<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(walt @ Apr 30 2006, 10:26 AM) [snapback]247596[/snapback]</div>

And I supposed that no one is going to own up to our vice-president saying multiple times that conservation is not an option. I remember in 2001 an Ohio senator claiming that we need SUV's to protect our families. That "you wouldn't wnat your wife to get caught in a small car in an accident would you?"

“It is [a politician’s] business to get and hold his job at all costs. If he can hold it by lying, he will hold it by lying; if lying peters out, he will try to hold it by embracing new truths. His ear is ever close to the ground.†- H.L. Menken

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(walt @ Apr 30 2006, 01:26 PM) [snapback]247596[/snapback]</div>

Is it just coincidence that three years corresponds to when Bush leaves office? :blink:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(paflyfisher @ Apr 30 2006, 05:53 PM) [snapback]247661[/snapback]</div>

:lol: somebody awake in the back, I love it. It might be just a coincidence because it sounds like one of those dates that they pull out of their you-know-whats because it's just far enough down the road for the vast majority of us to forget it so we won't call them on it if it turns out to be wrong. They also don't have to deal with us now because, well, even if we do remember, it gets us off their backs for three years.

I read just today in the local Sunday paper, another argument against gas conserving vehicles. They cause health care costs to rise, higher fatalities, and job losses. It seems that raising national CAFÉ standards will force the production of smaller, lighter cars…and BOOM…human suffering results. The solution to higher gas prices, according the the energy secretary, is to reduce gas taxes and environmental regulations, as if doing that won't cause health care costs to rise, higher fatalities, and job losses.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cameron @ Apr 30 2006, 09:46 PM) [snapback]247795[/snapback]</div>

Cameron, perhaps you are referring specifically to air pollution vs. human health. This is not an area where consensus prevails! Anyway, I can link a recent Los Angeles Times article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sm...1,5621069.story

Which suggests that the air pollution fatality (or aggravation) rate is 9000/yr in California. And that perhaps this estimate will increase if the new USC study is embraced.

FYI the California auto accident fatality rate is now about 4500/yr.

Sigh. It is to be hoped that higher fuel prices might reduce both of those numbers. We may all drive a little slower and burn a little less.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(paflyfisher @ Apr 30 2006, 05:53 PM) [snapback]247661[/snapback]</div>

I could not help but note this, too.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cameron @ May 1 2006, 12:46 AM) [snapback]247795[/snapback]</div>

IMHO, that article must have been written by the typical arm-chair car designer. What the article writer must not have been informed of, IMHO, is that if the automakers wanted to use it, carbon fiber would be a viable option. It would not only greatly reduced mass over metal, but if designed properly, it would also be much stronger, much less flexible, and much more long lived. In short, it would almost certainly produce a much safer car and having a significantly reduced weight. However, don't expect it from the "Big 3" as they will almost certainly pan it as "too expensive" as they do with every enhancement until it is mandated by the government. At that point, the "Big 3" will be touting it as a selling feature that they are putting in because of their "concern for the environment" and their "concern for the safety of their customers."

A co-worker of mine grew up in a family that was in the american automobile business, i.e., a family that made its living working for one of the "Big 3." When he went to a plant for a job, they told him to look elsewhere because the industry was not one that welcomed change. Just like the oil industry, or so it seems, "change" is a four-letter word with the american auto industry.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tochatihu @ May 1 2006, 12:23 AM) [snapback]247811[/snapback]</div>

tochatihu

I believe the Administration is trying to make a point that auto accidents involving fuel efficent cars wil cause greater damage to the occupants and thus drive up health care costs.

Thanks for the link.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cameron @ May 3 2006, 08:16 PM) [snapback]249499[/snapback]</div>

I think this is BS. Last time I checked, European countries do not have a higher per capita automotive injury rate and definitely drive smaller vehicles on average (and they drink more too). Odd thing reported today is that they are also healthier in England, inspite of spending 1/2 what we spend per person on health care.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=42717

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Begreen @ May 3 2006, 11:19 PM) [snapback]249533[/snapback]</div>

Maybe European countires don't have as many aggressive people speeding in large SUV's