View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 3/23  >  >>
User Rank
Re: A lot of energy misdirected.
akwaman   9/6/2012 9:30:06 AM
You are probably right Totally_Lost.  The battle is lost before we have even begun the fight.  Let's throw up our arms and hang our heads in defeat... before we fight?  You are so right! The rest of the world is jumping off a cliff, so WE SHOULD TOO!!  You are so right... the fact that oil companies pay for studies that will support their business view, so we should ignore it when something comes along to dispute it... convincingly.  You are right, we should make as much money on crappy cars as we can today and use up all the oil really fast, because we don't want to let all those 3rd world countries get that oil!

It is not obvious to some, that oil companies spend countless millions of dollars to fight things like CAFE standards and Global Warming and Sea level rise.  They HAVE to believe these things are harmless, as a company, otherwise they would be a sadistic company knowingly getting rich while harming their customers and/or the environment.  Tobacco companies have the same problem.  THEY HAVE TO BELIEVE that their product is causing no harm. YOU DO NOT.

You are so right, again! The report I just showed you only debunks the PREVIOUS reports to 2004, showing that reports stating "CAFE standards kill" don't really have the evidence to support such claims, and the actual facts may lead to the opposite conclusion.  I guess since then, there have been more reports that need de-bunking. 

By setting an example for the world, Americans can make the world a better place.  The world follows our example, so we have to set the right one. Your attitude of "Johnny is doing it so why can't I" needs to be left on the grade-school playground.  The fact that you state that the things in your first paragraph are falacies says a lot about your distorted view of reality, and does nothing to lend credibility to what you say.

That is probably the most ridiculous story (about the $100 dollar bill) I have ever heard.  It goes against human nature and common sense.  It makes no connection to reality and makes no sense and makes no point. Stick to facts, you don't make up good stories, your facts aren't always that good either (T_L). 

I'm aware of minority reports claiming global warming isn't happening, I'm quite sure that you would believe those minority reports. LOL

"Peak oil scare"... just shows that you haven't read any projections about the limited supply of oil... oil companies don't even deny that.


User Rank
Re: A lot of energy misdirected.
Totally_Lost   9/5/2012 4:46:08 PM
First, the primary premise behind the CAFE supporters position, is that oil is so scarce, that we should be saving it today, so we will not run out tomorrow and our world will come to an end ... the peak oil scare. The secondary premise is trying lower CO2 carbon foot prints.

The falacy in both these positions, is oil producing countries will continue to export oil as much as possible, to gain hard currency to balance their economies trade, and invest in other markets for the day the oil is gone. What you THINK you are SAVING, will just be purchased and consumed elsewhere in the world, at a lower price with lower US demand, and probably turn into CO2 anyway. You can not save, what you do not own and control.

Mean while other places in the world, with out CAFE expenses, have thriving oil consuming populations and industries that are running with lower over all costs, and undercutting our industries, so we lose even more jobs. Think China. If you want to correct the current balance of trade issues with oil and China, do so directly, not with a flawed indirect plan based on a falacy that has other outcomes.

This is kinda like walking past a $100 bill laying on the sidewalk in plain view in front of a major retail store, and childishly thinking "I'll save it by leaving it sitting right there till I need it", Only a child would be surprised when it's not there in a week or two when they return to the store ... any oil you think you are saving, for 10, 50, 100 years in the future, simply isn't going to be there either -- someone else in the world is going to snatch it up, and use it.

So ...you are not saving anything at all ... you are just handing it to someone else in the world at a cheap price today. With lower prices, people will just make more trips, and use more anyway. AND you are helping drive the US into balance of trade economic failure with artifically high costs (insurance, medical, and disability)  that are not doing any real good, as China continues to take manufacturing jobs and exports from the US.

Let markets deal with this naturally, because as the price rides up early, so will the investment money for alternative technologies ... which include higher price oil extraction from shale oil, LNG, and other energy resources including renewables.

And I'm also aware of minority view studies that assert that man made gobal warming is not happening either.

That really old 2004 study you quote attempts to decouple CAFE from injuries, which is a minority view point that is not the concensus in the newer studies referenced from the last five years, since it doesn't address the recient hard facts of relatively poor mini and micro car safety.

User Rank
Re: A lot of energy misdirected.
akwaman   9/5/2012 4:12:15 PM
This is a study of the studies mentioned earlier about how CAFE standards kill people.  I will let it speak for itself.  It turns out that the evidence does not show the implications that were claimed in those studies.


Here is the abstract:

Since 1975, the fuel economy of passenger cars and light trucks has been regulated by the Corporate

Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, established during the energy crises of the 1970s. Calls to

increase fuel economy are usually met by a fierce debate on the effectiveness of the CAFE standards and

their impact on highway safety. A seminal study of the link between CAFE and traffic fatalities was

published by Crandall and Graham in 1989. They linked higher fuel economy levels to decreases in

vehicle weight, and correlated the decline in new car weight with about a 20 percent increase in occupant

fatalities. The time-series available to them, 1947 to 1981, includes only the first four years of fuel

economy regulation calling into question any statistical relationship estimated over such a short period.

This paper reexamines the relationship between U.S light duty vehicle fuel economy and highway

fatalities from 1966 to 2002. Cointegration analysis reveals that the stationary linear relationships

between the average fuel economy of passenger cars and light trucks and highway fatalities are negative:

higher mpg is significantly correlated with fewer fatalities. Log-log models are not stable and tend to

produce statistically insignificant (negative) relationships between fuel economy and traffic fatalities.

These results do not definitively establish a negative relationship between light-duty vehicle fuel

economy and highway fatalities, rather they demonstrate that national aggregate statistics cannot support

the assertion that increased fuel economy has led to increased traffic fatalities.

User Rank
Re: A lot of energy misdirected.
Totally_Lost   9/5/2012 4:07:12 PM
LOL ... a LOT more trolling trying to change the subject and a LOT more childish reasoning ignoring the hard facts ...

User Rank
Re: A lot of energy misdirected.
akwaman   9/5/2012 11:57:33 AM
To assume (incorrectly) that any one particular factor is solely to blame in a complicated problem is very narrow minded.  To ignore the facts that deaths on our highways is actually going down is ignorant.  To assume (incorrectly) that your (Totally_Lost) solution is the only one is like talking to a child that only has a small grasp on a big picture.  Stop letting your love for oil and crappy automotive technology prevent you from finding different solutions.  To assume that the only way to solve the MPG problem is by making smaller unsafe cars is about as weak an argument as you have ever made.  You obviously need to do more research and make less excuses.  When the oil runs out  or people can't pay for it, and people die in the winter because they can't afford to heat their house, or the oil isn't there, we can and will blame small-minded people like T_L.  Like I said before, there are many factors leading to deaths on the highway, and driver error is the biggest one.  The rate of death would fall if people didn't get drunk, fall asleep, lose control of their vehicles, drive in unsafe conditions at unsafe speeds, or many other REAL reasons that people are killed on the road.  Hundreds of people are killed each year on oil rigs, and many more injured.  We lost almost 5,000 people to the Iraq war.  Automotive manufacturers are lazy, the 70's and 80's proved that.  Instead of using technology to improve the gas milage (at the time it was 27mpg... weak even then), they took the cheap shortcut of just making bad cars.  I don't blame standards for that, I blame whoever was in charge of those companies taking shortcuts instead of making progress using technology, and paying attention to safety.  It is stupid to think, that in America, we would all be forced to drive the same size cars to lower the safety risk.  We would have to do away with motorcycles and make it against the law to ride your bicycle down the street too.  How do your CAFE standard arguments make it safer for motorcycles and bicyclists?  I guess maybe they should stay off the road and make way for your SUV... Life is dangerous, there are many things that can mame and kill you, off the road. With an attitude like Totally_Lost's, we will never make progress, we will run out of oil sooner, we will pay out the nose for that gas we can find, we will remain hostage to the oil cartel, and people will STILL die on our roads.  It really dissapoints me to see a guy, who claims to be an engineer, claims to hold the holy grail of hybrid technology, and wastes his life making excuses for an industry that doesn't need help making excuses, instead of designing better stuff.  Less talk, less excuses, more designing.  P.S.  Totally_Lost:  If I really thought you wanted to accomplish something with your banter, I would spend more time discussing details, but you and your closed mind are done learning.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out that smaller cars are more deadly in high-speed accidents.  I say stop making excuses and drive slow enough to stay in control.  If people didn't drive so bad, there wouldn't be as many deaths.  I am in my mid 40's and I have driven over 1 million miles in my life and have killed no one, and have no accidents attributed to me, also, my car has not gone out and killed anyone on it's own, either.  Better drivers = safer roads.

User Rank
Re: A lot of energy misdirected.
Totally_Lost   9/5/2012 10:21:50 AM
Maybe the solution is to revoke insurance, medicare, medicaid, and social security benifits for those that are injured or disabled while driving or riding in a small unsafe cars. And to revoke surviors benefits for the families of those killed or disabled in small unsafe cars.

And then post a surgeon general warning directly in front of the driver (on the steering wheel) and directly in front of each passenger on the dash or back of the seat in front of them that says:

"WARNING - the risk of death and injury in small cars is several times higher than larger safe cars. If killed or injured while in this car you accept the full responsibility for your actions, and there will be no insurance coverage or governmental assistance for death, injuries, or disabilities resulting from an accident in this car".

That way each person is free to make an informed choice, and the rest of us that are willing to pay for a safe car, do not have to pay higher insurance rates, and higher taxes, for those stupid enough to ignore the warnings, and insist on driving small unsafe cars.

User Rank
Re: A lot of energy misdirected.
Totally_Lost   9/5/2012 9:48:03 AM
The record is clear ... CAFE forces the production of smaller cars that have a long history of killing and injuring people every day, despite significant increases in safety standards to minimize the loss of life after the fact. There is not a magic solution to reducing excessively high decellaration rates in small cars without substantial crumple zones, and small cabins do not provide physical room to "ride down" an impact.

The only solution to this safety problem is to take the small cars off the road, and discard CAFE regulations as written today. Or to tax small cars to recover the full cost that the loss of lives and high injury costs have on society and high costs everyone else pays in taxes for the government paid services for injured and disabled. No amount of oil savings is worth these direct and indirect costs.

Again ... the topic is this loss of life and high injury rate problem ... not the dozens of other drivel subjects that you continue to troll with. Children ignore problems like this, not responsible adults. Children and reasoning impaired adults lack the ability to understand difficult problems, responsible engineers face the facts. Maybe we should create a special tax for clueless envirnomentalists, to pay this huge cost of govenment services for those injured and disabled by CAFE driven small car accidents.

User Rank
A lot of energy misdirected.
akwaman   9/5/2012 9:11:36 AM
If we could just harness the power of Totally_Lost and his talent for overstating the obvious, I think we could solve all our energy problems in this country.  The shark attack rate goes up on days when ice cream sales are high, so we should probably stop selling ice cream to save lives.  The truth of the matter is this (and I won't spend all day on it) that deaths on the highways overall is going down, but deaths increase in the summertime, so we should probably no allow people to go on vacation in the summer.                         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year   Here are the simple facts:  Deaths are decreasing on our highways due to many factors, one of which is safety standards, which are not dismissed, but are an integral part of the design process, maybe it is the safety standards that we should blame, not the CAFE standards. Let's not blame Peter for what Paul did.  There are many ways to skin a cat, some, and some are included in this article.  Included in another article in this publication are the top 10 plug-ins and hybrids and few of them are small. If we have a safety problem with cars, then the safety standards should be raised accordingly.  Maybe cars shouldn't be able to go 100+ mph, there are no speed limits that high, to cite just one example of how we really don't care about safety.  I just saw a video of a woman in an SUV, the pedal got stuck and she was racing at over 100mph down the highway for many miles, very dangerous.  I have other things to do today, but to put it simply, people need to be pushed, or there would be no progress.  You have to crack of few eggs to make an omlette.  How many lives have been lost in the war over oil? How many people are killed on oil rigs?  How much wildlife do we have to kill with oil spills?  Making excuses is for teenagers, not adults.  If people excelled on their own we would not need coaches and teachers to push us to be better.  The automotive industry has shown us how lazy and complacent they can be when little is expected.  There are many ways of designing cars and increasing gas milage safely, to blame a not-so-hard-to-reach standard for increased deaths on the highway, is misdirected.  To take the side of the automotive industry who always says "We can't do that", is weak.  Get out from under your rock and jump on the progress bandwagon.  Excuse, excuse, excuse.  If we really want to save lives in automobiles, we would tackle the saftety standards, outlaw alcohol, have tougher driving tests, make older people take driving and eye tests more often, I could go on all day.  Let's put blame where it belongs, and stop making excuses (T_L).

User Rank
Re: The real truth, without the statistical outliers. The bottom line by an independant test.
Totally_Lost   9/4/2012 8:26:11 PM
If you want to troll with "People kill people, cars kill no one." and push that saving oil is more important than saving lives, by completely ignoring the FACTS ... well that is what trolls do. Responsible Engineers act on facts that impact safety.

You want to talk about facts ... the facts are the smaller cars kill ... LOTS of people .... just the facts from 30 years of hard data. I read hundreds of detailed crash reports where the fatality or injuries were because the driver fell asleep, left the road and hit some stationary object ... trees, poles, cars, bridges, houses, retaining wall, and was killed or injured. That is the real facts, that smaller cars kill these drivers several times more often than a larger car with good crumple zones.

The facts are well reported: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/31/small-cars-kill/

"The scientific evidence on car size and safety is overwhelming. The National Academy of Sciences, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the Congressional Budget Office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and numerous academic studies are all in agreement on this point: Higher miles-per-gallon requirements lead to more deaths from car accidents."


The facts are well reported: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993371229527975.html

"Small Cars Are Dangerous Cars -- Fuel economy zealots can kill you.
That difference is reflected in the real world. The death rate in minis in multi-vehicle crashes is almost twice as high as that of large cars. And in single-vehicle crashes, where there's no oversized second vehicle to blame, the difference is even greater: Passengers in minis suffered three times as many deaths as in large cars."


The facts are well reported: http://news.investors.com/072611-579462-dcs-deadly-fuel-mileage-push.aspx

"Other U.S. automakers slashed the size of cars in the late 1970s and early 1980s to meet federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. (Trucks, vans and SUVs are regulated under a separate, less restrictive standard.)

This had deadly consequences. The National Research Council found that the CAFE standards cost up to 2,600 lives in 1993 alone. A USA Today report concluded that CAFE had killed 46,000 people by 1999."



The facts are well reported: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296998/cafe-standards-kill-deroy-murdock

"According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 to 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year.

How many deaths have resulted? Depending on which study you choose, the total ranges from 41,600 to 124,800. To that figure we can add between 352,000 and 624,000 people suffering serious injuries, including being crippled for life. In the past thirty years, fuel standards have become one of the major causes of death and misery in the United States — and one almost completely attributable to human stupidity and shortsightedness."


The facts are well reported: http://www.nationalcenter.org/TPRegulations.html

* CAFE regulations kill Americans. Passengers in small cars die at twice the rate of those in large cars when accidents occur. Studies demonstrate that regulations mandating a 27.5 MPG standard have caused a 14-27% fatality increase. If the standard becomes 40 MPG, fatalities will increase by 30-60%: 75,000-149,000 people will die needlessly during the first decade following implementation.

* CAFE regulations kill jobs. The standard of 27.5 MPG has cost over 200,000 American jobs (many transferred to Japan). The Federal Trade Commission estimates that raising the standard from 27.5 MPG would result in a loss of 100,200 more U.S. jobs; higher standards still more.

* CAFE regulations raise prices. At 27.5 MPG there is a "shadow tax" of $1,026 per MPG on Ford automobiles and $657 per MPG for GM cars. At a 28.5 MPG standard, the shadow tax rises dramatically to $2050 per MPG on Ford cars and $1962 on GM cars.


The facts are well reported: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/03/25/173981/norquist-cafe/?mobile=nc

Norquist: 'More People Will Die' Because Bush Raised CAFE Standards

NORQUIST: But when they pass those CAFÉ standards, corporate average fuel economy standards, which mandate that cars all get an average of 20 or 30 miles to the gallon. Which means less metal in your car, more plastic in your car and higher death tolls when people run into trees. The government itself has calculated that around 2000 people a year are killed because of those CAFÉ standards and our cheerful government has just voted to increase them. To make cars lighter, smaller and more people will die. I mean 2000 people a year die because the environmentalists think that you should be in a smaller car because it offends their sensitivities that you're using gasoline. If they don't want to use gasoline, that's fine, but they have the right to tell lower income people, you can't afford a larger, safer car.


And with that, I've asserted that we should give the Darwin Award to the CAFE folks, not just because they are removing themselves from the gene pool, but because they are removing a much larger population from the gene pool that are stupid enough to ignore thae safety facts about smaller lighter cars.


User Rank
Re: The real truth, without the statistical outliers. The bottom line by an independant test.
Totally_Lost   9/4/2012 4:55:36 PM
Ahh ... I get it ... you were just trolling when you went on the rant that I was against hybrids, after I carefully posted the difference between serial and parallel hybrids, and the efficiency problems with serial hybrids.

And you must have been trolling again, when you present "BTW, you can run any ICE engine using Hydrogen with minor modifications.  The exhaust product is water, not poisonous gasses like gasoline cumbustion." like it's some better preferred option. Why present a flawed efficiency solution unless you are just trolling for a response?

And you must be trolling again when you defend the regulations of do-gooders to protect society, and motorists with safety regulations ... you said "Bureaucracy cannot be removed without losing the teeth of the regulations we have implemented to protect our citizen's health and welfare."

Where you argue in favor in regulations to protect our citizen's health and welfare.

So you must be purely trolling when you say "Again... I must state that cars kill no one, it is amusing to see you keep stating that they do," .... "To make all cars perfectly safe is absurd, but we do have standards, that may need to be improved also."

Frankly you can NOT dismiss my safety concerns, and argue at the same time that the government should be regulating safety to protect our citizens.

unless, you are just trolling and really don't give a shit how many people die due to CAFE forcing unsafe cars on the US population.

<<  <  Page 3/23  >  >>

Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
General Motors is putting an off-road twist on hydrogen fuel cell technology with an imposing new pickup demonstrator called the Chevrolet Colorado ZH2.
Fine powder printing of industry-standard metal and ceramic powders with a grain size of less than 10 microns is now available from industrial 3D printer maker ExOne for its Innovent printer.
At ARM TechCon 2016, CEO Simon Segars will discuss how he sees billions of devices scaling to trillions as IoT applications proliferate. We know it’s happening. How do we prepare?
The term “autopilot” is now at the heart of a growing debate between Tesla Motors Inc. and Germany’s Federal Motor Transport Authority.
A make-your-own Star Wars Sith Lightsaber hilt is heftier and better-looking than most others out there, according to its maker, Sean Charlesworth. You can 3D print it from free source files, and there's even a hardware kit available -- not free -- so you can build one just in time for Halloween.
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Oct 10 - 14, Embedded System Design Techniques™: Getting Started Developing Professional Embedded Software
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 |  7 | 8 | 9 | 10

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Course September 27-29:
Sponsored by 3M
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2016 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service