Interesting Point

[TheAnvil 0]

I just viewed O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo on FOX's website. Interesting. He slams the Bush administration for doing little to promote U.S. energy independence - a justifiable slam. He ends the memo by stating that the the dependence of the U.S. upon foreign energy sources would lead the nation into armed conflict. Interesting - and likely true.

I'm a fairly green sort of person and a huge biodiesel & nuke energy proponent.

I digress and need to get going...'tis Sunday after all. Any thoughts on this from the group?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[IanHarrop 37]

Quote

I just viewed O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo on FOX's website. Interesting. He slams the Bush administration for doing little to promote U.S. energy independence - a justifiable slam. He ends the memo by stating that the the dependence of the U.S. upon foreign energy sources has lead the nation into armed conflict. Interesting - and likely true.

I'm a fairly green sort of person and a huge biodiesel & nuke energy proponent.

I digress and need to get going...'tis Sunday after all. Any thoughts on this from the group?

There - fixed it!

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[jimmytavino 16]

We have done a poor job of stepping into the 21 century, in terms of our energy consumption and the variety of our energy sources. Scientists, geologists, the oil companies today have a pretty accurate idea of the volume(s) , location(s) and ease of Aquisition of most major oil fields on this planet and concur that they are dwindling....We have know of this for decades.. Most of the world has become dependent for their fossil fuel, on countries which "have the oil", countries which are learning the definition of "greed", countries which have the infrastructure and facilites to exploit that oil, countries which are located in a part of the world which is becoming chaotic, countries who have struggles enough, between their own indiginous populations....... And THEY set the price which we, like the fools we are,,,, simply "belly up to the bar "
and pay...

I live not far from Niagara Falls and since the time I was 8 years old was impressed with the fact that We cound get Electricity from a waterfall,,, a neverending waterfall..
Hydro-Electric was well received and it opened the door for for us to begin to consider other
sources for power...
I think the key is to put everything on Electric, and then find and utilize ALL the ways we now have to create and store electric.
We've come well away from the days of burning coal ( solid fossil fuel) for power. We should have been lessening our uses of oil ( liquid fosssil fuel ) , and of natural gas and propane
( gaseous fossil fuel), these past few decades. Instead we have increased our consumption even in the face of lowering supply .
Had we moved more toward electric and been willing to build the generating stations it would take, we could have come into the 21st century, in a much different way.
Wind, Solar, Water and Nuclear generation stations can all create electricty.. Clean electricty, a power which leaves no residue, no exhaust, no carbon monoxide output. Well we were told the wind is too little, solar is unreliable, water is limited, and nuclear may "someday blow Up and explode the surrounding area in a Mushroom cloud of devastation" ( such hogwash )
and so we reduced our interest in these areas and just stuck with "Gas and Oil".... and now look where we are!!

Our leaders may be to blame, especially the ones lately, who have been "oil men" their whole lives....dunderheads!!!
But the people as well, may bear some of the blame
by benignly plodding along, accepting the seeming ease with which gas is available to us, and burning it up even as we are throwing our 20 and 50 and 100 dollar bills down some oil well on the other side of the planet...
I've always been an advocate for change, well thought out change, not just hasty impulsive change, and I hold out some hope that before i am outta here....this world will make the changes needed to insure it's future...
Soooooo,
there's your sunday morning sermon
Now I better go check to see if the bacon is burning!!!!!!!!!! jmy

[GrendelKhan 0]

Why would energy companies trying to make a fat profit margin want to switch to alternative energy when there are thousands of people who daily buy themselves a new SUV? The energy trade is like the drug trade, as long as there is demand there will be supply.

Grendel Khan-The Official DZ.Com Newbie Forum Nuisance
"They sicken of the calm, that know the storm."

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I just viewed O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo on FOX's website. Interesting. He slams the Bush administration for doing little to promote U.S. energy independence - a justifiable slam. He ends the memo by stating that the the dependence of the U.S. upon foreign energy sources would lead the nation into armed conflict. Interesting - and likely true.

C'mon, we all know O'Reilly is just a right wing echo chamber. He couldn't have said those things!

. . =(_8^(1)

[tcnelson 1]

o'reilly is one of the most honest (and opinionated) commentators on tv. he argues the issues from his point of view but, he is definitely not the right wing puppet that lefties portray him to be. he often criticizes the bush admin. for not doing enough in several areas such as border control and energy. his overall political and social views are definitely conservative but, he has a very critical and logical mindset.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

We've come well away from the days of burning coal ( solid fossil fuel) for power.

Uh, over half the electricity in the US is generated by coal. Big source of the CO2 problem.

. . =(_8^(1)

[jimmytavino 16]

Quote

Quote

We've come well away from the days of burning coal ( solid fossil fuel) for power.

Uh, over half the electricity in the US is generated by coal. Big source of the CO2 problem.

Well 100 years ago ALL of our power seemed to come from coal... including household heat, transportation, (trains boats etc), and power for industry... so we have cut back.. In this part of the country we DO have electric plants which are water powered , or nuclear powered.. and not so much coal...not sure what it's like where you are...

and Grendel Khan...... I never implied that the Energy Companies would be likely to change.. Like you, I realize that they are sitting,, "fat and happy", filling the demand...and would NEVER wanna change course....
But the masses, the people down at the consumption end of the line, ARE the ones who need to push for alternatives,,, for our own good...
If we stay with the status quo,, we will have no one to blame but ourselves when the 'well runs dry '.....
Rather we should be pushing for change on the local levels,, we should be encouraging nuclear power generation, we should be asking for cleaner, more efficient forms of power, and we should be willing to live without, the "fashionable" SUV s ....I know I can do that.. quite easily....
jmy

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

there are thousands of people who daily buy themselves a new SUV

A lot of SUVs are not gas guzzlers.

A lot of non SUVs are gas guzzlers.

A lot of family minivans get the same mileage as similar sized SUVs, and many people with only 1 or 2 kids get minivans when a small sedan would serve well. They are not criticized because everyone knows that people don't get minivans to boost their ego. People that buy SUVs often like the image that the vehicle provides, so that is judged bad.

I am so tired of SUVs being singled out as inefficient. What about pickups owned by people that almost never use the bed, or powerful luxury cars, or powerful sports cars?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Airman1270 0]

...I am so tired of SUVs being singled out as inefficient. What about pickups owned by people that almost never use the bed, or powerful luxury cars, or powerful sports cars?...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Amen. I don't want an SUV, but if I change my mind it's nobody's business.

Note how we keep modifying the meaning of "gas guzzler." In the 1970's we used that term to describe autos that averaged fewer than a dozen miles per gallon. Most SUV's can boast at least 20 mpg. Not too shabby, especially considering the added safety & cargo capacity.

We skydivers have much to lose, and little to gain, by encouraging people to pass judgement on how much fuel we use, and for what purpose.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

...Most SUV's can boast at least 20 mpg. Not too shabby, especially considering the added safety & cargo capacity.



Cheers,
Jon S.

That's a joke, right?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Quote

...Most SUV's can boast at least 20 mpg. Not too shabby, especially considering the added safety & cargo capacity.



Cheers,
Jon S.

That's a joke, right?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

No. Silly question. If you're suddenly struck by some guy blowing through a red light, would you rather be riding in an SUV or a VW Rabbit?

(Remember VW Rabbits?)

Jon

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...Most SUV's can boast at least 20 mpg. Not too shabby, especially considering the added safety & cargo capacity.



Cheers,
Jon S.

That's a joke, right?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

No. Silly question. If you're suddenly struck by some guy blowing through a red light, would you rather be riding in an SUV or a VW Rabbit?

(Remember VW Rabbits?)

Jon

Don't judge a book by its cover:
-------------------------------------------------
The propensity of sport utility vehicles to roll over is major safety concern. Sport utility vehicles are more than three times more likely to roll over in crash than normal passenger cars. The higher roll-over propensity may also lead to higher fatalities.


SUVs are heavier and ride higher than regular cars. The high ride contributes to a propensity of SUVs to roll over in accidents. According to NHTSA, SUVs rollover in 37 percent of fatal crashes, compared to a 15 percent rollover rate for passenger cars. Rollover crashes accounted for 53 percent of all SUV occupant deaths in single vehicle crashes in 1996. Only 19 percent of occupant fatalities in passenger cars occurred in similar crashes. (2)

Smaller SUVs - with a wheelbase of less than 100 inches - had a disproportionately high incidence of fatal rollover crashes. Small SUVs were involved in rollover crashes more than four times as often as the average passenger car.(3)

The rollover phenomenon is not new. Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, along with the Center for Auto Safety and the Safety First Coalition, first reported serious rollover concerns with a small SUV model, the Suzuki Samurai, in 1988. In 1997, Consumers Union reported that the Isuzu Trooper, Acura SLX, Suzuki Samurai and Ford Bronco II had "shown a significant tendency to tip." Since 1988, Consumers Union has tried to get the government safety agency, NHTSA, to investigate certain SUV models and issue rollover standards for cars and SUVs. NHTSA began to do so, but abandoned efforts to make a universal rollover standard in 1994 concluding that such a standard would require a redesign of nearly all SUVs, vans and pick-up trucks. NHTSA reasoned that the cost for this redesign would be too high. (4)

Technical Services, a forensic engineering firm based in Portland Oregon and Chicago Illinois, has published a short case study of the Ford Bronco II's rollover problems on its website. Technical Services writes: "The Bronco II has a 'handling' problem like many other of the small sport utility vehicles. It does friction rollovers on the highway. A friction rollover occurs when the cornering forces - tire friction forces - generated by the driver's steering input becomes high enough to cause the vehicle to rotate around its longitudinal axis and lift the tires off the ground. Most passenger vehicles cannot rollover in this way, although they can rollover as a result of wheel trip when the sliding wheel is blocked by a curb or some other impediment." (5) In other words, if the driver steers to hard, the SUV can tip over.

SUVs do not have to meet the same safety standards as passenger cars. The double standard exists due to arcane federal rules classifying SUVs as light trucks. Less rigid rules mean occupants of SUVs are not protected by the side-impact crash safety standards or strength requirements for bumpers required on standard passenger cars. According to The Truck, Van and 4x4 book, 1998 by Jack Gillis, the "newly adopted roof strength standard does not go far enough to effectively protect occupants in a rollover situation."(6)

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research organization for the insurance industry, has conducted crash tests of SUVs. The results have been mixed, at best. In a test designed to show how well vehicles protect the driver and passengers in a crash, midsized SUVs were given a rating of "good", "acceptable", "marginal" or "poor". None of the 13 SUVs tested was rated "good." Five were rated as "acceptable," three as "marginal," and five as "poor." Popular models including the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Nissan Pathfinder earned "marginal" ratings. "Poor" ratings went to models such as the Chevy Blazer, GMC Jimmy and the Isuzu Rodeo. The tests measured how well head restraints and bumpers performed and damage to the vehicle's structure.

In addition, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety looked at driver death rates. The largest SUVs had fewer driver deaths than average. However mid-sized and smaller SUVs - like the Nissan Pathfinder, Suzuki Sidekick, and Jeep Wrangler - had driver death rates substantially higher than average. In examining deaths per million passengers, SUVs had nearly the same death rates in accidents as small cars, but substantially more fatalities than mid-sized or large cars.(7)

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has recently examined head restraint designs for cars and SUVs. Proper head restraints can lower the severity of whiplash injuries in an accident. In a May 1999 study, the Institute found only two models of SUVs - the Mitsubishi Montero and certain models of the Chevy Blazer - had head restraints that merited a "good" rating. Most were listed as "marginal" or "poor." (8)

Many people buy SUVs to feel safe on the road. What they are not told is that they may be putting their own lives, and the lives of other people on the road, in serious danger by driving these oversized, poorly designed vehicles.

CRASH COMPATIBILITY

While SUVs pose serious safety problems for their occupants, recent studies are showing that SUVs are greatly increasing the danger on our roads for drivers and passengers in other cars. Federal information shows that although light trucks account for one-third of all registered vehicles, traffic crashes between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. Of the 5,259 fatalities caused when light trucks struck cars in 1996, 81 percent of the fatally injured were occupants of the car.(9) In multiple-vehicle crashes, the occupants of the car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the SUV.(10) In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die.(11)

SUVs simply are not compatible in accidents with smaller-sized cars. It is natural to think that SUVs would cause more damage in accidents, because they tend to be heavier than other cars. However, the danger from SUVs appears to be caused by more than just their weight. Comparisons between vehicles that have similar weights, like the Ford Taurus, a mid-sized sedan, and the Ford Ranger, a pick-up (which provides the platform for the Ford Explorer), have shown disproportionate impacts in accidents.

The increased damage results in large part from the design of these vehicles. On average, light trucks and SUVs are designed to ride eight inches higher than a car. SUVs also have a more rigid frame - usually consisting of two steel rails. Most cars only use one rail. These two design factors greatly increase the damage caused in a crash with a passenger car.

In March 1999 NHTSA examined the design of many popular SUVs and found that the height and frames of SUVs make them extra lethal to people riding in smaller vehicles. Differences in vehicle weight did not account for the extra risk. NHTSA conducted tests showing what happens when an SUV crashes into a Honda Accord. Several SUVs were crashed into the front driver's-side corner of the Accord. A Ford Explorer caused the most damage to the Accord. While the results might indicate that the Explorer is the safer vehicle, video of the crash test shows that the Explorer nearly rolled over after hitting the Accord, and teetering on two wheels for several moments.(12)

This study was very important because it examined how many car occupants killed in accidents with SUVs might have survived had the accidents involved passenger cars weighing the same as SUVs. This is in important finding, because auto manufacturers have maintained that the weight of SUVs make them dangerous to smaller cars, not the design. The NHTSA study concludes that 2,000 people would have survived if their vehicles had been hit by a heavy car instead of a heavy SUV. Two thousand is five percent of the nation's annual traffic fatalities. The study declares that light trucks and SUVs are twice as likely to cause a fatality in the struck car than a passenger car of comparable weight.(13)

In response to studies like this, automakers have begun saying they will make changes to make SUVs more compatible with other cars. When Ford Motor Company introduced it's new monster, the Excursion (19 feet long, 6 1/2 feet wide, and weighing in at 8,500 pounds), Ford added a front beam and a rear tow hitch to prevent other vehicles from sliding under the Excursion during an accident. The Excursion will be the largest SUV on the market and could be extremely dangerous in an accident with a smaller vehicle since almost every vehicle on the road is smaller. Ford has not added the safety beam to its other SUVs.

The compatibility issue is not confined to crashes. The size and design of SUVs raises other safety issues. For instance, placement of headlights is a serious nuisance and a potential safety problem. On large SUVs, the headlights are mounted higher than on cars. Large SUVs have headlights mounted 36 to 39 inches above the ground - the same height as the side mirror on a small car. The glare from SUVs' headlights can appear to other drivers as bright as high beams. Glare can be 10 to 20 times worse than recommended levels when headlights are at the height of a driver's eyes or side mirror, according to a study by the Society of Automotive Engineers. (14)

Automakers traditionally claim that they are simply giving the public what they want with SUVs. But recent survey results show that the public is concerned about SUVs compatibility with other passenger cars. In March 1998, the Independent Insurance Agents of America (IIAA) conducted a poll which found that nearly 80 percent of car and SUV owners feel "very strongly" or "somewhat strongly" that automakers should make safety changes to SUVs and other light trucks that would reduce risk to car occupants. This overwhelming majority points to a growing concern among the public that SUVs and cars have a hard time coexisting on the roads.(15)

With today's SUVs growing ever larger, automakers have begun a war of escalation - like a new arms race. In the end, the result of this race may be lower overall highway safety.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes:

1. "Overview of Vehicle Compatibility/ LTV Issues". National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Feb. 1998. pg. 2

2. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

3. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

4. Consumer Reports Magazine

5.Technical Services Website

6. Gillis, Jack. The truck, van and 4x4 book. 1998. pg. 5.

7. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

8. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Status Report "Special Issue: Neck Injuries in Rear-End Crashes," Volume 34, No. 5, May 22, 1999

9. Gabler, Hampton and Hollowell, William. "The Agressivity of Light Trucks and Vans in Traffic Crashes," U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Document 980908, March 1998.

10. Traffic Safety Facts 1996: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. DOT HS 808 649, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; National Center for Statistics and Analysis, December, 1997. Chapter 3. page 64. table 37.

11. The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety - Feb.98 study and Nauss , Donald. April 5 1998. "Detroit Circles the Trucks; The big three defend sport-utilities and other hot sellers against an assault by regulators and environmentalists." Los Angeles Times. SectionD: Page 1.

12. Bradsher, Keith. New York Times, "Study Cites Fatal Design of Sport Utility Vehicles." March 2, 1999.

13. Bradsher, Keith. New York Times, "Study Cites Fatal Design of Sport Utility Vehicles." March 2, 1999.

14. Bradsher, Keith. New York Times, "Larger Vehicles are Hampering Visibility," November 22, 1998

15. Independent Insurance Agents of America website.

16. Traffic Safety Facts 1996: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. DOT HS 808 649, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; National Center for Statistics and Analysis , December, 1997. Chapter 3. page 64. table 37.

17. Model Year 1998 Fuel Economy Guide. United States Department of Energy. using figures compiled by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. October 1997 and The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety web site

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"If you're suddenly struck by some guy blowing through a red light, would you rather be riding in an SUV or a VW Rabbit?"

With that sort of logic, I'd rather be riding around in a Bradley.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[GrendelKhan 0]

Quote

Quote

there are thousands of people who daily buy themselves a new SUV

A lot of SUVs are not gas guzzlers.

A lot of non SUVs are gas guzzlers.

A lot of family minivans get the same mileage as similar sized SUVs, and many people with only 1 or 2 kids get minivans when a small sedan would serve well. They are not criticized because everyone knows that people don't get minivans to boost their ego. People that buy SUVs often like the image that the vehicle provides, so that is judged bad.

I am so tired of SUVs being singled out as inefficient. What about pickups owned by people that almost never use the bed, or powerful luxury cars, or powerful sports cars?

Whoa, where did the SUV lobbyists come from? Don't take my post so liteerally. I was not impugning the almighty SUV, the point was that end consumers refuse to give up on the fossil fuel consuming luxuries which means enrgy companies will be reticent in turning to new power sources. I apologize for hurting your feelings, SUV's do get a bad rap from the media. Everytime I hear someone talk about SUV's terrible gas milage it is not only stereotyplical, but rascist to those of us who chose to drive them and then justify it by saying mini-vans and pick ups are just as bad, right?

Grendel Khan-The Official DZ.Com Newbie Forum Nuisance
"They sicken of the calm, that know the storm."

[justinb138 0]

Quote

No. Silly question. If you're suddenly struck by some guy blowing through a red light, would you rather be riding in an SUV or a VW Rabbit?

(Remember VW Rabbits?)

Jon

If you're suddeny struck by some guy blowing through a red light, would you prefer him to be driving an SUV or VW?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If you're suddeny struck by some guy blowing through a red light, would you prefer him to be driving an SUV or VW?

Did anyone see the Simpson's on Sunday? The family was being chased by a pack of SUVs. I think it was Marge - "Hold on! There's a very slight curve up ahead"

which SUVs all slid off of and over a dropoff.

It was funny.

I like SUVs anyway.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I am so tired of SUVs being singled out as inefficient. What about pickups owned by people that almost never use the bed, or powerful luxury cars, or powerful sports cars?

My Dodge 3/4 ton Ram Diesel PU gets 22 MPG on the Hwy.... and I use it to tow my really gas guzzling boat... LUCKILY I do nto drive my boat that gets about 1.5 MPG when I run it up to 40 MPH.

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Quote

No. Silly question. If you're suddenly struck by some guy blowing through a red light, would you rather be riding in an SUV or a VW Rabbit?

(Remember VW Rabbits?)

Jon

If you're suddeny struck by some guy blowing through a red light, would you prefer him to be driving an SUV or VW?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I'd prefer that he be driving whatever he wants to drive, and that no busybody left-winger is trying to use the legislatures and the courts to impose his own preferences on other peoples' liberty in an attempt to further some secular agenda based on the vain presumption that we can legislate all crimes, accidents, and tragedies from the human experience.

I'd also hope the guy is a careful driver.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[pirana 0]

Good post with lots of information. One thing not mentioned, that I read somewhere years ago, dealt withan additional factor - the likelihood of a vehicle to be involved in a crash in the first place.

Smaller more nimble cars win that one hands down. You are less likely to crash a mid-size or smaller sedan or sports car because they handle better and provide the driver more "feel." (You can tell what the car is doing before it is too late for corrective action).

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley