Your missing something Ash.

Post #11,075 by Silverlock 10/1/01 9:40:46 AM Reply	Your missing something Ash. I've never seen you mention the one reason most people I know have for buying/driving SUVs. Safety. These vehicles can withstand much more damage than passenger cars and the occupants are less likely to be injured in the event of collision. A close family friend explained it to me this way, "After that idiot plowed into my wifes car and sent her to the hospital for a month with 2 years of physical therapy after, I said to hell with fuel economy. She will never drive a small car again." So it's not all just vanity. Many people are making a reasoned, thought out choice to protect their loved ones with the most massive (and therefore the most protective of passengers) vehicle they can afford. For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong H. L. Mencken, Mencken's Metalaw
Post #11,077 by CRConrad 10/1/01 9:56:50 AM Reply	So are you and, above all, they. Here's the fallacy: GreyStreak tries to be silver-tongued: These vehicles can withstand much more damage than passenger cars and the occupants are less likely to be injured in the event of collision. These vehicles can also cause much more damage than passenger cars, and the occupants of the other vehicle (not to mention pedestrians) are much more likely to be injured in the event of collision with such a behemoth, than with a regular car. Many people are making a reasoned, thought out choice to protect their loved ones with the most massive (and therefore the most protective of passengers) vehicle they can afford. So, is their choice to, in the event of a collision, kill and maim others much more efectively than they could with an ordinary car also "a reasoned, thought out" decision (which would make it the moral equivalent of murder in the first degree), or just sheer devil-may-care thoughtlessness (murder in the second degree, or if you're lucky, manslaughter)? Either way, it's awfully egocentric, isn't it? For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong H. L. Mencken, Mencken's Metalaw How apropos... Albeit perhaps not in the way you thought. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #11,080 by Silverlock 10/1/01 10:19:11 AM Reply	Well, ..... of course. But I don't see how how you can consider it a "fallacy". Where is the flaw in the logic of "I want my family safe. In a collision, the occupants of the larger vehicle are safer. I will buy a large vehicle." Of course the occupants of a smaller car are more at risk. That is the point. They don't want their family at risk. They buy the larger vehicle. I doubt the possibility of smashing into a smaller car enters into the decision. I would guess they think something along the lines of-- I would never plow into anyone else. But if they hit me, I want the most steel between us I can get. Unreasonable, maybe. Thoughtless, ditto. Understandable, absolutly. For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong H. L. Mencken, Mencken's Metalaw
Post #11,555 by Ashton 10/3/01 4:35:25 PM Reply	Not missing it, nor do I argue with that narrow thesis But (as your sig underscores - and again by CRC) where does this simple-minded me-me-me::fuck you mindset end? Humm-Vees all around, with armor plate and 'cow catchers' on front, like other locomotives - 2 mpg? And isn't it postulated upon the same intentional insouciance of the '50s Murican behemoths? - those ridiculed at the time, via such as The Insolent Chariots - quite pre-Nader and Corvair mindlessness.. (The later refined Corvair, killed by hype - proved to be quite stable, considering the average hunk of Detroit iron it should reasonably be compared with.) Despite '73 and all the ObOb-lessons since: "I wanna save MY family and.. and.. Fuck Yours - and damn the cost in resources" -- is certainly indicative of the bizness ethic seen rampant all the way to 'prisons for profit'. Seems our national disease and, it shows. And the hidden costs? The solvents, waste generated in the energy-intensive processes within the making of EACH part of each car/'van'/tank creation - these are akin to the massive toxic contaminations in Si Valley / the exposures of Manpower Inc. min-wage, no-benefits slaves who work around the cyanides, chlorocarbons and other ugly materials: so today's 1 GHz Athlon can be tomorrow's kewl 2 GHz Gorgon -- and ten million more PCs can hit the landfill. Because .. the new, slower OS ... [we know all this shit]. ie it is by definition er short-sighted as are all new products ever launched without a slightest concern for the life-cycle, the disposal (Pampers anyone?) and the consequences overall. Like today: We MUST make nice noises about the fascist Saudi-Arabia regime - for our insatiable need to produce oversized, inefficient playtoys, which we can... (and do) rationalize as um 'safer': if it only wipes out some Other family but--- I'm OK. See anything wrong with this pattern? Ashton
Post #11,559 by pwhysall 10/3/01 4:41:33 PM Reply	SUV Safety SUVs are safe, as long as you hit something smaller than you. If you're broadsided by an 18-wheeler, the non-crumple, non-monocoque design of the vehicle will neatly transfer much of the energy of the crash to the soft squishy bits inside, i.e. you. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]

Welcome to IWETHEY!