That's probably one of the most lame answers I have heard in a very long time. I can assure you that the person who was in the SUV does not agree. Railroad trains can kill SUVs and Yugos can kill pedestrians. Should we ban railroad trains and Yugos or SUVs and pedestrians? We probably should ban cars below the size of an SUV because they are the most unsafe of vehicles when involved in a accident.
Dom Amato ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 4:07 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] SUV question - Silk Purses out of Sows Ears > > > Ken, > > At 09:03 AM 2/22/2003 +0000, you wrote: > >Can some one explain to me what all the fuss and prejudice is about SUV's? > > They kill. > http://energy.saving.nu/biofuels/kazman.shtml > And search for SUV on the biofuel list, it is a very well debated issue, > with many expressed views. > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > > >Most of them are only adornments, are we about to ban other forms of jewelry > >and trivia? > > Maybe it is the same, it is people that are prepared to kill for diamonds > and we do not think that it is acceptable behavior. I do not see anyone > wanting to ban SUV as a useful or fun OFF ROAD vehicle. > > > >My range rover regularly does 30 mp imperial gallon, yet my supposedly > >acceptable Volvo can only manage 19 > > What Volvo do you have, a bus, truck or the military jeep (they call it the > puppy in Sweden)? I had several normal Volvo and never had one who did 19 > mp imperial gallon other than 25 years ago, when I was averaging around 110 > mph on autobahn in Germany. My impression is that the new range rovers are > almost the same as an old Volvo. Old range rovers was very thirsty as all > off road vehicles. > > > >Is the world mad or is it just some of the other nutters we get on the page. > > > >If you really want to save the world why not address the fundamental human > >population problem, or is this just a little bit too close to reality. > > > >Ken > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Mark Foltarz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> > >Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 5:19 AM > >Subject: RE: [biofuel] SUV question - Silk Purses out of Sows Ears > > > > > > > > > > I believe an SUV is defined by the frame on which it is built. This is > > > essentially a truck frame. Being classified as a truck, the SUV also > >qualifies > > > for a tax deduction that was originally meant for famers and jobbers > >needing a > > > big vehicle to make a living. Rest assured, the auto makers want this to > > > continue as incentive to buyers. > > > > > > The SUV as it has come to be known is a very profitable beast for the > > > automakers. If you have ever seen one in a salvage yard you might notice > >what > > > vaccuous pieces of luxo junk they actually are - merely pounds of molded > > > plastic and glass set an SUV apart from its ancestor the truck. > > > > > > The bottom line for the auto maker is that they make scads of cash on the > >sale > > > of these monsters - they took a truck and gussied it up. > > > > > > Even though government mandates on anything goes against my grain, as long > >as > > > the government takes money out of my wallet for emission tests on my > >little > > > car, I will always oppose promotion of the SUV. > > > > > > Also, one might be wise to realize that politicians who did not vote in > >support > > > of or actively pursue an increase in the C.A.F.E. ( Corporate Average > >Fuel > > > Economy ) standards can not be trusted with anything at all - period. Who > >in > > > their right mind and with good consious can allow the production of 8mpg > > > vehicles. Notice who of your state representatives did not do their job > >and let > > > them know. > > > > > > Isn't it amazing that in these days of science and wonder that they make a > >car > > > that gets 8 mpg? Even more amazing are the atitudes of the people who > >drive > > > them. Do a little sociology game and make some observations about the > >people > > > you see or know who drive SUVs. > > > > > > How about them "No War for Oil" stickers on the back of a Lincoln > >Navigator? > > > Heh who are they kidding, how much prozac does it take to be blind of the > > > reality that we are hostage to foreign energy sources? These bonds are our > >own > > > doing. We as individuals will make our own freedom. > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- harley3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > My question is how did a work pickup truck become a Sports Utility > >vehicle > > > > (SUV)?. I am missing that some how. I grew up on a farm, and we > >always > > > > had a truck. We where not part of the upper class. I must admit once > >we > > > > got our first 4 wheel drive, we never went back to 2 wheel drive. The > > > > mileage was never the best, but we worked the heck out of them. Either > > > > plowing snow or hauling something. Also the work vans and trucks used > >by > > > > service people, are they also being considered SUV's? Who made the > > > > decision of what constituted a SUV? Mater of fact what does constitutes > >a > > > > SUV, and why? > > > > > > > > Confused in Wisconsin > > > > > > > > Harley > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:49 PM > > > > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > > > > Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com > > > > Subject: [biofuel] Automakers Oppose Increased Fuel Efficiency > > > > > > > > > > > > http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2003/2003-02-19-09.asp > > > > > > > > Automakers Oppose Increased Fuel Efficiency > > > > WASHINGTON, DC, February 19, 2003 (ENS) - American automakers say > > > > meeting a new higher fuel efficiency standard for light trucks, as > > > > proposed by the Bush administration, would carry a prohibitive cos t. > > > > > > > > The three largest U.S. automakers - General Motors Corporation, Ford > > > > Motor Company and DaimlerChrysler AG - have filed papers with the > > > > National Highway Traffic Safety Administration arguing that a > > > > proposal to increase fuel economy standards for light trucks by 1.5 > > > > miles per gallon could cost the companies billions of dollars. > > > > > > > > To meet the new standards, automakers might need to make trucks > > > > lighter, which would make them less safe, the companies said. > > > > > > > > Last December, the NHTSA proposed to mandate the small increase in > > > > the fuel efficiency of light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) > > > > between model years 2005-2007, boosting economy from a fleet average > > > > of 20.7 miles per gallon (mpg) to 22.2 mpg. The light truck standard > > > > has remained at 20.7 mpg since 1996, and the standard for cars has > > > > been held at 27.5 miles per gallon. > > > > > > > > Critics of the proposal say it shortchanges American consumers and > > > > national security because automakers already have the technology to > > > > raise fuel economy much more. > > > > > > > > The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said an analysis of the > > > > proposal shows that what the administration is proposing is less > > > > aggressive than what the automakers have said they would do > > > > voluntarily by 2005. > > > > > > > > In 2000, Ford Motor Co. committed to improving the fuel economy of > > > > its fleet of SUVs by 25 percent over five years. Assuming Ford made > > > > no improvements to its other light trucks, its commitment would yield > > > > a 1.8 mpg increase for its light truck category by 2005. > > > > > > > > By contrast, the administration's proposal would give the automaker > > > > two more years to improve its light trucks by 1.5 mpg. > > > > > > > > But Ford joined GM and DaimlerChrysler on Friday in saying that even > > > > the meager increase proposed by the NHTSA is too much. In particular, > > > > GM said the mandate could cost $1.1 billion or more, and provide > > > > little economic benefit. > > > > > > > > "NHTSA has significantly underestimated the costs of its new > > > > standards," GM wrote in its 127 page filing, noting that the NHTSA > > > > said the fuel economy improvements would cost about $703 million. "We > > > > believe that a more accurate assessment of our capabilities will show > > > > that the proposed standards are significantly too high." > > > > > > > > GM said it expected it could achieve 20 mpg efficiency by 2005, 20.1 > > > > mpg in 2006 and 20.8 mpg in 2007. > > > > > > > > Ford added that it "continues to believe that uniform industry fuel > > > > economy standards are inefficient and unfairly penalize full line > > > > manufacturers," but said it has committed to meeting the new > > > > standards. And DaimlerChrysler suggested that NHTSA reduce its > > > > proposed fuel economy increase to 0.8 mpg, for a new standard of 21.5 > > > > in 2007. > > > > > > > > The problem with NHTSA's proposal, GM argued, is that it relies on > > > > technological improvements that have yet to be achieved. > > > > > > > > But a recent analysis by the National Academy of Sciences showed that > > > > the technology exists to raise the fuel economy of SUVs and pickups > > > > higher than the NHTSA proposal, without compromising vehicle safety > > > > or making automakers spend more than they can afford. > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> New Yahoo! Mail Plus. More flexibility. More control. More power. Get POP access, more storage, more filters, and more. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hcb0iA/P.iFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
