Drill our oil petition

[Causedawg 83]

Hybrids are expensive. But I'll agree I'd like to have one, and will definitely consider it when we buy a new car in 3-5 years.

[Thornes70]

Originally Posted by Causedawg 83

I'll agree that larger vehicles can take longer to come to a complete stop, but that's an issue of unsafe driving practices (following too closely and not paying attention to the road and surroundings), which is not what we're discussing here.

And rolling? Seriously? Very rarely do I see a vehicle that's rolled after a collision. I know it happens, but in most collisions (especially in the city), no rolling occurs.

I'm basing this on emperical evidence. Most of the time, when I see a bad wreck that's occured on the roadway, I see a small car that's totalled, and a bigger vehicle with a dent in it. It doesn't always work out that way, but I rarely when I see a large and small vehicle involved do I see the small vehicle still looking pretty good, unless it was a minor collision. Maybe they've made it better over the years, though. I would assume Epyon would have a lot more knowledge on something like that than I would.

I was actually talking about safe driving habits, as it was brought up.

Rolling was an example. Should I have said harder to control, or manage to go into the ditch more? LOL Look, I drive for a living, and I've seen a lot - A LOT - of trucks that have rolled over.

I'll agree, a larger, heavier vehicle is gonna win the weight/ratio/crunchitude (it's a word if you understand it ) vs. a smaller vehicle. But that really doesn't support any statistics that I've seen that say a larger vehicle is any safer than a smaller vehicle.

[KEEZY]

applying makeup - you know who you are

Leave me out of this. I can't get by just on my boyish figure, I need to apply my blush too!

[Causedawg 83]

Originally Posted by Thornes70

I was actually talking about safe driving habits, as it was brought up.

Rolling was an example. Should I have said harder to control, or manage to go into the ditch more? LOL Look, I drive for a living, and I've seen a lot - A LOT - of trucks that have rolled over.

I'll agree, a larger, heavier vehicle is gonna win the weight/ratio/crunchitude (it's a word if you understand it ) vs. a smaller vehicle. But that really doesn't support any statistics that I've seen that say a larger vehicle is any safer than a smaller vehicle.

I'll take emperical evidence over statistical evidence any day. Just my cup of tea though, I've seen statistical evidence used improperly to prove too many false points.

As for rolling, I said "especially in the city". I know it happens a lot more on highways, but I don't know when the last time was that I saw it happen in the city, although I know it does happen sometimes.

[Epyon MX]

Originally Posted by Causedawg 83

I'm basing this on emperical evidence. Most of the time, when I see a bad wreck that's occured on the roadway, I see a small car that's totalled, and a bigger vehicle with a dent in it.

You're looking at it the wrong way. You're looking at damage to the vehicle, which doesn't necessarily correlate with injury/death to the passengers. Frankly, there's no way you can look at the wreck and know if the passengers were okay. Cars are designed to sacrifice themselves for their passengers.

There's stuff like this that happens

and you assume that the driver has to be gone, but he walked away.

[Causedawg 83]

Wow. That's awesome.

I'd rather have the dent in my truck, though. J/K. I do see your point.

[Epyon MX]

[Crippler]

Isn't London beginning to tax drivers of SUVs $100 for entering the city now? I saw this a few wks ago on the tube.

[Desi Cuse]

Originally Posted by Twilight

If dri9lling an Alaska could support us for even 25 years and be cost effective, I say do it. The polar bears are dying off anyway, lets just save them some suffering.

I hope that was a joke.

[Crash52602]

Wow, took a while to finish reading this thread. My opinion is that no matter what you drive, driving stupid kills people. I got to sit in traffic last night for three hours on my way home from work because somebody was doing 85 in a construction zone, clipped the wall, and bounced into a semi trailer. Did I say into... I meant UNDER, which the news informed my wife and I later, killed her and her three children. Now big car or small car, cry about 'protection' for ourselves, our loved ones, our children, but who is protecting us from stupidity? Sorry, thats the way I feel.

But I must say, there has to be something to move this stubborn country to ANYTHING other than oil, we have to break ourselves away from it, or it will break us.

[Thornes70]

Call me silly, but how can you have empirical evidence WITHOUT statistics? I believe that's an impossibility.

Stats are stats, my man - unless you're pulling stats out of a hat, it's pretty cut & dry.

[Wondermonkey]

Originally Posted by Crippler

Isn't London beginning to tax drivers of SUVs $100 for entering the city now? I saw this a few wks ago on the tube.

Yup, and NYC bridges and tunnels, it looks like all the fees are going to double for anything that resembles an SUV. EZ-PASS tags are going to be based off car make now so they'll feel it in their wallets. I'm all for it, you should be paying a bit more than me for destroying the future of the children I don't have or want. It's the principle man!

[Crash52602]

I will say Tom, I don't like statistics because they can be used to prove any point you like. Take for ex. anti-smoking ads, saying 1200 people die a day from smoking... sounds big... except its .000001% of the american population. Sorry, this one touched a nerve with me, politicians like to use statistics to make themselves sound like they care about anything other than their own agenda... Like McCain and Obama!

[Thornes70]

...so, basically you'd rather hear that .000001% of the population dies because that would sound better than 1200 a day?

I don't get it... You don't want to hear the stat unless it's put in the "least bad" way possible? Dude, if it's 1200 people, it's 1200 people, regardless of if you're talking about an entire country's population, isn't it?

[Crash52602]

no, what I'm saying is how I don't like that if your percent is tiny, use the number... if the number is scary, use the percent. Thats all. Honestly, I could give a s#$t less that people die from smoking. I really just hate how these ad companies and government bodies try to spoon feed us this information, which leads to more people being stupid and uninformed/underinformed. Just drives me nuts.

[Causedawg 83]

Originally Posted by Thornes70

Call me silly, but how can you have empirical evidence WITHOUT statistics? I believe that's an impossibility.

Stats are stats, my man - unless you're pulling stats out of a hat, it's pretty cut & dry.

Stats don't tell the whole picture when they are taken out of context, twisted and turned to support one point of view over another.

Not to say they don't have their place... when used correctly they can be very important and helpful.


As to your first comment there, empiricism and statistical evidence are two very different things. Empiricism is when you believe something based on what you've detected with your own sensory perceptors. You don't need statistics for that, my man.