Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Your comments please:
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
-
Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.
Are you willing to give up safety protection to get better fuel economy on the road? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Navy Pride
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Re: Are you willing to give up some safety protection to get better fuel economy on t
You mean across classes of vehicle?
Yes. I gave up my Ram for a Jeep.
I would not be willing to make my Jeep less safe to pick ip a few MPG.
You mean across classes of vehicle?
Yes. I gave up my Ram for a Jeep.
I would not be willing to make my Jeep less safe to pick ip a few MPG.
Doremus Jessup
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,364
- Reaction score
- 135
- Location
- Berlin, 1930s
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Re: Are you willing to give up safety protection to get better fuel economy on the ro
When I bought my Corolla (2005) it was one of the safest cars in its class with all of the airbags.
But then again I don't need an extended cab or crew cab diesel to reassure my manhood when I drive to Starbuck's or Krispy Kreme, or wherever all of those a$$holes are going. :2wave: :lol:
When I bought my Corolla (2005) it was one of the safest cars in its class with all of the airbags.
But then again I don't need an extended cab or crew cab diesel to reassure my manhood when I drive to Starbuck's or Krispy Kreme, or wherever all of those a$$holes are going. :2wave: :lol:
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,321
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Are you willing to give up safety protection to get better fuel economy on the ro
Giving up safety protection in what way? Hybrids are about as safe as similar-model gas-guzzlers. But if you mean am I willing to give up SUVs in favor of smaller cars, then yes. I can't stand SUVs.
Giving up safety protection in what way? Hybrids are about as safe as similar-model gas-guzzlers. But if you mean am I willing to give up SUVs in favor of smaller cars, then yes. I can't stand SUVs.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Are you willing to give up safety protection to get better fuel economy on the ro
Good question NP, my answer: Absolutely
These days heavy safety equipment worsens the power to weight ration, increasing the dependancy on less efficient and larger engines. I personally drive a used sports car that lacks said equipment.
I didnt want power steering because I wanted a better feel for the road (its not so tough when there is no engine in the front.)
I didnt want traction control, or ASM (stability management) because they computerize decisions that a well trained driver should make on his own. (That and my drivetrain increases rear wheel grip.)
I took out the steering wheel with the airbag because mid-90's airbags were the hot high impact kind that do more damage than they prevent.
In fact the only instance where I havent traded security for performance (not necessarily better fuel economy) is my ABS system. Simply because my foot cant outpace it.
I don't know if this position is logically consistent with my ideology, but I know its a choice that I have made before, so its an easy answer.
Good question NP, my answer: Absolutely
These days heavy safety equipment worsens the power to weight ration, increasing the dependancy on less efficient and larger engines. I personally drive a used sports car that lacks said equipment.
I didnt want power steering because I wanted a better feel for the road (its not so tough when there is no engine in the front.)
I didnt want traction control, or ASM (stability management) because they computerize decisions that a well trained driver should make on his own. (That and my drivetrain increases rear wheel grip.)
I took out the steering wheel with the airbag because mid-90's airbags were the hot high impact kind that do more damage than they prevent.
In fact the only instance where I havent traded security for performance (not necessarily better fuel economy) is my ABS system. Simply because my foot cant outpace it.
I don't know if this position is logically consistent with my ideology, but I know its a choice that I have made before, so its an easy answer.
72_lemans
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2006
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Sebeka, Minnesota
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Re: Are you willing to give up safety protection to get better fuel economy on the ro
My bad, I voted wrong.
Anywho, yes, vehicles are safe enough now. Car componies should start to focus on gas mileage instead of making the safest car on the market. I personally shouldn't be rooting for either cause as I don't particularily agree with either. But given the 2 I choose MPG. I drive a '96 chevy pickup around, it's got a 350c.i. engine. It gets about 14-15 MPG. I don't care because I enjoy it. I don't worry about safety either since the biggest accident that I've ever been in was when I hit a deer, no big deal, just toss it in the back and keep going. In my opinion, if you want safer vehicles, get an older vehicle, if you want MPG, get a hybrid, it's that simple.
My bad, I voted wrong.
Anywho, yes, vehicles are safe enough now. Car componies should start to focus on gas mileage instead of making the safest car on the market. I personally shouldn't be rooting for either cause as I don't particularily agree with either. But given the 2 I choose MPG. I drive a '96 chevy pickup around, it's got a 350c.i. engine. It gets about 14-15 MPG. I don't care because I enjoy it. I don't worry about safety either since the biggest accident that I've ever been in was when I hit a deer, no big deal, just toss it in the back and keep going. In my opinion, if you want safer vehicles, get an older vehicle, if you want MPG, get a hybrid, it's that simple.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 15,998
- Reaction score
- 3,962
- Location
- Tiamat's better half
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Are you willing to give up safety protection to get better fuel economy on the ro
My husband recently bought a jetta that runs on biodeisel. It gets great gas mileage using cleaner fuel and has an incredible saftey rating. So my answer would be no. Why would you when you don't have to?
My husband recently bought a jetta that runs on biodeisel. It gets great gas mileage using cleaner fuel and has an incredible saftey rating. So my answer would be no. Why would you when you don't have to?
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 139
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Are you willing to give up safety protection to get better fuel economy on the ro
Yes, I am willing to give up brakes on my SUV for fuel economy.
I don't see the connection. what would fuel economy have to do with putting air bags in the door and dash, or having better bumpers.
what is the connection, technically between safety features and fuel economy? Weight????
Yes, I am willing to give up brakes on my SUV for fuel economy.
I don't see the connection. what would fuel economy have to do with putting air bags in the door and dash, or having better bumpers.
what is the connection, technically between safety features and fuel economy? Weight????
72_lemans
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2006
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Sebeka, Minnesota
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Re: Are you willing to give up safety protection to get better fuel economy on the ro
Yes. Weight is a major issue when installing airbags, and other safety equipment including strengthening the substructure. All of this can add up to several hundred pounds in some cases, a hundred in most. That is a lot of weight as far as gas mileage goes.
Yes. Weight is a major issue when installing airbags, and other safety equipment including strengthening the substructure. All of this can add up to several hundred pounds in some cases, a hundred in most. That is a lot of weight as far as gas mileage goes.
jujuman13
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,075
- Reaction score
- 579
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Are you willing to give up safety protection to get better fuel economy on the ro
I voted NO.
My reasoning is that although I consider myself to be a safe and safety concious driver, able to avoid and or overcome most of the unexpected things that happen when driving a vehicle, there is one thing I can never guard against and that is the totally unexpected actions of another driven vehicle.
For instance, I may be travelling along a street when another vehicle emerges from a side turning and rams my vehicle, against this type of crash (for which I am not responsible) I may be kept alive only because I have air bags on my vehicle.
I would suggest that those who voted yes are considering only their own vehicular handling expertise andd not the unexpected actions of another driven vehicle.
I voted NO.
My reasoning is that although I consider myself to be a safe and safety concious driver, able to avoid and or overcome most of the unexpected things that happen when driving a vehicle, there is one thing I can never guard against and that is the totally unexpected actions of another driven vehicle.
For instance, I may be travelling along a street when another vehicle emerges from a side turning and rams my vehicle, against this type of crash (for which I am not responsible) I may be kept alive only because I have air bags on my vehicle.
I would suggest that those who voted yes are considering only their own vehicular handling expertise andd not the unexpected actions of another driven vehicle.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 2,149
- Reaction score
- 24
- Location
- trackside
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Are you willing to give up safety protection to get better fuel economy on the ro
There is no safety in SUV's necessarily. Most flip much easier than sedans and smaller wagons, they don't have better traction on ice; in fact, because of the false sense of safety that owners of those behemoths have, they are less safe than smaller cars. A front wheel or all wheel drive with manual stick shift and traction control, along with front and side airbags and antilock brakes is probably your safest bet. Of course, none of that means squat if you're a lousy driver and your tires are bald.
The safest cars on the road (note not one is an SUV or large sedan)Forbes Safest Cars 2006
There is no safety in SUV's necessarily. Most flip much easier than sedans and smaller wagons, they don't have better traction on ice; in fact, because of the false sense of safety that owners of those behemoths have, they are less safe than smaller cars. A front wheel or all wheel drive with manual stick shift and traction control, along with front and side airbags and antilock brakes is probably your safest bet. Of course, none of that means squat if you're a lousy driver and your tires are bald.
The safest cars on the road (note not one is an SUV or large sedan)Forbes Safest Cars 2006
Last edited: