 | | Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
|
|
(...) " a priori " ??? (...) I agree in general with what Larry is saying, but I also agree with Richard. Some basic rules/safety standards should be in place. That, after all is the purpose of government. We collectively agree that we'll drive on (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned
|
|
(...) Whoops! c/tardy/long/ The deliveries are not tardy. Todd clearly states that some time will transpire between payment and shipment. Sorry about that, I made that particular joke too quickly. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned
|
|
(...) Do you hear that, Todd? People are joking about nuking Boston due to your tardy delivery times! :-) (...) Right. Those that call for regulation seem to think that some bureaucrat knows better what is safe and what isn't than the marketplace (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Yahoo is good for the 'net (was Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
|
(...) Well...a couple days ago I had a reply half written on the web interface, but unfortunately a computer freeze made me lose it. Here I go again, after I've had a bit more time to think it through :) (...) I'm no one to tell them what they (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned
|
|
(...) Though I wouldn't absolve the track and driver of all responsibility, but I agree that their liability is limited. Assuming that reasonable expectations of safety inspections etc. have been followed, there ought to be no liability (but if for (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
