Obama admin mandates trading blood for oil

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
As you know, the most effective way to increase the gas mileage of a car, is to make it smaller and lighter. This also results directly in more fatalities and severe injuries when the smaller, lighter cars crash into each other, and FAR more severe results when a small car crashes into a big one.

Today new rules went into effect, forcing a 40% increase in corporate fuel ecomony (CAFE) standards in the next six years. Most of this increase will come from either making cars far more complex via hybrid technology (a Prius gets better gas mileage than a like-sized Toyota Yaris, but costs almost twice as much)... or by making cars smaller and lighter. The latter option will be much more economically viable for most car buyers... until a crash occurs.

In a complete reversal from its adherents' past screams over "trading blood for oil", the Obama administration is now requiring exactly that.

The direct increases in fatalities and severe injuries, have now been mandated by the Obama administration, which has decided the increased carnage is an acceptable price to pay in order to save fuel. It will also reduce the emission of CO2, a gas that has never been proven to cause any climate change, but is being cited as a reason for increasing the deaths and injuries anyway.

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

http://townhall.com/news/business/2010/04/01/administration_releases_new_fuel_efficiency_rules

Administration releases new fuel efficiency rules

By KEN THOMAS
Thursday, April 01, 2010

The Obama administration set tougher gas mileage standards for new cars and trucks Thursday, spurring the next generation of fuel-sipping gas-electric hybrids, efficient engines and electric cars.

The heads of the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency signed final rules setting fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012-2016, with a goal of achieving by 2016 the equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon combined for cars and trucks, an increase of nearly 10 mpg over current standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The EPA set a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams (8.75 ounces) of carbon dioxide per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, equal to what would be emitted by vehicles meeting the mileage standard. The EPA issued its first rules ever on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions following a 2007 Supreme Court decision.

"These historic new standards set ambitious, but achievable, fuel economy requirements for the automotive industry that will also encourage new and emerging technologies," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air."

LaHood and Jackson said the new requirements will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program. The new standards move up goals set in a 2007 energy law, which required the auto industry to meet a 35 mpg average by 2020.

The rules should add costs to new cars and trucks. The government said the requirements would add an estimated $434 per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016 but would save more than $3,000 over the life of the vehicle through better gas mileage.
 
Werbung:

pocketfullofshells

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
12,009
Location
land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
chalk one up for baseless rants..

what is safer a New 2011 Civic...or a 1984 Lesaber....I know what one I would rather be in, and its not the Buick. You do know that Federal Crash test and safty rules are still in effect right? You know that more and more they are using much higher tech steal ( lighter and stronger) and that you can make moters run more efficient...last I checker efficient motors don't make you die in a accident.

Take the cars in the early 70's and the 80's 90es, 2000's and 2010s and you know what you will see...2 lines one going up for MPG...there down, for Deaths per accident.

Conservatives, always living in fear, and thinking because they are scared of everything that goes bump in the night like a small child, the rest must be as well.
 

Revere

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
146
Location
where the tar and feathers are
USA Today, hardly a flack for any oil interests, estimated that, between 1975 and 1999, 46,000 people died in auto accidents they would have survived in larger, less fuel efficient cars.

Liberals can't pass up a "great leap forward" when they see one, no matter how many people it kills.
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
USA Today, hardly a flack for any oil interests, estimated that, between 1975 and 1999, 46,000 people died in auto accidents they would have survived in larger, less fuel efficient cars.

Liberals can't pass up a "great leap forward" when they see one, no matter how many people it kills.

Id like to see the study behind that. Please post your evidence.

I think we should make automobiles big enough and so well protected with a large fuel burning engine that it makes seat belts and air bags obsolete.

Now the family can do 80 driving in a lazyboy!
giant-suv.jpg
 

Talk2TheHead

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
53
As you know, the most effective way to increase the gas mileage of a car, is to make it smaller and lighter. This also results directly in more fatalities and severe injuries when the smaller, lighter cars crash into each other, and FAR more severe results when a small car crashes into a big one.

Today new rules went into effect, forcing a 40% increase in corporate fuel ecomony (CAFE) standards in the next six years. Most of this increase will come from either making cars far more complex via hybrid technology (a Prius gets better gas mileage than a like-sized Toyota Yaris, but costs almost twice as much)... or by making cars smaller and lighter. The latter option will be much more economically viable for most car buyers... until a crash occurs.

In a complete reversal from its adherents' past screams over "trading blood for oil", the Obama administration is now requiring exactly that.

The direct increases in fatalities and severe injuries, have now been mandated by the Obama administration, which has decided the increased carnage is an acceptable price to pay in order to save fuel. It will also reduce the emission of CO2, a gas that has never been proven to cause any climate change, but is being cited as a reason for increasing the deaths and injuries anyway.

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

http://townhall.com/news/business/2010/04/01/administration_releases_new_fuel_efficiency_rules

Administration releases new fuel efficiency rules

By KEN THOMAS
Thursday, April 01, 2010

The Obama administration set tougher gas mileage standards for new cars and trucks Thursday, spurring the next generation of fuel-sipping gas-electric hybrids, efficient engines and electric cars.

The heads of the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency signed final rules setting fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012-2016, with a goal of achieving by 2016 the equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon combined for cars and trucks, an increase of nearly 10 mpg over current standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The EPA set a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams (8.75 ounces) of carbon dioxide per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, equal to what would be emitted by vehicles meeting the mileage standard. The EPA issued its first rules ever on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions following a 2007 Supreme Court decision.

"These historic new standards set ambitious, but achievable, fuel economy requirements for the automotive industry that will also encourage new and emerging technologies," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air."

LaHood and Jackson said the new requirements will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program. The new standards move up goals set in a 2007 energy law, which required the auto industry to meet a 35 mpg average by 2020.

The rules should add costs to new cars and trucks. The government said the requirements would add an estimated $434 per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016 but would save more than $3,000 over the life of the vehicle through better gas mileage.
'
Thinking that a big and heavy car is automatically more safe is absurd.
People did share that opinion pre WWII though, so ur only a few decades behind. But hé, at least u got good healthcare insurance now so wth...
 

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
'
Thinking that a big and heavy car is automatically more safe is absurd....

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/106748/article.html

Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2007. Source: IIHS

Vehicle ... Size ... Rate

Car ....... Small ..... 96
Car ...... Midsize .... 62
Car ....... Large ..... 64
Car ... Very Large .. 35
Pickup ... Small .... 104
Pickup ... Large ..... 90
Pickup . Very Large . 86
SUV ...... Small ..... 48
SUV ..... Midsize .... 41
SUV ...... Large ..... 43
SUV .. Very Large .. 47

SUVs have lower death rates than other vehicles, despite their increased tendency to roll over. Not coincidentally, SUVs tend to be heavier than equivalent-sized cars and trucks.

Have you talked to the large sedans and SUVs involved in crashes, and told them how "absurd" they are, talk2thehead?

Back to the subject:
The most effective way, as well as the most economical, to increase vehicles' gas mileage, is to make them smaller and lighter. And this translates directly to making them more lethal in crashes.

Will the Obama administration take responsibility for the thousands of additional people who will die in traffic accidents as a result of this law they have imposed on us? What will they say to the families of the deceased? That they they gave their lives in a noble quest to use less oil and produce less CO2? Perhaps the liberals will give them extra credit, since these additional dead are no longer exhaling CO2 either. To be consistent, that merits some brownie points in their view, doesn't it? A win-win situation, some might call it.
 

Talk2TheHead

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
53
Formula 1 cars used to be very rigged and heavy; now they are very light and brake up easily....for safety...
It's just ur point that is absurd.
If I lie under my 200 pound uncle I sufficate. But if he loses some weight....
 

Mare Tranquillity

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
3,477
Formula 1 cars used to be very rigged and heavy; now they are very light and brake up easily....for safety...
.

The basic idea behind the OP is incorrect: weight = safety. As noted by T2tH race cars are very safe and very light, airplanes are engineered for safety and lightness, cars COULD BE so engineered as well, but they are not.

It's all blood for oil, either the people who drive or the soldiers who die to get Acorn the oil for his behemoth. Personally, I think the people who drive should take the chances rather than the soldiers, but then I am accused of being a liberal and we all know that libs don't care about soldier's lives, right?

Die for your own oil, Corn.
 

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
Formula 1 cars used to be very rigged and heavy; now they are very light and brake up easily....for safety...
It's just ur point that is absurd...

I just checked the past history of large cars vs. small cars in crashes, in light of your reply here.

And guess what? Small cars STILL killed more of their occupants than large cars.

Perhaps you should indulge in less wishful thinking, and more truth instead.
 

Mare Tranquillity

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
3,477
I just checked the past history of large cars vs. small cars in crashes, in light of your reply here.

And guess what? Small cars STILL killed more of their occupants than large cars.

Perhaps you should indulge in less wishful thinking, and more truth instead.
Street cars? Or race cars? We've already noted that cars sold to the public for street use are not well engineered for safety. Look at how many years we had seat belts and airbags before the car manufacturers would install them in all vehicles.

The other thing to take into account is that people will not do what is required for safety. The law mandates helmets for motorcyclists, but not for drivers of cars despite the fact that just as high a percentage of car drivers suffer head injuries as motorcyclists.
 

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
Street cars? Or race cars?

(attempted subject change deleted)
This question is already answered.

Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2007. Source: IIHS

Vehicle ... Size ... Rate

Car ....... Small ..... 96
Car ...... Midsize .... 62
Car ....... Large ..... 64
Car ... Very Large .. 35
Pickup ... Small .... 104
Pickup ... Large ..... 90
Pickup . Very Large . 86
SUV ...... Small ..... 48
SUV ..... Midsize .... 41
SUV ...... Large ..... 43
SUV .. Very Large .. 47
 

Mare Tranquillity

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
3,477
This question is already answered.

So, by ignoring how the cars are engineered poorly, the fact that people won't wear protective gear, and focusing only on street cars you can make an attack on the CAFE standards while ignoriong your involvement in oil for the blood of our soldiers. Doesn't make you very honest, does it?
 
Werbung:

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
Two attempted diversions by mare later, small cars still kill more of their occupants when they crash, than large cars.

And the Obama administration is still imposing laws that will produce an even greater percentage of small cars than we already have.

The result will be an increased number of deaths. And the benefit will be, we save more oil.
 
Top