Are there Republicans in Australia? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-29-2005, 10:13 AM   #16
War Child
 
karls77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Southeast UK (formerly Tucson, AZ)
Posts: 689
Local Time: 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you see what we have to deal with here in the States?
I'm well aware. I'm from the southwest where you have to have an SUV or a ginormous truck to be considered a "man"
__________________

__________________
karls77 is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 10:21 AM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by karls77


I'm well aware. I'm from the southwest where you have to have an SUV or a ginormous truck to be considered a "man"


oh -- sorry, i assumed you were an Aussie!
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 10:33 AM   #18
War Child
 
karls77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Southeast UK (formerly Tucson, AZ)
Posts: 689
Local Time: 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




oh -- sorry, i assumed you were an Aussie!
No worries, its "A" for arizona as in "U of A" but anyway.......

There's been quite a big backlash against SUV's here (UK) in the past couple of years too. How people are able to afford to drive them with the petrol prices here I'll never know, but there have been discussions about a "SUV tax" for driving these things in central London on top of the existing congestion charge. The mayor of London went so far as to call their drivers "idiots"

Here's the story and some comments from the public:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3739495.stm
__________________
karls77 is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 11:46 AM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Kieran McConville
If anyone is actually 'worried' about safety, just fucking drive carefully. It doesn't much matter what you are driving in, you are unlikely to come out of any collision without damage of some kind.
Please. You can drive as carefully as you want, you can always get hit by another driver. And while the vehicles will always have some damage, bodily injury is far less likely in a larger vehicle.

If you don't like SUVs, don't buy one.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 11:55 AM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If you don't like SUVs, don't buy one.


yes, but i have to deal with the consequences of someone who does purchase an SUV. things like heavier congestion, crowded roads in cities that were built before 1950, increased air pollution, getting hit by an SUV, less available street parking, and our increased dependence upon foreign oil that causes us to support horrific dictatorships in the Middle East that oppress their people to such an extent that they become religous zealots and fly airplanes into towers in New York that then our own religious zealots in the White House use as an excuse to invade an occupy a country that had nothing to do with the original attack and then they turn around and say that the best way to get ourselves free from foreign oil is to rip up the pristine Alaskan wilderness.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 11:59 AM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:12 PM
That's quite a lot of things to face. They also have very little to do with exclusively SUVs.

I've got to hand it to you, getting personal safety, 9/11, Iraq and the Alaska wilderness in the same sentence was quite an accomplishment!

When do you start your own blog or internet news site? I think you could draw some readers.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 12:29 PM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
That's quite a lot of things to face. They also have very little to do with exclusively SUVs.

I've got to hand it to you, getting personal safety, 9/11, Iraq and the Alaska wilderness in the same sentence was quite an accomplishment!

When do you start your own blog or internet news site? I think you could draw some readers.


well, i do have a blog, but i haven't updated since June or so. it was a busy summer, and i wasn't sure what i wanted the blog to be, but i'm looking into purchasing a laptop soon, so i might get back to the blogging.

i was being somewhat humorous (and thank you for seeing that), but i do think there are two points that can be extracted from my post that stand:

1. we are all affected by the purchases that other people make, and i feel as if the purchasing of an SUV significantly degrades my quality of life as measured in traffic, parking, crowding, and oil consumption.

2. simply because there isn't a direct correlation doesn't mean that it isn't part of the problem; to toss out a global warming example, it's correct that global warming doesn't *cause* hurricanes, but they do make them worse; it's correct that the earth is probably getting warmer on it's own, but human activity is making it significantly worse; likewise, while SUVs aren't directly responsible for the horribleness of the Saudi royal family, our wanton consumption of oil simply makes things worse.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 02:32 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
bammo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a car with House and Wilson :yikes: Let me out!! Let me oooooooouuut!!!
Posts: 5,660
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:

Dangers to pedestrians:

Researchers from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rowan University in America discovered that somebody hit by a large 4x4 vehicle would be more than twice as likely to die as someone hit by a normal sized car [2].

What makes 4x4s so dangerous to pedestrians?

· The point of impact on the body is higher if hit by a 4x4, meaning it is more likely to cause head and chest injuries, rather than leg and lower body injuries. This particularly applies to collisions involving children, due to the height of their head and chest.

· Generally a 4x4 is heavier, stiffer and shaped more bluntly than normal cars and is therefore likely to cause more damage on impact. Weight is a major factor in velocity.

· The threat to pedestrians (especially children) is increased due to the bull bars fitted on the front of many 4x4s [3]. From January 2006, it will be illegal to fit bull bars to your vehicle.

· The size and design gives drivers a restricted view of the area immediately surrounding the vehicle. This means that young children are particularly vulnerable, as it is less likely that the driver will see them. According to the American independent body Consumer Reports, the blind spot for a driver of average height in a large 4x4 vehicle can be up to 28 feet [4]. This is a particular danger when taking a 4x4 on the school run – a time when there are a high number of children on pavements and crossing roads – and when using a 4x4 for shopping and parking it in busy supermarket car parks where there are lots of families about.

· In safety tests, 4x4s generally perform very poorly in terms of pedestrian safety. Many models have been described as having dire protection to pedestrians. On the EuroNCAP website, EuroNCAP claims that SUV manufacturer Jeep says it did not attempt to incorporate pedestrian protection in the design of its 2003 Cherokee model. [5].

Dangers to other drivers:

4x4s are not only seen as a danger to pedestrians, but also to people travelling in other cars. With the increase in large vehicles and the super-mini in recent years, medium cars have become less popular. A recent study by Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), shows many crashes now involve a collision between a large car and a small one. In such a crash the person in the smaller car is 12 times more likely to be killed than the person in the 4x4 [6].

The study also shows the rise in sales of 4x4s and people carriers is causing more than 20 extra deaths and serious injuries a year among people in small cars when the two are in collision [7].

Research has shown that a car driver is around four times more likely to be killed if hit from the side by a large 4x4 than by a normal sized car [8].

Why are 4x4s dangerous to other drivers?

· The higher centre of gravity has been found in the past to make 4x4s more prone to rollover crashes (especially in emergency manoeuvres) [9].

· People carriers and 4x4s are typically more than double the weight of small cars, and are therefore likely to cause more damage to the other vehicle [10]

· The high bumpers on 4x4s tend to override the side-impact protection on small cars and penetrate the body [11]
from http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=267
__________________
bammo2 is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 08:47 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:12 PM
Sounds like we'd rather be "a little pregnant". Getting hit by a car is generally bad news for anyone. But, if you are going to get into an accident, its best to be in a SUV.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 10:09 AM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Sounds like we'd rather be "a little pregnant". Getting hit by a car is generally bad news for anyone. But, if you are going to get into an accident, its best to be in a SUV.


and what if you can't afford an SUV? ... poor people die more quickly since they can't afford SUVs?

thank goodness rich people can afford to drive their children around in armored tanks whilst the unwashed have to drive around in deathtrap sedans.

survival of the fittest/richest?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 11:45 AM   #26
Acrobat
 
Ft. Worth Frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 390
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Hey, how about everyone be forced to drive Coopers at 10 mph...better for the environment, no one will get hurt too badly if run over, sounds like a great idea to me.

The poor not in SUV's? Please, in the poor neighborhood where I grew up , nearly everyone had some kind of SUV...not a Lexus or BMW, but still an SUV. Alsom people need to be more responsible when driving..if people drove safer then we might not have so many wrecks, unless the SUVs are so out of control and hungry for gas they beging causing wrecks on their own.
__________________
Ft. Worth Frog is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 11:47 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:12 PM
I think it is more a matter of new Escalade vs. used Explorer instead of SUV vs. econo-deathtrap.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 12:00 PM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ft. Worth Frog
Hey, how about everyone be forced to drive Coopers at 10 mph...better for the environment, no one will get hurt too badly if run over, sounds like a great idea to me.

The poor not in SUV's? Please, in the poor neighborhood where I grew up , nearly everyone had some kind of SUV...not a Lexus or BMW, but still an SUV. Alsom people need to be more responsible when driving..if people drove safer then we might not have so many wrecks, unless the SUVs are so out of control and hungry for gas they beging causing wrecks on their own.




please yourself. in my *very* mixed neighborhood, most poor people don't have cars to begin with, and those that do, tend to be very old, very used, often without hubcaps, and clearly not SUVs.

simply saying that people need to be more responsible when they drive does nothing about the other dangers SUVs pose -- traffic, congestion, guzzling oil -- and it doesn't change the fact that when an SUV crashes into a regular car the people in the regular car are in much more danger than if they had crashed with another regular car.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 12:03 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:12 PM
In order to give everyone an equal opportunity of injury/survival in an auto accident, we should take away a choice that gives you a better chance of survival???
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 12:07 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I think it is more a matter of new Escalade vs. used Explorer instead of SUV vs. econo-deathtrap.


the econo is only a deathtrap when it hits an SUV.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com