Subject: Re: Proposed Government Driving Restrictions!

From: "Terry J. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Jul 1995 15:07:54 GMT

[email-masked] (CVC411) wrote:
>Attention Motorists!
>
>Big Brother is about to tell you what you can drive, how far, and most
>important, how much more you’ll have to pay for it!
>
>Did you know that your taxes are paying for a Presidential advisory
>committee that is trying to force Americans into smaller cars and to drive
>them less.  Even though fewer than two percent of the public buys
>high-mileage sub-compacts and most people rely on a motor vehicle for a
>variety of reasons, your government wants to change that.  

And for a variety of reasons, my government is right. Contrary to the 
strong language posted in those introductory paragraphs, the remainder of 
the posting shows what is being discused are mostly mild incentives and 
disincentives to encourage more efficient and less environmentally 
destructive automobile transportation. Many are already in place in one 
form or another. For international business competitiveness, for the public 
health, for local traffic relief, and for the global environment it makes 
sense to be efficient about our use of fossil fuels. 

For example:

>•	Road Use Pricing:  New taxes on motorists and businesses based on
>how much they use public streets and highways.

Seems like a great free-market idea. Pay for what you use rather than have 
the taxpayer pick up the tab uniformly.

>•	Congestion Pricing: additional taxes for use of highways during
>peak rush-hours.

Another free-market idea -- supply and demand pricing. Utilities have been 
doing this for years.

>•	VMT-Based Registration Fees: registration fees based on Vehicle
>Miles Traveled -- how much a particular vehicle is driven.  (The more you
>drive, the higher the fee.)

Kind of like the first proposal -- pay for what you use.

[other good ideas already being implemented deleted]

>One of the most devastating policies in this group is the least understood
>by the general public: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. 
>CAFE standards were originally enacted to reduce reliance on foreign oil
>and save consumers money.

But in reality the CAFE standards have been a great success. Although over 
the same old objections reiterated here -- the increasing standards have 
pushed technological changes to make cars safer and more efficient. Car 
manufacturers will haul out their lobbyists, lawyers, and ad agencies to 
tell you it can't be done (as they always do -- remember air bags?), but in 
reality, the technology exists and ought to be encouraged to be put to use. 

[email-masked]
my opinions only, not necessarily those of my employer.

---

From: [email-masked] (Persepolis)
Date: 20 Jul 1995 03:40:16 GMT

Terry J. Harris ([email-masked]) wrote:

: And for a variety of reasons, my government is right. Contrary to the 
: strong language posted in those introductory paragraphs, the remainder of 
: the posting shows what is being discused are mostly mild incentives and 
: disincentives to encourage more efficient and less environmentally 
: destructive automobile transportation. Many are already in place in one 

I have to agree with this also.  I remember how strongly Chrysler Corp
lobbied against airbags [and funny how now they are such a strong proponent
of them in their commercials.].

While I can see how the cost of any change will get passed onto the 
consumer [and many low'er' income bracket people will be hit hard] I think
something has to be done while we still have the time- fossil fuels are not
here for ever and gas/H2/eletric alternatives are getting killed thanks to
cheap yet obsolete technology [physics majors take note-> here is where you
can say how inefficient a gas engine is by dumping %XX.XX of all energy
produced back into the atmosphere].

I can also say [from the point of view of someone who has lived in europe]
that gas prices in this country have been bargain-basement low for far too
long in contrast to european countries that charge anywhere in the
neighborhood of $2 or so per liter thanks to huge government taxes on
it to fund things like eletric buses, trains- and nuclear energy to provide
the electricity.

---

From: [email-masked] (Brian Towns)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 18:24:26 GMT

After reading all of these posts on governemnt restrictions hear are a
on a higher gas tax.  First, raising transportation costs raises the price
of everything that is shipped in this country.  Secondly, raising gasoline
taxes hurts lower income, and lower middle class people more than rich
people.  If you are going to make tax incentives to live closer to the
city, this real esate will be worth more.  Meaning fewer people can 
afford to live there, thus having to commute further to work.  These people
will end up paying more in gas taxes.  Finally, the piont as to what this
extra revenue will be spent on is important.  If it is for
transportation related spending that's okay.  Right now there is no
alturnative to driving for me to work.  I carpool from N Va to Rockville,
MD.  I tried the VRE but it cost more and took about 1 hour a day longer
(round trip) my other problem is that I am 6'8'' tall.  I drive a 
Mittsubishi Galant because that is about the smallest size car that I 
can fit in for a 3 hour a day of commuting.   It get abot 27 mpg commuting
with a 4 cylender engine, so I don't thinks its a gas hog, but with
the new proposed regulation it would be.

Just my opinion.

-- 
Jim Edgington       [email-masked]   
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

                \=/,         _-===-_-====-_-===-_-==========-_-====-_

---

From: [email-masked] (Philip B Janus)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 13:52:29 GMT

>>important, how much more you’ll have to pay for it!
MANY LINES REGARDING TAXATION BASED ON USAGE DELETED
>my opinions only, not necessarily those of my employer.

Okay, I am somewhat in favor of taxation based on usage, on one
condition: it is not imposed as an additional tax.  If I'm paying the
Govt for driving to work when there are no mass transit alternatives
and my schedule (7-4 work; 5-8 school) won't allow carpooling, I
expect my federal/state taxes to go down at the same time.  THIS WON'T
HAPPEN.  The usage tax is just additional money that probably won't go
to highway maintenance, traffic safety, or police salaries, but to
pork barrel projects and Congressional salaries.
I'll pay my share, but I expect it to benefit me in some small
degree...

-Philo

---

From: "Terry J. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Jul 1995 17:29:00 GMT

>pork barrel projects and Congressional salaries.

Actually, cynicism notwithstanding, in most instances where tax 
incentives and disincentives have been employed they have been (at least 
initially) "revenue neutral." That is, if you're an average user, your 
overall taxes should be unchanged.

In fact, Maryland passed a revenue neutral gas guzzler law several years 
ago that taxed low gas mileage (new) cars but offered tax breaks to high 
gas mileage (new) cars. Taxes on a range of cars in the middle were 
unchanged. Maryland did, however, intend to move the midrange mileage 
scale higher in later years to increase revenues for the transportation 
trust fund.

(If I recall correctly, the Bush Administration blocked implementation of 
the Maryland law claiming that only the federal government has any 
jurisdiction over automobile fuel efficiency.)

[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Larry Rubin)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 13:38:59 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Mehmet Gokturk <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I think people here in United states does not have the privilege of 
>consuming more than a sufficient gas on 8 cylinder jeeps. For safety concerns
>cars like german cars are safe enough. If more safety is desired
>i think it's too much.

People should be able to drive the vehicle of their choice, no matter how 
much or little gas it consumes, provided they can do so within their means.

>Europe, for years, has been driving cars with engines less than 2.0L.
>(Mostly 1.6 or 1.4)
>I think it's time to adjust american standards too. 
>16MPG jeep and 40MPG tercel performs well under intelligent driver and safe
>enough. 40MPG one can carry your body as 16MPG does. So why 16MPG?

Because the 40mpg cars are typically noisy, underpowered, cramped, and 
give a harsh ride.

I drive a car that gets around 19mpg in combined city and highway 
driving, but in return I get a roomy car with a quiet and smooth ride 
with the nice feature of being able to put the air conditioner on and 
move at the same time with no noticable power loss.

It is also a much safer car, but that is an aside, as I tend to agree 
with your assertion about safety and the intelligent motorist.  It's the 
guy in the next lane over I'm worried about!

>Kids are crying from the starvation, from injuries of wars. Why should
>we keep thinking of Horsepower,V8, Safety std., AC .. Do we deserve..?

To that end, why induldge in the luxury of having a color TV or a nice 
house, or any other material item that is anything more than utilitarian 
and spartan?  It's our money.  We should be able to spend it as we see fit.
-- 
Larry Rubin               [email-masked]
N3QGH                     +1-500-OSSUARY
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons."

---

From: [email-masked] (W. J. La Cholter)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 13:42:18 GMT

>much or little gas it consumes, provided they can do so within their means.

This is fine as long as people are careful not to pollute the
environment that we all share with the by-products of their engines.
Should I be able to drive a car that has turret, so that if I collide with
another vehicle, I smash through their rear window without our bumpers
ever meeting?  Really safe for everyone on the road.  There is a place for
for regulating the kinds of vehicles people can drive for many public
concerns.  If you want to drive on your own road with your own biosphere,
then you shouldn't be limited.  But if your sharing our resources, you'd
better be ready to compromise.

>move at the same time with no noticable power loss.

So then should we allow people to drive inefficient luxury cars, but
disallow sports cars that are cramped, noisy, and get 19 mpg?

[deleted]
>and spartan?  It's our money.  We should be able to spend it as we see fit.

My color TV doesn't markedly raise ozone levels in urban areas.  It doesn't
leak oil.  Can you explain why an ordinary individual needs a Camaro Z28
with a 275 horsepower engine?  What about the Mustang GT Cobra that gets
12 mpg city and 18 mpg highway?  What possible utility does this have?
It has many negative externalities, however.

It's not just our money.  It's our world.  And with Maryland having high
rates of cancer and respiratory disorders unnecessary pollution is a dumb
thing.

-- 
W. J. La Cholter  <[email-masked]>  Trusted Information Systems, Inc.

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Landau)
Date: 20 Jul 1995 18:55:03 GMT

CVC411 ([email-masked]) wrote:

: •	Increase CAFE Standards: Raise government fuel economy
: requirements for passenger cars to 45 mile per gallon and 34 mpg for
: pickups, vans, minivans and sport utility vehicles.  Absent any technology
: breakthroughs, the government would be forcing consumers into much
: smaller, less safe vehicles with reduced performance.  Most models would
: have to come without popular options such as air conditioning and
: four-wheel drive.

History suggests that absent increased CAFE standards there won't be any 
technology breakthroughs.

I love those big comfy gas-guzzlers too, but I wouldn't want to see my 
kids forced to buy all their gas from the Ayatollah.

--
Eric Landau, APL Solutions, Inc. ([email-masked])
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger." -- Abbie Hoffman

---

From: [email-masked] (Charles Day)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 17:58:10 GMT

I'd be in favour of a far simpler system: rather than introduce a host
of fussy regulations and user-fees, just raise the tax on gas - with a
corresponding reduction in income tax. This would give taxpayers and 
drivers a choice: drive an efficient car and pay less tax, or drive a 
big car and pay more.

Of course, raising tax on gas would increase the costs of transporting
food and other things by road, but most consumers would end up paying
less income tax, so they wouldn't necessarily be out of pocket.

As for traffic congestion, raising tax on gas wouldn't directly unclog
the Beltway - there be lots of small cars instead of lots of big cars.
But it'd encourage people to use cheaper forms of transport, e.g.,
car pools, Metro, trains, which might lead to an indirect reduction in
congestion.

Charles Day

---

From: [email-masked] (Mehmet Gokturk)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 22:11:45 GMT

[...]
|[deleted]
|>>Kids are crying from the starvation, from injuries of wars. Why should
|>>we keep thinking of Horsepower,V8, Safety std., AC .. Do we deserve..?
|>
|>To that end, why induldge in the luxury of having a color TV or a nice 
|>house, or any other material item that is anything more than utilitarian 
|>and spartan?  It's our money.  We should be able to spend it as we see fit.
|
|My color TV doesn't markedly raise ozone levels in urban areas.  It doesn't
|leak oil.  Can you explain why an ordinary individual needs a Camaro Z28
|with a 275 horsepower engine?  What about the Mustang GT Cobra that gets
|12 mpg city and 18 mpg highway?  What possible utility does this have?
|It has many negative externalities, however.
|
|It's not just our money.  It's our world.  And with Maryland having high
|rates of cancer and respiratory disorders unnecessary pollution is a dumb
|thing.
|
|-- 
|W. J. La Cholter  <[email-masked]>  Trusted Information Systems, Inc.

Hi,
I was in a kind of bad manner with my previous post (crying kids), Actually
what i meant is to save consumables as much as we can for the sake of humanity.
I was not blaming the people who have CableTV in their homes. Sorry if
anyone misunderstood my post. (This is not my native language, though..)
Thanks to W.J. La Cholter for clarifications..

Mehmet Gokturk

-- 
Mehmet Gokturk, The George Washington University,EECS
Phone   : (703) 729-7281
e-mail  : [email-masked]
WWW     : http://www.seas.gwu.edu/student/gokturk/.

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Hill)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 20:22:12 +0700

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Eric

> technology breakthroughs.

Sad but true. Unfortunately there may not be any breakthroughs even *with*
higher CAFE standards. Fuel economy can certainly be increased, but
indefinitely? I doubt it. One day, the CAFE standards will be raised to
the point where it *cannot* be done. Many politicians seem to forget that
wishing (or legislating) don't make it so.

Re safety, I would humbly suggest that perhaps in most cases the driver's
actions have a greater bearing on safety than does the size of the
vehicle.

> I love those big comfy gas-guzzlers too, 

I don't. Even the powerful ones handle like pigs and are a pain to park,
and I don't find them all that comfy; a car seat should *not* feel like a
couch. Those popular 4WD trucklets (why aren't they subject to the guzzler
tax?) add the insult of blocking everyone else's vision. Even a minivan
driver can't see over/around the minivan in front of him.

> but I wouldn't want to see my 

They will, just as you and I do :-(

---
Chris                                 [email-masked]
Think I need another cup of depresso...

---

From: "Terry J. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Jul 1995 15:07:54 GMT

[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Persepolis)
Date: 20 Jul 1995 03:40:16 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Philip B Janus)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 13:52:29 GMT

-Philo

---

From: [email-masked] (Larry Rubin)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 13:38:59 -0400

---

From: [email-masked] (W. J. La Cholter)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 13:42:18 GMT

[deleted]

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Landau)
Date: 20 Jul 1995 18:55:03 GMT

---

From: "Terry J. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Jul 1995 17:29:00 GMT

[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Charles Day)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 17:58:10 GMT

Charles Day

---

From: [email-masked] (Mehmet Gokturk)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 22:11:45 GMT

[...]
|[deleted]

Hi,

Mehmet Gokturk

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Hill)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 20:22:12 +0700

---

---

From: [email-masked] (Brian Towns)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 18:24:26 GMT

Just my opinion.

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Landau)
Date: 20 Jul 1995 18:55:03 GMT

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Hill)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 20:22:12 +0700

---

---

From: [email-masked] (W. J. La Cholter)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 13:42:18 GMT

[deleted]

---

From: [email-masked] (Mehmet Gokturk)
Date: 21 Jul 1995 22:11:45 GMT

[...]
|[deleted]

Hi,

Mehmet Gokturk

---

From: Rohit Saran <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Jul 1995 14:02:35 GMT

[email-masked] (Mehmet Gokturk) wrote:

Just curious : how do one get expect to get a 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds with the 
dinky toys (1.6 L) and that power is definietly needed when you have to
dogde ....... you know who!!!!

Its just my humble opinion.....

---

From: [email-masked] (Persepolis)
Date: 28 Jul 1995 21:33:29 GMT

Rohit Saran ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Just curious : how do one get expect to get a 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds with the 
: dinky toys (1.6 L) and that power is definietly needed when you have to

Easy, just like the GM-Impact blew the doors off of a 300 ZX a couple of 
years ago.  (not bad for a 0.0 L engine :-) ).   Too bad the car never 
came to be but it just shows what technology can achieve.

As a side note: engine HP/Torque has been on a steady rise and engine 
size (displacement) on a steady decline since themid seventies thanks to 
technology such as advanced aspiration & fuel inject, multi valve 
technology for more efficient exhaust removal/air intake,etc... Which 
lets cars like a Lotus Espirit Turbo I4 develope 264 Hp and do 0-60 in 
5.3- (though I am kinda apprehensive about including this car as a "good" 
example of efficiency as it only gets 16 MPG on its "4" cylinder).

---

From: "Terry J. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Jul 1995 14:11:09 GMT

[email-masked] (Paul Robinson) wrote:
>
>What is your evidence to show that automobile transportation is 
>"environmentally destructive."  Yes, automobiles generate pollution.  
>This does NOT mean they are destructive to the environment.  

Odd logic notwithstanding, automobiles by any measure are environmentally 
detrimental. Pollution, fuel consumption, street runoff, and roadbuilding 
are the most direct impacts, but sprawl development is the ultimate 
car-caused environmental problem.

>Let's stop looking at the amount of gasoline used, that's a red herring 
>to ignore the real problem.
>
>If the idea was to reduce pollution, charge cars by tailpipe emissions,
>this would mean old clunkers, owned by poor people and heavily polluting,
>would be hit with the highest taxes, while the efficient expensive
>automobiles such as a Mercedes Benz would see lower taxes, which is
>politically unacceptable. 

Not a direct tax, but automobile emissions inspection programs do just that. 
If you're polluting, you've got to fix your problem.

>International business competitiveness means you fight on strengths and 
>not on weaknesses.  Japan has a very competitive market internationally, 
>and extreme protectionist internally, same as the U.S.  But with the high 
>taxes and cost of living, the average family lives in 1/3 the space one 
>does in the U.S.
>
>I doubt we want "sardine packing" as a way of life here.

Yet, our sprawl comes with a cost. If we squander our resources driving from 
place to place and the Japanese are not, they have a competitive advantage.

>: and for the global environment it makes sense to be efficient about 
>: our use of fossil fuels. 
>
>Why?
>
>If a gallon of gasoline costs $1.40 a gallon and the driver gets 10 miles 
>per gallon, it costs them 14c a mile to drive.  If it gets 20 mpg, it 
>costs 7c a mile.  Those who need to pay less will move toward more 
>efficient cars.
>
>And if we are supposed to reduce use of fossil fuels, whom are we 
>reducing them for?  I can presume that our descendants are supposed to 
>also reduce their use, so who exactly are they saving these fuels for?

Tough to argue with logic like that.

[email-masked]
just my opinions, not those of my employer necessarily

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Robinson)
Date: 31 Jul 1995 03:35:09 GMT

Persepolis ([email-masked]) wrote:

: I can also say [from the point of view of someone who has lived in europe]
: that gas prices in this country have been bargain-basement low for far too
: long in contrast to european countries that charge anywhere in the
: neighborhood of $2 or so per liter thanks to huge government taxes on
: it to fund things like eletric buses, trains- and nuclear energy to provide
: the electricity.

Please don't support more taxes!

Every time there is an increase in taxes of $1, the federal government
spends $1.29, meaning that more taxes=increased revenues=more government 
spending=higher deficits=demands for more taxes to reduce the 
deficit=more taxes=increased revenues=more government spending etc.

--
Ask me about Listmgr - the first PC-Based mailing list manager for E-Mail.
Find out about "The Gatekeeper: The Gate Contracts" - Write to address below.
Paul Robinson - [email-masked] / [email-masked] 
"The Greatest Philosopher in the World, maybe the Greatest who ever lived."

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Robinson)
Date: 31 Jul 1995 03:31:38 GMT

Terry J. Harris ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (CVC411) wrote:
: >Attention Motorists!
: >
: >Big Brother is about to tell you what you can drive, how far, and most
: >important, how much more you’ll have to pay for it!
: >
: >Did you know that your taxes are paying for a Presidential advisory
: >committee that is trying to force Americans into smaller cars and to drive
: >them less.  Even though fewer than two percent of the public buys
: >high-mileage sub-compacts and most people rely on a motor vehicle for a
: >variety of reasons, your government wants to change that.  

: disincentives

I don't think making automobiles lighter and less crash resistant, in 
order to reduce fuel consumption, resulting in more serious injuries (who 
is likely to be injured worse, someone in a car with lighter (thus less 
resisting) body panels or one with heavier ones (more resisting)?), or 
higher numbers of deaths, is "mild disincentives".

A higher chance of death or injury or more serious injury is hardly "mild".

: to encourage more efficient and less environmentally destructive 
: automobile transportation.

The problem with polution in most areas has been the reliance on the IC 
and Diesel stroke engines, because of the government restrictions placed 
on alternative technology development, plus the high amount of sunk costs 
into current technology.

One can't develop alternative technology without government permission, 
and no automobile company is going to invest in unusual technology given 
the more serious requirement of reducing the amount of fuel used per mile 
under CAFC.

: Many are already in place in one 
: form or another. For international business competitiveness,

: for the public  health, for local traffic relief, 

You want local traffic relief, stop penalizing those who want to build or 
operate alternative transportation.  What would it take for a private 
company to build another underground system?  Buy the tunnel space from 
the owners, start digging and run the trains?  Hell no: try an 
environmental impact report, and environmental impact hearing, 
permissions from every government in the area, federal and state 
permission, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

DC could use a freeway running right through the middle of town to allow 
better service through it for people who might commute there.  And with 
the high taxes, it encourages people to move out, and encourages 
businesses to move out too, leaving exactly what you have: a hollowed 
out, bankrupt shell consisting of a huge number of government service 
consumers, and a small number of rich who can fight to keep from being 
hit by too much taxes.

Why?

: For example:

: >•	Road Use Pricing:  New taxes on motorists and businesses based on
: >how much they use public streets and highways.

: Seems like a great free-market idea. Pay for what you use rather than have 
: the taxpayer pick up the tab uniformly.

We already have this.  It's called gasoline taxes.  Those who drive pay 
according to how much gasoline they use. 

In the above scenario, the car that does 100,000 miles a year when doing 
25 mpg (4000 gallons/year) would pay more than the car doing 50,000 miles 
a year at 10mpg (5000 gallons a year).

: >•	Congestion Pricing: additional taxes for use of highways during
: >peak rush-hours.

: Another free-market idea -- supply and demand pricing. Utilities have been 
: doing this for years.

But do these taxes then get more freeway capacity to make up for the 
congestion?  Hell no!  Thus they become permanent means of imposing taxes 
on people solely on the basis of when they go to work or go home.  And 
the problem doesn't get solved, because leaving the roads congested means 
it's an automatic moneymaker for the state.

: >•	VMT-Based Registration Fees: registration fees based on Vehicle
: >Miles Traveled -- how much a particular vehicle is driven.  (The more you
: >drive, the higher the fee.)

Again, the tax is not being based on what is being consumed (driving on a 
road doesn't "consume" anything) a road is either in use or empty, and 
like computer time, it's a "wasting asset" which means that if it isn't 
used, it is simply wasted. 

What is consumed is gasoline.

: >One of the most devastating policies in this group is the least understood
: >by the general public: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. 
: >CAFE standards were originally enacted to reduce reliance on foreign oil
: >and save consumers money.

: But in reality the CAFE standards have been a great success.

In making cars harder to get into, smaller and less comfortable, not to 
mention more dangerous.

: Car manufacturers will haul out their lobbyists, lawyers, and ad 
: agencies to tell you it can't be done (as they always do -- remember 
: air bags?)

The chemicals used to inflate air bags in a hurry are poisonous, 
dangerous to contact, and except for use in automobiles, illegal to 
transport in interstate commerce.  Does this say something about the 
desirability of using them on people?

Further, one of the claims on the patent for the air bag included use as 
a means of painless execution by breaking the convict's neck.

: but in reality, the technology exists and ought to be encouraged to be 
: put to use. 

Fine.  But let's not prevent people from developing alternatives, either,
which is a common practice.  Or rig the laws to make it impossible to do
so.

---

From: "Terry J. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Jul 1995 13:58:52 GMT

>A higher chance of death or injury or more serious injury is hardly "mild".

So the logical conclusion is that we all drive tanks.

In fact, car manufacturers have made cars lighter, more fuel efficient _and_ 
more crashworthy. These trends will continue with better CAFE standards, 
watchful safety regulations and continuing technological advances.

[email-masked]
opinions are mine, not necessarily my employer's