|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.cisco > February 2003 > Resources dry up as joblessness drags on
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Resources dry up as joblessness drags on
|
|
| Bruce Johnston 2003-02-07, 12:24 pm |
| I enjoyed this reading this article! One of the better articles I have read.
Kind of put things into perspective. Flame away if you must. The post is not
intended as a troll, but interesting reading. I don't have time to set a
record on the troll index. Looks like war with Iraq is coming, so expect the
IT industry to get worse. If you are a Cisco hobbiest, no problem!
Enjoy!
Bruce
------------------------------------------------
article...
http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/temp/resouces.txt
| |
| Joel Salminen 2003-02-08, 2:23 am |
| Well in regards to the Iraq war comment, historically wars have jump started
a bad economy. It may not seem like it this time (myself a disbeliever
also), the historical facts say different.......I guess we will see.
"Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
news:3e43ec0b@news.sierratel.com...
> I enjoyed this reading this article! One of the better articles I have
read.
> Kind of put things into perspective. Flame away if you must. The post is
not
> intended as a troll, but interesting reading. I don't have time to set a
> record on the troll index. Looks like war with Iraq is coming, so expect
the
> IT industry to get worse. If you are a Cisco hobbiest, no problem!
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Bruce
> ------------------------------------------------
> article...
>
> http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/temp/resouces.txt
>
>
| |
| Bernie 2003-02-08, 2:23 am |
| On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 07:30:41 GMT, "Joel Salminen"
<jsalminen@attbi.com> wrote:
>Well in regards to the Iraq war comment, historically wars have jump started
>a bad economy. It may not seem like it this time (myself a disbeliever
>also), the historical facts say different.......I guess we will see.
True, and I agree with your comments. However, what is terrible for
any economy is uncertainty. Right now the prospect (but uncertainty)
of going to war has people worried and in "conserve mode." Once the
war starts, it could very well kick our economy into high gear because
then people won't be worried about going to war. It will be certain
that we are at war, and thus they can simply adjust to us being at
war.
>"Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
>news:3e43ec0b@news.sierratel.com...
>> I enjoyed this reading this article! One of the better articles I have
>read.
>> Kind of put things into perspective. Flame away if you must. The post is
>not
>> intended as a troll, but interesting reading. I don't have time to set a
>> record on the troll index. Looks like war with Iraq is coming, so expect
>the
>> IT industry to get worse. If you are a Cisco hobbiest, no problem!
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> Bruce
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> article...
>>
>> http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/temp/resouces.txt
>>
>>
>
--Bernie
| |
| Jonathan 2003-02-08, 10:23 am |
|
"Joel Salminen" <jsalminen@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Bm21a.33143$HN5.112069@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> Well in regards to the Iraq war comment, historically wars have jump
started
> a bad economy. It may not seem like it this time (myself a disbeliever
> also), the historical facts say different.......I guess we will see.
>
The problem right now is uncertainty... Wall street hates not knowing what
is going to happen...
The market will pick up right after the war is successful... but will it be
sustainable, or will it be just a short spurt...?
Jonathan
>
> "Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
> news:3e43ec0b@news.sierratel.com...
> > I enjoyed this reading this article! One of the better articles I have
> read.
> > Kind of put things into perspective. Flame away if you must. The post is
> not
> > intended as a troll, but interesting reading. I don't have time to set a
> > record on the troll index. Looks like war with Iraq is coming, so expect
> the
> > IT industry to get worse. If you are a Cisco hobbiest, no problem!
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > Bruce
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > article...
> >
> > http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/temp/resouces.txt
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| jeff s 2003-02-08, 9:24 pm |
| It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties there
will be. The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
be.
We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil production, if
the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's getting
10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
Just like the recovery if different then in past recessions so might
the effects of war.
Jeff
On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:01:27 GMT, "Jonathan"
<jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Joel Salminen" <jsalminen@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:Bm21a.33143$HN5.112069@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>> Well in regards to the Iraq war comment, historically wars have jump
>started
>> a bad economy. It may not seem like it this time (myself a disbeliever
>> also), the historical facts say different.......I guess we will see.
>>
>
>The problem right now is uncertainty... Wall street hates not knowing what
>is going to happen...
>
>The market will pick up right after the war is successful... but will it be
>sustainable, or will it be just a short spurt...?
>
>
>
>Jonathan
>
>>
>> "Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
>> news:3e43ec0b@news.sierratel.com...
>> > I enjoyed this reading this article! One of the better articles I have
>> read.
>> > Kind of put things into perspective. Flame away if you must. The post is
>> not
>> > intended as a troll, but interesting reading. I don't have time to set a
>> > record on the troll index. Looks like war with Iraq is coming, so expect
>> the
>> > IT industry to get worse. If you are a Cisco hobbiest, no problem!
>> >
>> > Enjoy!
>> >
>> > Bruce
>> > ------------------------------------------------
>> > article...
>> >
>> > http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/temp/resouces.txt
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
| |
|
|
"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
> It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties there
> will be. The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
> be.
>
> We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil production, if
> the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's getting
> 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
On the other hand, places like Houston and Bakersfield (CA) will experience
a boom. Maybe it's time to join Big Oil.
>
> Just like the recovery if different then in past recessions so might
> the effects of war.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:01:27 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Joel Salminen" <jsalminen@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >news:Bm21a.33143$HN5.112069@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> >> Well in regards to the Iraq war comment, historically wars have jump
> >started
> >> a bad economy. It may not seem like it this time (myself a disbeliever
> >> also), the historical facts say different.......I guess we will see.
> >>
> >
> >The problem right now is uncertainty... Wall street hates not knowing
what
> >is going to happen...
> >
> >The market will pick up right after the war is successful... but will it
be
> >sustainable, or will it be just a short spurt...?
> >
> >
> >
> >Jonathan
> >
> >>
> >> "Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3e43ec0b@news.sierratel.com...
> >> > I enjoyed this reading this article! One of the better articles I
have[
color=darkred]
> >> read.
> >> > Kind of put things into perspective. Flame away if you must. The post[/color]
is[co
lor=darkred]
> >> not
> >> > intended as a troll, but interesting reading. I don't have time to[/color]
set a[col
or=darkred]
> >> > record on the troll index. Looks like war with Iraq is coming, so[/color]
expect
> >> the
> >> > IT industry to get worse. If you are a Cisco hobbiest, no problem!
> >> >
> >> > Enjoy!
> >> >
> >> > Bruce
> >> > ------------------------------------------------
> >> > article...
> >> >
> >> > http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/temp/resouces.txt
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
| |
| Bruce Johnston 2003-02-09, 9:23 pm |
| I think the war is over oil more then anything else. I think the war will
slow the economy down ever more and then if it drags out that will stiffle
the markets. The threat of Al-Qaeda will always keep the markets unsteady,
things could pick up but if another terrorist attack comes here in the US
that will continue to stiffle the economy. I think all of this is pretty
obvious, but that's my 2 cents. If we fight too many wars, who will pay for
it? We pay in more ways then one. I remember during the last war when I was
on the job with my buddies doing ceramic tile in custom homes, we joked
about still laying tile while the bombs were falling. I guess I like to
think of myself plugging networks cables and configuring routers while the
bombs are falling. Sort of like my Dad using his massive ham radio towers to
reach the world during wartime.
Bruce
----------------------------
"nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h4y1a.45041$2H6.1292@sccrnsc04...
>
> "jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
> news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
> > It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties there
> > will be. The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
> > be.
> >
> > We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil production, if
> > the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's getting
> > 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
>
> On the other hand, places like Houston and Bakersfield (CA) will
experience
> a boom. Maybe it's time to join Big Oil.
>
> >
> > Just like the recovery if different then in past recessions so might
> > the effects of war.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:01:27 GMT, "Jonathan"
> > <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Joel Salminen" <jsalminen@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > >news:Bm21a.33143$HN5.112069@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >> Well in regards to the Iraq war comment, historically wars have jump
> > >started
> > >> a bad economy. It may not seem like it this time (myself a
disbeliever
> > >> also), the historical facts say different.......I guess we will see.
> > >>
> > >
> > >The problem right now is uncertainty... Wall street hates not knowing
> what
> > >is going to happen...
> > >
> > >The market will pick up right after the war is successful... but will
it
> be
> > >sustainable, or will it be just a short spurt...?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Jonathan
> > >
> > >>
> > >> "Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:3e43ec0b@news.sierratel.com...
> > >> > I enjoyed this reading this article! One of the better articles I
> have
> > >> read.
> > >> > Kind of put things into perspective. Flame away if you must. The
post
> is
> > >> not
> > >> > intended as a troll, but interesting reading. I don't have time to
> set a
> > >> > record on the troll index. Looks like war with Iraq is coming, so
> expect
> > >> the
> > >> > IT industry to get worse. If you are a Cisco hobbiest, no problem!
> > >> >
> > >> > Enjoy!
> > >> >
> > >> > Bruce
> > >> > ------------------------------------------------
> > >> > article...
> > >> >
> > >> > http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/temp/resouces.txt
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
| |
| Jonathan 2003-02-11, 5:24 pm |
|
"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
> It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties there
> will be.
I don't think casualties really effect Wall Street... we need to have a
short victorious war... simple.
> The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
> be.
>
I agree...
If this a standard six-weeker... we will be in very good shape...
> We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil production, if
> the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's getting
> 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
>
XXXX them. They made a choice to drive those death traps... let em pay.
However, we will be coming out of winter, so the effect on heating oil,
won't do too much to most people... The current oil problems actually have
nothing to do with the Middle East, but with Venezuela...
> Just like the recovery if different then in past recessions so might
> the effects of war.
>
As long as the war isn't coupled with a massive military downsizing...
Jonathan
> Jeff
>
>
> On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:01:27 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Joel Salminen" <jsalminen@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >news:Bm21a.33143$HN5.112069@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> >> Well in regards to the Iraq war comment, historically wars have jump
> >started
> >> a bad economy. It may not seem like it this time (myself a disbeliever
> >> also), the historical facts say different.......I guess we will see.
> >>
> >
> >The problem right now is uncertainty... Wall street hates not knowing
what
> >is going to happen...
> >
> >The market will pick up right after the war is successful... but will it
be
> >sustainable, or will it be just a short spurt...?
> >
> >
> >
> >Jonathan
> >
> >>
> >> "Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3e43ec0b@news.sierratel.com...
> >> > I enjoyed this reading this article! One of the better articles I
have[
color=darkred]
> >> read.
> >> > Kind of put things into perspective. Flame away if you must. The post[/color]
is[co
lor=darkred]
> >> not
> >> > intended as a troll, but interesting reading. I don't have time to[/color]
set a[col
or=darkred]
> >> > record on the troll index. Looks like war with Iraq is coming, so[/color]
expect
> >> the
> >> > IT industry to get worse. If you are a Cisco hobbiest, no problem!
> >> >
> >> > Enjoy!
> >> >
> >> > Bruce
> >> > ------------------------------------------------
> >> > article...
> >> >
> >> > http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/temp/resouces.txt
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
| |
| Jonathan 2003-02-11, 6:24 pm |
|
"Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
news:3e471161@news.sti.net...
> I think the war is over oil more then anything else.
Actually, the converse is true...
The opposition to the war is over oil...
France has massive oil contracts with Saddam Hussein, which cannot be filled
due to the current UN embargo on Iraq... If the US goes to war with Iraq,
and changes the regime, these contracts can be nullified by the new gov't
that will resent the fact that France wanted to trade with dictatorial
Saddam.
It is actually remarkably unlikely that the US will see any oil out of Iraq
(we get our oil from Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait...
and we have gotten our oil from these sources for several decades...), that
oil will probably be sold to Europe and the CIS...
The good side here is that the sanctions against Iraq will vanish the moment
Saddam's head is on a pike... and the people of Iraq will become remarkably
wealthy, and may see a prosperity they have never even dreamed of.
> I think the war will
> slow the economy down ever more and then if it drags out that will
stiffle
> the markets.
A short war will boost the economy... a long war will hurt it, which means
the US and its allies must make the war short, decisive and succesful... I
am sure they can accomplish this.
> The threat of Al-Qaeda will always keep the markets unsteady,
> things could pick up but if another terrorist attack comes here in the US
> that will continue to stiffle the economy.
Probably...
However, the US has been doing a phenomenal job of preventing terrorist
attacks in the US...
> I think all of this is pretty
> obvious, but that's my 2 cents. If we fight too many wars, who will pay
for
> it?
We will, just as we always have, just as we always will.
> We pay in more ways then one. I remember during the last war when I was
> on the job with my buddies doing ceramic tile in custom homes, we joked
> about still laying tile while the bombs were falling. I guess I like to
> think of myself plugging networks cables and configuring routers while the
> bombs are falling. Sort of like my Dad using his massive ham radio towers
to
> reach the world during wartime.
>
> Bruce
> ----------------------------
> "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h4y1a.45041$2H6.1292@sccrnsc04...
> >
> > "jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
> > > It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties there
> > > will be. The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
> > > be.
> > >
> > > We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil production, if
> > > the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's getting
> > > 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
> >
> > On the other hand, places like Houston and Bakersfield (CA) will
> experience
> > a boom. Maybe it's time to join Big Oil.
> >
> > >
> > > Just like the recovery if different then in past recessions so might
> > > the effects of war.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:01:27 GMT, "Jonathan"
> > > <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Joel Salminen" <jsalminen@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:Bm21a.33143$HN5.112069@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > > >> Well in regards to the Iraq war comment, historically wars have
jump[
color=darkred]
> > > >started
> > > >> a bad economy. It may not seem like it this time (myself a
> disbeliever[color
=darkred]
> > > >> also), the historical facts say different.......I guess we will[/color][/color]
see. [colo
r=darkred]
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >The problem right now is uncertainty... Wall street hates not knowing
> > what
> > > >is going to happen...
> > > >
> > > >The market will pick up right after the war is successful... but will
> it
> > be
> > > >sustainable, or will it be just a short spurt...?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> "Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:3e43ec0b@news.sierratel.com...
> > > >> > I enjoyed this reading this article! One of the better articles I
> > have
> > > >> read.
> > > >> > Kind of put things into perspective. Flame away if you must. The
> post
> > is
> > > >> not
> > > >> > intended as a troll, but interesting reading. I don't have time[/color]
to
> > set a
> > > >> > record on the troll index. Looks like war with Iraq is coming, so
> > expect
> > > >> the
> > > >> > IT industry to get worse. If you are a Cisco hobbiest, no
problem!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Enjoy!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Bruce
> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > article...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/temp/resouces.txt
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| Bernie 2003-02-11, 7:23 pm |
| On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:19:20 GMT, "Jonathan"
<jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
> news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
>> It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties there
>> will be.
>
>I don't think casualties really effect Wall Street... we need to have a
>short victorious war... simple.
>
>> The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
>> be.
>>
>
>I agree...
>
>If this a standard six-weeker... we will be in very good shape...
>
>> We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil production, if
>> the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's getting
>> 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
>>
>
>XXXX them. They made a choice to drive those death traps... let em pay.
Most are not death traps. I'm not sure where you are getting this.
If I were in an accident. I'd much rather be in a Suburban than in an
Accord...
--Bernie
| |
| Jonathan 2003-02-11, 8:24 pm |
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:28D1444CF2DCFF91.245BA4DE6262F4FA.5158DCE49A57D339@lp.airnews.net...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:19:20 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
> >> It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties there
> >> will be.
> >
> >I don't think casualties really effect Wall Street... we need to have a
> >short victorious war... simple.
> >
> >> The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
> >> be.
> >>
> >
> >I agree...
> >
> >If this a standard six-weeker... we will be in very good shape...
> >
> >> We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil production, if
> >> the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's getting
> >> 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
> >>
> >
> >XXXX them. They made a choice to drive those death traps... let em pay.
>
> Most are not death traps. I'm not sure where you are getting this.
> If I were in an accident. I'd much rather be in a Suburban than in an
> Accord...
>
Only because you are more likely to be hit by a Suburban than an Accord...
There is a vehicular arms race going on, where we need to build bigger
trucks because everyone else has them... and we need the truck so when the
other trucks lose control, we have a chance at survival...
Well, guess what... SUVs are death traps... And I have no problem with
that... People should be allowed to drive and die in whatever they wish, but
they sure as hell better not whine when gas prices tick up a notch...
They also had better not whine about 'blood for oil' or whatever, because
they are the reason that the US is looking to ANWR for oil...
Jonathan
>
> --Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2003-02-11, 8:24 pm |
| On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:27:34 GMT, "Jonathan"
<jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
>news:28D1444CF2DCFF91.245BA4DE6262F4FA.5158DCE49A57D339@lp.airnews.net...
>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:19:20 GMT, "Jonathan"
>> <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
>> > news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
>> >> It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties there
>> >> will be.
>> >
>> >I don't think casualties really effect Wall Street... we need to have a
>> >short victorious war... simple.
>> >
>> >> The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
>> >> be.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I agree...
>> >
>> >If this a standard six-weeker... we will be in very good shape...
>> >
>> >> We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil production, if
>> >> the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's getting
>> >> 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
>> >>
>> >
>> >XXXX them. They made a choice to drive those death traps... let em pay.
>>
>> Most are not death traps. I'm not sure where you are getting this.
>> If I were in an accident. I'd much rather be in a Suburban than in an
>> Accord...
>>
>
>Only because you are more likely to be hit by a Suburban than an Accord...
Huh? Data please.
>There is a vehicular arms race going on, where we need to build bigger
>trucks because everyone else has them... and we need the truck so when the
>other trucks lose control, we have a chance at survival...
>
>Well, guess what... SUVs are death traps...
Again, a claim without any substance. I'd like to see some data (not
opinions)--and not just on one model, because I can counter with *a*
particular sedan that is a death trap. And spare us the FUD about
turning over, because that is nothing more than FUD. Only a couple of
models *might* have that problem and it that is because of poor
engineering, not the nature of the beast.
>And I have no problem with
>that... People should be allowed to drive and die in whatever they wish, but
>they sure as hell better not whine when gas prices tick up a notch...
I don't drive an SUV, and I have never complained about gas prices.
In fact, I have always said the reverse--that gas prices are extremely
low when you adjust for inflation and other factors.
>They also had better not whine about 'blood for oil' or whatever, because
>they are the reason that the US is looking to ANWR for oil...
--Bernie
| |
| Bruce Johnston 2003-02-11, 9:24 pm |
| Accord was the number one car in america to get stolen for years. I think
there are more of them out there then SUV's. Yes SUV's are higher off the
ground, if you are worried about that you could get an Humvie. I had an Old
International Travelall. It was low to the ground and very heavy, made like
tank. People always used to tell me if I hit anybody with it that they would
get killed. Kind of like drivng a tank down the highway. They don't make um
like they used to. I used it for construction, but it did offer good
protection in a headon, a sideon, or even a rear ender! I would put that
puppy up against today's SUV's any day!
Bruce
----------------------
"Jonathan" <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aqh2a.1321863$w57.213720@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news:28D1444CF2DCFF91.245BA4DE6262F4FA.5158DCE49A57D339@lp.airnews.net...
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:19:20 GMT, "Jonathan"
> > <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
> > > news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
> > >> It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties there
> > >> will be.
> > >
> > >I don't think casualties really effect Wall Street... we need to have a
> > >short victorious war... simple.
> > >
> > >> The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
> > >> be.
> > >>
> > >
> > >I agree...
> > >
> > >If this a standard six-weeker... we will be in very good shape...
> > >
> > >> We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil production,
if[co
lor=darkred]
> > >> the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's getting
> > >> 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
> > >>
> > >
> > >XXXX them. They made a choice to drive those death traps... let em pay.
> >
> > Most are not death traps. I'm not sure where you are getting this.
> > If I were in an accident. I'd much rather be in a Suburban than in an
> > Accord...
> >
>
> Only because you are more likely to be hit by a Suburban than an Accord...
>
> There is a vehicular arms race going on, where we need to build bigger
> trucks because everyone else has them... and we need the truck so when the
> other trucks lose control, we have a chance at survival...
>
> Well, guess what... SUVs are death traps... And I have no problem with
> that... People should be allowed to drive and die in whatever they wish,[/color]
but
> they sure as hell better not whine when gas prices tick up a notch...
>
> They also had better not whine about 'blood for oil' or whatever, because
> they are the reason that the US is looking to ANWR for oil...
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> >
> > --Bernie
>
>
| |
| Bernie 2003-02-11, 10:23 pm |
| On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:03:47 -0800, "Bruce Johnston"
<riposa@sierratel.com> wrote:
>Accord was the number one car in america to get stolen for years. I think
>there are more of them out there then SUV's.
That is why sheer numbers are unimportant. Murder rates are measured
per capita. What is important is the percentage of event X correlated
with ownership of vehicle Y, or vehicle type Z.
>Yes SUV's are higher off the
>ground, if you are worried about that you could get an Humvie. I had an Old
>International Travelall. It was low to the ground and very heavy, made like
>tank.
Those things are coooooool. I have seen only one in my lifetime, but
I never knew anybody that owned one. I drove an IH Scout II for a
number of years. Eventually I got tired of the repair bills for
odd-ball stuff. In the end, it seems that I had an electrical problem
that no IH expert could figure out. I loved the car, hated everything
else about owning it, lol.
>People always used to tell me if I hit anybody with it that they would
>get killed. Kind of like drivng a tank down the highway. They don't make um
>like they used to. I used it for construction, but it did offer good
>protection in a headon, a sideon, or even a rear ender! I would put that
>puppy up against today's SUV's any day!
I know exactly what you mean!
--Bernie
| |
| Hansang Bae 2003-02-11, 10:24 pm |
| In article <3e49b8e8$1@news.sti.net>, riposa@sierratel.com says...
> Accord was the number one car in america to get stolen for years. I think
> there are more of them out there then SUV's. Yes SUV's are higher off the
> ground, if you are worried about that you could get an Humvie. I had an Old
> International Travelall. It was low to the ground and very heavy, made like
> tank. People always used to tell me if I hit anybody with it that they would
> get killed. Kind of like drivng a tank down the highway. They don't make um
> like they used to. I used it for construction, but it did offer good
> protection in a headon, a sideon, or even a rear ender! I would put that
> puppy up against today's SUV's any day!
You didn't pay attention to during your physics class! Rigid cars are
more dangerous because the force of the impact is transferred to your
body when you impact something. If you have a pliable car (crumple
zone) it will soak up the energy. If you run into a wall with a metal
pipe to your chest, what happens? If you do the same with a foam pipe,
what happens? Same idea.
Of course, it assumes that the crumple zone is large enough that *you*
don't end up in the crumple zone.
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Bernie 2003-02-11, 10:24 pm |
| On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 04:02:34 GMT, Hansang Bae <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote:
>In article <3e49b8e8$1@news.sti.net>, riposa@sierratel.com says...
>> Accord was the number one car in america to get stolen for years. I think
>> there are more of them out there then SUV's. Yes SUV's are higher off the
>> ground, if you are worried about that you could get an Humvie. I had an Old
>> International Travelall. It was low to the ground and very heavy, made like
>> tank. People always used to tell me if I hit anybody with it that they would
>> get killed. Kind of like drivng a tank down the highway. They don't make um
>> like they used to. I used it for construction, but it did offer good
>> protection in a headon, a sideon, or even a rear ender! I would put that
>> puppy up against today's SUV's any day!
>
>
>You didn't pay attention to during your physics class! Rigid cars are
>more dangerous because the force of the impact is transferred to your
>body when you impact something. If you have a pliable car (crumple
>zone) it will soak up the energy. If you run into a wall with a metal
>pipe to your chest, what happens? If you do the same with a foam pipe,
>what happens? Same idea.
Yeah, but if the wall gets knocked down by the tank, no harm <g>.
--Bernie
| |
| Hansang Bae 2003-02-11, 11:23 pm |
| In article <5D42D36193C02796.D1A6D0E8322386C4.93E5948633DB8782
@lp.airnews.net>, Bernie@weekend.com says...
> Yeah, but if the wall gets knocked down by the tank, no harm <g>.
You gotta point there!  I remember driving a M60A3 tank once. I came
up on a pretty thick tree and was looking for a way to maneuver around
it. Being a grunt (or 'crunchie' as tankers call us), I tried to go
around the tree. That's when the tank commander shouted out "shit sir,
you're in 60 tons of rolled homogenous steel! Just run it over"
Green peace may not like it, but it's kinda neat just running over
stuff! <G>
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Bruce Johnston 2003-02-11, 11:23 pm |
| Hansang? If I get into a headon driving my International Travelall against a
Accord, which driver will end up with smashed lower extremities? Also, let
me ask you? Which vehicle would you rather be in during a crash? My tank or
your Accord?
Talking about high speed impact?
BTW, I saw a guy in an accord one time on the driver side just after it
happened. It wasn't pretty. I was surprised at how easy the shell crumpled
on the driver side. The hull, or shell of an Travelall is extremely thick,
unlike the coke can thin shells of cars today. Also Travelall had chassis
runners underneath like no other, they look like 6X6 square steel beams. Two
of them. It kind of like a battering ram placed under the engine. When I
asked mechanics at the shop about it, they were scared shitless about it in
the sense that they thought that you would obviously kill anything on the
road with it, when compared to vehicles of the same size, and surely
anything smaller.
In my travelall, I can't even feel the biggest bumps or ruts in the road.
thanks,
Bruce
--------------------------------
"Hansang Bae" <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
news:MPG.18b39274c55907f39897d2@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <3e49b8e8$1@news.sti.net>, riposa@sierratel.com says...
> > Accord was the number one car in america to get stolen for years. I
think
> > there are more of them out there then SUV's. Yes SUV's are higher off
the
> > ground, if you are worried about that you could get an Humvie. I had an
Old
> > International Travelall. It was low to the ground and very heavy, made
like
> > tank. People always used to tell me if I hit anybody with it that they
would
> > get killed. Kind of like drivng a tank down the highway. They don't make
um
> > like they used to. I used it for construction, but it did offer good
> > protection in a headon, a sideon, or even a rear ender! I would put that
> > puppy up against today's SUV's any day!
>
>
> You didn't pay attention to during your physics class! Rigid cars are
> more dangerous because the force of the impact is transferred to your
> body when you impact something. If you have a pliable car (crumple
> zone) it will soak up the energy. If you run into a wall with a metal
> pipe to your chest, what happens? If you do the same with a foam pipe,
> what happens? Same idea.
>
> Of course, it assumes that the crumple zone is large enough that *you*
> don't end up in the crumple zone.
>
> --
>
> hsb
>
> "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
> *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
> ******************************
******************************
********
> Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
> reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
> ******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Bruce Johnston 2003-02-11, 11:23 pm |
| I thought mine was cool! I spend 10K on it, cherried out, nice. Same problem
with parts. After Fresno parts closed the shop, I had to get my parts from
Colorado. Seems that since they quit making parts for International, a guy
in Colorado starting making and stocking new and used parts. He had
everything I needed, but I got tired of the 10 to 15 miles per gallon when
the price went up for gas. After I sold it, I wished I hadn't. The V-8 on
those things seem to run forever with very little tuneups.
Bruce
-----------------
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:2582D90903D96100.93A932A5BD2036F7.2E7E722C541292B1@lp.airnews.net...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:03:47 -0800, "Bruce Johnston"
> <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote:
>
> >Accord was the number one car in america to get stolen for years. I think
> >there are more of them out there then SUV's.
>
> That is why sheer numbers are unimportant. Murder rates are measured
> per capita. What is important is the percentage of event X correlated
> with ownership of vehicle Y, or vehicle type Z.
>
> >Yes SUV's are higher off the
> >ground, if you are worried about that you could get an Humvie. I had an
Old
> >International Travelall. It was low to the ground and very heavy, made
like
> >tank.
>
> Those things are coooooool. I have seen only one in my lifetime, but
> I never knew anybody that owned one. I drove an IH Scout II for a
> number of years. Eventually I got tired of the repair bills for
> odd-ball stuff. In the end, it seems that I had an electrical problem
> that no IH expert could figure out. I loved the car, hated everything
> else about owning it, lol.
>
> >People always used to tell me if I hit anybody with it that they would
> >get killed. Kind of like drivng a tank down the highway. They don't make
um
> >like they used to. I used it for construction, but it did offer good
> >protection in a headon, a sideon, or even a rear ender! I would put that
> >puppy up against today's SUV's any day!
>
> I know exactly what you mean!
>
>
> --Bernie
| |
| Jonathan 2003-02-11, 11:24 pm |
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:50452DFBDA374FFC.549B0CC194569F04.001FA29FEB90598E@lp.airnews.net...
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:27:34 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> >news:28D1444CF2DCFF91.245BA4DE6262F4FA.5158DCE49A57D339@lp.airnews.net...
> >> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:19:20 GMT, "Jonathan"
> >> <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
> >> >> It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties there
> >> >> will be.
> >> >
> >> >I don't think casualties really effect Wall Street... we need to have
a[col
or=darkred]
> >> >short victorious war... simple.
> >> >
> >> >> The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
> >> >> be.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I agree...
> >> >
> >> >If this a standard six-weeker... we will be in very good shape...
> >> >
> >> >> We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil production,[/color]
if[co
lor=darkred]
> >> >> the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's getting
> >> >> 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >XXXX them. They made a choice to drive those death traps... let em[/color]
pay. [colo
r=darkred]
> >>
> >> Most are not death traps. I'm not sure where you are getting this.
> >> If I were in an accident. I'd much rather be in a Suburban than in an
> >> Accord...
> >>
> >
> >Only because you are more likely to be hit by a Suburban than an[/color]
Accord...
>
> Huh? Data please.
>
Starting in 1998, SUVs comprised the top 4 models sold in the US, with the
Camry, Accord and Taurus following... It stands to reason that if there are
more SUVs being sold, then the odds are your next accident will be with an
SUV.
My household has had two accidents in the last 4 years, A Jeep Grand
Cherokee backed out of a parking space and T-boned my Prelude (and then
claimed it was my fault...), my wife was rearended by a Nissan Pathfinder
while at a left turn signal.
> >There is a vehicular arms race going on, where we need to build bigger
> >trucks because everyone else has them... and we need the truck so when
the
> >other trucks lose control, we have a chance at survival...
> >
> >Well, guess what... SUVs are death traps...
>
> Again, a claim without any substance. I'd like to see some data (not
> opinions)--and not just on one model, because I can counter with *a*
> particular sedan that is a death trap.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000...ain235030.shtml
> And spare us the FUD about
> turning over, because that is nothing more than FUD.
The Brono II, Ford knew it had a great tendency to roll over and did
nothing.
The Explorer, Ford knew it had a tendency to roll, yet blamed Firestone
instead (the same model of tire that Ford put on the Explorer worked
flawlessly on other models)
Ford is the one SUV maker with the worst record for safety (in every
category, not just rollovers... remember these are the guys who did
cost-benefit-calculus back in the 1970s and determined it was cheaper to
settle court cases than to fix the problem).
> Only a couple of
> models *might* have that problem and it that is because of poor
> engineering, not the nature of the beast.
>
I spent 10 years in the US Army, and I know exactly what the nature of the
beast is... to drive slow on rough terrain, and SUVs are amazing at that (I
personally, wouldn't trade a HummVee for anything in the world out in the
mud), but get them on a highway and put some speed under them, and you find
out why the Army got rid of the Jeep... it was killing too many soldiers in
rollovers.
> >And I have no problem with
> >that... People should be allowed to drive and die in whatever they wish,
but
> >they sure as hell better not whine when gas prices tick up a notch...
>
> I don't drive an SUV, and I have never complained about gas prices.
I drive a Prelude and a Maxima... And I think Gas Prices would still be
cheap at $2.50 a gallon... (We are (adjusted for inflation) paying less for
gas now than we were 20 years ago...)
> In fact, I have always said the reverse--that gas prices are extremely
> low when you adjust for inflation and other factors.
>
Our economy is very energy dependent, reising fuel prices would hurt our
economy, but cheap gas is why SUVs are everywhere... go to a mall parking
lot, take a look... there are more light trucks than cars...
> >They also had better not whine about 'blood for oil' or whatever, because
> >they are the reason that the US is looking to ANWR for oil...
>
> --Bernie
| |
| Bruce Johnston 2003-02-12, 12:24 am |
| HummVee seems to be a wide vehicle when I have seen them, and that makes me
think that they wouldn't roll over very easy. They don't seem to be all that
high up off the ground either, but maybe since they are wider I don't
percieve them as being higher either. The clearence underneath seems
excellent though for not being that high.
Bruce
------------------------------
"Jonathan" <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kOk2a.864173$TJ.119149@post-02.news.easynews.com...
>
> "Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news:50452DFBDA374FFC.549B0CC194569F04.001FA29FEB90598E@lp.airnews.net...
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:27:34 GMT, "Jonathan"
> > <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> >
>news:28D1444CF2DCFF91.245BA4DE6262F4FA.5158DCE49A57D339@lp.airnews.net...
> > >> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:19:20 GMT, "Jonathan"
> > >> <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
> > >> > news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
> > >> >> It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties
there
> > >> >> will be.
> > >> >
> > >> >I don't think casualties really effect Wall Street... we need to
have
> a
> > >> >short victorious war... simple.
> > >> >
> > >> >> The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
> > >> >> be.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >I agree...
> > >> >
> > >> >If this a standard six-weeker... we will be in very good shape...
> > >> >
> > >> >> We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil
production,
> if
> > >> >> the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's
getting
> > >> >> 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >XXXX them. They made a choice to drive those death traps... let em
> pay.
> > >>
> > >> Most are not death traps. I'm not sure where you are getting this.
> > >> If I were in an accident. I'd much rather be in a Suburban than in an
> > >> Accord...
> > >>
> > >
> > >Only because you are more likely to be hit by a Suburban than an
> Accord...
> >
> > Huh? Data please.
> >
>
> Starting in 1998, SUVs comprised the top 4 models sold in the US, with the
> Camry, Accord and Taurus following... It stands to reason that if there
are
> more SUVs being sold, then the odds are your next accident will be with an
> SUV.
>
> My household has had two accidents in the last 4 years, A Jeep Grand
> Cherokee backed out of a parking space and T-boned my Prelude (and then
> claimed it was my fault...), my wife was rearended by a Nissan Pathfinder
> while at a left turn signal.
>
> > >There is a vehicular arms race going on, where we need to build bigger
> > >trucks because everyone else has them... and we need the truck so when
> the
> > >other trucks lose control, we have a chance at survival...
> > >
> > >Well, guess what... SUVs are death traps...
> >
> > Again, a claim without any substance. I'd like to see some data (not
> > opinions)--and not just on one model, because I can counter with *a*
> > particular sedan that is a death trap.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000...ain235030.shtml
>
>
> > And spare us the FUD about
> > turning over, because that is nothing more than FUD.
>
> The Brono II, Ford knew it had a great tendency to roll over and did
> nothing.
> The Explorer, Ford knew it had a tendency to roll, yet blamed Firestone
> instead (the same model of tire that Ford put on the Explorer worked
> flawlessly on other models)
>
> Ford is the one SUV maker with the worst record for safety (in every
> category, not just rollovers... remember these are the guys who did
> cost-benefit-calculus back in the 1970s and determined it was cheaper to
> settle court cases than to fix the problem).
>
> > Only a couple of
> > models *might* have that problem and it that is because of poor
> > engineering, not the nature of the beast.
> >
>
> I spent 10 years in the US Army, and I know exactly what the nature of the
> beast is... to drive slow on rough terrain, and SUVs are amazing at that
(I
> personally, wouldn't trade a HummVee for anything in the world out in the
> mud), but get them on a highway and put some speed under them, and you
find
> out why the Army got rid of the Jeep... it was killing too many soldiers
in
> rollovers.
>
> > >And I have no problem with
> > >that... People should be allowed to drive and die in whatever they
wish,
> but
> > >they sure as hell better not whine when gas prices tick up a notch...
> >
> > I don't drive an SUV, and I have never complained about gas prices.
>
> I drive a Prelude and a Maxima... And I think Gas Prices would still be
> cheap at $2.50 a gallon... (We are (adjusted for inflation) paying less
for
> gas now than we were 20 years ago...)
>
>
> > In fact, I have always said the reverse--that gas prices are extremely
> > low when you adjust for inflation and other factors.
> >
>
> Our economy is very energy dependent, reising fuel prices would hurt our
> economy, but cheap gas is why SUVs are everywhere... go to a mall parking
> lot, take a look... there are more light trucks than cars...
>
> > >They also had better not whine about 'blood for oil' or whatever,
because
> > >they are the reason that the US is looking to ANWR for oil...
> >
> > --Bernie
>
>
| |
| Jonathan 2003-02-12, 12:24 am |
|
"Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
news:3e49e17d@news.sti.net...
> HummVee seems to be a wide vehicle when I have seen them, and that makes
me
> think that they wouldn't roll over very easy. They don't seem to be all
that
> high up off the ground either, but maybe since they are wider I don't
> percieve them as being higher either. The clearence underneath seems
> excellent though for not being that high.
>
Their wideness is exactly why the Army picked em... too many troops were
dying in Jeeps...
However, I have rolled a HummVee over on its back and back onto its
wheels... That roll bar saved my XXX...
Jonathan
(BTW, to avoid putting a HumVee on its back, heed the 60 degree lateral
grade warning... I hit a bump at speed at an angle and flipped it right
over... broke the side mirrors, but was ok...)
> Bruce
> ------------------------------
> "Jonathan" <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kOk2a.864173$TJ.119149@post-02.news.easynews.com...
> >
> > "Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> >
news:50452DFBDA374FFC.549B0CC194569F04.001FA29FEB90598E@lp.airnews.net... [colo
r=darkred]
> > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:27:34 GMT, "Jonathan"
> > > <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> > >
> >news:28D1444CF2DCFF91.245BA4DE6262F4FA.5158DCE49A57D339@lp.airnews.net...
> > > >> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:19:20 GMT, "Jonathan"
> > > >> <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
> > > >> > news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
> > > >> >> It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties
> there
> > > >> >> will be.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I don't think casualties really effect Wall Street... we need to
> have
> > a
> > > >> >short victorious war... simple.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
> > > >> >> be.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I agree...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >If this a standard six-weeker... we will be in very good shape...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil
> production,
> > if
> > > >> >> the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's
> getting
> > > >> >> 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >XXXX them. They made a choice to drive those death traps... let em
> > pay.
> > > >>
> > > >> Most are not death traps. I'm not sure where you are getting this.
> > > >> If I were in an accident. I'd much rather be in a Suburban than in[/color]
an[co
lor=darkred]
> > > >> Accord...
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Only because you are more likely to be hit by a Suburban than an
> > Accord...
> > >
> > > Huh? Data please.
> > >
> >
> > Starting in 1998, SUVs comprised the top 4 models sold in the US, with[/color]
the
> > Camry, Accord and Taurus following... It stands to reason that if there
> are
> > more SUVs being sold, then the odds are your next accident will be with
an
> > SUV.
> >
> > My household has had two accidents in the last 4 years, A Jeep Grand
> > Cherokee backed out of a parking space and T-boned my Prelude (and then
> > claimed it was my fault...), my wife was rearended by a Nissan
Pathfinder
> > while at a left turn signal.
> >
> > > >There is a vehicular arms race going on, where we need to build
bigger
> > > >trucks because everyone else has them... and we need the truck so
when
> > the
> > > >other trucks lose control, we have a chance at survival...
> > > >
> > > >Well, guess what... SUVs are death traps...
> > >
> > > Again, a claim without any substance. I'd like to see some data (not
> > > opinions)--and not just on one model, because I can counter with *a*
> > > particular sedan that is a death trap.
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000...ain235030.shtml
> >
> >
> > > And spare us the FUD about
> > > turning over, because that is nothing more than FUD.
> >
> > The Brono II, Ford knew it had a great tendency to roll over and did
> > nothing.
> > The Explorer, Ford knew it had a tendency to roll, yet blamed Firestone
> > instead (the same model of tire that Ford put on the Explorer worked
> > flawlessly on other models)
> >
> > Ford is the one SUV maker with the worst record for safety (in every
> > category, not just rollovers... remember these are the guys who did
> > cost-benefit-calculus back in the 1970s and determined it was cheaper to
> > settle court cases than to fix the problem).
> >
> > > Only a couple of
> > > models *might* have that problem and it that is because of poor
> > > engineering, not the nature of the beast.
> > >
> >
> > I spent 10 years in the US Army, and I know exactly what the nature of
the
> > beast is... to drive slow on rough terrain, and SUVs are amazing at that
> (I
> > personally, wouldn't trade a HummVee for anything in the world out in
the
> > mud), but get them on a highway and put some speed under them, and you
> find
> > out why the Army got rid of the Jeep... it was killing too many soldiers
> in
> > rollovers.
> >
> > > >And I have no problem with
> > > >that... People should be allowed to drive and die in whatever they
> wish,
> > but
> > > >they sure as hell better not whine when gas prices tick up a notch...
> > >
> > > I don't drive an SUV, and I have never complained about gas prices.
> >
> > I drive a Prelude and a Maxima... And I think Gas Prices would still be
> > cheap at $2.50 a gallon... (We are (adjusted for inflation) paying less
> for
> > gas now than we were 20 years ago...)
> >
> >
> > > In fact, I have always said the reverse--that gas prices are extremely
> > > low when you adjust for inflation and other factors.
> > >
> >
> > Our economy is very energy dependent, reising fuel prices would hurt our
> > economy, but cheap gas is why SUVs are everywhere... go to a mall
parking
> > lot, take a look... there are more light trucks than cars...
> >
> > > >They also had better not whine about 'blood for oil' or whatever,
> because
> > > >they are the reason that the US is looking to ANWR for oil...
> > >
> > > --Bernie
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| Jonathan 2003-02-12, 12:24 am |
|
"Hansang Bae" <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
news:MPG.18b39274c55907f39897d2@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <3e49b8e8$1@news.sti.net>, riposa@sierratel.com says...
> > Accord was the number one car in america to get stolen for years. I
think
> > there are more of them out there then SUV's. Yes SUV's are higher off
the
> > ground, if you are worried about that you could get an Humvie. I had an
Old
> > International Travelall. It was low to the ground and very heavy, made
like
> > tank. People always used to tell me if I hit anybody with it that they
would
> > get killed. Kind of like drivng a tank down the highway. They don't make
um
> > like they used to. I used it for construction, but it did offer good
> > protection in a headon, a sideon, or even a rear ender! I would put that
> > puppy up against today's SUV's any day!
>
>
> You didn't pay attention to during your physics class! Rigid cars are
> more dangerous because the force of the impact is transferred to your
> body when you impact something. If you have a pliable car (crumple
> zone) it will soak up the energy. If you run into a wall with a metal
> pipe to your chest, what happens? If you do the same with a foam pipe,
> what happens? Same idea.
>
That's one of the big probs with the HumVee, no crumple zones, you take the
full G-force of the impact, and it only takes about 35 Gs to get your soft
squishy inards to dismount from their hardpoints...
> Of course, it assumes that the crumple zone is large enough that *you*
> don't end up in the crumple zone.
>
> --
>
> hsb
>
> "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
> *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
> ******************************
******************************
********
> Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
> reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
> ******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Jonathan 2003-02-12, 12:24 am |
|
"Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
news:3e49d5cf$1@news.sti.net...
> Hansang? If I get into a headon driving my International Travelall against
a
> Accord, which driver will end up with smashed lower extremities?
The Accord driver...
Which one will have life threatening internal injuries? You will.
> Also, let
> me ask you? Which vehicle would you rather be in during a crash? My tank
or
> your Accord?
>
The Accord.
Why?
Because the Accord was designed for safety, your tank was not... just
relying on sheer mass to save you... instead of crumple zones, airbags,
three-point belts, telescopic steering, padding, and a reinforced passenger
cage... I doubt your Travelall has any of these features.
>
>
> Talking about high speed impact?
>
>
>
> BTW, I saw a guy in an accord one time on the driver side just after it
> happened. It wasn't pretty. I was surprised at how easy the shell crumpled
> on the driver side. The hull, or shell of an Travelall is extremely thick,
> unlike the coke can thin shells of cars today. Also Travelall had chassis
> runners underneath like no other, they look like 6X6 square steel beams.
Two
> of them. It kind of like a battering ram placed under the engine. When I
> asked mechanics at the shop about it, they were scared shitless about it
in
> the sense that they thought that you would obviously kill anything on the
> road with it, when compared to vehicles of the same size, and surely
> anything smaller.
>
>
>
> In my travelall, I can't even feel the biggest bumps or ruts in the road.
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Bruce
>
> --------------------------------
>
> "Hansang Bae" <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.18b39274c55907f39897d2@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> > In article <3e49b8e8$1@news.sti.net>, riposa@sierratel.com says...
> > > Accord was the number one car in america to get stolen for years. I
> think
> > > there are more of them out there then SUV's. Yes SUV's are higher off
> the
> > > ground, if you are worried about that you could get an Humvie. I had
an
> Old
> > > International Travelall. It was low to the ground and very heavy, made
> like
> > > tank. People always used to tell me if I hit anybody with it that they
> would
> > > get killed. Kind of like drivng a tank down the highway. They don't
make
> um
> > > like they used to. I used it for construction, but it did offer good
> > > protection in a headon, a sideon, or even a rear ender! I would put
that[
color=darkred]
> > > puppy up against today's SUV's any day!
> >
> >
> > You didn't pay attention to during your physics class! Rigid cars are
> > more dangerous because the force of the impact is transferred to your
> > body when you impact something. If you have a pliable car (crumple
> > zone) it will soak up the energy. If you run into a wall with a metal
> > pipe to your chest, what happens? If you do the same with a foam pipe,
> > what happens? Same idea.
> >
> > Of course, it assumes that the crumple zone is large enough that *you*
> > don't end up in the crumple zone.
> >
> > --
> >
> > hsb
> >
> > "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
> > *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
> > ******************************
******************************
********
> > Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
> > reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
> > ******************************
******************************
********
>
>[/color]
| |
| Bernie 2003-02-12, 1:23 am |
| On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 05:18:08 GMT, "Jonathan"
<jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
>news:50452DFBDA374FFC.549B0CC194569F04.001FA29FEB90598E@lp.airnews.net...
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:27:34 GMT, "Jonathan"
>> <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
>> >news:28D1444CF2DCFF91.245BA4DE6262F4FA.5158DCE49A57D339@lp.airnews.net...
>> >> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:19:20 GMT, "Jonathan"
>> >> <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"jeff s" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:edhb4vokb26g7vsc0iih3sk48
m393k0gje@4ax.com...
>> >> >> It will depend on how long the war is and how many casualties there
>> >> >> will be.
>> >> >
>> >> >I don't think casualties really effect Wall Street... we need to have
>a
>> >> >short victorious war... simple.
>> >> >
>> >> >> The longer it takes to win the worse for the economy it will
>> >> >> be.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I agree...
>> >> >
>> >> >If this a standard six-weeker... we will be in very good shape...
>> >> >
>> >> >> We also need to be mindful of what happens with the oil production,
> if
>> >> >> the prices go up too much all the people who drive the SUV's getting
>> >> >> 10 - 15 mpg will be hurting, if the prices stay high.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >XXXX them. They made a choice to drive those death traps... let em
>pay.
>> >>
>> >> Most are not death traps. I'm not sure where you are getting this.
>> >> If I were in an accident. I'd much rather be in a Suburban than in an
>> >> Accord...
>> >>
>> >
>> >Only because you are more likely to be hit by a Suburban than an
>Accord...
>>
>> Huh? Data please.
>>
>
>Starting in 1998, SUVs comprised the top 4 models sold in the US, with the
>Camry, Accord and Taurus following... It stands to reason that if there are
>more SUVs being sold, then the odds are your next accident will be with an
>SUV.
You said Suburban, and then changed it to SUV. But this is a strange
twist you put on my original comment that "I'd rather be in a Suburban
than an Accord." You then said I would be more likely to be hit by a
Suburban than an Accord and follow up with a fact about SUVs in
general being popular. You aren't even making sense.
>My household has had two accidents in the last 4 years, A Jeep Grand
>Cherokee backed out of a parking space and T-boned my Prelude (and then
>claimed it was my fault...), my wife was rearended by a Nissan Pathfinder
>while at a left turn signal.
And that makes it a death trap? I don't doubt you hate SUVs, but you
claimed they were a death trap. And I take that to mean that you
believe them to be less safe to their driver than other types of
vehicles.
[colo
r=darkred]
>> >There is a vehicular arms race going on, where we need to build bigger
>> >trucks because everyone else has them... and we need the truck so when
> the
>> >other trucks lose control, we have a chance at survival...
>> >
>> >Well, guess what... SUVs are death traps...
>>
>> Again, a claim without any substance. I'd like to see some data (not
>> opinions)--and not just on one model, because I can counter with *a*
>> particular sedan that is a death trap.
>
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/[/color]
Opinions and some data that is not even put in context. To quote,
"People in SUVs die just as often as people in cars; they just die
differently." That is a *far* cry from saying that you are more
likely to die in an SUV than another car...
>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000...ain235030.shtml
Clearly does not put any of the data into context as a comparison to
*other* cars. How am I to interpret the number of SUV rollover deaths
when I don't know how many sedan deaths occur? It is meaningless to
cite the number of deaths of one type of car in order to prove that
that car is less safe than another. You need to know how many die in
each kind of car and then relate that to a percentage based on the
total number of those cars on the road. That is how you compare which
car is more of a death trap than the other. And that is something you
haven't done. I haven't seen a study on that either. I don't think
we will see one because the data would show that you are statistically
less likely to die in an SUV (maybe not by much), and we all know that
the media and government don't want to give us more reason to buy
bigger vehicles--they want us to buy smaller.
>> And spare us the FUD about
>> turning over, because that is nothing more than FUD.
>
>The Brono II, Ford knew it had a great tendency to roll over and did
>nothing.
>The Explorer, Ford knew it had a tendency to roll, yet blamed Firestone
>instead (the same model of tire that Ford put on the Explorer worked
>flawlessly on other models)
This also begs the question of driver or car? I've seen some
18-wheelers driving very unsafely. Some drivers jack-knife and turn
over. But is that the truck or the driver not knowing the safety
parameters of his vehicle? That is a hard question to answer.
Clearly a car that sits up higher on the road is more likely to flip.
But that means that you have to drive with that in mind, not take
turns as fast, etc. If I am driving a motorcycle, I also have to keep
in mind that I am difficult for other drivers to see. If I forget
that, I am likely to get killed by another car. That is just part of
being a responsible driver. I admit that you are *more* likely to
rollover in an SUV if you were to drive at the same speeds as other
cars on the same roads. But at the same time, I also know that one
can almost completely avoid any risk of rolling over if they simply
drive accordingly (take turns a little slower, etc). And that is why
I believe the rollover thing is more FUD than anything--this is the
whole "guns kill people" argument all over again.
Cars don't rollover by themselves. And rollovers are just part of the
picture. You called them a deathtrap. That implies that you are more
likely to die in an SUV. But you have not established that. Saying
that you are more likely to rollover and die in an SUV also does not
establish that you are more likely to die (period) in an SUV either.
It establishes that a higher percentage of deaths in SUVs are due to
rollovers. The article above put it perfectly: you just die of
different causes in an SUV. It does not comment on the fact that a
higher percentage of deaths in other models of cars are due to things
other than rollovers.
>Ford is the one SUV maker with the worst record for safety (in every
>category, not just rollovers... remember these are the guys who did
>cost-benefit-calculus back in the 1970s and determined it was cheaper to
>settle court cases than to fix the problem).
This is all nice to know, but it clearly does not compare
categorically SUVs to other types of cars. I don't defend Ford, but
this is hardly conclusive of "SUVs are deathtraps." I watch enough
evening news to see various crash test results and I have seen a
number of non-SUVs essentially rated in the same way...as deathtraps
that the manufacturer could easily do something about.
>> Only a couple of
>> models *might* have that problem and it that is because of poor
>> engineering, not the nature of the beast.
>>
>
>I spent 10 years in the US Army, and I know exactly what the nature of the
>beast is... to drive slow on rough terrain, and SUVs are amazing at that (I
>personally, wouldn't trade a HummVee for anything in the world out in the
>mud), but get them on a highway and put some speed under them, and you find
>out why the Army got rid of the Jeep... it was killing too many soldiers in
>rollovers.
Right, and it appears that you are making the case that the driver is
also responsible for driving in a safe manner given the nature of the
car. You drive slower and more cautiously because it is bigger. That
is common sense. I don't recall any SUV maker promoting that you can
drive their vehicle as if it were a sportscar and remain safe.
But this still does not resolve whether you are more likely to die in
an SUV or not.
--Bernie
| |
| Bruce Johnston 2003-02-12, 1:23 am |
| Yeah, but the Accord driver might die, and I might live. I would still pick
my tank. There are other factors. Have you ever seen the space in the front
bench seat of a travelall. If you move the seat all the way back which I do,
being a 6 footer with long legs. There is quite a bit of room between my
chest and the steering wheel and plenty of space where my legs reach to the
pedals. Also shoulder belts work quite well and I had a thick padded piece
on the belt that covers my chest. Another factor is age. Are we talking
about the innards of a 70 year old man or a young strong person that is very
fit. I am middle age and lift weight, do situps and go on 60 mile bicycle
rides. Since more then likely the only impact I will have is my belts, body
muscles and fitness comes into play.
Bruce
----------------------------------
"Jonathan" <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gHl2a.1339624$w57.216479@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
> news:3e49d5cf$1@news.sti.net...
> > Hansang? If I get into a headon driving my International Travelall
against
> a
> > Accord, which driver will end up with smashed lower extremities?
>
> The Accord driver...
>
> Which one will have life threatening internal injuries? You will.
>
> > Also, let
> > me ask you? Which vehicle would you rather be in during a crash? My tank
> or
> > your Accord?
> >
>
> The Accord.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the Accord was designed for safety, your tank was not... just
> relying on sheer mass to save you... instead of crumple zones, airbags,
> three-point belts, telescopic steering, padding, and a reinforced
passenger
> cage... I doubt your Travelall has any of these features.
>
> >
> >
> > Talking about high speed impact?
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW, I saw a guy in an accord one time on the driver side just after it
> > happened. It wasn't pretty. I was surprised at how easy the shell
crumpled
> > on the driver side. The hull, or shell of an Travelall is extremely
thick,
> > unlike the coke can thin shells of cars today. Also Travelall had
chassis
> > runners underneath like no other, they look like 6X6 square steel beams.
> Two
> > of them. It kind of like a battering ram placed under the engine. When I
> > asked mechanics at the shop about it, they were scared shitless about it
> in
> > the sense that they thought that you would obviously kill anything on
the
> > road with it, when compared to vehicles of the same size, and surely
> > anything smaller.
> >
> >
> >
> > In my travelall, I can't even feel the biggest bumps or ruts in the
road.
> >
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > "Hansang Bae" <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.18b39274c55907f39897d2@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> > > In article <3e49b8e8$1@news.sti.net>, riposa@sierratel.com says...
> > > > Accord was the number one car in america to get stolen for years. I
> > think
> > > > there are more of them out there then SUV's. Yes SUV's are higher
off
> > the
> > > > ground, if you are worried about that you could get an Humvie. I had
> an
> > Old
> > > > International Travelall. It was low to the ground and very heavy,
made
> > like
> > > > tank. People always used to tell me if I hit anybody with it that
they
> > would
> > > > get killed. Kind of like drivng a tank down the highway. They don't
> make
> > um
> > > > like they used to. I used it for construction, but it did offer good
> > > > protection in a headon, a sideon, or even a rear ender! I would put
> that
> > > > puppy up against today's SUV's any day!
> > >
> > >
> > > You didn't pay attention to during your physics class! Rigid cars are
> > > more dangerous because the force of the impact is transferred to your
> > > body when you impact something. If you have a pliable car (crumple
> > > zone) it will soak up the energy. If you run into a wall with a
metal
> > > pipe to your chest, what happens? If you do the same with a foam
pipe,
> > > what happens? Same idea.
> > >
> > > Of course, it assumes that the crumple zone is large enough that *you*
> > > don't end up in the crumple zone.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > hsb
> > >
> > > "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
> > > *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
> > > ******************************
******************************
********
> > > Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
> > > reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
> > > ******************************
******************************
********
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| Bernie 2003-02-12, 2:24 am |
| On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:07:49 -0800, "Bruce Johnston"
<riposa@sierratel.com> wrote:
>Yeah, but the Accord driver might die, and I might live. I would still pick
>my tank. There are other factors. Have you ever seen the space in the front
>bench seat of a travelall. If you move the seat all the way back which I do,
>being a 6 footer with long legs. There is quite a bit of room between my
>chest and the steering wheel and plenty of space where my legs reach to the
>pedals. Also shoulder belts work quite well and I had a thick padded piece
>on the belt that covers my chest. Another factor is age. Are we talking
>about the innards of a 70 year old man or a young strong person that is very
>fit. I am middle age and lift weight, do situps and go on 60 mile bicycle
>rides. Since more then likely the only impact I will have is my belts, body
>muscles and fitness comes into play.
Not to mention the crumple zone of the Accord should soften the blow
to you as well ;-)
[Who needs a crumple zone when the other car has one? <g> Speaking
tongue in cheek of course.]
But seriously, if anyone doubts that vehicle mass plays a big factor
in surviving crashes, then why is it that seatbelts are not required
by law for heavy trucks? Of course there are things that any
18-wheeler can't run through, but 18-wheelers (using the extreme
example of an 18-wheeler) run through cars just fine while
decelerating well within the margin of safety. Of course SUVs are not
18-wheelers, but neither are they an Accord.
I particularly liked the tank example Hansang provided <evil grin>.
--Bernie
| |
| Binary Traveler 2003-02-12, 3:24 am |
| Say what?
Outside of Fort Hood, TX I saw a Humvee collide (head on) with a little
issusue pickup truck ..both said to be going around 55 mph .. uncofirmed by
the guy in the pickup, the poor sap died (most likely on impact!).. all 4
guys in the humvee had minor injuries. ..
I know little Issusue pickups are pretty damn tiny.. but if little Humvee
can walk over a little issusue pickup truck like it did, a 60 ton fekking
tank is going is going to make both the accord and its driver
UNIDENTIFIABLE.. And I couldn't care WHAT safety features it has. And i
would be willing to bet the occupants of that tank will have a better than
average chance of living through the accident And one thing I can
promise you is, whether the people in the tank live or not, someone will
DRIVE that tank away when its all over with  I spent 16 years living on
military bases around the world and I've seen tanks run over all kinds of
shit like it wasn't even there (and yes AT HIGH SPEEDS) And befoer anyone
says tanks arent fast!! the M1A1 runs cool with the govener ON at 41mph.. u
turn that XXXXX off (and yes u can turn it off) that sucker will break 60
(OKAY yeah NOT fast in comparison to what cars, etc.. go, but hey we're
talking about a 60 tons of pure hurt!!!), although it will run really hot
really fast hehe..;P
Safety features of vehicles become meaningless when 60 tons hit you, they
werent designed for that type of impact, end of story.
And anyone who thinks different has been smoking to much crack and reading
to many vehicle safety manuals (and believe them!!).
okie, so this discussion has gone WAY off target hee hee. but hey, I had to
throw in my 2 cents
BinaryT
"Jonathan" <jrcdehc@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gHl2a.1339624$w57.216479@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Bruce Johnston" <riposa@sierratel.com> wrote in message
> news:3e49d5cf$1@news.sti.net...
> > Hansang? If I get into a headon driving my International Travelall
against
> a
> > Accord, which driver will end up with smashed lower extremities?
>
> The Accord driver...
>
> Which one will have life threatening internal injuries? You will.
>
> > Also, let
> > me ask you? Which vehicle would you rather be in during a crash? My tank
> or
> > your Accord?
> >
>
> The Accord.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the Accord was designed for safety, your tank was not... just
> relying on sheer mass to save you... instead of crumple zones, airbags,
> three-point belts, telescopic steering, padding, and a reinforced
passenger
> cage... I doubt your Travelall has any of these features.
>
> >
> >
> > Talking about high speed impact?
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW, I saw a guy in an accord one time on the driver side just after it
> > happened. It wasn't pretty. I was surprised at how easy the shell
crumpled
> > on the driver side. The hull, or shell of an Travelall is extremely
thick,
> > unlike the coke can thin shells of cars today. Also Travelall had
chassis
> > runners underneath like no other, they look like 6X6 square steel beams.
> Two
> > of them. It kind of like a battering ram placed under the engine. When I
> > asked mechanics at the shop about it, they were scared shitless about it
> in
> > the sense that they thought that you would obviously kill anything on
the
> > road with it, when compared to vehicles of the same size, and surely
> > anything smaller.
> >
> >
> >
> > In my travelall, I can't even feel the biggest bumps or ruts in the
road.
> >
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > "Hansang Bae" <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.18b39274c55907f39897d2@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> > > In article <3e49b8e8$1@news.sti.net>, riposa@sierratel.com says...
> > > > Accord was the number one car in america to get stolen for years. I
> > think
> > > > there are more of them out there then SUV's. Yes SUV's are higher
off
> > the
> > > | | |