There are restrictions on cars, yes. However "trucks" (and SUV's are
considered trucks) are exempt from a lot of them including:
Bumper height.
Side-impact beams (although some manufacturers now include these anyway).
Restrictions on cost of bumper damage in a collision (I forget the
speed).
Gas-guzzler taxes and fleet mileage restrictions (not sure if the latter
still exist, actually).
Emissions restrictions. Clinton recently signed legislation to phase out
this exemption for trucks. Considering the greater amount of fuel burned
per mile and fewer emissions restrictions, SUV's are really
environmentally irresponsible, if you care about such things.
Considering that my Jaguar gets no better mileage than some SUV's, I have
a hard time being holier-than-thou on that point ;-).
And a host of other exemptions, many related to the safety of the
occupants. People who drive SUV's because they think they are safer have
a false sense of security. Crash tests have proven that you are more
safe in a similar size car than an SUV. And as stated earlier, so is the
MG you smash into (MG content achieved yet again)! SUV's tend to roll
over more easily than cars,
If you want more info see http://poseur.4x4.org/index.html. Amongst the
vitriol there are some good facts and reasoned argument.
No, I don't think SUV's should be taken away from people. My father has
a Chevy Tahoe that he uses to tow his boat and travel trailer and (gasp!)
actually goes off-road to go hunting. They have their uses. I just
think people buy them like sheep and they have the wool over their eyes.
David Littlefield
Houston, TX
'62 MGA MkII
'51 MGTD
'88 Jaguar XJ-S
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:41:42 -0800 "Tony Woodruff" <tonyw@mailmedia.com>
writes:
> If I'm not mistaken, I believe these same regulations are the ones
> that forced MG to raise the MGB to a more standard height. I also
> heard something several years ago about why there were 3 wipers -
> some sort of regulation about the percentage of the wind-screen that
> needed to be cleared by the wipers.
>
> Interesting how the US government looks the other way when Detroit
> is fudging the rules, but MG was forced to do silly things like put
> on a rubber bumper, raise the car's height and add the extra wiper!
>
> Tony Woodruff
> 67 MGB (down low and with 2 wipers!)
>
>
> >>> Dan Dwelley <ddwelley@excite.com> 3/23/2000 9:35:35 AM >>>
> If you look at the regulations of many states, there is a height at
> which
> the bottom edge of a vehicles bumper may be off the ground. Some
> states;
> it's 20" maximum. This means that if the bottom of your bumper is
> any higher
> than 20" off the ground, your vehicle is in violation of the law.
> This
> equates to a failure for inspection...unfortunately, these laws are
> never
> enforced...I think there is some federal regulation somewhere as
> well. Just
> my thoughts...I remember seeing this somewhere.
>
> Dan Dwelley
> 77 Midget
> Alexandria, Va.
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:25:04 -0500, Robert Alan Reisse wrote:
>
> > I think that has been verified by the acknowledgement of GM,
> Ford,
> Chrysler
> > and a host of foreign manufactures that they need to install
> protection
> on
> > their SUV and other large vehicles for crash protection for the
> average
> > car. A driver of an average car is three times more likely to be
> killed
> in
> > a collision with an SUV type vehicle then if the other vehicle is
> an
> > average car.
> >
> > At one point all cars had to have their bumpers and lights within
> specific
> > ranges for the protection of all. SUV's and Trucks certainly
> have voided
> > that idea to the peril of the rest of us.
> >
> > I am sick and tired of driving average vehicles and being blinded
> by the
> > lights of some SUV or pick up that are at my eye height and are
> bearing
> > down on me.
> >
> > Maybe someday the regulators will act up and require some
> modifications
> to
> > these gas guzzling behemoths and we can again have a sane set of
> vehicles
> > on the roads.
> >
> > Bob Reisse, PH.D and proud of the acheivement.
> >
> > At 10:41 AM 3/23/00 -0600, David C Little field wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:18:46 -0500 DOUGLAS_RUSSELL@nyc.yr.com
> writes:
> > >> 5. I believe you're the unsuspecting victim of flawed logic
> to
> > >> think that
> > >> the roads will be safer without SUVs.
> > >> All things considered, it's the driver not the vehicle
> that
> > >> determines safety.
> > >
> > >Yes, but the effect of a bad driver is multiplied several times
> when
> that
> > >driver is driving a SUV. They are three times as likely to kill
> someone
> > >compared to car.
> > >
> > >I'd rather be hit by an idiot in a Neon than an idiot in an
> Excursion
> > >while driving my MGA. YES!! MG CONTENT _FINALLY_ ACHIEVED!!
> [insert
> > >applause]
> > >
> > >David Littlefield
> > >Houston, TX
> > >'62 MGA MkII
> > >'51 MGTD
> > >'88 Jaguar XJ-S
> > >
> > >http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
> > >
>
>
> Dan Dwelley
> 77 Midget
> Alexandria, Va.
>
>
>
>
>
> Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite
> Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp
>
>
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
|