What are the pros and cons of plastic cars?

rusting away is just natures way of recycling! iron ore is dug out of the ground and iron oxide dripping back into the soil is just replentishing what was taken

Yeah...and when you stop at that intersection in town and the person in the Hummer behind you is chatting and texting on their cellphone with a vehicle full of screaming children and the radio blasting while she's applying makup and changing the DVD to Finding Nemo doesn't see you stopped and she plows into you at 50 mph because she "never does the speed limit" because she's rich and would only ever spend no more than 3 days in Jail for a 45 day sentence...but that doesn't matter...you and your plastic care are both history!
Sure...if you get hit with a Honda Insight there is a good possibility of neither of you dying...but what are the ratios of Honda Insights to HummVees out there on the roads...or Ford Excursions, or GMC Suburbans, or Chevy Z71s, or Jeep Commanders, or Lincoln Navigators, or...well, you catch my drift. Safety before gas mileage!
Ed
Web/gadget guru

I agree that putting more plastic into cars would make them more vulnerable to collisions, but there are other factors to consider.

If you do any research on "climate change," you'll find that the world is in a heap of trouble. The 'gas guzzler' tax doesn't apply to SUV's because the term SUV implies that it's a work vehicle. If the yuppie that you described actually had to pay more money, through taxation, for owning a vehicle that is excessively large, then there would be a lot less SUVs on the road. Combine that with the ever-rising gas prices, and there's even fewer reasons to worry about being crushed.

On another point about small cars. They tend to be moved when another vehicle greatly outweighs it rather than being instantly crushed on rear-end collisions, provided that there is somewhat of a match between structure heights. Obviously, with cars, you get what you pay for. If you buy a geo metro, you save a lot of money. But you're driving a tin can with wheels. When you buy a reasonable, mid-sized sedan, you have adequate protection against most, but not all, other cars. There is absolutely no reason for Hummers, Escalades, Excursions, etc. to even be on the road. They are safe for the driver but an obvious waste of fuel and a danger to others on the road.

It angers me that a person can simply go out and buy a 5,000 pound SUV and drive it off the lot with no special training or liscence. The opposite end of the spectrum, motorcycles, require special written and driving tests to be legal to drive, even though they are no danger to anybody but person(s) on the bike. Even a Honda Valkyrie can ram into a Geo Metro at 50mph and cause little to no harm to the passengers in the car.

The designed crumple zones in newer cars also provide a lot more cushion than you would think and truly protect the passengers against serious injury. So to some extent, you're point is valid. But it's not entirely accurate and there are many other factors that go into a person's choice in automobile.

a 5,000 pound SUV...sheesh, you young folk are funny...sheesh! back in the 50s, 60s and 70s, 5,000 + pound cars were not only being built, they were the norm! Check out a 50's era Buick RoadMaster! Or a 60s era Olds Delmont 88, or the even bigger Delta 98! 8 liter engines were common place! 8-13 mpg was expected! And you didn't need any special license for those either! Sure, nothing was scarier than an 80 year old woman in a 50's Cadilac, heading your way at 50 mph and all you see in the drivers seat is knuckles and blue hair! Heck, I remember a family trip going to Florida in the family car and my dad filling up at a gas station in our Oldsmobile (20 gallon tank) for under 5 bucks! When your car weighed 5,000 pounds plus you didn't need crumple zones! (true story...90s era honda backed into my 70s era oldsmobile...entire back end of the honda is crunched...honda is totalled...my oldsmobile had some paint on the chromed bumper that buffed out with some chrome cleaner)
And the climate? Big whoop...I could care less about that cr*p.
What should I care about what happens a hundred or so years from now? I certainly won't be around to be affected!
And anybody who thinks they are doing the world a favor by buying a hybrid or some other silliness is just fooling themselves.
If they really want to do something to balance out their carbon footprint, go buy a normal car and use what you would pay extra for the hybrid and purchase trees. I just purchased 5, 4 foot tall trees for less than $120. (nice trees too) and planted them on my property. The difference between a hybrid Corolla and a gas Corolla is 3-5,000 dollars (depending on where you live and when you purchase the car) $5,000 can buy quite a lot of trees...the average American, to be carbon free would cost 130 trees planted and maintained every year for 10 years..that's 1,300 trees per person...So if you buy a regular car and use the differene to purchase carbon credits (which goes to planting trees) you could purchase enough carbon credits to allow 3 people to be carbon free for life! So, by purchasing a hybrid, you are actually being selfish, since you are only doing your own self any good.
Ed
Web/gadget guru

One subject at a time, I guess.

Environment... I am not pointing the finger at just you, and I am far from a tree-hugger. But the "hundred years from now" cop-out is not only selfish, but it's denial. You are wrong on the timeline and I suggest that you do the research if you are undr 60yrs old.
The environment is rapidly changing due to the greenhouse emissions we put out. There are more tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. than ever and they're coming faster and more powerful.
True, if you buy a hybrid, you're spending a lot more money. But if you drive it properly and keep driving that hybrid, you will save money in the long run on fuel alone, during the warranty period alone you come out even. But the Hybrids will get cheaper as time goes on. You could just drive a smaller car too, I don't have a hybrid, but my Sentra gets around 33mpg. That's better than most cars out there, even better than some hybrids(i.e. hybrid SUV's)
It's also true that cars aren't the only solution, this goes as far as building more nuclear power plants to reduce the use of coal plants. Using more windmills and dams would help too, although if you're concerned about the environment, you might cry over the habitat that gets ruined/drastically changed by the dams.
Your are absolutely correct about the trees though. They take CO2 out of the air but that's not the only greenhouse gas that causes the global warming that's happening at an exponential rate. Tree's don't cake care of the other carbon emissions, unspent fuel, and other gasses.

5,000lb cars/SUV's
Although it WAS typical for cars to weigh a lot, but welcome to planet earth. Fuel is getting more expensive by the day, cars are getting smaller and cheaper, and it's not typical for the average family to own cars that weigh over 3000 pounds. You can't fill up that 20gal tank for $5 anymore. My 12gal tank costs $35 each time I go to the pump. It is now the heavy vehicles that are the danger on the road. So to help ensure the driver's safety, we have things like crumple zones, ABS, seatbelts, airbags, electronic stability control, and more to come. But you are wrong to say that a person is selfish to buy a smaller car or a hybrid. Maybe they're trying to save some money, maybe they're trying to do thier little part in helping the environment. But it's a good thing either way, not just for the individual.

New VS Old, people and cars.
Newer cars are safer, faster, more fuel efficient, cheaper to repair, and have more convenient features than older cars. Your Oldsmobile, while a nice car, was definitely more sturdy than that crappy civic, but if you were on the tail end of a HUM-V or an 18-wheeler, you would have been the one hurting. So that's just a matter of perspective.
As far as people go, ignorance exists in everybody in one sense or another, regardless of age. But as people age, they either get hard and set in thier ways, or they become more wise and conscious of life in general. This does come in a mix, but I get the impression that you're the more of the former and less of the latter.
The worst assumption a person can make regarding age is to think that young people are less knowledgable or more ignorant simply because they haven't been around as long as you. I am not referring to the 14yr old know-it-all, but people like me. I am a nuclear reactor operator and just shy of my BSAST in nuclear engineering, yet I am only 22. Do not take any offense to that. I am not trying to say that you are not educated or that you are stupid. You seem rather intelligent, in fact. I am simply stating that times are changing and the human race needs to adapt on all levels. That includes environmental, political, and the way we act as individuals.

lastly, liscencing.
I do think that there need to be more classes of vehicles, by weight and size specifically. Along with that, I believe that the different classes of vehicles should require an appropriate liscence. This is because of today's 'norm' for vehicles is significantly different than what it was even ten years ago. I do remember when gas was under $1/gal but I can't say that I remember the prices you say you've seen. That's obviously because I wasn't alive then.

Please respond with something interesting. I think that you would be a fun person to debate with.

Evironment.
There are thousand of scientist that do not buy the "we're going to destroy the planet" politically motivated crap. I'll give just a few. The Swiss group 'World Glacier Monitoring' has observed that since 1980 there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers that they monitor across the world. They state that from 1926 to 1960 some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat. Weather stations in the Alps and in northern Europe indicate that since 1930 there has been a decline in European temperature of about 1 C. Many satellite measurements have shown a substantial growth in the size of the Greenland ice sheet.

There are just as many global warming people in science, as global cooling people. What's the difference? Why do we only hear the global warming crap? Because if global cooling is true, there's nothing we can do about it, and no one profits from it. But if global warming is true, it's somehow our fault and we need CO2 credits, which people like Al Bore benefit from.

So anytime you start pulling peoples chains about how we need to buy some plastic bannana tiny midget mobile to "save the planet", you can count me out.

5000lb cars/SUV's
Fuel is not getting more expensive by the day. Too many of you people think you're Miss Cleo and have a crystal ball. The fuel here has just dropped under $2.89 from 3.49. It's been in decline for a week now. No one really knows what the price will be. If it get's more expensive, I'll deal with that. No heavy vehicles are not a danger. In fact I'm safer in my civilian tank, than you are in your plastic bannana mobile. Just because you choose to drive an unsafe car, doesn't mean everyone else is the danger. Don't give me your "I'm saving the planet garbage", you'll need to find someone foolish enough to believe that.

Old vs. New.
You are simply wrong on this. They are not cheaper. My dad worked a whole summer one year, and with the money he saved up, purchased a top of the line Chevy Impala Covertable. You think anyone can do that these days? I barely make $20K in a whole year, let alone just a summer, and I'm not counting taxes, and $20K doesn't buy top of the line anything. Barely more fuel effficient. His V8 Impala got 20 mile per gallon highway. The Chrysler slant six was rated 30 mpg highway from a Duster (slant six was '59 to '69). They are not cheaper to repair. Having worked at a dealership, I can tell you straight up, newer is more expensive in many ways. You want detail, ask, I got it. I lived it. Yeah I might be hurting in my civilian legal tank if I get hit by a Hummer or 18-wheeler, but you'd be dead in a plastic car. Take your pick.

About Emissions. A friend of mine at the dealership brought in a Suburban. We had a EPA exhaust tester. It tested good. It was a 70s car (I don't know the exact year). Point being, since the Catalyst Converter, most "other gasses" have all but been eliminated. There is not real exhaust other than CO2. Why do you think CO2 has become the hot issue? Before it was Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides and Hydrocarbons. And those were issues. But now it's CO2... why?

Because it's political. The auto manufactures fixed the problem. NOx is not an issue. Hydrocarbons, have been stopped. Carbon Monoxide has been fixed. So these political groups had nothing to complain about, and elected officials had nothing to run on for votes. So did they just say "good job" and all head home after completing their task? No they changed the problem to CO2, knowing there's no way the Car makers could fix that. Now they always have something to decry, always something to complain about, always have something to run their campaign on. It's political. It's how officials gain support to get elected, it's how Al Bore get's money from CO2 credits. It's what gives eco-groups a reason to continue existing.

Yes, there are scientists who have stated that 'cooling' is occuring, but they are greatly outnumbered by actual numbers. Not just by numbers of scientists, but by the numbers on the bouys and satellites that measure temperature.

It is a fact that ocean temperatures are dropping over time and more rapidly as time goes on. This is because the arctic ice cap and the Greenland ice sheet is thinning. The same is occuring in Antarctica. Why do you think that the ice is thinning and beginning to collapse under its own weight?

The alps... I don't know where you got you're information. Without actual numbers or scientist's opinions, think about it. Look at pictures. They look more and more like the Rockies during the summer the closer you get to the present.(meaning they have less snow on them) Alot os those pictures are time-stamped by the old-fashioned camera.

As far as cars go. The bills are expensive, yes. But it's cheaper to replace a gasket on a car that is in production vs one that isn't. My Sentra has good crash test ratings, but I'm not saying they're great. I settled for the good mileage and reliability. The mileage is partially a selfish act. But that's because when I got injured overseas in the 'war on terror', I recieved over a $600/month paycut. Because of time served and special position, I would be getting paid almost $1000,mo more than I am now.

You say you know something about the military. I'm a second class petty officer. So you know how much I get paid and how much that paycut sucks.

Gas... It is getting more expensive. There are drops sometimes, but my the price where I'm at is $3.21/gal minimum. That's the Navy Base price, which is 5-10 cents cheaper than most of the civillian stations. But it does go up, if not on a daily basis, then at least once per week. It'll raise about 35c/gal and have a sudden drop of 10-15c, but then it raises again, slowly but steadily.

Cars again. When your 'daddy' was working, he was probably making a pretty good wage. But the world's poplulation has nearly doubled since then. So it's harder for people to get the good job that pays well. After my medical retirement, I will be making about $107,000/yr, before taxes, as a civilian reactor operator in Washington state. The catylitic converter only works for so long,5-15yrs, then they get plugged up when the catylist becomes saturated. so that car you were talking about must have has a brand new one, or you're just making stuff up. When the catylitic converter stops working, those gasses come out again.

If you've worked at a dealership, you should know more about that kind of thing. Since you've brought the daddy thing into this conversation. My father was the head mechanic for Tom Addis in the northern Idaho/Spokane,WA area for a number of years. So don't B.S. me on cars. That suburban would have been lucky to get 15mpg if it had been maintained well. In fact, any V-8 would be. Some are rated as high as 22mpg on newer vehicles, but those are nearly unreachable EPA estimates. You have to be very light-footed and travel at pretty constant speeds to chieve that. My car was rated for 28c/35h mpg. I get around 24-26 city / 32-34 highway.

Facts being, smaller cars weigh less in general. Less weight requires less fuel per unit distance. If the proper engine is matched with the weight of the car, the fuel efficiency is maximized. But when emissions are measured, it has nothing to do with mileage. It's measured on emissions per unit volume. So no matter how that suburban tested, it is still putting out more greenhouse gasses than any small car that has been maintained.

Yes, politics are involved. But it's not so much the auto manufactures that fund political advertising as oil companies. Don't get me wrong. They do thier part in backing politicians. They just don't fund as much.

I also have doubts about our society and government. I don't think people will actually give up their cadillac escalade for a 'banana car' because they think they will be saving the world. I don't think that our administration will do enough to prevent what's going on. We will wait until the consequences are too obvious and painful to ignore, and then it'll be too late.

I do assume a world view. From the things you present and mentioning Al Gore, I'm sure you've seen his movie or the presentation. If you haven't, it's called "An Inconvenient Truth." Even if you are a "screw the planet" person, it's a good watch.
I don't agree with everything he stated in that movie, but I did my research on some of the things he said, like the ice caps and the storms getting worse. But the most interesting one for me was about the cars. He said that in China and other parts of Asia, most american cars are not allowed on the market because it doesn't meet thier emissions criteria. That actually is true for the most part. In japan, I looked when I was there hoping I could find a better deal than in america because you typically can. You could buy these cars, but only on the military base, not on Japanese soil though.

Another reason for politics to be involved is that anything labeled as a 'World Crisis' and backed by enough scholars and scientists will peak certain interests.

I am sorry for your financial situation, but I am not far from where you are at. I'm lucky enough to have invested in the right places when I could. but I'm still not far from where you are.

Yes I know that global cooling scientist are greatly out numbered. As I said before, there is political motivation behind it. No one is going to get a government grant based on "There is global cooling and nothing we can do about it". But they will for global warming because this gives government an excuse to charge fees and pass controlling legislation like CAFE standards.

But according to scientist who monitor greenlands ice sheets by satelite, the ice sheets are growing, not thinning.

The weather stations in the alps are monitored by a number of groups, all of which indicate the same thing, that European tempertures have droped on average, over the last 70 years, about 1 degree C. If you disagree, you'll have to take it up with the whole meteorological establishment, starting with the Swiss Weather service who released the initial report.

Actually you are not correct. It is not nessarly cheaper to replace a gasket on a production car than a non-production car. Two reasons. A: after a car has been on the market for more than a few years, the after-market steps in and starts providing parts. Thus you can find a cheaper gasket that works just as well from the after-market, when for a new car, the after-market doesn't provide any part, requiring you to buy from the factory, which is expensive.

B: Many older cars can be more easily fix and with cheaper parts. Example: an early 90s car that has an Iron block, will take a normal gasket, and since it's rear wheel drive, the engine is easy to get to and replace the gasket. On a late 90s, early 2000 car, the block is Aluminum and requires an expensive Copper composite gasket, and since the car is front wheel drive, the gasket is very hard to replace and take a lot more time which equals money.

I think you have me confused with the other guy that responded. I do not know that much about the military beyond what others have told me.

Gas has dropped here once again, another 10 cents. So I don't know what's going on at your base.

At the time my father worked for his car, he had a summer job while school was out. I highly doubt his job payed so well given he was in high school at the time, and it was a seasonal job. What short term summer job employing high school students pays well enough to buy a top of the line car today? No sir, the cars have become very very expensive, and it's not surprising when you consider the regulations and restrictions and red tape and taxes the government puts on them.

I'm not sure what your getting at there. I never said the Suburban got 30 miles to the gallon. I said only that it past emission testing even though it was 35 years old (roughly). He didn't drive that car because of the great gas mileage, he drove it cause it was fun to drive. He enjoyed it. My point was, the bad emissions like NOx HC and CO, have all been delt with over 30 years ago now.

Of course they are not going to give up their Cadillac Escalade to buy some cheap plastic death trap on wheels. I wouldn't either. In fact I won't I like my car. And this is what freedom is about. The ability to choose what you drive regardless of what other people think. Why be in the military to protect freedom when you support removing that freedom you are trying to protect? That makes no sense.

The fact other countries have restrictions that prevent them from buying our cars, is not in anyway a reason to adopt their totalitarian government controls system. It proves to me, we still are the land of the free even if our freedoms are being erroded every year.

The issue here is, I don't see my position as being screw the planet, because I have seen evidence that we are not "screwing the planet". Your presupposition puts me in that light.

Just like Al Bore. This guy makes millions off of Carbon Credits. So he has invested interest on selling as many as he can on Global Warming. Scientist also have invested interest as well. Government grants are not given to people who say "research into global cooling that we can't do anything about", but they are for "End of the world global warming and what we can do to stop it". Money is the motivator, not "global crisis" sky is falling garbage.

Eh, don't worry about me, I'm used to being poor. It's just my lot in life. You'll be out of there and in some major income job earning 100K, that's your lot. I'll likely still be driving the 82 Buick

YES!!! Finally someone who hasn't had the wool pulled over their eyes by these political activists. I've been having this debate at home (Australia) for ages and it's good to see I'm not the only one who hasn't been sucked into this "save the planet" political crap. Couldn't agree with you more pal.

love to hear more of your hard info on lack of global warming --tired of hearing this discussion without the opposite viewpoint --any info would be much welcomed

I swore I would not get into a global warming debate here... But I can't help it when someone genuinely seems interested in simply hearing both sides, namely because that's how I figured out it's bull.

My background is I was so far in liberal left field, my mother, who was a 4th grade teacher, has a video of me presenting a "CFC: save the ozone layer" presentation to her class. The only problem was, I kept learning about it, and soon came across stuff contradicting the side I was defending, until I couldn't defend it anymore. That led me to question the conventional wisdom on issues of the day.

Now at this point I was going to start tossing facts at you, but I reconsidered. I found a video made by scientists that covers most of what I was going to say, and then a whole lot more, and sums it up better.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Key points

The MBH98 report, is the report that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE uses to claim man made climate change. The report is a fraud. It was never audited prior to use by the UN or in Koyoto. Further, temperature information was taken from selective sources. By using two different sources for temperature data, it skewed the results. Further, data within the sources was selective as well. Weather stations whose data didn't fit the curve properly was declared an "anomaly" and removed.

The Sun's energy output fluctuates, thus changing climate. Earth climate is always in a state of flux. Throughout history, there are normal cycles of warmer and cooler times.

Further, science understanding of our atmosphere is very limited. In the early 1900s the claim was, new ice age, then in the mid 1940, it was global warming, then in 1970 it was global cooling again, now we're back to the second pass at global warming. Point being, scientist have a very tiny bit of understanding of how it all works, thus, making concrete answers now, are pointless.

Finely, the world glacier monitoring authority indicates 55% of all glaciers are in advance. The US historical meteorological database shows no statistical evidence of any warming trend since 1970, baring the short term el nino effect.

There's a number of books on this
"Global Warming and Other Eco Myths"
"Global Warming - Myth or Reality?"
"Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming"

Dozens more.
Try these links:

http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1837.htm
(open letters by scientists and other topical information)
http://www.climateaudit.org/
(a blog by a small group of scientist who are simply auditing the information given)

Finely, my favorite, yet mildly hard to understand
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Highlights:

Water, in various forms, accounts for 90% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. (some scientist claim 95%)

The remaining 10% of the greenhouse effect is made up of "other" gas's and CO2 (being the majority).

Of the total CO2 emitted into the atmosphere every year, Humans only account for roughly 3.4% of total CO2 created yearly.

Further, increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere runs on the same principal as diminishing returns. As more and more CO2 is concentrated, the less and less heat energy is stored. Most global models assume twice as much CO2 will store twice as much heat energy, this is false.

Calculations indicate doubling the CO2 level which is currently 0.0038% of the atmosphere, to 0.0076%, will raise Earth's global temperature by almost 1.5 Degrees Celsius. In other words, *less* than the temperature swings that have already occurred in Earth's history.

Worst still, since we only account for 3.4% of CO2 created yearly... we have no hope of doing that ourselves even if we made it a goal to do so.

Now, you have to figure this out on your own... but to me, the evidence is clear, Global warming is nothing more than a scam. It's so Eco-groups collect support, politicians collect votes and money, and would-be scientists collect government grants... and us? We collect the bill. Same as what happened with R-12 AC coolant.

I am well into my 60's, I do not hug too many trees [too hard to get the bark off... ] AND of course no where near your level of theoretical education, however I like to delude myself that I am at least smart in many way - so in no particular order
"100 years from now...." sorry - but it is here now!

Hybrids are way over priced just now - but that is because the "gas guzzler" lobby has prevented any decent advances in technology to date and while you lot (yanks) have a love of MacDonald's and all fast foods, you will need huge amounts of horsepower to drag your bodies around.

As for licensing - as a marine engineer (as well as a part time pilot) I have forgotten the number of continuing tests, exams and upgrades I have had to take for my marine tickets, and as a pilot I have had to be certified on each and every plane I have been allowed to use ... not to mention medicals... more checks - YET - my single vehicle license allows me to just jump in and drive anything from a moped to a 50 tonne truck......

Now I am just an old man driving an old car (sigh) but I still drive to prevailing conditions - I look ahead, I keep a close eye on my mirrors and I can tell you that I have lost count on the number of times I wish I was a cop, because there are so many moronic cretins loose on the roads behind the wheel, that should not be allowed to breed, let alone put anyone else in jeopardy .... and not even the best and safest car today will protect you from them.

Just my thought......

you can have your gas drinking hogs.i drive a dodge neon fun to drive . scoot around town,easy to park. i dont have to visit the hated gas stations so much like you people.and small is harder to hit.got more room to get out of harms way.the dinosors were big but big died out small survied.

Tech-ed, you are hilarious; cannot take any more to-day, and have to admit MOST of your points are very true. However, may I refer you to the massive crash in the F1 race three weeks ago when the Polish driver (Kubice)came out of the 180mph (yes, 180 m.p.h.) with just a broken leg.
The plastic Williams carwas a total wreck - all four wheels ripped off, car flipped over at least four times, bounced off the first barrier(losing the wheels)skidded across the track,skidding and flipping, crashed into the barrier (concrete) on the other side of the track and skidded ALONG the concrete(still doing about 60mph) for many yards before stopping. Oh, yes: contrary to ALL American motor crash movies, there were no explosionsand no fire.
I really feel sorry for your female Hummer driver -maybe she should dump the kids (the walk would do them good)

Your post brings up a good point. I was once involved in a collision where my Delta 88 a/k/a "Das Boat" hit the rear of a 1972 VW. It appeared that there were some scratches to the plastic bumper protectors while the rear of the VK was squashed down. Luckily no one was injured and I simply paid for the repairs.

If a larger car such as my Delta 88 (Das Boat), similar in size to your typical SUV where to hit a plastic car the cost to repair the plastic car would be significant. Spending thousands of dollars on repairs, not to mention having to repaint the area repaired or the entire car (spewing more VOC's into the air) and the time/labor involved far outweighs any savings on gas milage/carbon emissions.

However I do recall the the GM Saturn was supposed to have bendable panels that could easily be replaced. What ever happened to the bendable panels? If a plastic panel breaks in a minor fender bender and the cost to replace the panel is $1,000+ I fail to see the beefits.

I would hate to see what would happen to you if your delta 88
was to say hit a ford F250 @ say 45 mph.You would likely not be here.
Why dont you compare apples to apples.Newer cars with crumple zones
are much safer than any car made in the 90s,80s,70s,60,50s,40s, well you get the point.

it would be nice if in any of these threads people quoted facts and statistics not conjecture or feelings --- and the car magazines don't all have it right --- nor is the story about safety alone --the push toward these plastic cars is full of special interest groups concerns for their own bottom line -- we need hard facts to discuss this -- cost analysis of fossil fuel -- how these plastics degrade and affect our environment -- large vs small cars -- actual death rates(which climb with lighter cars not fall as is constantly implied here) -- when we are talking hard facts we can then begin to discuss apples to apples--

Please see my comments under "Physics-6/21"; do not discount "minor" accidents. Sure I lived after a truck on car accident, but I have had constant pain every day since the accident. Do you really want to risk that result? Until you personally have been in an accident, you have no idea what your vehicle will protect. I didn't go out and buy a SUV although I was tempted, but I will never buy a plastic car or even a lightweight car. I too am angry about all the SUVs (and trucks) on the road but Americans will never allow limitations on their "right" to a SUV, so pragmatically, in 2007 we must buy in response to current market.

I have 2 ruptured discs and am currently taking 50mg of oxycontin each day just to maintain the pain level to a somewhat tolerable level. I feel your pain.

I know it's tough to deal with an injury when it's not your fault.
The point I was trying to make is that the siding of almost all cars provide no protection. The frame and cage are not as sturdy as they used to be, but they are still fairly rigid. I basically said that if the frames match in height, the neither car is likely to get smashed in low-speed collisions.

The difference between plastic and metal cars is really only in the siding. With the aluminum, plastic, or tin siding, it's really just to keep the weather out. They provide a housing for the windows, locks and controls but they fail to provide any protection in an accident.

I also made a point about giant cars/SUVs being on the road. I don't think that people should be able to drive giants like that for many reasons. Fuel economy is one reason. Inexperience with large vehicles is another. In general, people are just rude on the road and have little or no concern for their safety, or anybody else's for that matter.

Trucks are the safest vehicles on the road. They have more fail-safe safety features and better controls than most of the cars out there. The drivers also have to have specialized training and an extensive exam, including a thorough driving test, just to get that class C liscense.

But I am not stupid. I realize that you can't take the irresponsibility out of somebody with a school and a test. But for the general population, to include SUVs with the category of truckers, the realization of a higher responsibility occurs when people go through training. I think SUVs should require the same style of liscense to operate.

Truckers have to pay anywhere from 6-10 times the fine for the same violation that a car would get ticketed for. They also have driving regulations that cars do not. I would like to see large pickups and SUVs undergo the same process. This would prevent many accidents like yours, or worse ones. Even if not for safety, then for the fear of steep fines and jail time.

I agree that we have the right to drive an SUV. But we don't own the roads, the states do. So nobody has the right to do anything on the roads that the public or lawmakers oppose to. If you are a danger to others, you should not be on the roadways that we all share. With rising gas prices, people are gearing to more fuel efficient vehicles, which brings me to the original point. People, in general, don't have a conscience. They have no concern for their fellow man's safety or well-being. You get cut off or see somebody dirving recklessly every day. You don't see doctors and lawyers buying Nissan Sentras so they can afford to share their money with poor sailors like me. No yuppie in this hell-hole of a state would consider selling thier BMW X-5 to help the little old poor guy out, yet they still vote democrats in so they can feel like somebody's taking care of the "less fortunate"

Essentially, gas prices, and gas guzzler taxes actually applying to the yuppie-mobiles, are the only realistic ways of discouraging people from driving the civilian tanks. The wallet is the only place people can hurt now-a-days. That means the auto manufacturers should come up with more inventive ways to increase fuel efficiency. That means plastic siding, hybrids, smaller engines, lightweight chassis, and so on.

Once again, I not only empathize with your situation, but I am in a similar one. I am sorry for your pain. I hope there is more the doctors can do for you than they can do for me.

Thanks, batman,for the good thoughts. No, I have suffered a "permanent and stable" partial disability from a "minor" accident. Did you know 20% of cervical sprain injuries result in permanent pain and 5% result in complete disability? Read the physics post on the weight difference between steel and plastic - there impact of the heavier reinforced vehicle has too go somewhere - so its into your body. Yes, you are right about most commercial drivers being safer but it only takes one to hit you or me. I also agree that SUVs (in a right thinking world) would be restricted to those who can prove need, BUT you know and I know that's not going to happen anytime in the next 10 years if at all. I reiterate, buy the heaviest vehicle your conscience can allow.

I have read your response to 'physics' and that post, as you suggedted in two other posts. But there are many other points to consider.

I'll cover the spinal injuries first. Since you read my post, you know that I have a spinal injury as well. The two crushed discs are L4-L5 and L5-S1. I have done a lot of research and I understand that I'm in the lower portion, near that 5% but lumbar instead of cervical. But lumbar injuries are generally much more painful and continually get worse because most of your body's weight is supported by the bottom discs. The disadvantage to having a cervical injury as apposed to a lumbar one, is that you can lose a lot more from nerve damage. That's simply because the cervical spine is so much higher, containing nerve bundles for everything below the neck. It's rare that a person dies from a lumbar injury but it gets much more likely the higher up the injury gets.

But about the physics of the impact. I discussed, in detail, some of the factors that go into cars and the accidents. I am a nuclear engineer, so I'm fairly familiar with physics and material density. We have to understand plain physics before we get into nuclear physics and nuclear kinetics.

I completely understand your sentiment and your opinion. But it's a false sense of secutiry. If the frame and general construction of a car is very rigid and sturdy, the car/SUV will absorb little of the impact when greatly outweighed by a truck. You were driving a small car, and the crumpling effect of the body and chassis, as well as the crumple zones, are likely what saved your life. If you were driving a "legal urban civillian tank"(andy77e), your body would have been thrashed around much more violently because your car would have recieved alot more energy from the big-rig. This just means that your car would have accelerated faster, causing more force to be exerted against your body.

Trucks greatly outweigh any civilian vehicle. They will trash any vehicle that collides with them. The only thing you do when buying a large vehicle is protect yourself from collisions with vehicles smaller than your own. You widen that area. You sacrifice a little part of the planet and our descendants' future and a significant amount of your paycheck for a false sense of security.

Bigger cars are more likely to be in single car accidents and those are more deadly than most kinds of collisions. So in all reality, you're less safe in a bigger car than you are in a small one. That's one of the major reasons that insurance premiums are higher for larger vehicles. They have more expensive and bigger parts. They do more damage when they hit another car. And they are just more dangerous.

I sympathize with your situation but I have made the decision to go the other route. I bought a mid-size sedan that gets roughly 34mpg and has good crash-test ratings. I save a lot of money in fuel, isurance, and cost of the vehicle. I feel safe because I drive safe and because I know that my car is more maneuverable than "civilian tanks". I can more easily avoid or reduce the severity of a crash than any SUV out there. If an SUV makes a quick maneuver to avoid an accident, they are likely to roll over or go out of control. Smaller cars, on the other hand, tend to handle the quick turns and a skilled driver will maintain or regain control because of the low center of gravity.

I disagree with your choice of vehicle, but this is America. Buy whatever you want. I will be praying for your health and safety. You sound like a good person.

i don't think anyone driving a tiny little car should be allowed to always blame the SUV's when something happens. you have simply made a different choice when buying transportation. if you don't want to get run over by a 4X4 suburban you have choices to make. one is don't drive at all take public transportation, another is to buy yourself a 4X4 surburban and car pool, can you get 8 people in your insight?? or do everyone a favor and move closer to where you work so you can walk or ride a bicycle. we are a nation af freedoms and choices so don't tell me what i can or can't drive!!!!!

You are mistaken about your 'freedoms'. As of now, you have the privelage to drive on roads that the states own. I can tell you that you can't drive your rediculously oversized yuppie tank. But you don't have to listen. They are not fuel efficient and they are a danger to others. So I think you should not be allowed to drive it on a road that I have to share with people like you.

Since you believe so strongly in our inalienable rights, I'm going to tell you something. We all have the freedom of speech. We can say whatever we want, whenever we want, withing certain limits. But I can tell you that I think you're mistaken. I can tell you that you're misinformed, or that you're simply rude and ignorant. Be offended if you want, that's your right. But driving is not you right.

I agree that public trasportation, walking, bycicles, etc., are great for saving money and keeping cars off the road. But one thing that people assume is that it's their right to drive. It's merely a privelage and can be taken away. In a moments notice, a state can ban all vehicles that are top-heavy like your suburban. They can ban any vehicle for many reasons. The VW lupo gets excellent mileage but it's not allowed in the states because it didn't meet EPA emission standards. The EPA measures emissions by volume of fuel used, not by greenhouse gasses emitted vs miles traveled. It would make much more sense to measure them by the latter.

Any state can ban your suburban because it's top-heavy and danger to others. It can tell you as an individual that you can't drive if you are an unsafe driver.

Another point I wanted to touch on is size. The tiny car vs SUV thing exists for many reasons. People who drive SUVs are less attentive, their SUVs don't stop as fast, and when they do collide, they do much more damage. It's not fair to say that the accident is the SUV driver's fault, but it is fair to say that they kill and injur people because of the unnecessary size of their vehicle. They are being irresponsible economically, environmentally, and concerning safety.

But your suburban is no match for that 18-wheeler. So when you drive like you own the road because your SUV is bigger than the other cars around you, and you try to cut off that big-rig because you're so important, you deserve to and definitely will get crushed. But don't blame the truck driver, he has fewer blind spots than you do. He's not responsible for your actions and most truck-car accidents are the car's fault. The big-rigs belong on the road. In fact, one of them brought all of those cars to a dealership. They are required, your oversized, inconsiderate, murder-mobile is not required and should not be allowed on public roads.
But that's just my opinion and it's my right to express it. I'm sure you don't agree with my opinion, but as you said "we are a nation af freedoms and choices."

i'm not offended at all by your post. you seem educated and make informed points about what you beleive in and so i find it kind of inspiring!
you are absolutly correct. i did lump driving into the "freedoms" column. we have the freedom to make the choice and because driving is regulated it is something we earn.
the other point i take is: that the size of the vehicle is not always the largest factor in accidents, it's what sits behind the wheel that counts. every motorized vehicle has the potential to be a deadly weapon and WE have lost sight of that! it's very unfortunate but when mistakes are made people die
i drive with the same respect no matter what i am behind the wheel of and i give far more than i take. i don't own a yuppie tank. right now i am driving a 4cyl fiero while my 1/2 ton two wheel drive chevy truck is being repaired

I appreciate your honesty and compliments. I was wrong to assume you drove a suburban. You mentioned suburban a couple of times(or I may have mixed up your post with somebody else's) so I thought it was a safe assumption.

I agree with your most recent post completely. I do think I've thrown in a different point of view, but it betters the discussion. The principle behind the statement about the yuppie tank still stands. But I apologize for having pointed towards you.

For safety's sake, it's definitely the driver who's the danger.
For the economy, it's largely the construction and size.
Those two statements can be intertwined and widely discussed, but I think a lot of us are saying exactly that with a different bias.

i do use the suburban as a point of reference because everyone can relate to the name and size. people just need to stand back and balance their driving habits. if mom is hauling 6 kids to football practice with all of their gear put them in the tank, but if it's only her going to pick up a few groceries or driving to work then there are far beeter choices.
i think the common sense gene has mutated because people just don't have it anymore.

I feel is the worst run anyone can make in a high vehicle as kids dart around outside schools maybe going to their Mothers car after school Tomorrow test for yourselves and see how tall a child has tobe for you to see them from your rear view mirror and wing mirrors that childs you can see willbe between 9and 11 younger ones donot stand a chance if you reverse to pass the car in front..

I understand the point you are trying to make. I actually agree with it. But please read your post before you submit it. Please check your grammar and spelling before you click that button. None of us are perfect, but nobody takes you seriously when your post is hard to read. If I have to decipher a long post, I simply ignore it.

Spelling and grammar aside, use spaces and punctuation to separate your thoughts. I do so, and even for that fact alone, people read my posts and consider me intelligent. So if you actually want to be heard(read) then take a few extra seconds to make sure your posts are easier to read.

Small S.U.V. for about $13K??

125 mile range
68 MPH speed
No gas or oil
No Battery Pack!
No I. C. Engine
** What*s it run on, hamsters in a wheel cage?

No, oh dubious one, Compressed air.

Made in France... Franchise also in India.

http://BendGovernment.blogspot.com

Compressed air motor runs like a steam motor without the heat or boiler.

Plug in a compressor at night instead of a batterypack charger. Drive all day.

MDI.lu [click UnionJack for English ]

I want one for around town. Wouldn*t you?

= TG