2008 Smart commuter car gets 40 mpg and will selling in USA for $12k.

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on
>> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one
>> would be better off just buying a actual
>> coffin for $5,000
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
> Okay, Mike - I have to give you a gold star for that!
>
> Mike

Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less
dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over.

Jeff

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:h9khi.126$Of2.88@trnddc06...
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on
>>> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one
>>> would be better off just buying a actual
>>> coffin for $5,000
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>> Okay, Mike - I have to give you a gold star for that!
>>
>> Mike
>
> Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less
> dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over.
>
> Jeff
>

Don't bother me with facts; the post was funny!

Really, SUVs don't throw the occupants. Unbelted occupants are in terrible
danger in any vehicle. Belted occupants aren't ejected and are better
protected. It's that simple.

And in reality the SMART car is more crashworthy than it looks (anything is
more crashworthy than a SMART car looks). But I still wouldn't consider
buying one.

Mike

Jeff wrote:
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive
>>> on American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year,
>>> one would be better off just buying a actual
>>> coffin for $5,000
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>> Okay, Mike - I have to give you a gold star for that!
>>
>> Mike
>
> Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less
> dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over.
>
suv's don't throw their occupants, they crush them as the roof collapses.

in the past, there's been no legal roof collapse requirement on suv's,
so domestic manufacturers never bothered to address this issue - they
just did the math on the savings, put their calculated payout into a
lawsuit settlement fund, and netted the profit. worse than enron if you
ask me.

LOL, poor Mike Hunter...

Everytime he hears about a fuel efficent vehicle it makes his stomach turn
and then he goes into this "safety first bit" when his real embarassment is
that he is running around in gas hog.

Truth is small cars are no more dangerous...than roll-overs


"Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
...
> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on
> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one
> would be better off just buying a actual
> coffin for $5,000
>
> mike
>
>
> "Useful Info" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org
>>
>
>

Have you been to London. There are tons there.


"Graybeard" > wrote in message
...
> Those little "Smart" cars have been running around in Europe for 7 or 8
> years, but the times that I have been there, we never saw very many of
> them on the road. The Mercedes name sells them to some people, but there
> are much better buys for better transportation in Europe, the same as
> there is here.
> If they could get the price down to $10,000, they might make a good
> substitute for a golf cart.
> (Yes, I know, the model sold here is a little different).
>
>
> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on
>> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one
>> would be better off just buying a actual
>> coffin for $5,000
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>> "Useful Info" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"jim beam" > wrote in message
...
> Jeff wrote:
>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on
>>>> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one
>>>> would be better off just buying a actual
>>>> coffin for $5,000
>>>>
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Okay, Mike - I have to give you a gold star for that!
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less
>> dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over.
>>
> suv's don't throw their occupants, they crush them as the roof collapses.
>
> in the past, there's been no legal roof collapse requirement on suv's, so
> domestic manufacturers never bothered to address this issue - they just
> did the math on the savings, put their calculated payout into a lawsuit
> settlement fund, and netted the profit. worse than enron if you ask me.
>
SUVs and pickups historically (I haven't kept up) have not had the same
requirements as passenger vehicles. About 20 years ago I got embroiled in
the struggle to have head restraints installed in our company pickup trucks.
The cost was reasonable enough - that wasn't the problem. The problem was
that there was no federal regulation concerning head restraints in pickup
trucks, so if a driver or passenger suffered injury that could involve head
restraints in any respect liability would attach.

IMO, it is driven by CAFE. Passenger cars are one category, light trucks and
buses (including SUVs by GVWR) are another. CAFE made large passenger cars
scarce so people who wanted large vehicles started loading themselves into
trucks or buses. The market responded with large vehicles that - from a
regulatory standpoint - were not passenger vehicles but were nevertheless
fitted with creature comforts. Put the blame where you will: activists, law
makers, lawyers, manufacturers, consumers... the situation isn't changing
very quickly.

Mike

I'm not seeing this go anywhere useful.

Art wrote:

> Have you been to London. There are tons there.

There are two in the road I live in.

Graham

Good point Mike, especially the legal issues involving manufacturing in this
country.
Years ago I worked for a company that manufactured electronic equipment for
airplanes. I was told that 70% of the cost for the equipment was for legal
insurance in case some lawyers sued them if their equipment was even on an
airplane involved in a crash. Contingency lawsuits are not allowed in most
of Europe!

BTW, the "Smart" car is a very interesting and attention-grabbing car.
Wonder how it compares to the Corolla?

Graybeard


"Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
...
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jeff wrote:
>>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on
>>>>> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one
>>>>> would be better off just buying a actual
>>>>> coffin for $5,000
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Okay, Mike - I have to give you a gold star for that!
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less
>>> dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over.
>>>
>> suv's don't throw their occupants, they crush them as the roof collapses.
>>
>> in the past, there's been no legal roof collapse requirement on suv's, so
>> domestic manufacturers never bothered to address this issue - they just
>> did the math on the savings, put their calculated payout into a lawsuit
>> settlement fund, and netted the profit. worse than enron if you ask me.
>>
> SUVs and pickups historically (I haven't kept up) have not had the same
> requirements as passenger vehicles. About 20 years ago I got embroiled in
> the struggle to have head restraints installed in our company pickup
> trucks. The cost was reasonable enough - that wasn't the problem. The
> problem was that there was no federal regulation concerning head
> restraints in pickup trucks, so if a driver or passenger suffered injury
> that could involve head restraints in any respect liability would attach.
>
> IMO, it is driven by CAFE. Passenger cars are one category, light trucks
> and buses (including SUVs by GVWR) are another. CAFE made large passenger
> cars scarce so people who wanted large vehicles started loading themselves
> into trucks or buses. The market responded with large vehicles that - from
> a regulatory standpoint - were not passenger vehicles but were
> nevertheless fitted with creature comforts. Put the blame where you will:
> activists, law makers, lawyers, manufacturers, consumers... the situation
> isn't changing very quickly.
>
> Mike
>
>

If one does a proper search one will discover the so called roll over craze,
pushed by the safety Nazis, was a ruse brought on by faulty Firestone tires
used primarily on SUVs.

The fact is far more cars are involved in rollover type accidents than SUVs.
The fact is the majority of rollover accidents, among all types of vehicles
is the result of being struck by another vehicle or running up or down a
grade and not the type of vehicle. The fact is NO vehicle has a tendency to
rollover. The opposite is true, if a vehicle is tipped, even up to a 45
degrees or more, it has a propensity to fall back upon its wheels.

If rising the center of gravity on a vehicle increased the chance it would
rollover, one should expect to see box trucks and six wheels rolling over
every day. The fact is the center of gravity of any vehicle is somewhere
just above the centerline of the drive train . On the average SUV that
would be less than two inches high than the average car. The propensity of
a vehicle to rollover vis a v another has more to do with its wheelbase than
its height. The SUV that would role first would be those like the Rav4 or
Jeep rather than an Explorer or Sequa in any event

The fact is the single most likely accident, that any particular vehicle
will be involved in its lifetime, is a full frontal collision. In that type
of collision the larger and heaver the vehicle the more likely properly
belted passengers will escape injury or death

One reason the Senate choose not to raise the CAFE standard for light trucks
several years ago was the injury and death rate among properly belted
passengers and children had dropped significantly over the past ten years.
That improved rate was attributed to the fact more of them were riding in
the larger safer SUVs.

Unfortunately recent action by the Senate will result in more poorer people
riding in more of the smaller less safe vehicles, as in the seventies, and
the injury and death rate will increase again as a result. The rich will
simply pay the $1,000 gas-guzzler, tax as they do today on many luxury cars,
and continue to buy the large safer cars they want and can afford

On can search the Congressional record for the facts.

mike


"Graybeard" > wrote in message
...
> Good point Mike, especially the legal issues involving manufacturing in
> this country.
> Years ago I worked for a company that manufactured electronic equipment
> for airplanes. I was told that 70% of the cost for the equipment was for
> legal insurance in case some lawyers sued them if their equipment was even
> on an airplane involved in a crash. Contingency lawsuits are not allowed
> in most of Europe!
>
> BTW, the "Smart" car is a very interesting and attention-grabbing car.
> Wonder how it compares to the Corolla?
>
> Graybeard
>
>
> "Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
> ...

>>>>> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive
>>>>>> on American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year,
>>>>>> one would be better off just buying a actual
>>>>>> coffin for $5,000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, Mike - I have to give you a gold star for that!
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less
>>>> dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over.
>>>>
>>> suv's don't throw their occupants, they crush them as the roof
>>> collapses.
>>>
>>> in the past, there's been no legal roof collapse requirement on suv's,
>>> so domestic manufacturers never bothered to address this issue - they
>>> just did the math on the savings, put their calculated payout into a
>>> lawsuit settlement fund, and netted the profit. worse than enron if you
>>> ask me.
>>>
>> SUVs and pickups historically (I haven't kept up) have not had the same
>> requirements as passenger vehicles. About 20 years ago I got embroiled in
>> the struggle to have head restraints installed in our company pickup
>> trucks. The cost was reasonable enough - that wasn't the problem. The
>> problem was that there was no federal regulation concerning head
>> restraints in pickup trucks, so if a driver or passenger suffered injury
>> that could involve head restraints in any respect liability would attach.
>>
>> IMO, it is driven by CAFE. Passenger cars are one category, light trucks
>> and buses (including SUVs by GVWR) are another. CAFE made large passenger
>> cars scarce so people who wanted large vehicles started loading
>> themselves into trucks or buses. The market responded with large vehicles
>> that - from a regulatory standpoint - were not passenger vehicles but
>> were nevertheless fitted with creature comforts. Put the blame where you
>> will: activists, law makers, lawyers, manufacturers, consumers... the
>> situation isn't changing very quickly.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
>