places other than the middle east don't you?
Yes, because all of our involvement in the Middle East is ONLY Iraq?
I didn't say that.
I said that the sole reason it is within U.S. interest to fight towards stability in the middle east is because of its resources.
The fact that we get oil elsewhere isn't at issue, because the "elsewhere" would be in the same predicament of U.S. military involvement *if* it were as unstable, also.
I don't, in fact, believe that we are intertwined in M.E. affairs for just being "good guys." I was born, but I wasn't born yesterday.
You stated that more people were killed because of our buying foreign oil than in cars made less safe so as to increase fuel efficiency but you cannot give me a valid comparison of statistics.
Personally I don't want the fucking government forcing me to drive around in a car that's as safe as a soda can
Yes, because all of our involvement in the Middle East is ONLY Iraq?
I didn't say that.
I said that the sole reason it is within U.S. interest to fight towards stability in the middle east is because of its resources.
The fact that we get oil elsewhere isn't at issue, because the "elsewhere" would be in the same predicament of U.S. military involvement *if* it were as unstable, also.
I don't, in fact, believe that we are intertwined in M.E. affairs for just being "good guys." I was born, but I wasn't born yesterday.
You stated that more people were killed because of our buying foreign oil than in cars made less safe so as to increase fuel efficiency but you cannot give me a valid comparison of statistics.
Personally I don't want the fucking government forcing me to drive around in a car that's as safe as a soda can
they're not forcing you to drive, period, let alone in a car as safe as a soda can.
You stated that more people were killed because of our buying foreign oil than in cars made less safe so as to increase fuel efficiency but you cannot give me a valid comparison of statistics.
Personally I don't want the fucking government forcing me to drive around in a car that's as safe as a soda can
they're not forcing you to drive, period, let alone in a car as safe as a soda can.
I have to drive. If the fucking government mandates that all cars must get 50 mpg I must buy a car that is less safe than I would ordinarily buy because the fucking government is giving me no choice in the matter.
Elimination of choices is the same as forcing one into the only option left.
Don't fret. When your masters complete their mission and you're one of the lucky ones, the roads will be almost empty.
they're not forcing you to drive, period, let alone in a car as safe as a soda can.
I have to drive. If the fucking government mandates that all cars must get 50 mpg I must buy a car that is less safe than I would ordinarily buy because the fucking government is giving me no choice in the matter.
Elimination of choices is the same as forcing one into the only option left.
I don't think it will work like that. They're trying to mandate (probably with a slight fine) that all NEW cars get 50mph, AND there's a long time before it kicks in, AND you could easily up-keep a pre-existing gas guzzler if you so choose.
Also, they can't eliminate Utility vehicles until they find a replacement just as big that gets that gas, because some people's living is based off of using a utility vehicle, or a plumbing van, etc.
I don't think it's as unrealistically burdensome as you think it's going to be, they're going to have to work all these things out they're not just gunna throw their hands up and say "weeelp, no more plumbing! no more carpenters and construction guys!, etc etc etc"
I have to drive. If the fucking government mandates that all cars must get 50 mpg I must buy a car that is less safe than I would ordinarily buy because the fucking government is giving me no choice in the matter.
Elimination of choices is the same as forcing one into the only option left.
I don't think it will work like that. They're trying to mandate (probably with a slight fine) that all NEW cars get 50mph, AND there's a long time before it kicks in, AND you could easily up-keep a pre-existing gas guzzler if you so choose.
Also, they can't eliminate Utility vehicles until they find a replacement just as big that gets that gas, because some people's living is based off of using a utility vehicle, or a plumbing van, etc.
I don't think it's as unrealistically burdensome as you think it's going to be, they're going to have to work all these things out they're not just gunna throw their hands up and say "weeelp, no more plumbing! no more carpenters and construction guys!, etc etc etc"
That really is not the point though. The real problem is that the government is pulling these numbers from thin air and expecting the car companies, and by extension the drivers, to simply deal with it. I want to see what the actual BENEFITS are versus the costs. I might not want to pay the price for the virtually nonexistent advantages...
1. "President Obama has declared that auto companies' fleets must average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, almost double the current 27.5. Standing at his side when he made the announcement were executives from the Big Three automakers.
2. The Center for Automotive Research says the new standard will raise the price of cars by about $7,000. You'd need to save a lot on fuel to break even.
3. The new rules will kill people.
Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained this to me. The MPG standard "has been killing people for the last 30 years," Kazman said.
"It forces cars to be ... made smaller and lighter. ... They are simply worse in just about every type of auto collision."
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration actually backs Kazman up. It estimates that smaller cars are responsible for an additional 2,000 deaths each year.
a. Imagine that -- a government safety agency promotes a rule that kills people
4. "Think about the minute risks that agencies like Environmental Protection Agency go into a tizzy about. ... If any private product had a death toll one fraction of what the miles-per-gallon rules cost, that product would have been yanked off the market years ago."
5. Do we at least end up using less gasoline and saving money?
No, given the increased upfront cost of the car. "It is not clear that it saves people money," Kazman said. "If these technologies in fact save people money, you don't need a government law to force them down people's throats."
6. "By increasing that gas mileage for our auto fleet, we can cut our oil consumption in this country by 4 million barrels per day by 2030. That would almost wipe out our OPEC purchases daily. It will make our country stronger."
a. But we use oil for lots of things. If we cut gasoline use by a third, unlikely as that would be, we'd still only reduce our fossil fuel use by 7 percent. That does not make much difference for $7,000 a car and 2,000 extra deaths each year.
7. "We believe Detroit can do this."
Maybe they can. Maybe they can't. If they could, I'd think they would do it to meet consumer demand. They'd do it without government forcing it on us.
8. Life involves tradeoffs. If we want to minimize deaths from auto accidents, we may use more fuel than we might otherwise use. Who should make that decision, the government? Or you and I?
In the land of the supposedly free, that really should not be a tough question."
A Government That Kills - HUMAN EVENTS
It's....it's ...almost as if our progressive leaders want to do our thinking for us....???
I don't think it will work like that. They're trying to mandate (probably with a slight fine) that all NEW cars get 50mph, AND there's a long time before it kicks in, AND you could easily up-keep a pre-existing gas guzzler if you so choose.
Also, they can't eliminate Utility vehicles until they find a replacement just as big that gets that gas, because some people's living is based off of using a utility vehicle, or a plumbing van, etc.
I don't think it's as unrealistically burdensome as you think it's going to be, they're going to have to work all these things out they're not just gunna throw their hands up and say "weeelp, no more plumbing! no more carpenters and construction guys!, etc etc etc"
That really is not the point though. The real problem is that the government is pulling these numbers from thin air and expecting the car companies, and by extension the drivers, to simply deal with it. I want to see what the actual BENEFITS are versus the costs. I might not want to pay the price for the virtually nonexistent advantages...
Well, obviously there can't be a federal mandate for a technology that won't be humanly possible or viable.
Maybe they can. Maybe they can't. If they could, I'd think they would do it to meet consumer demand. They'd do it without government forcing it on us.
1. "President Obama has declared that auto companies' fleets must average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, almost double the current 27.5. Standing at his side when he made the announcement were executives from the Big Three automakers.
2. The Center for Automotive Research says the new standard will raise the price of cars by about $7,000. You'd need to save a lot on fuel to break even.
3. The new rules will kill people.
Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained this to me. The MPG standard "has been killing people for the last 30 years," Kazman said.
"It forces cars to be ... made smaller and lighter. ... They are simply worse in just about every type of auto collision."
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration actually backs Kazman up. It estimates that smaller cars are responsible for an additional 2,000 deaths each year.
a. Imagine that -- a government safety agency promotes a rule that kills people
4. "Think about the minute risks that agencies like Environmental Protection Agency go into a tizzy about. ... If any private product had a death toll one fraction of what the miles-per-gallon rules cost, that product would have been yanked off the market years ago."
5. Do we at least end up using less gasoline and saving money?
No, given the increased upfront cost of the car. "It is not clear that it saves people money," Kazman said. "If these technologies in fact save people money, you don't need a government law to force them down people's throats."
6. "By increasing that gas mileage for our auto fleet, we can cut our oil consumption in this country by 4 million barrels per day by 2030. That would almost wipe out our OPEC purchases daily. It will make our country stronger."
a. But we use oil for lots of things. If we cut gasoline use by a third, unlikely as that would be, we'd still only reduce our fossil fuel use by 7 percent. That does not make much difference for $7,000 a car and 2,000 extra deaths each year.
7. "We believe Detroit can do this."
Maybe they can. Maybe they can't. If they could, I'd think they would do it to meet consumer demand. They'd do it without government forcing it on us.
8. Life involves tradeoffs. If we want to minimize deaths from auto accidents, we may use more fuel than we might otherwise use. Who should make that decision, the government? Or you and I?
In the land of the supposedly free, that really should not be a tough question."
A Government That Kills - HUMAN EVENTS
It's....it's ...almost as if our progressive leaders want to do our thinking for us....???
Imagine, a post totally full of bullshit.
Consider how many deaths per year that the asbestos has caused in spite of the fact that it was known kill before 1900. And your 'free market' system defended the killing of those people for profit.
Even the small cars of today are far safer in a wreck than the cars that were being driven in the 50's. A hummer going head on with an eighteen wheeler is a dead end. So we all should be driving trucks?
Maybe they can. Maybe they can't. If they could, I'd think they would do it to meet consumer demand. They'd do it without government forcing it on us.
No one has addressed this, but it deserves attention in and of itself.
The fact is, if you look at the history of the American auto industry, they tend to not make innovation unless forced by government regulation. American automakers have traditionally fought innovation tooth and nail.
I'd recommend checking out the history of why cars have seat belts and anti-lock brakes. I'd also check out "Who Killed The Electric Car", a documentary that pretty much sums up why the American Auto Industry should be allowed to just die off at this point.
What I'm looking for, is how many (i.e. a number) lives will be saved as a result of the diminished dependance on Foreign oil.
If you're going to wri(steal) another opinion piece, at least have the guts to outline all of the facts that are involved. You didn't study the topic thoroughly enough, it seems.
Also, with all of the advancements we have in discovering stronger (yet lighter) metals, the whole idea that lighter cars is equal to less-safe cars may soon be put to bed.
What a dumb post.
Rather than an intelligent discussion, you wasted it on what seems some sort of tortuous attack on me....
and a poorly designed one, at that.
1. "...how many (i.e. a number) lives will be saved as a result of the diminished dependance on Foreign oil."
What, is 'foreign oil' some sort of poison?
Clearly you don't understand that oil is the life's blood of industry.
2. "If you're going to wri(steal) another opinion piece..."
Clearly I've 'stolen' nothing.
You mean you didn't see the link at the bottom?
Jerk.
3. "... have the guts to outline all of the facts that are involved. You didn't study the topic thoroughly enough, it seems."
What a stupid premise. It isn't good enough to provide a piece of some interest, one worthy of discussion, in your warped mind I'm suppose to also provide some
sort of tutorial for you as well.
You lazy sack of fodder, do your own reseach.
Did you need me to give you course credit for it, as well?
4. "Also, with all of the advancements we have in discovering stronger (yet lighter) metals, the whole idea that lighter cars is equal to less-safe cars may soon be put to bed..."
What a vapid, meaningless sentence. And you have the nerve to complain that I didn't give you enough factual information??
Youve shown your customary quick command of unknown facts.
I guess I was wrong...I see why you can't do your own research.
Now, why dont you go wash your mouth out with a revolver.
Just so we're clear, are you trying to assert that our dependance on foreign oil costs no lives?
So in order to save gas, I need to increase the danger to me and my family.
You'd think after decades of lieberal bullshit rules that blow up in ther faces they would finally think ahead.
Lighter stronger metals are coming?
Butt fuck the people that die waiting for them to come.
Lighter stronger materials are here now, but no one wants to pay for them.
It all boils down to money.
