Posted on 02/27/2006 5:47:39 PM PST by Stoat
|
||||||||
|
I'm wondering if "Mr. Ladyman's" opinion might be tempered somewhat if he were to ride along with firefighters and EMS crews for a few months....he would quickly notice that quite often the "winner" in an auto accident (the car and occupants receiving the least damage/injury) will be the bigger and heavier car. Not always, of course, but often enough to suggest to most folks that the laws of physics do indeed apply.
There are a whole lot more reasons than a desire to go offroad which motivate people in their auto buying choices...among them is a desire to avoid serious injury and death as much as possible while on the highway.
he would quickly notice that quite often the "winner" in an auto accident (the car and occupants receiving the least damage/injury) will be the bigger and heavier car.
You do realize of course that the bigger heavier car is
going to be paying the larger premium?
4X4's are causing the World's climate to change? That's a Honda CRV pictured, not exactly a gas guzzler.
Yes, that's a primary point of the article:.
"Owners of cars with high emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, face higher taxes. "
And you were expecting accuracy from a Leftist rag like the Times? :-)
Oh those lovable MPs.
Sign onto Kyoto then punish the people because you didnt have a plan
Again, it is all about moneys cant say the word politician without saying taxes too. It is in their blood.
There are a breathtaking number of utterly braindead Lefties here in the USA who passionately embrace Kyoto in it's full absurdity and are violently angry with President Bush for not signing on to it. Among them are many Democrat representatives......we have our own loonies who would be saying and doing the exact same things if they were in power.
By the way just what kind of impact is 187,000 cars gonna make on the entire nations emmisions levels?
In ten years they will be whining about disposal of the hybrids batterys polluting land fills
Agreed....in this case they are saying "We know that you want a big, comfortable, roomy and safe car, so we will embrace bad science to justify our guilt-tax that we will impose upon you for not buying a car that is more likely to kill you in an accident."
Now you've done it! The lib's are now going to accuse those driving larger vehicles of having an "unfair advantage" in vehicle crashes and thereby owners of these larger vechicles must be penalized by being struck in the head with a sledge hammer by a trained government "Vehicle Injury Adjudicator" so to equalize the injuries for all parties involved....
Stoats aren't known for their math skills, but my offhand guess would be "nearly zero". :-)
lemme see....carry the one..
Yup nearly zero!
It may be even sooner than that....I recall an article projecting the lifespan of those batteries at less than five years, if my memory serves. Replacing them was pegged at many thousands of dollars.
Although one may be able to make the car work with the original batteries for ten years, after a short time the battery's efficiency decreases....which means that a progressively greater amount of gas is used.
A lousy investment with no real-world benefit.
England is doomed with leadership like this.
On top of all that Ive read the paramedics refuse to use the jaws of life on the hybrids because of fears that they will sever a 400? amp cable in the process.
My great hope is that the good, decent, hardworking Brits will soon rise up and take their country back from it's descent into the Socialist hellhole that it is sliding into.
They have been stalwart allies and dependable friends, and they deserve far better than this.
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.