Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries
in [Cars]
|
From: Free Lunch on 3 May 2010 19:12 On Mon, 3 May 2010 15:28:11 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road: >On May 3, 10:07�am, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> There is no capitalism at all in those two places. >> >> There is no pure capitalism anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. > >what do you call a totally virtually unregulated market? > >I call it pure capitalism... > >you want an AK-47 or a steak or a girl slave? all you need is money If I have the AK-47, I'll get the money.
From: Brent on 3 May 2010 19:20 On 2010-05-03, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Just like Obama is going after Goldman Saks--he is through with them. It's just for press and give them a wrist slap. For the billions they got they'll end paying a few million in fines... cost of doing "business".
From: Brent on 3 May 2010 20:01 On 2010-05-03, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 7:12�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Mon, 3 May 2010 15:28:11 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote in misc.transport.road: >> >> >On May 3, 10:07�am, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> There is no capitalism at all in those two places. >> >> >> There is no pure capitalism anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. >> >> >what do you call a totally virtually �unregulated market? >> >> >I call it pure capitalism... >> >> >you want an AK-47 or a steak or a girl slave? all you need is money >> >> If I have the AK-47, I'll get the money. > > took a sec... yup... provided the guy who has the money does not > also have one ...or two.. or a bevy of friends with RPGs and the > like.. > > That's the thing about Somalia. If you are one that Chafs at govt > taxing you do death and regulating you out of business... try a place > like Somalia where you don't have to worry at all about those nasty > govt entitlements...transfer of wealth , etc, Ask yourself, what happens if you don't pay the warlord? Then ask yourself what happens if you don't pay the US federal government? Hint: Same thing. Both of them, believing they are legitmate authority reserve the right to kill you if you don't sufficently obey them.
From: Brent on 4 May 2010 14:31 On 2010-05-04, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On May 1, 2:19�pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> And smog pumps, and 5MPH crash bumpers, and better fuel economy, and >> every other government-mandated "improvement" to cars. There has never >> been a government mandate that resulted in a cost *reduction*. >> >> >would you willingly pay $1000 extra "up front" for air bags if it >> >saved you $2000 in insurance premium costs? >> >> Sure! You gonna give that to me in writing? >> >> >when the govt and/or the insurance industry totals up ALL the costs >> >for ALL incidents and determines that a required safety device costs >> >will be less than all the totaled costs without it - �we >> >get ...regulation..right? >> >> Can you name an instance where this has occurred? > Sure! Look at how much the fatality rate has dropped per miles > travelled, despite the fact people are driving faster and the roads > are more crowded. All those safety devices, based on years of > experience, successfully have reduced the chances of being killed in > an accident. > > Back in 1968 and 1969 when many of the devices were mandated, they > explained the why's and how's of each device. It all made good > sense. For instance, the old time hood ornaments would fly off in an > accident and become a lethal missile. The difference is education, not mandates. Ford tried to sell safety in the 1950s. Few bought. Other automakers had done the same. Today few people would buy cars without seatbelts even if there was an option to. Safety does sell today. Automakers go beyond the government requirements.
From: Matthew Russotto on 8 May 2010 17:37
In article <d5cot5d9tm3f4snrqiup5p5cnkvd7bsoe5(a)4ax.com>, John Lansford <jlnsford(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > >I don't recall my car insurance going down just because I bought one >with airbags. In fact, it's been rising steadily despite neither my >wife or me having any traffic violations. If these cars are safer, >why doesn't the insurance go down? > >John Lansford, PE Same reason design speeds are going down despite cars being more capable. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. |