Bush signs bill boosting fuel standards (A Law That Kills)

AP ^ | 12/19/07 | H. JOSEF HEBERT

[vikingd00d]

Nice try, but no. This law will apply even to automakers in Detroit selling cars in Michigan. Your interpretation would allow unlimited governmental power.

[Aristotelian]

And by extension, the increased use of mercury will eventually find its way into the oceans and into fish and into our bodies. Only government could dream this stuff up.

[SF Republican]

How does one legislate mechanical progress?

[Cicero]

The other downside is that ethanol does not save fuel but actually uses more, while it raises the cost of food.

There are already reports of people starving in various parts of the world, while crop land is given over to producing ethanol to be paid for by our tax money.

[RightWhale]

Mandate something that already exists and costs $100 per vehicle: flex fuel.

[mrmargaritaville]

who cares what this bill says-Detroit should just ignore it, just like the Congress ignored building the barrier on the US-Mexico border.

[spunkets]

"It’s not ridiculous. It’s simple physics."

Grasping at physics to excuse worthless driving skills is ridiculous.

[Man50D]

We are one step closer to returning to the horse and buggy.

[Aristotelian]

You may disagree with that interpretation of the Constitution, but the so-called “Commerce Clause” I cited is the basis for such federal legislation. It's just a fact.

[pnh102]

The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths.

Does said evidence take into account that there are far more drivers using an overtaxed, overburdened highway network that isn't up to the capacity to meet demand? Shoving more cars onto congested roads is guaranteed to cause more accidents regardless of the mass of the vehicles.

I'll be quite happy once the free market gets me my 50 mpg non-hybrid econobox.

[DungeonMaster]

Yeah and second hand smoke kills 100,000 per year.

[Shryke]

Ridiculous. The hwy deaths are caused by folks that fail to maintain control of their vehicles. IOWs, they can't drive.

No no. If we all drove around in dump trucks, there would be no highway deaths. Really. And I don't own oil futures and a Hummer dealership. I swear.

[RightWhale]

Horses would eat 1/3 the food supply, way more than cars on ethanol.

[Aristotelian]

I recall reading somewhere that if horses suddenly were to replace motor vehicles on the streets of London, given the current population and transportation levels, people would be chin-deep in horse dung.

[CJBama]

Check this out...

www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/01/abg-first-impressions-two-mode-hybrid-chevy-tahoe-and-gmc-yukon/

I am always impressed by the brain power on this site. I’m interested in the comments on the GM Two Mode Hybrid Technology. They claim to be able to raise the Yukon to a 25 mpg vehicle.

[meyer]

So much for “compassionate conservatism”....

Indeed - I can't believe that this president has done so much in such a short time to destroy the Republican party. He continually thumbs his nose at conservatives, and yet doesn't mind sending pictures of himself in hopes of raising money for the party.

The spineless twit couldn't stand up to the democRATS when he had a majority in the house and Senate - I guess I shouldn't expect any different now.

[3Lean]

No, the accidents are caused by people losing control (some times it is driver error, some times it is caused by other factors, like FireStone tires).
Once the accident occurs, the drivers who are in light, fuel-efficient vehicles are more likely to die — thus, CAFE causes deaths that would otherwise have been avoided.

[Don Corleone]

I don’t understand anything anymore...is there no one out there who can lead us?

Sure the Socialist Libs can....right to 3rd world status.

[spunkets]

"No no. If we all drove around in dump trucks, there would be no highway deaths."

Cement trucks are better. No one could successfully challenge the driver for a parking space, or pose a danger if they're cut off. Just thumpity thump and they're all set.

[SoCal Pubbie]

No offense, but I have to question your reading comprehension skills. The quote said nothing about the causation of traffic accidents. The statement simply contended that the same accidents with different vehicles involved would not have been deadly. This may or may not be accurate, but it is not ridiculous on its face. It is no different than saying not wearing seat belts results in X number of deaths that would not have occurred has the occupants been strapped in.