My sport sedan gets 35mpg on the highway. Why is Fox News saying that number is only possible in a smart car?

Falafel &

Fox News, both on radio and television today, is framing Obama's plan to increase emissions standards over the next 8 years as "making cars unsafe". The assumption they're operating under is that in order to increase fuel efficiency, auto makers will have to skimp on structural elements and safety features.

I have a sport sedan that gets 35mpg on the highway, while earning a five-star government crash test rating for front, side and rollover tests. It cost less than a reasonably equipped new American car (I bought a 2008 "certified pre-owned"), and outperforms any Ford, Dodge or Chrysler you could buy for less than $40,000 new.

Why is Fox trying to convince its viewers that a 35mpg fuel economy standard is unreasonable, and that my Audi A4 is apparently a "smart car"?
Speaking as someone in the auto industry, and someone with a Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering, the claim that a higher MPG car will somehow be less safe is nonsense.
To the truck owners:

No doubt, this will be a difficult change. If you drive a car with a V8, you're not going to get 35mpg with today's technology.

However, the idea that "a 35mpg car is an unsafe car" is blatantly false. The first 30 seconds of fact checking will reaffirm this, so I guess Fox either doesn't care about facts, or is choosing to ignore them.
"Its not Fox stating ,this is the car manufacturers here in America. That's who the target of these emissions standards are hitting"

Incorrect. No automaker is saying that "a 35 mpg car is an unsafe car". I already drive one that's perfectly safe, and we can expect better technology in 2016 when the new standard would be in effect.
"And here is a study by the National Academy of Sciences explaining why 2002 CAFE standards caused 2000+ traffic deaths a year, it is a good read."

Safety features are rapidly improving, and even only 7 years after 2002, they're much better. Rear curtain airbags will be standard on most cars made three years from now.

There's no reason to expect cars to get LESS safe as technology improves, and there's a point where the size of a car really doesn't have any impact on your ability to survive an accident.
"If you understand mechanical engineering then you understand the physics of objects at speed, and you can figure out using mathematical formulas why making cars lighter after a certain point makes them less safe. That is unless you spend a ton of money making them crash resistant like a race car."

First off, there are no "formulas" for automobile safety, at least none that aren't gross oversimplifications (i.e., assuming rigid body motion, assuming linear deformation, etc...).

What you're saying is true, but not in the context of the issue. At some point, you have to compromise the safety of the car. Fox News says that it's at 35.5 mpg or below, and that is flat out FALSE. The proof is that I drive a car that gets 35.5 mpg, goes 0-60 in 6.1 seconds, and would save me in a 110mph crash.

Over time, alloys improve, techniques of getting the car to absorb collision energy improve, airbags improve, etc... 35.5 mpg does not mean the car is unsafe

Answer
It is nonsense. I am not nearly as educated about cars as you are , and even I can see it. They just want to spread hate. They make a lot of money doing it. It makes no sense to go against the president on things that he is right about doing.

Can I buy A Nano Car in the U.S.?

feeddaneed

The Indian car company Tata unveiled a four-seat automobile that will sell for just $2,500 yesterday. The Nano should be available later this year, and is aimed at people who might otherwise purchase a motorcycle. Can I buy one in the U.S.?

Answer
TATA NANO is intended for the Indian market and in the future, the developing countries. It is not aimed at N America or EU.

Therefore, TATA will not be marketing it in the USA.

Regarding Pollution:
TATA NANO adheres to Euro IV norms, and as a matter of fact, emission norms in India are far stricter than in the USA. That is why Harley-Davidson cannot enter India.

Regarding Safety:
Although not ideal for highway speeding, this car does pass the Indian frontal crash tests and has side impact resistant features and body-bonded rear window. TATA said, that with some modifications, it could be made to conform to US safety standards. They also said that air-bags cab be installed, but that will hike the price of the car.

The real reason why it will NOT be available to Americans is:
The powerful oil companies' lobby will not allow this car in the USA, because if people started trading their gas guzzling 8-cylinder SUVs for this car, the oil price will drop, and so will their profits.

If allowed in all fairness, this car will dominate the US market, and that is what is feared by the Detroit 3. They don't want this car in USA.

What US carmakers do:
Make a product and artificially create the need.

What Indian carmakers do:
Study the need and create the product.

It is however refreshing to see many Americans today are less gullible to be brainwashed into buying a gas-guzzling Hummer or a truck-sized sedan.

So, finally, the answer to your question is, it will not be sold in the USA.

IM me if you need more details.

Edit:
Carissa and sukbunny - are you two even aware that TATA NANO is Euro IV compliant? From where did you learnt that they do not meet US emission standards? Fox News?

Indian emission standards are far stricter than US emission standards - I hope this is loud and clear! The only area where it might lag behind is the air-bag thing!

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

WIll it soon be too dangeous to walk our dogs??

King Tooti

Very sad story in Portland. What can be done about this growing pit bull problem where we cant even take our dogs out for a walk anymore??

POSTED: 8:11 am PST February 18, 2007
UPDATED: 4:25 pm PST February 18, 2007

A Portland woman said a wayward pit bull is to blame for the death of her dog.

Ursula Foxâs Schit-Tzu, named Decaf, was killed Friday night on Northeast 47th Street. Fox said she was walking Decaf around 9 p.m. when several dogs came running up behind her with a man yelling at them.



âAll of a sudden, I went to pick her up and these dogs got her right here on the ground,â said Fox.



Fox claimed a pit bull tackled Decaf to the ground and snapped her neck, killing the small dog instantly.

âHe ran down and said, âOh noâ and he tried to stop his dog and I started screaming and he says, 'Oh, Iâm so sorry,' and that was it,â said Fox.

Fox called police, but said the pit bullâs owner was never cited and the dog was not taken away.

FOX 12 t
sorry: rest of article

FOX 12 tried to talk with the owner of the pit bulls, but there was no answer at the door.

Portland law states all dogs must be on a leash and under their ownersâ control while outside of their own yards.

The law also stated owners are liable for any damage caused by their dog; and an off-leash dog that kills another pet is to be considered a dangerous dog.

The Fox family said they planned to contact animal control Tuesday morning.

http://www.kptv.com/news/11047700/detail.html

Answer
This has nothing to do with pit bulls, but about unleashed and badly behaved dogs. I believe owners should be more responsible, and owners of dogs prone to violence even more careful than that, but I don't believe that this happened because of a pit bull, but rather because of a badly mannered badly educated and extremely ignorant pitbull owner.

Yes, some breeds have been bred to fight, or guard or things like that. But the upbringing, not the breeding, is the main problem here. Ignorant people who want a tough dog buy pitbulls, not people who know how to handle and properly train dogs. That is not to say there are no good pitbull owners out there, but rather that they are not the majority. People get dogs for the wrong reasons, are unable to control them, and then don't even properly restrain them.

I'm not denying that pitbulls have the potential to kill. They're powerful dogs and maybe they have a predator instinct somewhere in their gene pool. But if the owner had the dog properly trained and leashed, would this have heppened? I think we need to exterminate the bad pitbull owners, rather than the unfortunate dogs forced to live in these homes.

Red cars have higher insurance costs because these cars are proportionately likely to get into more crashes a year. This is not because red cars are less safe to drive (they are as safe as any other color of the same make and model), but that the drivers who pick them tend to drive less safely. Getting rid of pitbulls is as absurd as saying that companies should be outlawed from producing red vehicles. If this happened, the same dangerous "drivers" would be just as dangerous with another car (or dog).

I have met some very well mannered pit bulls, as well as some incredibly evil ones. Please, don't judge a breed by one dog who got on the front page of the news.

Why does the average liberal's ideology not make too much sense?

Give Me Li

Liberals will actually take the time to block Fox News from their cable or satellite channels. Why? Is an opposing view so offensive that it must be shunned even at the cost of more choice? Why wouldnât a liberal want to know what the other point of view is? How can you learn and grow if you refuse to allow your points of view to be challenged?

Liberals will tell you Wallstreet is ruining America. Then quote Wallstreet elite when they are trying to convince you the stimulous is working. A liberal regime will hire Wallstreet elite to control the treasury. Wallstreet and government are so intertwined it is difficult to untangle the mess they have made. If âChange you can believe inâ¦â meant more Wallstreet control of government â Obama kept that promise. If Wallstreet is ruining America, why would a liberal government integrate them further into positions of vast power?

Do liberals really want an improved standard of living for all Americans? The answer here can only be: âNoâ. Any rational look at the wealth of nations and standards of living will clearly demonstrate less government builds wealth for all. Liberals should be clear â they want equality over actual quality. Yes, we can all live a somewhat economically equal existance, but it will be a low standard. The upper middle class in the Soviet Union was allowed a 2 bedroom apartment and public transportation. The lower middle class in America has 3 bedrooms and 2 cars! Yes, the super rich would live a lifestyle far in excess of the lowest rungs. However, even the lowest rungs will have food, shelter, and most importantly: the opportunity to succeed.

Liberals seem to spit in the face of logic when it comes to results. Obama set expectations for what the stimulous would do and not do. Unemployment was not supposed to go over 8% if we approved the stimulous. Unemployment has exceeded 8% even using the ridiculously understated US Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers. Most economists examing the data are arriving at figures 50% higher. So what is the logical solution? Itâs obvious to rational people that the stimulous did not deliver as promised, try the opposite â give the money back to the people. For liberals, the answer is âmore of the sameâ.

Liberals claim to value science. This might be news to liberals, but science and science fiction are two different things. Science is a rigorous system of observation, testing, data analysis, and finally a conclusion. How would that system apply to government? Easy â reduce federal power. Allow the states to test theories of government within their borders. Winners and losers will quickly stand out. Testing aggressive government programs by forcing the entire nation to adopt them is insanity, not science. Dispite the massive consolidation of power, we do have some examples among the states that stand out. Oregon has the highest unemployment in the nation â so should we copy what they are doing? Liberals say âYes!â Oregon has the highest minimum wage, the federal government is going to force that wage on all of the states. If liberals have decided to use science to destroy America, they are on the right track. Recklessly experimenting on the entire population is a recipe for disaster. Choosing the worst examples and emulating their programs nationwide seems to indicate a desire to create negative results.

Why do liberals think this way?

Note to republicans: Donât consider this post an endorsement. After all, it was you idiots that screwed things up so bad that America thought voting in liberals was a rational idea.
@Durango: I am a complete libertarian... so calling this post "conservative propaganda" makes you seem very foolish.

Answer
1. Fox news is like coke claiming to be healthy and quenches your thirst.
2. WallStreet was responsible for the crash hence they are ruining AMerica! They help created futures and other trading schemes that do not help normal Americans.
3. Liberals will try to help everyone increase the standard of living to a certain extent. Now just the wealthy pay one of the lowest tax rates since the Eisenhower era perhaps they should tax ed like the middle class.
4. Historically spending is what takes a country out of a recession. Obama had too much hope but and could not comprehend the extent of Bush's recession. ( imagine that you are only looking at the tip of the iceberge.
5. Speaking of science why are you talking about Oregon? Why would a worldwide recession not affect Oregon? You can reduce government anytime during the Boom years .

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Ryan Dunn's confusing death?

fox 8 news car crash image

bambam_051

Ryan Dunn's death and the details surrounding it have been so confusing to me. Some people are saying it is a hoax, some people are saying it is real. I honestly don't know what to believe because some stuff is weird.
1. When he crashed, how did the police identify him so fast? Wouldn't they need a picture of what he looked like to compare the facial hair and tattoos to the body?
2. How did they even identify him through his facial hair or tattoos? If the fire was hot enough to burn the metal of the car, how did his facial hair not burn? The hair would be the first thing to go in a fire. And his body would be so charred they would barely be able to see the tattoos. They would have to use dental records to identify him and that would have taken longer than the hour or two they identified him.
3. Why was the first person they called April Margera? Wouldn't they call Ryan's parents, then his girlfriend? And why would April Margera then immediately call TMZ and tell them that Ryan died in a car accident?
4. The car crash scene is weird too. In the left hand lane there are 4 tire marks, and those tire marks stop where Dunn's car supposedly crashed into the trees. Why would a car stop if they saw what happened, and not call the police? The tire tracks from Dunn's car look like they went straight into the guard rail with no sign of trying to turn at all. Like they wanted the car to go straight into the guard rail. Also, why would people be allowed to go into the crash site and take parts of the car? All parts of the car would be considered evidence, yet people are selling parts of the car on ebay.
5. When Bam got home, why did he go straight to the crash site and do immediate interviews? I know that if my best friend just died, the last thing I would want to do would go to the crash site and do an interview. The interview seemed insincere as well, because he did not shed a single tear.
6. A report is saying April played a major part in the gag, and I can believe that. Some people said that April hates they jokes, but in Jackass 3 and 3.5, she plays a part in most of the pranks. At one point in Jackass 3 or 3.5, when they glue Preston and Wee Man together, Bam asks "How are we going to pull them apart?" and you can clearly hear April saying, "Slide them across the table".
7. People are saying that the police and reporters wouldn't play along with that, but they have played along with all the Jackass starts pranks. In order to do their pranks, they have to tell the police. In Viva La Bam, payed a news reporter to go to April's work and tell her her house got blown up.
8. The news report on that was allegedly put up by Fox News looks pretty real to me. The article came out only an hour after news of his death was reported. I don't know how anyone could photoshop an article to look real like that. They even linked TMZ in the article.
9. In Bam's interview with E! news, they ask him what his last conversation with Dunn was. He then pulls out his cell phone and reads off his messages. Dunn is asking Bam if the "gate is unlocked" so he cam come over. The reporter asks him "When was this" and Bam says "Whenever the run was, Sunday". I thought Bam said he was in Arizona Sunday/Monday? Why would Dunn be asking to come over Sunday night is Bam is supposedly in Arizona?
10. Also, Dunn's BAC was allegedly .196. TMZ reported that his toxicology report would not be in until "4-6 weeks", yet the next day they said his BAC was .196. How could they find that out so fast? Also, they said he was going 130-140 mph. How would they be able to figure that out as well?
11. Also, why would Dunn post a picture of him pointing to a beer only hours before he crashed? There are reports that also say he stopped at a gas station to get food. Why would he drive safe all the whole time driving home, then gun it at the exit that was "30 seconds" from Zach Hartwell's home?
12. Also, how did they identify Zach Hartwell? Where are the proven records that they positively identified that Ryan Dunn and Zach Hartwell? They would need to identify both of them through dental records, but they haven't.
I'm not trying to be an asshole disrespectful so please don't be judgmental, I am just honestly confused at the details surrounding his death. And for those of you that say they wouldn't do something like this, this is the Jackass crew we are talking about.

Answer
You make some points that are good and some that make no sense, why he would go to the crash site? I would say for some closure. I had a friend killed in a wreck and I went to his crash site just days after also. Far as the marks going into the rail it looks like it control was lost and it went sideways. As far as trying to stir away, their is no way you would even have time to react at those speeds to steer away and if you didn it wouldn't make a difference, figure the night time no lights through that road and doing 130-140 and the car getting lose if he was trying to make the turn or dodge something. You mentioned why would he gun it 30 seconds from his house plenty of reasons when you got a car with speed you like to show it off, most people do anyways it was a nice straight stretch very long perfect place to show what the car has

as for the tats and such it was never said where he was burnt exactly face or what and seeing how he had tats on his arms chest and legs and the fact he had been previously arrested, they note any tats you have on your body, I'm sure not everybody in PA owns a porsche and they found the car door identified the car, then figuring out the 1 to 2 maybe 3 owners then checking the tats that was on the body that was possibly visible they prob just added 2 and 2 together, it was never said that he was still in the car or anything

I could see them doing the prank but I don't think they would invest the time it would take to do it all knowing they would prob get caught...tree limbs was broke..so they'd have to break limbs, cut big chunks of bark off the tree that you can see missing in videos of the crash site, f the guardrail up and the place where the car was suppose to burnt is right at a tree and all the way up the tree is black, so they'd have to do all this at night which would require lights in order to see not mention traffic going by and probably getting spotted and word being out by now about it...

Can I buy A Nano Car in the U.S.?

feeddaneed

The Indian car company Tata unveiled a four-seat automobile that will sell for just $2,500 yesterday. The Nano should be available later this year, and is aimed at people who might otherwise purchase a motorcycle. Can I buy one in the U.S.?

Answer
TATA NANO is intended for the Indian market and in the future, the developing countries. It is not aimed at N America or EU.

Therefore, TATA will not be marketing it in the USA.

Regarding Pollution:
TATA NANO adheres to Euro IV norms, and as a matter of fact, emission norms in India are far stricter than in the USA. That is why Harley-Davidson cannot enter India.

Regarding Safety:
Although not ideal for highway speeding, this car does pass the Indian frontal crash tests and has side impact resistant features and body-bonded rear window. TATA said, that with some modifications, it could be made to conform to US safety standards. They also said that air-bags cab be installed, but that will hike the price of the car.

The real reason why it will NOT be available to Americans is:
The powerful oil companies' lobby will not allow this car in the USA, because if people started trading their gas guzzling 8-cylinder SUVs for this car, the oil price will drop, and so will their profits.

If allowed in all fairness, this car will dominate the US market, and that is what is feared by the Detroit 3. They don't want this car in USA.

What US carmakers do:
Make a product and artificially create the need.

What Indian carmakers do:
Study the need and create the product.

It is however refreshing to see many Americans today are less gullible to be brainwashed into buying a gas-guzzling Hummer or a truck-sized sedan.

So, finally, the answer to your question is, it will not be sold in the USA.

IM me if you need more details.

Edit:
Carissa and sukbunny - are you two even aware that TATA NANO is Euro IV compliant? From where did you learnt that they do not meet US emission standards? Fox News?

Indian emission standards are far stricter than US emission standards - I hope this is loud and clear! The only area where it might lag behind is the air-bag thing!

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Can I buy A Nano Car in the U.S.?

fox 8 news car crash image

feeddaneed

The Indian car company Tata unveiled a four-seat automobile that will sell for just $2,500 yesterday. The Nano should be available later this year, and is aimed at people who might otherwise purchase a motorcycle. Can I buy one in the U.S.?

Answer
TATA NANO is intended for the Indian market and in the future, the developing countries. It is not aimed at N America or EU.

Therefore, TATA will not be marketing it in the USA.

Regarding Pollution:
TATA NANO adheres to Euro IV norms, and as a matter of fact, emission norms in India are far stricter than in the USA. That is why Harley-Davidson cannot enter India.

Regarding Safety:
Although not ideal for highway speeding, this car does pass the Indian frontal crash tests and has side impact resistant features and body-bonded rear window. TATA said, that with some modifications, it could be made to conform to US safety standards. They also said that air-bags cab be installed, but that will hike the price of the car.

The real reason why it will NOT be available to Americans is:
The powerful oil companies' lobby will not allow this car in the USA, because if people started trading their gas guzzling 8-cylinder SUVs for this car, the oil price will drop, and so will their profits.

If allowed in all fairness, this car will dominate the US market, and that is what is feared by the Detroit 3. They don't want this car in USA.

What US carmakers do:
Make a product and artificially create the need.

What Indian carmakers do:
Study the need and create the product.

It is however refreshing to see many Americans today are less gullible to be brainwashed into buying a gas-guzzling Hummer or a truck-sized sedan.

So, finally, the answer to your question is, it will not be sold in the USA.

IM me if you need more details.

Edit:
Carissa and sukbunny - are you two even aware that TATA NANO is Euro IV compliant? From where did you learnt that they do not meet US emission standards? Fox News?

Indian emission standards are far stricter than US emission standards - I hope this is loud and clear! The only area where it might lag behind is the air-bag thing!

WIll it soon be too dangeous to walk our dogs??

King Tooti

Very sad story in Portland. What can be done about this growing pit bull problem where we cant even take our dogs out for a walk anymore??

POSTED: 8:11 am PST February 18, 2007
UPDATED: 4:25 pm PST February 18, 2007

A Portland woman said a wayward pit bull is to blame for the death of her dog.

Ursula Foxâs Schit-Tzu, named Decaf, was killed Friday night on Northeast 47th Street. Fox said she was walking Decaf around 9 p.m. when several dogs came running up behind her with a man yelling at them.



âAll of a sudden, I went to pick her up and these dogs got her right here on the ground,â said Fox.



Fox claimed a pit bull tackled Decaf to the ground and snapped her neck, killing the small dog instantly.

âHe ran down and said, âOh noâ and he tried to stop his dog and I started screaming and he says, 'Oh, Iâm so sorry,' and that was it,â said Fox.

Fox called police, but said the pit bullâs owner was never cited and the dog was not taken away.

FOX 12 t
sorry: rest of article

FOX 12 tried to talk with the owner of the pit bulls, but there was no answer at the door.

Portland law states all dogs must be on a leash and under their ownersâ control while outside of their own yards.

The law also stated owners are liable for any damage caused by their dog; and an off-leash dog that kills another pet is to be considered a dangerous dog.

The Fox family said they planned to contact animal control Tuesday morning.

http://www.kptv.com/news/11047700/detail.html

Answer
This has nothing to do with pit bulls, but about unleashed and badly behaved dogs. I believe owners should be more responsible, and owners of dogs prone to violence even more careful than that, but I don't believe that this happened because of a pit bull, but rather because of a badly mannered badly educated and extremely ignorant pitbull owner.

Yes, some breeds have been bred to fight, or guard or things like that. But the upbringing, not the breeding, is the main problem here. Ignorant people who want a tough dog buy pitbulls, not people who know how to handle and properly train dogs. That is not to say there are no good pitbull owners out there, but rather that they are not the majority. People get dogs for the wrong reasons, are unable to control them, and then don't even properly restrain them.

I'm not denying that pitbulls have the potential to kill. They're powerful dogs and maybe they have a predator instinct somewhere in their gene pool. But if the owner had the dog properly trained and leashed, would this have heppened? I think we need to exterminate the bad pitbull owners, rather than the unfortunate dogs forced to live in these homes.

Red cars have higher insurance costs because these cars are proportionately likely to get into more crashes a year. This is not because red cars are less safe to drive (they are as safe as any other color of the same make and model), but that the drivers who pick them tend to drive less safely. Getting rid of pitbulls is as absurd as saying that companies should be outlawed from producing red vehicles. If this happened, the same dangerous "drivers" would be just as dangerous with another car (or dog).

I have met some very well mannered pit bulls, as well as some incredibly evil ones. Please, don't judge a breed by one dog who got on the front page of the news.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers