Posted on 09/14/2005 6:06:38 AM PDT by OESY
...The leading current proposal, promoted by environmental groups and Congressional Democrats, would raise the standard to 40 mpg by 2010 from 27.5 mpg today.
This might save gas, but we know for sure it will cost lives. That's because a primary way auto companies meet CAFE standards is to reduce the weight of their cars. Auto weight fell by about 500 pounds per vehicle after CAFE rules were introduced in 1975. Research has consistently confirmed that the lighter the vehicle the more dangerous it is in a crash because there is less survival space and less physical structure to absorb impact. A 2001 National Research Council study concluded that CAFE contributed to 2,000 additional deaths on the highways each year. Raising the standards to 40 mpg could raise to 5,000 the number of annual CAFE-related fatalities, according to a study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Ralph Nader also knows lighter cars are more dangerous, though he too is a CAFE advocate....
CAFE won't do much more to reduce gasoline use than higher prices are already doing. As oil prices have soared, cost-conscious drivers haven't needed politicians to tell them to look for more fuel-efficient cars. Sales of hybrids and high-gas-mileage cars are rising, and SUV sales have fallen off the cliff....
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta says CAFE standards are "preferable to raising taxes on consumers." It's more accurate to say that CAFE is a hidden tax on consumers....
Imagine the media and Sierra Club uproar if a private manufacturer put a new product on the market that knowingly killed 2,000 people every year. Yet CAFE supporters ignore the scientific evidence and pretend that no trade-off between safety and fuel efficiency even exists. If Congress really wanted to help American drivers, it would repeal CAFE.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I'm sure that if the Ruskies could figure out how to scrap out some of those very large tanks of theirs, we can eventually cut up the large SUVs for more suitible purposes.
Are you able to communicate in complete, logical, grammatically correct sentences, or is meaningless gibberish all you know?
Sounds like a quagmire to me!
Require an increase in mileage and no decrease in vehicle weight.
That should be fun to watch. :>)
So, what is it you have against the rail industry in America? Don't want it healthy, do you!
I suppose that it might be rude to mention to the chap that the actual "solution" the Russians eventually used to dispose of their old tanks was "sell them to other countries," not "cut them up for scrap."
Here is an idea.
Drill ANWR, tell the environmentalists and the lefties to pound sand and take away the ACLU's litigation fees.
Problem solved.
Look at his tag line.
Doctors and medical treatment, are significant factors in the yearly death toll. Should we run them out of town? I think I would rather run the Sierra Club out of town. BTW, since this area nearly burned to the ground, and the damage was put sqaurely in the laps of environmentalist court cases stopping the forest service from doing their job, the Sierra club has been strangely silent, and about time. Their very existance ought to be threatened, by the truth that their policies and actions cause death and destruction.
"I'd say a vehicle's useful life is around 10 years"
my PU is now 40 years old and I expect it to last me the rest of my life and i'm only 68!
I wouldn't trade it for a new one straight across.
I was just wondering WTF your lazy, incomplete, rambling sentences meant.
You mean the rail system that, on its best day and assuming optimum conditions, can only handle 20% of America's shipping needs, and that cannot possibly do "terminal to premises" delivery?
You want to know where the nearest general freight terminal to Dallas (a major city) is? It's 50 miles away in Fort Worth. Large trucks would still be needed to haul stuff to Dallas. Or Waco - it's the same terminal that "serves" them.
Increase the use of rollon/rolloff technology.
Wait, doesn't that still require large trucks? And a freight yard?
Nope, still doesn't get rid of large trucks.
The WSJ, however, didn't think through their position ~ certainly we expect far more creativity than that with them ~ it's not like they are the New York Times.
More lives have been saved with airbags, antilock brakes, computer engineered crumple zones, and redesigned highways than have been lost due to lighter cars. The proof is in the continuing reduction in deaths per mile driven over the past 50 years, and still falling.
Are you safer in a huge heavy SUV? Yes, but only when you're smacking into an econobox. The econobox fares much better than the SUV when both are smacked into a concrete barrier.
Maybe we could sell off the heavier vehicles (not otherwise used for railhead to destination delivery) to the third-world as mobile homes or something!
When you reply that if Ford could produce an Expedition that provided the same power and size, and it could roll along at 38 mpg - that they would do so. The ensuing sales boon would crush the competition. Maybe Ford should look at firing their engineers and hiring the enviroweenie "experts" in order to bolster 2006 sales.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.