> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Crystall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 6:55 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: Use of cameras > > > On 3 Jun 2003 at 12:24, Chad Cooper wrote: > > > It could provide incentive for people to buy safer and smaller cars. > > They don't usually go hand-in-hand (small and safe, as applied to > cars).
Not to get into the "Why SUV's suck" argument, smaller vehicles are safer for _other_ drivers. America has started an arms race for defense on the road, buying bigger and bigger vehicles to protect against the other big vehicles. I am all in favor of speed restrictions on larger vehicles, since it is clear that they require more stopping distance. There are already speed restrictions on tractor trucks on national freeways. I get really pissed when I see large trucks and SUV drivers driving their vehicle like it they were Mario Andretti.
Nerd From Hell
I'm on your side in this, but you may be referring to only certain states when you say there are speed restrictions on tractor trucks. Here in PA it's one speed fits all. There have been calls for years to lower the truck rate to 55 but it has not happened yet. Plus PA is a hub state between the northeast and the rest of the country. Even if it's only 20 miles you have to go through PA to go north.
And this is at least three times I've seen a reference to cars being safe, except against SUVs. (And this is stating the obvious....) There are trees, rocks, cliffs, animals, buildings...any number of things that can go wrong. A person is mostly safer in a bigger vehicle against those things, whether it's an SUV or a Lincoln.
Now to agree with you, SUVs are shit because of the exemptions on the way they are built, classified, and taxed.
Kevin T. - VRWC
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
