From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Sat Feb 08 2003 - 12:02:13 MST
Spike66 noted:
<<The figure of merit is not deaths per 100K population, but
rather fatalities per km driven. The U.S. is a big country
and proles need need to drive far into the city in order to
get a high enough paying job afford the payments on that
home far from the city.
Those nations such as Italy and Babylon, that were invented
before there were cars, are set up differently. Ive seen
pictures of them, its truly amazing. There are *homes* right
down *in* the city with all the businesses and stuff. They
needn't drive far. What a concept!
People in Sweden drive more carefully because there is
ice on the road I suppose.>>
There's an article in the most recent Economist -
- which focuses on the difference in lifestyles and standards of living
Why purchase a "death trap" (Yugo-clone) when you can ride in comfort with
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Sat Feb 08 2003 - 12:04:31 MST
<A HREF="http://economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1563761">http://economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1563761>
between North America and Europe. This is worth a peeky-see, as a side-bar
issue. On Fuel Efficient Cars (main thread) Unless we start manufacturing
vehicles that are light-weight but even safer than we currently make, the
market will always be small. Why? People are well-aware of crumple zones, and
insurance companies have methods of analyzing safety. So if engineers have
come up with a light weight steel alloy fabrication, that saves fuel useage,
while providing something "less tinny" in the way of protection; we can then
have our tofu and eat it, so to speak.
an SUV? Now affordability is another matter, but again, if Tokyo or Detroit
makes car frames and doors out of tougher materials, better designs, its an
advantage that benefits the consumer.