What happed to all the Hummers?
- Thread starter ET16
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Audi Junkie- I knew you'd come around! I was just about to post that one, but you beat me to it! Thanks! So now that you've not only seen these videos, but you're posting them yourself (along with IIHS crash test results), it must be clear to you that:
Originally Posted By: moving2
1. IIHS: Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes."
2. IIHS: "A really, really poorly designed or insufficiently designed large- or medium-sized car may be more or less protective than the best-designed small car, but that's something that you're not going to be able to tell just by looking at crash-test ratings," says David Zuby, senior vice president of vehicle research for IIHS. "So all things being equal, if you're concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car."
Not sure why you posted the FOX "When Cars Attack IV" videos, since they prove nothing, but they sure are entertaining! Thanks again.
Audi Junkie- I knew you'd come around! I was just about to post that one, but you beat me to it! Thanks! So now that you've not only seen these videos, but you're posting them yourself (along with IIHS crash test results), it must be clear to you that:
Originally Posted By: moving2
1. IIHS: Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes."
2. IIHS: "A really, really poorly designed or insufficiently designed large- or medium-sized car may be more or less protective than the best-designed small car, but that's something that you're not going to be able to tell just by looking at crash-test ratings," says David Zuby, senior vice president of vehicle research for IIHS. "So all things being equal, if you're concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car."
Not sure why you posted the FOX "When Cars Attack IV" videos, since they prove nothing, but they sure are entertaining! Thanks again.
Well, the last two videos compare a roll-over at speed in a Euro sedan to a roll-over in a "safe" SUV.
One the driver walks away and the other he's removed with a sponge.
I guess they didn't know about statistics.
One the driver walks away and the other he's removed with a sponge.
I guess they didn't know about statistics.
He wasn't removed from the vehicle at all...he was ejected because he wasn't strapped in. How does that video relate to this topic at all? If he hadnt been ejected due to his own ignorance, he may have walked away as well.
Did you even watch the video?
Did you even watch the video?
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Well, the last two videos compare a roll-over at speed in a Euro sedan to a roll-over in a "safe" SUV.
One the driver walks away and the other he's removed with a sponge.
I guess they didn't know about statistics.
Audi Junkie- lemme get this straight.
1. So, to you, the anecdotal FOX "When Cars Attack IV" rollover videos you posted, which took place under different circumstances and conditions (and in which it appears the SUV driver was unbelted), can somehow be compared with one another to conclude something about car vs. SUV safety?
2. And, to you, the anecdotal FOX "When Cars Attack IV" videos you posted, which took place under unknown circumstances and uncontrolled conditions (and in which it appears the SUV driver was unbelted), are just as valid and comparable to the IIHS crash test videos you posted, which took place under known circumstances and super-controlled conditions?
So I guess it's not just statistics you are "not interested" in, but the topic of auto safety in general? LOL. Well, you did post the minicar vs. midsize car IIHS crash test yourself, so maybe you are coming around and you don't even realize it. The saving grace here is that at least now I have the facts in one place for future reference (thanks to me), and I have some entertaining videos to watch (thanks to you).
I rest my case.
Well, the last two videos compare a roll-over at speed in a Euro sedan to a roll-over in a "safe" SUV.
One the driver walks away and the other he's removed with a sponge.
I guess they didn't know about statistics.
Audi Junkie- lemme get this straight.
1. So, to you, the anecdotal FOX "When Cars Attack IV" rollover videos you posted, which took place under different circumstances and conditions (and in which it appears the SUV driver was unbelted), can somehow be compared with one another to conclude something about car vs. SUV safety?
2. And, to you, the anecdotal FOX "When Cars Attack IV" videos you posted, which took place under unknown circumstances and uncontrolled conditions (and in which it appears the SUV driver was unbelted), are just as valid and comparable to the IIHS crash test videos you posted, which took place under known circumstances and super-controlled conditions?
So I guess it's not just statistics you are "not interested" in, but the topic of auto safety in general? LOL. Well, you did post the minicar vs. midsize car IIHS crash test yourself, so maybe you are coming around and you don't even realize it. The saving grace here is that at least now I have the facts in one place for future reference (thanks to me), and I have some entertaining videos to watch (thanks to you).
I rest my case.
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: moving2
2. "The Arlington, Va.-based IIHS rated front-to-front crash tests between microcars and mid-size sedans. The Institute chose 2009 models of the Honda Fit and Accord, the Smart Fortwo and Mercedes C-Class, and the Toyota Camry and Yaris. It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes, the report said.
[...]
The Yaris, in its crash with the Camry, lost a door and, despite the airbag, also forced the dummy's head against the steering wheel. Excessive head and neck injuries, plus deep gashes on the right knee of the dummy, were also reported."
Originally Posted By: moving2
2. "The Arlington, Va.-based IIHS rated front-to-front crash tests between microcars and mid-size sedans. The Institute chose 2009 models of the Honda Fit and Accord, the Smart Fortwo and Mercedes C-Class, and the Toyota Camry and Yaris. It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes, the report said.
[...]
The Yaris, in its crash with the Camry, lost a door and, despite the airbag, also forced the dummy's head against the steering wheel. Excessive head and neck injuries, plus deep gashes on the right knee of the dummy, were also reported."
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Audi Junkie- thanks again for posting this and making my point for me!
Originally Posted By: moving2
2. "The Arlington, Va.-based IIHS rated front-to-front crash tests between microcars and mid-size sedans. The Institute chose 2009 models of the Honda Fit and Accord, the Smart Fortwo and Mercedes C-Class, and the Toyota Camry and Yaris. It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes, the report said.
[...]
In the crash test between the C-Class and Fortwo, for example, the Smart bounced off the C-Class and turned 450 degrees before landing and displacing the instrument panel and steering wheel through the cockpit. The C-Class had almost no intrusion of the front gears into the passenger area."
Audi Junkie- thanks again for posting this and making my point for me!
Originally Posted By: moving2
2. "The Arlington, Va.-based IIHS rated front-to-front crash tests between microcars and mid-size sedans. The Institute chose 2009 models of the Honda Fit and Accord, the Smart Fortwo and Mercedes C-Class, and the Toyota Camry and Yaris. It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes, the report said.
[...]
In the crash test between the C-Class and Fortwo, for example, the Smart bounced off the C-Class and turned 450 degrees before landing and displacing the instrument panel and steering wheel through the cockpit. The C-Class had almost no intrusion of the front gears into the passenger area."
Audi Junkie- using your "logic", these videos must prove that cars are pretty darn unsafe:
I'd pick the truck in this one. How about you?
You'll like this one, too:
I think I see where you're coming from- posting these random, anecdotal, and otherwise meaningless Youtube videos is WAY more fun than discussing those annoying "IIHS/NHTSA/NCAP crash tests", or those meaningless "IIHS statistics" aren't they? Not to mention posting random videos is much easier on the brain vs. having one of those crazy "rational discussions" with those annoying "facts and numbers".
Now I get it: random Youtube videos you know little to nothing about make you feel safe when IIHS crash tests, data, and statistics do not. I hear ya!
So please continue posting these awesome videos and I'll do the same. Lovin' it!
I'd pick the truck in this one. How about you?
You'll like this one, too:
I think I see where you're coming from- posting these random, anecdotal, and otherwise meaningless Youtube videos is WAY more fun than discussing those annoying "IIHS/NHTSA/NCAP crash tests", or those meaningless "IIHS statistics" aren't they? Not to mention posting random videos is much easier on the brain vs. having one of those crazy "rational discussions" with those annoying "facts and numbers".
Now I get it: random Youtube videos you know little to nothing about make you feel safe when IIHS crash tests, data, and statistics do not. I hear ya!
So please continue posting these awesome videos and I'll do the same. Lovin' it!
Since I've conceded my weakness, why can't you help me out with the strait-up comparison of the total risk of dieing in a car vs dieing in an SUV. I don't see why you wouldn't have that info at your fingertips, did you not consider it? I guess I am too much of a noob to understand why such a basic stat would be irrelevant.
I quit being quite so hyperbolic about my arguments. One side has one method of risk analysis and I have another. Mooving2 has taken the step of appointing himself judge of other's positions, rather than just stating his own. I choose not to argue the same info he presented, rather to put forward my own "common sense" approach.
That is, I decided to trade the perceived gain in crash safety for more maneuverability and braking...something very much intangible for something very tangible.
I believe this is a reasonable approach and the videos maybe suggest, as I said, the highest good is in the mean.
I quit being quite so hyperbolic about my arguments. One side has one method of risk analysis and I have another. Mooving2 has taken the step of appointing himself judge of other's positions, rather than just stating his own. I choose not to argue the same info he presented, rather to put forward my own "common sense" approach.
That is, I decided to trade the perceived gain in crash safety for more maneuverability and braking...something very much intangible for something very tangible.
I believe this is a reasonable approach and the videos maybe suggest, as I said, the highest good is in the mean.
Here is the story behind the pictures:
http://www.insideline.com/volkswagen...eed-crash.html
Just the Facts:
According to the Chinese media, the executives were traveling at 135 mph when their vehicle hit a truck.
They were exceeding the expressway's maximum speed of 75 mph.
Only last week, Shanghai VW announced plans to build a new plant as part of its China expansion plans.
SHANGHAI, China — The general manager of Shanghai Volkswagen, plus the company's public relations chief and two other executives of the company, died in a company-owned VW Tiguan in a high-speed traffic accident over the weekend, the company has announced.
According to Chinese media reports, Shanghai VW General Manager Liu Jian and PR chief Zeng Jialin, plus two executives who were not named, were traveling at 135 mph — far exceeding the expressway maximum of 75 mph — when the Tiguan hit a truck and burst into flames.
Liu had been present at a signing ceremony late last week in which Shanghai VW announced plans to build a new plant in Yizheng as part of its China expansion plans. He had been the company's general manager since late 2007, while Zeng had been PR chief since 2004.
Inside Line says: Sad story in the midst of good news for the joint venture. — Laura Sky Brown,
http://www.insideline.com/volkswagen...eed-crash.html
Just the Facts:
According to the Chinese media, the executives were traveling at 135 mph when their vehicle hit a truck.
They were exceeding the expressway's maximum speed of 75 mph.
Only last week, Shanghai VW announced plans to build a new plant as part of its China expansion plans.
SHANGHAI, China — The general manager of Shanghai Volkswagen, plus the company's public relations chief and two other executives of the company, died in a company-owned VW Tiguan in a high-speed traffic accident over the weekend, the company has announced.
According to Chinese media reports, Shanghai VW General Manager Liu Jian and PR chief Zeng Jialin, plus two executives who were not named, were traveling at 135 mph — far exceeding the expressway maximum of 75 mph — when the Tiguan hit a truck and burst into flames.
Liu had been present at a signing ceremony late last week in which Shanghai VW announced plans to build a new plant in Yizheng as part of its China expansion plans. He had been the company's general manager since late 2007, while Zeng had been PR chief since 2004.
Inside Line says: Sad story in the midst of good news for the joint venture. — Laura Sky Brown,
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Here is the story behind the pictures:
http://www.insideline.com/volkswagen...eed-crash.html
Just the Facts:
According to the Chinese media, the executives were traveling at 135 mph when their vehicle hit a truck.
They were exceeding the expressway's maximum speed of 75 mph.
Only last week, Shanghai VW announced plans to build a new plant as part of its China expansion plans.
SHANGHAI, China — The general manager of Shanghai Volkswagen, plus the company's public relations chief and two other executives of the company, died in a company-owned VW Tiguan in a high-speed traffic accident over the weekend, the company has announced.
According to Chinese media reports, Shanghai VW General Manager Liu Jian and PR chief Zeng Jialin, plus two executives who were not named, were traveling at 135 mph — far exceeding the expressway maximum of 75 mph — when the Tiguan hit a truck and burst into flames.
Liu had been present at a signing ceremony late last week in which Shanghai VW announced plans to build a new plant in Yizheng as part of its China expansion plans. He had been the company's general manager since late 2007, while Zeng had been PR chief since 2004.
Inside Line says: Sad story in the midst of good news for the joint venture. — Laura Sky Brown,
I read the story. Also read the views of many opponents of that story, some which state the speed posted was impossible, since the vehicle is governed to a speed below that.
There are a few different angles to this one. But clearly, there wasn't a lot of damage to the dump truck, whilst the VW turned into a burning metal pancake.
Here is the story behind the pictures:
http://www.insideline.com/volkswagen...eed-crash.html
Just the Facts:
According to the Chinese media, the executives were traveling at 135 mph when their vehicle hit a truck.
They were exceeding the expressway's maximum speed of 75 mph.
Only last week, Shanghai VW announced plans to build a new plant as part of its China expansion plans.
SHANGHAI, China — The general manager of Shanghai Volkswagen, plus the company's public relations chief and two other executives of the company, died in a company-owned VW Tiguan in a high-speed traffic accident over the weekend, the company has announced.
According to Chinese media reports, Shanghai VW General Manager Liu Jian and PR chief Zeng Jialin, plus two executives who were not named, were traveling at 135 mph — far exceeding the expressway maximum of 75 mph — when the Tiguan hit a truck and burst into flames.
Liu had been present at a signing ceremony late last week in which Shanghai VW announced plans to build a new plant in Yizheng as part of its China expansion plans. He had been the company's general manager since late 2007, while Zeng had been PR chief since 2004.
Inside Line says: Sad story in the midst of good news for the joint venture. — Laura Sky Brown,
I read the story. Also read the views of many opponents of that story, some which state the speed posted was impossible, since the vehicle is governed to a speed below that.
There are a few different angles to this one. But clearly, there wasn't a lot of damage to the dump truck, whilst the VW turned into a burning metal pancake.
Not many things would fare well in a high speed impact with a dump truck. Near an area where construction is being done on the TCH, there was one parked on the shoulder with 3 reflectors spaced a few feet apart behind it. I was thinking as I passed it that anything, short of a tractor trailer, hitting it would be pavement splatter at the speed that section of the highway is driven on (60-80 mph typically).
No passenger vehicle, of any type, has much chance in a high speed impact with a heavy commercial or industrial vehicle. The only real chance you have is in avoiding the avoidable by maintaining awareness, alertness, and using the driving skills developed over time and experience. The best accident outcome is always avoiding the avoidable. The unavoidable you can't do a whole lot about; but with the above in mind, you are much more likely to die of old age or some other cause of death.
I still maintain that today's vehicles, overall, are much safer than the ones of several decades past. And the fatality count leaves out all of the accidents avoided, and the potentially serious ones where the occupants escaped with only minor injuries. This is something the statistics don't tell you.
-Spyder
No passenger vehicle, of any type, has much chance in a high speed impact with a heavy commercial or industrial vehicle. The only real chance you have is in avoiding the avoidable by maintaining awareness, alertness, and using the driving skills developed over time and experience. The best accident outcome is always avoiding the avoidable. The unavoidable you can't do a whole lot about; but with the above in mind, you are much more likely to die of old age or some other cause of death.
I still maintain that today's vehicles, overall, are much safer than the ones of several decades past. And the fatality count leaves out all of the accidents avoided, and the potentially serious ones where the occupants escaped with only minor injuries. This is something the statistics don't tell you.
-Spyder
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: moving2
Audi Junkie- using your "logic", these videos must prove that cars are pretty darn unsafe:
I'd pick the truck in this one. How about you?
Quite obviously, I would take the vehicle that DID the hit with the front end, not the one that was t-boned. Switch the vehicles, I'd rather be in the car than the truck struck in the door. So, the type of vehicles in this case are entirely irrelevant.
Obviously, a successful brake or swerve is more ideal.
Audi Junkie- using your "logic", these videos must prove that cars are pretty darn unsafe:
I'd pick the truck in this one. How about you?
Quite obviously, I would take the vehicle that DID the hit with the front end, not the one that was t-boned. Switch the vehicles, I'd rather be in the car than the truck struck in the door. So, the type of vehicles in this case are entirely irrelevant.
Obviously, a successful brake or swerve is more ideal.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
One side has one method of risk analysis and I have another. Mooving2 has taken the step of appointing himself judge of other's positions, rather than just stating his own. I choose not to argue the same info he presented, rather to put forward my own "common sense" approach.
Audi Junkie- you are absolutely right I have. And the criticism I've leveled at you couldn't be more well-deserved. You do realize that, after having most of your assumptions and "facts" proven wrong, and after you were unable to form a fact-based argument, you've now stooped to the point of posting random, anecdotal Youtube videos of crashes of a car (and one of an SUV with unbelted driver) that occurred under unknown circumstances and conditions, and out of that you've tried to draw a conclusion about car vs. SUV safety? And you call this a "method of risk analysis"?
I call it "posting random videos from Youtube for entertainment purposes", since no other conclusion can be logically drawn from those videos. And you're surprised at getting called out on this on BITOG? Really? You've been here long enough to know that [censored] gets called out. And you obviously took this new "common sense approach" only because the IIHS and NHTSA data, statistics, and statements I posted earlier didn't fit your preconceived notions; this is evidenced by your struggle to prove your point with your assumptions about the IIHS articles, which were proven wrong over and over again earlier in this thread. That didn't work for you, so now we get these very entertaining videos that form the "common sense approach" instead. Nice try, if a bit transparent.
If I think your approach is invalid, I'll point that out, and explain why. If you thought my approach was invalid (and you seem to have thought that) then I would expect no less from you, but instead of offering counterarguments, you offer silence on point after point, and question after question I've posed of you.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
[...] why can't you help me out with the strait-up comparison of the total risk of dieing in a car vs dieing in an SUV. I don't see why you wouldn't have that info at your fingertips, did you not consider it?
Wait- you're asking me about an unanswered question? The irony! OK, Audi Junkie, how about we make a deal? You respond to the 7 enumerated points in my post above and, in return, I'll answer your question. I'll even let go of the countless points and questions you left unanswered in prior posts- just the 7 points. Deal?
One side has one method of risk analysis and I have another. Mooving2 has taken the step of appointing himself judge of other's positions, rather than just stating his own. I choose not to argue the same info he presented, rather to put forward my own "common sense" approach.
Audi Junkie- you are absolutely right I have. And the criticism I've leveled at you couldn't be more well-deserved. You do realize that, after having most of your assumptions and "facts" proven wrong, and after you were unable to form a fact-based argument, you've now stooped to the point of posting random, anecdotal Youtube videos of crashes of a car (and one of an SUV with unbelted driver) that occurred under unknown circumstances and conditions, and out of that you've tried to draw a conclusion about car vs. SUV safety? And you call this a "method of risk analysis"?
I call it "posting random videos from Youtube for entertainment purposes", since no other conclusion can be logically drawn from those videos. And you're surprised at getting called out on this on BITOG? Really? You've been here long enough to know that [censored] gets called out. And you obviously took this new "common sense approach" only because the IIHS and NHTSA data, statistics, and statements I posted earlier didn't fit your preconceived notions; this is evidenced by your struggle to prove your point with your assumptions about the IIHS articles, which were proven wrong over and over again earlier in this thread. That didn't work for you, so now we get these very entertaining videos that form the "common sense approach" instead. Nice try, if a bit transparent.
If I think your approach is invalid, I'll point that out, and explain why. If you thought my approach was invalid (and you seem to have thought that) then I would expect no less from you, but instead of offering counterarguments, you offer silence on point after point, and question after question I've posed of you.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
[...] why can't you help me out with the strait-up comparison of the total risk of dieing in a car vs dieing in an SUV. I don't see why you wouldn't have that info at your fingertips, did you not consider it?
Wait- you're asking me about an unanswered question? The irony! OK, Audi Junkie, how about we make a deal? You respond to the 7 enumerated points in my post above and, in return, I'll answer your question. I'll even let go of the countless points and questions you left unanswered in prior posts- just the 7 points. Deal?
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
No passenger vehicle, of any type, has much chance in a high speed impact with a heavy commercial or industrial vehicle.
Since Audi Junkie is so fond of anecdotal evidence, here's an example that says otherwise (note: B-pillar removed by rescue workers post-accident):
'97 Landcruiser meets Construction Crane @~60MPH
No passenger vehicle, of any type, has much chance in a high speed impact with a heavy commercial or industrial vehicle.
Since Audi Junkie is so fond of anecdotal evidence, here's an example that says otherwise (note: B-pillar removed by rescue workers post-accident):
'97 Landcruiser meets Construction Crane @~60MPH
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Here is the story behind the pictures:
http://www.insideline.com/volkswagen...eed-crash.html
Just the Facts:
According to the Chinese media, the executives were traveling at 135 mph when their vehicle hit a truck.
And the rest...of the story:
"According to unconfirmed reports, the Tiguan was speeding at 220 km/h. This, however, has been challenged by many. For one thing, Tiguan has a top speed of only 200 km/h according to VW. For another, it is hard to explain why the executives went for such a high speed when a toll station is only 2 km away.
Some suggest that Shanghai VW is trying to cover up the real cause, some design defects of Tiguan, by citing speeding. As Tiguan was released only a few months ago and currently a best selling SUV in China, Shanghai VW seems to have a strong motivation to do so."
Here is the story behind the pictures:
http://www.insideline.com/volkswagen...eed-crash.html
Just the Facts:
According to the Chinese media, the executives were traveling at 135 mph when their vehicle hit a truck.
And the rest...of the story:
"According to unconfirmed reports, the Tiguan was speeding at 220 km/h. This, however, has been challenged by many. For one thing, Tiguan has a top speed of only 200 km/h according to VW. For another, it is hard to explain why the executives went for such a high speed when a toll station is only 2 km away.
Some suggest that Shanghai VW is trying to cover up the real cause, some design defects of Tiguan, by citing speeding. As Tiguan was released only a few months ago and currently a best selling SUV in China, Shanghai VW seems to have a strong motivation to do so."
Does it have a Black Box - if so they should release copies of it so we can put the matter to rest.
-Spyder
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
[...] why can't you help me out with the strait-up comparison of the total risk of dieing in a car vs dieing in an SUV. I don't see why you wouldn't have that info at your fingertips, did you not consider it?
Wait- you're asking me about an unanswered question? The irony! OK, Audi Junkie, how about we make a deal? You respond to the 7 enumerated points in my post above and, in return, I'll answer your question. I'll even let go of the countless points and questions you left unanswered in prior posts- just the 7 points. Deal?
Oh, so you don't have the data and haven't considered it.
You should have just said so.
It's the one and only request I made from you, and is within your fiend of specialty.
Again, statistics are quite intangible while maneuverability is very tangible. That's how I roll.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
[...] why can't you help me out with the strait-up comparison of the total risk of dieing in a car vs dieing in an SUV. I don't see why you wouldn't have that info at your fingertips, did you not consider it?
Wait- you're asking me about an unanswered question? The irony! OK, Audi Junkie, how about we make a deal? You respond to the 7 enumerated points in my post above and, in return, I'll answer your question. I'll even let go of the countless points and questions you left unanswered in prior posts- just the 7 points. Deal?
Oh, so you don't have the data and haven't considered it.
You should have just said so.
It's the one and only request I made from you, and is within your fiend of specialty.
Again, statistics are quite intangible while maneuverability is very tangible. That's how I roll.
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
[...] why can't you help me out with the strait-up comparison of the total risk of dieing in a car vs dieing in an SUV. I don't see why you wouldn't have that info at your fingertips, did you not consider it?
Wait- you're asking me about an unanswered question? The irony! OK, Audi Junkie, how about we make a deal? You respond to the 7 enumerated points in my post above and, in return, I'll answer your question. I'll even let go of the countless points and questions you left unanswered in prior posts- just the 7 points. Deal?
1.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Oh, so you don't have the data
Uhh...incorrect. Here's a hint: I already posted half the data in a previous post in this thread (another one which you ignored, no doubt).
2.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
and haven't considered it.
Wrong again, 0 for 2.
Audi Junkie- so I take it you're not willing to take me up on my proposed deal? Oh, so you are incapable of responding to my 7 points above. Certainly not all of those 7 points are about statistics, so what's your next excuse?
Now you're 0 for 3, but keep trying- I'm not going anywhere, and plenty of beer left, not to mention those entertaining FOX "When Cars Attack IV" videos you posted, which I can watch again and again- please keep 'em coming! Maybe I'll even find a few more of my own to post.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
[...] why can't you help me out with the strait-up comparison of the total risk of dieing in a car vs dieing in an SUV. I don't see why you wouldn't have that info at your fingertips, did you not consider it?
Wait- you're asking me about an unanswered question? The irony! OK, Audi Junkie, how about we make a deal? You respond to the 7 enumerated points in my post above and, in return, I'll answer your question. I'll even let go of the countless points and questions you left unanswered in prior posts- just the 7 points. Deal?
1.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Oh, so you don't have the data
Uhh...incorrect. Here's a hint: I already posted half the data in a previous post in this thread (another one which you ignored, no doubt).
2.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
and haven't considered it.
Wrong again, 0 for 2.
Audi Junkie- so I take it you're not willing to take me up on my proposed deal? Oh, so you are incapable of responding to my 7 points above. Certainly not all of those 7 points are about statistics, so what's your next excuse?
Now you're 0 for 3, but keep trying- I'm not going anywhere, and plenty of beer left, not to mention those entertaining FOX "When Cars Attack IV" videos you posted, which I can watch again and again- please keep 'em coming! Maybe I'll even find a few more of my own to post.
I have been enjoying the videos.
-Spyder
-Spyder
- Status
Similar threads
