Gas prices

[madmax]

Saudi Arabia,Venezuela, Nigeria cheap gas and positives models?

Two othernet producers, Norway and the UK have pump prices much higher than Canada. I've never been to Venezuela or Nigeria but have been to Saudi Arabia....trust me, you'd fine living quality infinitely better in Norway and the UK. Venezuela? Nigeria?....ya sure real 'shining examples'

So you are suggesting that TWO very Socialist Countries, NORWAY and the UK, out perform dictatorships and kingdoms.

Oil Prices may be higher in Norway, but the Oil Companies pay NORWAY huge sums of dollars.

Venezuela as a rightwing dictatorship and right wing democracy got them no further ahead.

Extreme Nationalization has proven some benefits, but time will tell..

[punked]

Answer: Simple. Consumer preferences. People want more room, more gadgets, more everything. All this means more weight, which in turn needs more power. So while engines are far more efficient per unit of power output, people either want or need more of this power. A modern 4 Cyl produces as much power as many V8's from the 70's, yet consumes significantly less fuel. Whereas if you want to re-create that spartan, cramped feeling you felt in your 79' Civic, you could opt for a Smart FourTwo, and even than, you would have much better performance while getting 1.5 - 2 x the fuel efficiency.

*As per your 50-60 mpg, where? I'm quite sure that the Chevette of yesteryear was still in the 20's, though I would love for you to prove me wrong.

It isnt rocket science safety standards have made cars heavier.

[M.Dancer]

It isnt rocket science safety standards have made cars heavier.

Cars today weigh quite a bit less than they did 25 years ago...what has changed though is a preference for families to drive SUVs...but if you were to take a ford sedan from 1980 and compare it to day's model, the difference would be near 300 lbs.

[oreodontist]

Much of the difference today is in safety standards...especially back and side collision. Vehicle rngineering has two competing forces...fuel efficiency and safety. A vehicle in 2008 is much, much safer than any from the 1970's or earlier. It's also why many cars look more or less the same despite the ads touting one style over another...maximum safety and fuel efficiency is governed by physics and not style.

[Leafless]

Much of the difference today is in safety standards...especially back and side collision. Vehicle rngineering has two competing forces...fuel efficiency and safety. A vehicle in 2008 is much, much safer than any from the 1970's or earlier. It's also why many cars look more or less the same despite the ads touting one style over another...maximum safety and fuel efficiency is governed by physics and not style.

I hope you realize what you are saying .

Manufacturers have realigned words to better suit safety.

For instance to-day's vehicles, sheet metal is thinner, cheaper. But now when that metal is buckled by accident, they call it a planned crunch factor that slowly collapses rather than jar the occupants as what happens with heavier sheet metal.

The only safety factor that really makes a difference, up to something UNDER common highway speeds is the air-bag.

BTW- Better fuel efficiency is hampered by pollution devices.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Leafless

[guyser]

I hope you realize what you are saying .

Hold that thought for a moment.....

Manufacturers have realigned words to better suit safety.

The only safety factor that really makes a difference, up to something UNDER common highway speeds is the air-bag.

You are right on crumple zones, wrong on metal.

But uh...did you forget...

-tires?

-seatbelts?

-suspensions?

-anti-lock brakes?

-visiblity factors (windows)?

-headlights?

-brakelights?

-hi-vis third brake light?

-daytime running lights?

And of course lets not forget highway construction standards and safety designs, lighting, warning signals, bridge designs, crash barrier designs.......

Now back to that thought.....

Edited May 2, 2008 by guyser

[madmax]

Our provincial NDP is agreeing with the necessity of a carbon tax...

Could you provide a link for that...

thanks in advance.

[madmax]

Hold that thought for a moment.....

You are right on crumple zones, wrong on metal.

But uh...did you forget...

-tires?

-seatbelts?

-suspensions?

-anti-lock brakes?

-visiblity factors (windows)?

-headlights?

-brakelights?

-hi-vis third brake light?

-daytime running lights?

And of course lets not forget highway construction standards and safety designs, lighting, warning signals, bridge designs, crash barrier designs.......

Now back to that thought.....

All those things, and graduated licensing......

I preferred when Motorcycles and service vehicles were the only machines on the road with daytime running lights. People would see the motorcycle from a distance. You could always see the cars, but people often overlooked the Motorbikes, and this was a unique way to recogise that a small vehicle wasn't necessarily far away, like perspective often fools us.

But the value of adding running lights to all cars has it merits, and yet still people turn in front of Cars, Motorcycles and tractor trailers...

Cell phones, laptops and blackberries on the fly, have created problems of their on in vehicles.

Very difficult to use on a Motorcycle

Oh yeah, Motorcycle are cheap on fuel and fun.

[oreodontist]

Traffic deaths are about a third of what they were in the 1960's when measured by deaths per mile driven. Vehicles are a lot safer.

As for motorcycles? No idea. (Or should I call them by the medical term 'Organ donors')

I find it amusing when motorcyclists complain about the behavior of car drivers....cutting them off, pulling out in front, etc. They are claiming that motorcycles aren't repected and given their proper place on the road ....but then keep driving one. It's saying 'there are idiots out there but I'm so stupid I'll put my fate in the hands of those idiots anyways'.

[guyser]

I find it amusing when motorcyclists complain about the behavior of car drivers....cutting them off, pulling out in front, etc. They are claiming that motorcycles aren't repected and given their proper place on the road ....but then keep driving one. It's saying 'there are idiots out there but I'm so stupid I'll put my fate in the hands of those idiots anyways'.

That is unfair . We could apply the same to pedestrians on a sidewalk. M/C's are a risk unto themselves for a large part, single vehicle accidents, thus that is why they pay big accident benefit premiums.

[madmax]

That is unfair . We could apply the same to pedestrians on a sidewalk. M/C's are a risk unto themselves for a large part, single vehicle accidents, thus that is why they pay big accident benefit premiums.

UH, YOU INSURANCE GUYS!!! But will take the "that is unfair" comment as a positive answer.

[Leafless]

Hold that thought for a moment.....

You are right on crumple zones, wrong on metal.

But uh...did you forget...

-tires?

-seatbelts?

-suspensions?

-anti-lock brakes?

-visiblity factors (windows)?

-headlights?

-brakelights?

-hi-vis third brake light?

-daytime running lights?

And of course lets not forget highway construction standards and safety designs, lighting, warning signals, bridge designs, crash barrier designs.......

Now back to that thought.....

Another post with no proof to back your statements not even the metal bit. Many of the safety features you quoted were available and used even back in the sixties.

But let me assist you:

The chances of dying in an automobile accident in 1953 was four times greater than in 2003, based on fatalities per mile driven in the United States. Better roads & medical care along with tougher drunk-driving laws have been attribued to some of this difference. But there was considerable improvement in vehicle safety features over the 50-year period. Significant safety improvements included power brakes, front disc brakes, four-wheel antilock brake systems, radial-ply tires, penetration-resistant windshields, padded dashboards, collapsible stearing columns, auto-body structures that crumple around passenger compartments, lap-and-shoulder safety belts, dual air bags and sun visors. Digital cameras, tire-pressure monitors, emergency-brake assist, night-vision assist and computer-controlled navigation devices should further improve driving safety.

But then again looking at this chart, safety features have not much to do with causes or the PREVENTION of accidents but is a result of driver error or plain neglegence.

TYPES OF ACCIDENTAL DEATHS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES, USA 1992 MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT (MVA) PERCENT

(1) Between vehicles 43%

(2) With fixed object 27%

(3) Pedestrian 16%

(4) Noncollision 10%

(5) Collision pedacycle 2%

(6) Collision train 1%

50% of MVA deaths were at night

50% of MVA deaths involve intoxicants in driver

62% of MVA deaths were rural

65% OF MVA pedestrian deaths were urban

25% of urban MVA deaths were pedestrian

55% OF FATAL MVAS INVOLVED TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS TRAFFIC VIOLATION PERCENT

(1) Driving at unsafe speed 16.5%

(2) Failure to yield right-of-way 7.8%

(3) Crossed the centre line 7.5%

(4) Passed stop sign 2.6%

(5) Improper overtaking 2.5%

(6) Disregarded a signal 2.2%

(7) Followed too closely 0.6%

(8) Other violations 15.3%

Here is a chart citing the most common causes of death but begs the question, how many other victims, although are not dead but are left permanently injured, paralyzed etc. for the rest of their lives and cannot no longer function in a normal manner.

CAUSE OF DEATH PERCENT

(1) Hemorrhage 41.6%

(2) Cerebral injury 30.5%

(3) Combined injury 15.2%

(4) Spinal injury 5.5%

(5) Crush asphyxia 4.9%

(6) Chest injury 2.1%

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

Edited May 2, 2008 by Leafless

[guyser]

UH, YOU INSURANCE GUYS!!! But will take the "that is unfair" comment as a positive answer.

Yeah , I know. Be prepared for a big hit on renewal this year, as premiums are going up.

[guyser]

Another post with no proof to back your statements not even the metal bit. Many of the safety features you quoted were available and used even back in the sixties.

In the sixties....

Yes they had brakes, not anti lock ones though.

Yes they had lights, not halogen ones though.

Yes they had suspensions, not ones that could control a car like todays.

Need I remind what you originally wrote? (only one thing has improved...)

But then again looking at this chart, safety features have not much to do with causes or the PREVENTION of accidents but is a result of driver error or plain neglegence.

That has always been , and will remain the primary cause of. Can we measure "almost crashes"?

And there is virtually no "accidents".

Your provided links back my assertions. Thanks for that.

[Leafless]

In the sixties....

Yes they had brakes, not anti lock ones though.

Yes they had lights, not halogen ones though.

Yes they had suspensions, not ones that could control a car like todays.

Need I remind what you originally wrote? (only one thing has improved...)

The only relatively new major safety feature that protects a driver from serious injury is the air-bag and that is what I originally wrote.

In fact all the other items mostly provide drivers with a sense of 'over confidence' a major contributor to serious accidents. Even a seat belt can slice you in two and is primarily only effective in low speed collisions.

That has always been , and will remain the primary cause of. Can we measure "almost crashes"?

And there is virtually no "accidents".

Your provided links back my assertions. Thanks for that.

My provided link backs my assertions that vehicle collisions are a major source of injury and death.

Vehicles are not as 'safe' as you claim and never will be.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Leafless

[guyser]

Even a seat belt can slice you in two and is primarily only effective in low speed collisions.

In all my courses I have never heard this mentioned. Nor have I ever seen an accident report that mentioned this.

I will be blunt. It has not happened due to the seatbelt only . I doubt in fact that it has ever occurred.

In highway speeds the seatbelt is still a life saver in part because of the lack of "second accident" , which is the person hitting the dashboard/window.

[Wilber]

The only relatively new major safety feature that protects a driver from serious injury is the air-bag and that is what I originally wrote.

In fact all the other items mostly provide drivers with a sense of 'over confidence' a major contributor to serious accidents. Even a seat belt can slice you in two and is primarily only effective in low speed collisions.

Wonder why race cars have belts and not airbags then. An air bag won't keep you in a car. I had a friend who rolled his Blazer. He didn't have his belt done up, was thrown from the vehicle and it rolled over top of him. It had airbags.

[Topaz]

Coming to your neighbourhood car lot soon, the car that runs on batteries and water. On the news the students at the University of Guelph in Ontario took a GM SUV and re tuned it and are going to the US to show what can be done with the auto! The GM spokesman said it not too far off for this car to be reality and then the oil companies and the government will be worried when they aren't making the profits from high prices of gas and oil!

[Wilber]

Could you provide a link for that...

thanks in advance.

You can find all kinds of evidence she approves of taxing carbon, just not the particlular tax the government is imposing.

In edit: By she, I mean Carol James.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Wilber

[eyeball]

Coming to your neighbourhood car lot soon, the car that runs on batteries and water. On the news the students at the University of Guelph in Ontario took a GM SUV and re tuned it and are going to the US to show what can be done with the auto! The GM spokesman said it not too far off for this car to be reality and then the oil companies and the government will be worried when they aren't making the profits from high prices of gas and oil!

Water will just have to be privatized if that's the case.

[Wilber]

Vehicles are not as 'safe' as you claim and never will be.

They are much safer than they used to be but there are far more of them on the road plus we have a huge variety of sizes and weights that we didn't have in the sixties. Most cars were big and heavy back in the then but now we have a mix of small cars and large trucks and truck based SUV's on the roads. If one runs into another vehicle that is the same size, you have a much better chance of walking away than you did 40 years ago.

[guyser]

Wonder why race cars have belts and not airbags then. An air bag won't keep you in a car. I had a friend who rolled his Blazer. He didn't have his belt done up, was thrown from the vehicle and it rolled over top of him. It had airbags.

Correct. Though the high end race cars have carbon fiber front ends that dissipate the collision in the same way as airbags do. The race car sterring wheels have more gadgets on them and couldnt even fit a birthday balloon if they wanted to.

[Leafless]

In all my courses I have never heard this mentioned. Nor have I ever seen an accident report that mentioned this.

I will be blunt. It has not happened due to the seatbelt only . I doubt in fact that it has ever occurred.

I have personally witnessed the aftermath of an accident where this did happen, where the lower torso was completely severed by the seat belt. This negative result of violent car crashes is seldom reported, and I suspect for obvious reasons, primarily discouraging the use of seat belts.

In many instances, injury to a belted occupant is due simply to crash forces and the inescapable violence involved in car wrecks.

http://www.safetyforum.com/seatbelts/

In highway speeds the seatbelt is still a life saver in part because of the lack of "second accident" , which is the person hitting the dashboard/window.

Depending on circumstances, yes.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Leafless

[Leafless]

Wonder why race cars have belts and not airbags then. An air bag won't keep you in a car. I had a friend who rolled his Blazer. He didn't have his belt done up, was thrown from the vehicle and it rolled over top of him. It had airbags.

If race car drivers only had airbags they would be forever inflating with all the inevitable bumping and would be a hazard on a race track.

I never said seat belts are useless and are meant to be used in conjunction with the airbag.

[Wilber]

If race car drivers only had airbags they would be forever inflating with all the inevitable bumping and would be a hazard on a race track.

I never said seat belts are useless and are meant to be used in conjunction with the airbag.

Open wheel race cars don't bump together on the track. If they do their race is generally over.

And yet the harness that race drivers use allow them to walk away from crashes and absorb G forces that would not be survivable in a road car. I agree that they compliment each other and each is superior in certain situations but given the choice of a belt or a bag, I would take a belt every time.