Rich got richer during the recovery, and rest got poorer

[gypsyman]

So CDQ, according to you, it's perfectly acceptable that the govt. forced billions of dollars towards green industry, and how many have failed?? Seems to me, the money got ''sluffed'', on to the taxpayer, and we didn't have much choice in the matter. Not sure how seat belts got involved, but, it was insurance company's that pushed these laws, and, we still have a choise as to wear them or not, just take a chance on a ticket. A little different than the govt. wasting money, on what should be a private industry. gypsyman

[ChungDoQuan]

Not that many have failed. FauxNews, of course only reports the ones that did fail. Y'all's posts show one thing: conservatives tend to think in absolutes; liberals think in degrees.

[mcwoodduck]

QDC,
Ill give you the seat belt thing, if you agree that the same governemnt standards for fuel economy kill people.  The higher the milage the lighter the car and the less impact it can take and the more damage and impact will do. 
I will also tell you that seat belts and crumple zones would have made it into cars as aftermarket parts that would have made it in as the buying public wants it. 
And a self regulated market is buyer beware and they are more cautious about what they are buying or investing in and will do home work before buying. 
I am also not saying we do not need some regulations and standards.  I am saying we have too many that only add to costs and keep new products from entering the market.  And if you are a company and want ot stop others from cutting your profits you buy a corupt politician or get some agency that makes regulations as needed to keep their jobs people start writting regulations.  I would rather pay three people to not write unneeded regulations to justify their jobs then have one that does.
And i forget what you do for a living but I remember you are a martial arts student or teacher,  What do you do if a central planning commitee sees martial arts as violent and outlaws them?   

[ChungDoQuan]

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1035359_head-on-crash-2009-chevrolet-malibu-vs-59-bel-air


'Fraid not, at least as far as safety.

[ironglow]

  There has always been a percentge  of the population who have fought new developments and business responds to customers.  Sometimes that population was large sometimes small. 
    When seat belts were introduced there were arguments against them.."what if you are trapped in a burning car?" ..or.. "What if your car plunges into a river?".  Today, we still have numerous cyclists who fight the helmet laws..
   We should understand though..every personal decision we hand over to "big brother" takes a bit more freedom from the individual.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
  Today we have groups who are also  fighting progress ! 
   A) There are those who stand in the way of progress..who want to stop the recovery of clean burning energy of natuural gas.  In place of the "burning car" excuse..they dwell on the specious "fracking' issue.
 
    B)  There are others who are fighting progress in the form of the Keystone pipeline.  They are helping to keep us dependant upon middle east oil potentates..who often use those billion$$ against us.  If they have a worthwhile "burning car" issue..I haven't heard it!
         I suspect some politicians may be "owned" by the Saudis..

[mcwoodduck]

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1035359_head-on-crash-2009-chevrolet-malibu-vs-59-bel-air


'Fraid not, at least as far as safety.

It is not about engineering it is about physics. You are safer in a bigger heavier car.  And no matter what you engineer a Smart car driver is going to die if hit head on with a 1979 Olds 98.  So I am not sure what you are really thinking. 

[ChungDoQuan]

The old tank itself may be in better shape--- the people inside will be like tomatoes rattling around in a steel drum rolled downhill into a tree. It probably is not going to end well for the tomatoes.

[two-blocked]

engineering is applied physics
 
[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/joMK1WZjP7g[/embed]

[Oldshooter]

So let me see if I get this right if you are poor you drive a 59 impala and if youre rich you have the new car that dont crumble and kill ya. I'll take rich! 
 
Next thread please!

[mcwoodduck]

I was thinking about what I wrote.
I compared the Standard GM full size sadan of the year before the Cathay standards went into effect and the Government mandated gas milage to an econo box of today.  not thinking that the safety standards and engineering leaps and bounds not to mention the alloys would effect the outcome. 
What I should have compared is this years most fuel efficient car vs the least fuel efficient car and see what happens in a head on crash to the occupants (test dummies) clearly using the same technology available to both as well as the same safety equipment the heavier larger car will win.
You also have a differnce in technology and design between the 1959 and the 2009 car.  In 1959 the cars did not go as fast as they do now.  The tires  and the roads limited the speed and the engineers designed the cars for those slower speeds.  Remember the interstate hwy system was juist being built.  Route 66 that I drive on weekly is a 40 mile and hour road at best.  40 that interstate 10 replaced is at best a 50 mile an hour road.  where as I 10 and I 15 have 70 mile an hour sections.   
Why do you see so many soccer moms driving suburbans and tahoes.  They want the largest heaviest car to keep the kids safe. 

[nw_hunter]

Most of those soccer Moms have a BUNCH of soccer players they are shuttling to the field.
Hard to do that in a Civic.