Dr StrangeHarpper or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying (About Global Warming) and Love CO2

[kallend 2,146]

brenthutch

Shows you just how futile government distortion of the market is.

Goal: use less fuel
Outcome: use more fuel, kill people

Ummm - it shows how fact-resistant YOU are.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

***Shows you just how futile government distortion of the market is.

Goal: use less fuel
Outcome: use more fuel, kill people

Ummm - it shows how fact-resistant YOU are.

I think you mean alternative-fact-resistant.

[billvon 3,111]

>I think you mean alternative-fact-resistant.

No, just fact resistant. Or perhaps alternative fact enabled.

Your fantasy - Efficient cars kill people.
Fact - CAFE compliant cars are safer than non-CAFE compliant cars were.

[airdvr 210]

CAFE has very little to do with safety. It's actually the IIHS that has done all of the heavy lifting.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings

Most on here weren't alive in '73 and '74 when the gas shortages were at their peak. It was ugly. But, like unions, the EPA and such we've reached a point where the goal of CAFE has changed. CAFE has become the friend of the EV and the political football for the carbon footprint crowd. There's only so much mileage you can squeeze from a gallon of gas.

Quote

Historically, NHTSA has expressed concerns that automotive manufacturers would increase mileage by reducing vehicle weight, which might lead to weight disparities in the vehicle population and increased danger for occupants of lighter vehicles. However, vehicle safety ratings are now made available to consumers by NHTSA and by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. A National Research Council report found that the standards implemented in the 1970s and 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993. A Harvard Center for Risk Analysis study found that CAFE standards led to "2,200 to 3,900 additional fatalities to motorists per year. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's 2007 data show a correlation of about 250-500 fatalities per year per MPG. Proponents of higher CAFE standards argue that it is the "Footprint" model of CAFE for trucks that encourages production of larger trucks with concomitant increases in vehicle weight disparities, and point out that some small cars such as the Mini Cooper and Toyota Matrix are four times safer than SUVs like the Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. They argue that the quality of the engineering design is the prime determinant of vehicular safety, not the vehicle's mass. In 2006, IIHS found that some of the smallest cars have good crash safety, and others do not, depending upon the engineering design. In a 2007 analysis, IIHS found that 50 percent of fatalities in small four-door vehicles were single vehicle crashes, compared to 83 percent in very large SUVs. The Mini Cooper had a fatality rate of 68 per million vehicle-years compared to 115 for the Ford Excursion. The analysis' conclusions include findings that death rates generally are higher in lighter vehicles, but cars almost always have lower death rates than SUVs or pickup trucks of comparable weight. A 2005 IIHS plot shows that in collisions between SUVs weighing 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) and cars, the car driver is more than 4X more likely to be killed, and if the SUV weighs over 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) the car driver is 9 times more likely to be killed, with 16 percent of deaths occurring in car-to-car crashes and 18 percent in car-to-truck crashes. Recent studies find about 75 percent of two-vehicle fatalities involve a truck, and about half these fatalities involve a side-impact crash. Risk to the driver of the other vehicle is almost 10 times higher when the vehicle is a one ton pickup compared to an imported car. And a 2003 Transportation Research Board study show greater safety disparities among vehicles of differing price, country of origin, and quality than among vehicles of different size and weight. These more recent studies tend to discount the importance of vehicle mass to traffic safety, pointing instead to the quality of engineering design as the primary factor.

And Trump is not getting rid of CAFE. He's rolling back the last update.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[evh 22]

airdvr

The Mini Cooper had a fatality rate of 68 per million vehicle-years compared to 115 for the Ford Excursion.

Surprising result! I wonder if it has anything to do with behaviour, where drivers of big cars feel safer and therefore take more risk (a bit like we see in skydiving sometimes).

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

evh

***The Mini Cooper had a fatality rate of 68 per million vehicle-years compared to 115 for the Ford Excursion.

Surprising result! I wonder if it has anything to do with behaviour, where drivers of big cars feel safer and therefore take more risk (a bit like we see in skydiving sometimes).

Partly.

"Booth's Law" (basically "the safer you make something, the more dangerous people will behave.") is clearly demonstrated in cars. Big 'safe' cars, anti-lock brakes, traction control, stability control, all that. They give people a false sense of security and then they do stupid things.

There's also simple physics. A large SUV doesn't handle anywhere near as well as a small, low to the ground, car.

I drive a semi for a living. I know that I can roll over fairly easily if I take a curve too fast. So I go slow on sharp curves (duh).

Far too many people hop into pickup trucks and SUVs without realizing that they aren't driving a car anymore, and that if they try a sudden, radical maneuver, they have a good chance of rolling. And since they are driving a 'big, safe' vehicle, they figured that they didn't need their seatbelt. So they often get ejected and have the thing roll over onto them.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Phil1111 1,173]

Coming soon to a US city near you!!

Why is China’s smog so bad? Researchers point far away to a melting Arctic

By Eli KintischMar. 15, 2017 , 2:00 PM

In China, the winter of 2013 was an “airpocolypse.” A thick soup of harmful smog cloaked its biggest cities, contributing to at least 90,000 deaths and sickening hundreds of thousands more. Things haven’t gotten much better since then, even though the country has enacted tough new emissions controls. A new study may explain why. Melting sea ice and increasing snow across Siberia have altered large-scale weather patterns, replacing currents that used to ventilate China with stagnant air that lets pollution accumulate.

“The ventilation is getting worse,” says study author Yuhang Wang, an atmospheric scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. “We think climate change, as it is driving rapid warming of the Arctic, is having a large effect on pollution in China.”

Air pollution, a perennial challenge in China’s rapidly growing cities, became a full-blown national crisis during the winter of 2012–13, when 70% of the nation’s 74 largest cities logged pollution levels above government air quality standards. Of special concern were high levels of “PM2.5,” particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers that can lead to heart and lung problems. Citizens flooded the social network Sina Weibo with photos of themselves wearing colored air masks and giant buildings vanishing beneath blankets of smog. Stock prices of air purifier companies surged as the term PM2.5 became a catchphrase.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/why-china-s-smog-so-bad-researchers-point-far-away-melting-arctic

[Phil1111 1,173]

Donald Trump is set to overturn an Obama-era vehicle emissions rule following a letter from top car manufacturers, including Volkswagen.

This comes as the German manufacturer is embroiled in a series of legal disputes over attempts to cheat emissions tests.

In a visit to Detroit, the heart of the American auto industry, the President is expected to reopen a review on fuel standards due to come into force in 2022.

The move will effectively either weaken or delay the implementation of the new standards.

It follows months of lobbying from the Auto Alliance trade group, which has been writing to President Trump since his victory in last year’s election, asking him to do just this."
https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/03/15/trump-vehicle-emissions-standards-volkswagen-car-lobby/

[brenthutch 444]

"The White House on Thursday defended a proposal to slash federal funding for climate change programs, calling it “a waste of your money.”

“I think the president was fairly straightforward on that: We’re not spending money on that anymore,” Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said at a White House briefing on Thursday."

Yay!!!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Just like meals on wheels is a waste of money.

The US is turning more and more into the schoolyard bully. powerful, but no redeeming qualities to go with it.

[airdvr 210]

Then you should be happy you don't live here.

Let's see how much the private sector wants to pay to research Climate Change.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,465]

airdvr

Then you should be happy you don't live here.

Let's see how much the private sector wants to pay to research Climate Change.

I am.

Just moved one of our conferences out of the US too. Too much risk involved.

I have personally, between work travel, conference etc. and leisure travel pulled at least $100,000 US out of your economy.

Not that much, but I can assure you I am not the only one.

[brenthutch 444]

Wow that is really going to make a mark in a 19 trillion dollar economy.

Have fun skydiving in the Great White North, and say hi to Terrace and Philip for me.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

brenthutch

Wow that is really going to make a mark in a 19 trillion dollar economy.

Have fun skydiving in the Great White North, and say hi to Terrace and Philip for me.

I agree, personally not a big dent.

But the entire meeting and event industry through direct and indirect means adds almost $400 billion to your GDP.

Travel and Tourism is $1.45 Trillion of your GDP.

Canadian Tourist spending in the US is roughly $22.7 billion per annum.

Now you may still say that is not a lot of money. But if that is the case, why be upset with spending on Climate Research, since spending on that is only a minor fraction of the money made out of the above two industries....

[Phil1111 1,173]

brenthutch

Wow that is really going to make a mark in a 19 trillion dollar economy.

Have fun skydiving in the Great White North, and say hi to Terrace and Philip for me.

Oh don't be like that. Don't do a donald, get mad and carry a grudge. When the FAA restricts skydiving in the US because air pollution is so bad that IFR is the only flight options allowed.

You will still be welcome. Regardless of religion, past political mistakes, skin tone, or economic disadvantage. Still welcome.

Putin and the trump family might be excluded though.

If the water gets so bad, from unrestricted fracking etc. Like the Flint Mich. situation. We will let you have some fresh water if the US gets too bad.

[brenthutch 444]

Phil1111

***Wow that is really going to make a mark in a 19 trillion dollar economy.

Have fun skydiving in the Great White North, and say hi to Terrace and Philip for me.

If the water gets so bad, from unrestricted fracking etc. Like the Flint Mich. situation.

The Flint water problem was caused by unrestricted fracking???

[Phil1111 1,173]

brenthutch

******Wow that is really going to make a mark in a 19 trillion dollar economy.

Have fun skydiving in the Great White North, and say hi to Terrace and Philip for me.

If the water gets so bad, from unrestricted fracking etc. Like the Flint Mich. situation.

The Flint water problem was caused by unrestricted fracking???

No i was thinking more of the whole loose regulatory environment , no absent regulatory environment that the trumps types love.

"As President Barack Obama signed a bill on Friday authorizing $170 million to address the problem of the lead being found in drinking water in Flint, Michigan, Republicans in the House quietly closed a nearly yearlong investigation of the disaster — without receiving crucial information from Republican Gov. Rick Snyder.

Late on Friday afternoon Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a pair of letters announcing the end of his investigation. His letters offered no new information and essentially summarized what had already revealed about the crisis during several high-profile hearings earlier this year.

Over a year ago Flint’s mayor, Karen Weaver, declared a state of emergency because of her city’s supply of poisonous water and still it remains undrinkable. Flint’s water woes date from April 2014, when a state-appointed emergency manager switched the city’s water source from Detroit’s water system to the Flint River in order to save money."
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/19/house-republicans-shut-down-investigation-into-flint-water-crisis-blame-epa-instead/

Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water
It took nearly a decade, but former EPA scientist Dominic DiGiulio has proved that fracking has polluted groundwater in Wyoming
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/

This week, the Environmental Protection Agency issued its latest and most thorough report on fracking’s threat to drinking water, and its findings support ProPublica’s reporting. The EPA report found evidence that fracking has contributed to drinking water contamination — “cases of impact” — in all stages of the process: water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing; spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals; injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.
https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-concludes-fracking-a-threat-to-u.s.-water-supplies

[billvon 3,111]

>CAFE has very little to do with safety.

Agreed. CAFE standards - by themselves - have not significantly helped nor hindered the many other safety improvements which are mostly responsible for today's safer cars. As a result of both sets of efforts (efficiency and safety) cars are more efficient and safer than they were 50 years ago.

> CAFE has become the friend of the EV and the political football for the carbon
>footprint crowd.

And the ally of people who want to pay less for gas. At least 50% of the reason that gas is cheaper today is the reduction in demand caused by fuel efficiency requirements.

>There's only so much mileage you can squeeze from a gallon of gas.

That's definitely true. The most efficient car today (the Prius) is only about 40% efficient, with an MPG of about 50mpg. That means if you improve the efficiency of the engine to close to theoretical maximum (say 80%) you could get up to 100mpg tops. Using every other possible improvement in rolling and aerodynamic friction might get you to 150.

Beyond that you have to start using tricks like PHEV's, which use electric power for short trips while retaining gas power for longer trips.

[sonnyblu 0]

wolfriverjoe

******The Mini Cooper had a fatality rate of 68 per million vehicle-years compared to 115 for the Ford Excursion.

Surprising result! I wonder if it has anything to do with behaviour, where drivers of big cars feel safer and therefore take more risk (a bit like we see in skydiving sometimes).

Partly.

"Booth's Law" (basically "the safer you make something, the more dangerous people will behave.") is clearly demonstrated in cars. Big 'safe' cars, anti-lock brakes, traction control, stability control, all that. They give people a false sense of security and then they do stupid things.

There's also simple physics. A large SUV doesn't handle anywhere near as well as a small, low to the ground, car.

The stat in question is just a cherry-picked exception to the rule. The Excursion had a problem with rollovers that skewed the numbers all by itself. It's not reflective of today's SUVs equipped with ESC.

It is true that pound for pound, cars in general have lower death rates than trucks and SUVs, with the exception being pickups that weigh between 2500-3000lbs.

However, you have to take into account that "none of the 15 vehicles with the lowest driver death rates is a small model. In contrast, 11 of the 16 vehicles with the highest death rates are mini or small models, and none is large or very large."

"The death rate in 1-3-year-old minicars in multiple-vehicle crashes during 2007 was almost twice as high as the rate in very large cars."

"The death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was 35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars."

"another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones."

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/42/4/1

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/new-crash-tests-demonstrate-the-influence-of-vehicle-size-and-weight-on-safety-in-crashes-results-are-relevant-to-fuel-economy-policies

[billvon 3,111]

>It's not reflective of today's SUVs equipped with ESC.

Agreed. But comparing today's SUV's with ESC and today's cars (sedans/hatchbacks) with ESC, you still have a significantly lower turnover rate with cars. ESC is great - and can keep you from getting into situations where rollover is a risk - but at some point physics takes over.

[kallend 2,146]

billvon

at some point physics takes over.

Physics is ALWAYS in control. It's the law.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DJL 235]

CO2 is a major ingredient of Brawndo, it's what plants crave!

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

*** at some point physics takes over.

Physics is ALWAYS in control. It's the law.

One of my favorite skydive t-shirts

Gravity, it's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!

[Stumpy 284]

No, it's just a theory. I believe in intelligent falling.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[sonnyblu 0]

billvon

>It's not reflective of today's SUVs equipped with ESC.

Agreed. But comparing today's SUV's with ESC and today's cars (sedans/hatchbacks) with ESC, you still have a significantly lower turnover rate with cars. ESC is great - and can keep you from getting into situations where rollover is a risk - but at some point physics takes over.

Right. I wouldn't want to give the impression that that risk has been eliminated.

In general, cars tend to be a bit safer, however the benefits of maneuverability in small/mini cars are outweighed by the risks imposed by the physics of force and distance.

If you want the proper balance of safety and environmental responsibility, your best bet would probably be to go with a large/midsize sedan/hatchback and hope for the best when it comes to improving gas mileage in those types of vehicles.

But then again, defying the laws of physics might be a bit easier than defying lobbyists. . .