By the way, in general, standard cars (i.e., mid-sized vehicles, small
cars) are, in general, designed to withstand crashes much more efficiently
than any SUV or large vehicle (which is, in general, just a big metal box).
Modern cars are (again, generally speaking) designed to protect passengers
-- I believe (though I may not be correct about this -- it's been quite a
long time since I read this article which I think was in the times) because
of the way they're shaped and the materials with which they're built.  I'm
sure if you're interested, you can find out exactly what makes cars safer
than SUVs and trucks.

Getting hit by an SUV may not be very "safe" -- and my bias against SUV
drivers, I'd say you're much more likely to get hit by someone barreling
down the street in one of those things than someone who drives a car as a
utilitarian item.

John Testa
SLPS Homewood
708-647-4346
[log in to unmask]



                      Russ Smith
                      <[log in to unmask]>        To:       [log in to unmask]
                      Sent by: HP-3000         cc:
                      Systems                  Subject:  [HP3000-L] OT: Blatant disrespect for the international community
                      Discussion
                      <[log in to unmask]
                      TC.EDU>


                      11/03/2004 12:59
                      PM
                      Please respond to
                      Russ Smith






Shawn, Jay, Denys, et al....

Let's try this again.  I wrote: "there may be a general bias in Texas
against changes which reduce our need for oil."

*may be* is meant to describe a possibility, not a certainty.  I did not
say
"there is".  I said "there may be".

*a general bias* is meant to describe an unclear, but present tendency for
ideas to be closer to one end of the spectrum of thought than the other on
a
single or set of issues.  I did not say that every Texan shoots on site any
environmentalist or other person touting fuel efficiency, but I did imply
that *some* people whose livlihoods depend on the oil industry would not
want to see *changes* that would reduce their sales, reduce demand for
their
product, or increase the liklihood of their losing their jobs.

*changes which reduce our need for oil* is meant to describe a whole range
of (get this) "changes" which might bring about a reduced need for oil.  To
be clear, the types of changes I'm alluding to are things like mandating
wind, solar, or hydroelectric power be a larger part of our national energy
systems, or requiring a higher percentage of vehicle bodies be made of
lighter materials, or designed to reduce the amount of power necessary to
move them.  I very clearly remember there being resistance from many
fronts,
for many reasons, on each of the issues.  The list could also include other
things.

Shawn, you responded:

> that's just ignorant, no one anywhere thinks like that.  Everyone I know
> likes having better gas mileage where possible, but a lot of peoples life
> styles need larger vehicles for whatever they are doing, maybe managing a
> kids sports team, a large family, need to tow things, whatever.

"that's just ignorant"...as in without knowledge, as in I am not intimately
aware of the thinking processes of every human being in existance.  I'm
not.
Of course, it might just have been you being rude.

"no one anywhere thinks like that"...as in you ARE intimately aware of the
thinking process of every human being in existance.  You're not.  Of
course,
it could just be that you think you are.

"Everyone I know"...see last comment.

"likes having better gas mileage where possible"...for their own vehicle to
reduce their own gas bill certainly, but *MAY NOT* for all vehicles if it
means their company gets put out of business, or they lose their job.

"a lot of peoples life styles need larger vehicles"...brings with it a slew
of problems.  Suffice it to say that said *need* is specious, and based on
perspective.  Air, water, and food are needs.  Shelter against weather is a
need.  Having a 2004 Lexus SUV instead of a 1973 station wagon to haul
around the soccer balls and four kids is not a need.  Oddly, they are
remarkably similiar in fuel economy, which doesn't say much for 30 years
of innovation.

This started when I wrote: "I think, however, that any remark made by them
(or anyone for that matter) that fuel efficiency should be one of the
primary focuses of vehicle design and that our vehicles simply are not fuel
efficient enough given today's technology are perfectly valid."

Jay then responded:

> I can't agree. First off, I think safety trumps efficiency. Second, an
> efficient car that gains its efficiency at a much higher cost than that
of
> the fuel saved is flatly stupid, economically. This puts it in the same
> category as so much else that enviro-wackos want: if it's a massive
increase
> in cost to be marginally more effective environmentally, it makes no
sense.

*I can't agree*...as in you can't agree that I think their comments are
valid.  Um, okay, but that sort of puts you in the same boat with Shawn as
knowing all the humans' thinking processes, and in this case that you know
mine better than I do.  I don't think you do, but hey, I could be wrong.
:)

*safety trumps efficiency"...suggests that they are mutually exclusive,
which is the real problem to start with.  I grew up in the "huge television
sitting on top of the little table in the corner" world.  Safety is
relative, but that's not the point.  I said that fuel efficiency should be
"one of the primary focuses".  I did not say "the only focus".  I did not
say "the most important focus".

*an efficient car that gains its efficiency at a much higher cost than that
of the fuel saved is flatly stupid*...is a correct statement, but oddly, is
in no way in disagreement with what I said.  See prior comment.

*enviro-wackos*...whose appropriately negatively connotated mirror image
would be, what, ultra right wing corporate evil slogs h*ll bent on
destroying the planet, all in the name of profits?

*a massive increase in cost to be marginally more effective
environmentally...makes no sense*...is something with which I agree.  I
design systems for a living, too, (albeit information systems) and am not
completely without clue on competing energies.  But, again, this is not in
disagreement with what I said.

Jay then said:

> I don't for a minute believe that it's possible to build my SUV in such a
> way that its fuel economy quadruples, retain all its current driving
> qualities, retain its safety level, and not increase its cost by an order
of
> magnitude.

You don't have to believe in microwave ovens to get popcorn, nor would you
have envisioned them and designed them.  Yet, they exist.

There is nothing that says the "current driving qualities" could not be
maintained, but neither is there anything that says that the intermediate
steps between where we are and the end point (quadrupled fuel economy)
wouldn't be properly marketed to make you care not one whit about the
changes, were they to be dropped.

The expectation that the safety level could not be maintained, or even
improved, is an example of the assumed mutual exclusivity I mentioned
earlier.  You believe the car manufacturers can not make the cars better.
You have no scientific proof that it can not be done.

Lastly, if changes are incremental, there is no reason to believe that the
cost difference would not be mitigated through normal channels (equipment
replacement, manufacturing improvements, etc) or absorbed by other
improvements or economies.

Hyrbids may not do it for you, but possibly fuel cells would, or a solar
powered vehicle, or two really powerful hamsters on a wheel.  You're
thinking inside a box built for you by Ford and GM.  Demand more, and it
may
happen.

I stand by my statements: "a general bias may exist against change", and
"their comments are valid".

Rs~

Russ Smith
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * *
The opinions expressed in this email are mine, and are not meant to reflect
those of any other party.  The subject matter herein is intended solely for
the named recipient(s) of this email.  Spellcheck cancelled.  Your mileage
may vary.  Look both ways and hold hands when you cross the street.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *