 | | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned
|
|
(...) I agree with much of what you have stated in the rest of your response. As to the above, I only want to be very specific about what I am trying to get across: I don't care about banning SUVs or Monster trucks, I care about their approximate (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned
|
|
(...) If I understand what you're saying, yes. Paraphrasing: Guns are tools. Cars are tools. Drugs are tools. Our own bodies are tools. Rather than regulating what sorts of tools people can possess or behaviours we can engage in with our own bodies, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I'm lucky to be alive
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I'm understanding your statement; are you saying that the occupants of SUV's and compacts are at similar risk of fatality? I think the concern, in addition to SUV-driver risk, is that SUV's may cause more injury to those in the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I'm lucky to be alive
|
|
(...) An important note here, that I've mentioned before - I believe that my injuries were so minimal in part because the SUV WAS higher than my vehicle and thus rode up on top of my car, which involved more of the car in energy absorbing crumpling (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I'm lucky to be alive
|
|
(...) This topic isn't exactly an obsession of mine but I thought I'd point out that much more than certain "costs" are at stake here. And I for one am not prepared to accept that money will cover for the damages (i.e. the ability to cover for the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
