VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123456[7]8910 ]
Subject: Re: Your theory doesn't hold water


Author:
jw
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 19:00:35 04/18/07 Wed
In reply to: Oropan 's message, "Your theory doesn't hold water" on 05:53:13 04/18/07 Wed

Suv's only have side door beams because of government reglation, and the side air bags will also be standard soon. It is nice to know that detriot only adds safety features to expensive cars, they are believers in eugenics like henry ford was, they would love to get rid of the lower classes in any way they can. That's why americans continue to buy more japaneese cars, they are better and they put more safety features in their small cars, the small cars made by toyota and honda are the safest small cars while gm, ford and crysler make the most dangerous small cars.

"I did get a good laugh from this statement of yours
about Corzimes SUV going 90+ Mph: "it was justified as
a security measure to avoit being boxed in". Try
telling that to the judge!!!!"

Actually, a judge will have no problem with that, the governer was being driven by a professional driver trained as part of a security detail, they drive at those speeds to avoid being boxed in, that is standard procedure and is followed by all governors, although in light of this accident it should be reviewed.


"We will see if he gets a ticket. They need to take
some pictures of him and make him a poster boy for why
you should be wearing your seatbelt."

Not wearing a seatbelt was a very foolish decision, especially given that they do travel at such a high speed. It shows poor leadership, i would hope that after he recovers he should get a ticket and pay it in order to encourage more seat belt use.

The seat belt law has saved tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, it is another example of how government regulations have greately improved our lives. If the government never required general motors to install seatbelts, we would not have them in cars, remember when general motors said that putting seat belts in cars will make them unaffordable?


>While I agree that an SUV will roll over easier than a
>low to the ground small car, the rest of your
>statement is bogus. All SUVs have sideguard door beams
>and many have side airbags because they are
>highend(high priced) vehicles.
>I did get a good laugh from this statement of yours
>about Corzimes SUV going 90+ Mph: "it was justified as
>a security measure to avoit being boxed in". Try
>telling that to the judge!!!!
>We will see if he gets a ticket. They need to take
>some pictures of him and make him a poster boy for why
>you should be wearing your seatbelt.
>BTW, we are not talking about roadside bombs
>here...just foolish driving too fast without wearing
>seatbelts.
>
>
>
>
>
>> I clearly stated that in side impact collisions,
>>suv's are the worst, because they have the least
>>protection for the weight of the vehicle, you are
>>talking about straight collisions, which is the only
>>case the detriot auto makers want us to think about.
>>I would much rather be in a small car when hitting a
>>tree or a concrete wall than an suv, as the suv's much
>>greater weight will force the front or side of the car
>>further into me than would the wieght of a small car.
>
>>
>> In senator corzine's accident, the suv did not hit
>>any car, it tried to swerve to avoid hitting a vehicle
>>that just pulled onto the road, it lost control, and
>>crashed into a guard rail, a smaller car would have
>>probably had more control, and a better chance at
>>preventing or reducing bodily damage in this accident.
>> Corzine's car was way over the speed limit, at 90mph,
>>it was justified as a security measure to avoit being
>>boxed in, but certainly he should have been wearing
>>his seat belt.
>>
>> Suv's are much less meneuverable than small cars,
>>and much more likely to tip, that is a fact, and even
>>bush's highway safety adminstrator said he would not
>>drive most suv's because the risk of tipping is so
>>high.
>>
>> Suv's are great if you want to run someone over,
>>they are otherwise extremely dangerous to drive. Btw,
>>it's interesting that the humvees are the worst
>>vehicles in iraq for protecting against the various
>>explosive devices that are used against our troops,
>>the best protection comes from a south african armored
>>vehicle that is shaped like a "v" so it deflects
>>explosions from the road away from the vehicle.
>>
>>>Obviously you flunked physics 101!
>>>An object moving at a set speed has the same impact
>>>force no matter what it hits. And the less protection
>>>the worse the result to the impacted object. Example:
>>>Tie a brass ball on a string and set an egg in it's
>>>path as it swings at it. The egg is crushed. Now
>>>repeat replacing the egg with a large cement ball
>with
>>>steel reenforcing. Not much happens to the cement
>>>ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sen. Corzine was injured in a side impact, when
>>the
>>>>suv smashed into the guard rail, it is quite
>possible
>>>>that a lighter car would not have been penetrated as
>>>>much because it has less force per area on the
>door.
>>>>Also, in a small car, people do not have the false
>>>>illusion of security that they have in suv's when in
>>>>fact suv's are overall as dangerous as small cars in
>>>>the average accident, not just one class of
>>accidents.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This points out the need for the seat belt law,
>>and
>>>>it highlights how many lives have been saved and
>>>>damage avoided by government regulation. Even those
>>>>who make the laws should not consider themeselves
>>>>immune to laws that are for their protection, no one
>>>>is immune to the laws of physics.
>>>>
>>>>>riding arond the NJ freeway without your seatbelts
>>on
>>>>>takes the cake of stupidity.
>>>>>PSSST...he was in a large SUV!!!!! If he was in the
>>>>>kidde cars that these same Dem politicians want us
>>to
>>>>>drive, he would be dead now!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
GEEEZZZ! He was on his way to meet with Imus!!!!Oropan09:21:05 04/20/07 Fri


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.