Spike Jones wrote:
> > GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Ugh - I read this with dread. As someone who has always gotten pleasure out
> > > of high-performance cars (and other machines) (see:
> > > http://users.aol.com/gburch3/cars.html), I sincerely hope this kind of
> > > technology WILL be used to improve the safety and reliability of autos and
> > > other transportation technology, but that it won't tempt the nannies to
> > > castrate high-performance cars.
> Greg we could turn the considerable political force of the greens
> against such a proposal thus:
> 1. As time goes by, auto tech advances and cars get cleaner.
> 2. Older cars now make most of the air pollution.
> 3. If the speed-nannies castrate modern cars, then the old
> beaters with huge dirty unfettered engines will suddenly take on
> new popularity, perhaps with the result of having junkyards
> raided to resurrect the old chaps that would otherwise have
> been recycled into bridge railings.
Some of the more efficient aerodynamic cars get better gas milage above
highway speeds than at the '55 mph' standard hyped in the '70's. Heck my
grandpa's old Tercel got 5 more mpg at 80 mph than at 55 mph. 55 mph is
not about gas milage, its about safety. With airbag and other improved
safety technologies, higher velocity impacts are safer, so we can afford
to get higher efficiency at higher speeds.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:26 MDT