Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obesity in motor vehicles


  • Please log in to reply
376 replies to this topic

#101 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,842 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 24 July 2013 - 11:11

With all the conspiracy theories around about Williams mothers death they most certainly are.


Yeah but if you follow those rumours to their conclusion, it was an inside job so security won't/didn't work.

Advertisement

#102 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,815 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 24 July 2013 - 11:51

I just totaled a Buick Lesabre at <10 mph a few weeks ago. I drove into the back of a Hyundai SUV whose rear bumper height was a perfect match for my grille, missing my front bumper completely. As a result, it pushed the core support back about a foot. Very gentle impact, no airbag deploy on either vehicle. Scratched bumper cover for Hyundai, total loss claim for Buick.


Let me make clear I am not bitching one little bit about the total loss on the Buick. I think it's great, didn't even chip a tooth. Total loss? BFD. That's what insurance is for. And besides, IT'S ONLY MONEY. The Buick crashed beautifully, I wouldn't change a thing on it. If I changed anything it would be the Hyundai's rear bumper height. Last week I went and found another Lesabre just like the last one only a little nicer.

Also, I am feeling a little old over the episode. I think maybe ten years ago I would have stopped in time.


Main thing is...Mr Magoo is AOK :up:

Please, please, please USA auto industry and lobbyists....don't push to go back to uniform bumper heights...they make all cars look like dodge-ems (no offence to Bill) bumper cars :)

#103 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,476 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 24 July 2013 - 21:38

There's barely even negative press against the royal family, I can barely imagine them actually being a target.

Mountbatten. 1979.

#104 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,424 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 24 July 2013 - 21:42

Mountbatten. 1979.

a) not a member of the Royal Family
b) 34 years ago

#105 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 450 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 25 July 2013 - 01:00

I think there are plenty of people who would kill a royal if they were given the chance

#106 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,815 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 25 July 2013 - 09:34

a) not a member of the Royal Family
b) 34 years ago


anyone who says security measures and the cost thereof for the Royals is wasted is living in cloud cuckoo land :rolleyes:

http://www.telegraph...omb-threat.html

http://en.wikipedia....s_Park_bombings

etcetera, etcetera (please, don't smoke!)

#107 munks

munks
  • Member

  • 343 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 25 July 2013 - 19:12

You folks have clearly forgotten Patriot Games.

/Sorry if I'm confusing fiction with reality. As a true American ™ I don't really understand that Royal stuff.

#108 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 450 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 26 July 2013 - 03:43

You know I find that interesting as it always seemed like Americans had created a system of governance that simply voted in a 'king' for a four year period. From my outside view it looks as though your presidents have usually had more power than poor ol George did back in the days of the revolution.

Edited by NeilR, 26 July 2013 - 03:45.


#109 munks

munks
  • Member

  • 343 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 26 July 2013 - 04:38

I'm pretty sure the key word there is "voted". As in, wasn't born into the job (with the possible exception of GWB, and you see how *that* turned out).

#110 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,424 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 26 July 2013 - 10:20

As a true American ™ I don't really understand that Royal stuff.

Americans (whether true or not) seem to be just as keen on the inherited position stuff as anyone else. After JFK, you all tried so hard to elect another Kennedy. ANd now JFK's daughter is to be US ambassador to Japan. After Bush Sr, you fell over yourselves to elect his son. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and goes quack....

At least societies with monarchies are honest enough to recognise their failure to be able to chose their leaders.

#111 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,842 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 26 July 2013 - 11:08

Bored housewives are keen on British Royalty.

#112 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 July 2013 - 16:26

Bored housewives are keen on British Royalty.

How Dare you suggest Kate was bored !

#113 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 26 July 2013 - 17:53

How Dare you suggest Kate was bored !

Ha ha! Nice one! Actually, I think you will find that apart from the anti-Royalist nutters at one end and the pro-Royalist nutters at the other end, most Britons sort of tolerate the whole shebang, whilst admiring to a greater or lesser degree Her Maj, and grading their liking/disliking of all the other members according to taste or the latest revelation. If you limit it to The Queen, Prince Philip, skip Jugears and go straight to Will, Harry, Kate and now George, what's the problem?

#114 Dipster

Dipster
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 26 July 2013 - 18:41

Ha ha! Nice one! Actually, I think you will find that apart from the anti-Royalist nutters at one end and the pro-Royalist nutters at the other end, most Britons sort of tolerate the whole shebang, whilst admiring to a greater or lesser degree Her Maj, and grading their liking/disliking of all the other members according to taste or the latest revelation. If you limit it to The Queen, Prince Philip, skip Jugears and go straight to Will, Harry, Kate and now George, what's the problem?



How about the cost to the taxpayer, their expectation that "their subjects" will cough up upon request to help them personally (I refer to the costs of repairing Windsor castle after a fire. Windsor is, I understand, the private propertyof the Queen yet she sought a hand-out. Didn't she have insurance?), the recent (over the last few years) occurences of meddling (influencing decisions in which they should have no part) in political matters and the basic distaste I have for the Head of State being chosen due to the candidate being born from a particular womb.

Otherwise I guess all is just fine.

#115 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,842 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 26 July 2013 - 19:04

It will be interesting to see polling once we have King Chuck.

#116 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 26 July 2013 - 19:20

How about the cost to the taxpayer, their expectation that "their subjects" will cough up upon request to help them personally (I refer to the costs of repairing Windsor castle after a fire. Windsor is, I understand, the private propertyof the Queen yet she sought a hand-out. Didn't she have insurance?), the recent (over the last few years) occurences of meddling (influencing decisions in which they should have no part) in political matters and the basic distaste I have for the Head of State being chosen due to the candidate being born from a particular womb.

Otherwise I guess all is just fine.

Because compared with the corruption in big business, politics, the unions, the police, the health service, local councils, the banks etc, etc, it is nothing. And the alternative is better? If any Royal has meddled effectively, that is down to weak, corrupt government. Just say no! I never said it was perfect.

#117 munks

munks
  • Member

  • 343 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 26 July 2013 - 19:29

Americans (whether true or not) seem to be just as keen on the inherited position stuff as anyone else. After JFK, you all tried so hard to elect another Kennedy.


I did?

ANd now JFK's daughter is to be US ambassador to Japan.


Oh, and what a powerful position that is! That must be something like the 41,368th most influential position in government!

After Bush Sr, you fell over yourselves to elect his son.


I guess I forgot to mention that fiasco. Oh, wait, no I didn't (see about 8 posts up).

#118 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,433 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 July 2013 - 19:50

Ha ha! Nice one! Actually, I think you will find that apart from the anti-Royalist nutters at one end and the pro-Royalist nutters at the other end, most Britons sort of tolerate the whole shebang, whilst admiring to a greater or lesser degree Her Maj, and grading their liking/disliking of all the other members according to taste or the latest revelation. If you limit it to The Queen, Prince Philip, skip Jugears and go straight to Will, Harry, Kate and now George, what's the problem?


I recall reading somewhere a rather convincing economic analysis showing that the Royal family provided a small but significant economic stimulus, more than justifying the cost in taxes.


I think much of the interest of Americans in the Royals is predicated on the fact that they aren't ours.

#119 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 July 2013 - 19:51

How about the cost to the taxpayer, their expectation that "their subjects" will cough up upon request to help them personally (I refer to the costs of repairing Windsor castle after a fire. Windsor is, I understand, the private propertyof the Queen yet she sought a hand-out. Didn't she have insurance?), the recent (over the last few years) occurences of meddling (influencing decisions in which they should have no part) in political matters and the basic distaste I have for the Head of State being chosen due to the candidate being born from a particular womb.

Otherwise I guess all is just fine.


I am no Royalist - but -
The cost to the nation in comparison with President USA ?
and
Which one generates the most income in Tourism ?

edit . [two quick jabs to the body ....]

Edited by carlt, 26 July 2013 - 19:53.


Advertisement

#120 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,842 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 26 July 2013 - 20:48

I recall reading somewhere a rather convincing economic analysis showing that the Royal family provided a small but significant economic stimulus, more than justifying the cost in taxes.


I question whether you need active royals for that. The Tower of London hasn't imprisoned anyone for a while and is still a draw. Stonehenge. Etc. If you had no Royals your expenditures on them would be about zero. But I don't think tourism would drop to zero, even tourism linked to Royal Things©.

If you de-Royal'd them Buckingham Palace would still belong to the family, and still be closed to the public(it's more or less closed to the public, it's not a historical site or anything). However, since they'd take a decent hit in their earnings they might be more willing to open up their assets(please Tony, no jokes about how this is where royal babies come from). So let the free market determine their worth.



#121 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 757 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 July 2013 - 23:30

It will be interesting to see polling once we have King Chuck.


The prospect of King Chilla must be one of the biggest motivations for his mum to keep eating healthy, getting her exercise and generally making sure she stays on top of her game, non?

#122 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,476 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 27 July 2013 - 05:59

back on topic, once upon a time I was told the budget for weight reductions was $7 per kg. I pointed out that a weightless car would have fantastic marketing potential, and by that logic would only cost $10000 more than a regular car.


#123 Dipster

Dipster
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 July 2013 - 11:12

I am no Royalist - but -
The cost to the nation in comparison with President USA ?
and
Which one generates the most income in Tourism ?

edit . [two quick jabs to the body ....]


But which country is the most successful globally in attracting tourists and their cash? La France. What part in that do their royal family play? We would survive without ours. And the vast majority of tourists to Britain never actually see a Royal..... Our heritage and sites do it.

When it comes to costs what are you including? If you add up the whole bill that Joe Taxpayer contributes then compare what we get out of them.....

Edit.

Just thought I had best apologise for prolonging an OT moment. But, this subject can get me going. As you may have suspected, Sorry.

Edited by Dipster, 27 July 2013 - 11:17.


#124 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,842 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 27 July 2013 - 12:42

Comparing the Royal Family to the US President is a really bad example. For a start the US President is both Head of State and basically(for the purposes of this discussion) the Head of Government.

But beyond being both Head of State/Government, the US President is a little 'bigger'. Just one of his trips(regardless of party or what you think of him and his politics) abroad is probably bigger/more expensive than if the entire royal family traveled. The logistics of one of our state visits would put a lot of militaries in the shade.

So. Want an example of motor vehicle obesity? Check out the stats on the Presidential Limo. It genuinely is a track-less tank.

#125 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,433 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 27 July 2013 - 13:03

So. Want an example of motor vehicle obesity? Check out the stats on the Presidential Limo. It genuinely is a track-less tank.


Back in around 2007-ish I was walking through a secure lot behind a building when a very strange, half-constructed vehicle caught my eye. I was looking it over when it suddenly dawned on me what I was looking at. I was quickly backing away from the vehicle when the manager came over. "%$#&," he said. "I should have told you not to look at that. My bad."

It is one hell of a vehicle, however. And now there's a brand new one.

#126 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,668 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 27 July 2013 - 13:25

It is one hell of a vehicle, however. And now there's a brand new one.

Well, they needed a new one!

#127 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 450 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 27 July 2013 - 13:32

back on topic, once upon a time I was told the budget for weight reductions was $7 per kg. I pointed out that a weightless car would have fantastic marketing potential, and by that logic would only cost $10000 more than a regular car.



I can see two fruitful strategies:
One build a very economical car with very narrow seats so that only light, skinny people can drive it...moral victory.
two, do not pay to reduce weight of car, but provide diet pills to occupants. 'Buy our XXX and become thin!" Cheaper than changing a car.

#128 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,433 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 27 July 2013 - 14:09

Well, they needed a new one!



Well, you can run into these issues with a vehicle that can park on top of a bomb. There are well, compromises, you could call them.

To give you an idea of what this thing is, look at the difference between the exterior and interior dimensions. Winnebago on the outside, cozy coupe' on the inside.


Posted Image
Posted Image




#129 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,842 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 27 July 2013 - 14:33

Presidential Limo would be on my list of fantasy test drives. You just know that thing could accelerate, brake, and turn when it really needed to. But looking at it you wonder how.

Top Gear should have the Secret Service bring one of each limo model up to, but not including, this one; let their agents drive it on the test track, and film/time it.



#130 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 27 July 2013 - 14:35

Wowza! That's some serious difference. Wanna bet that thing has no wi-fi accessible canbus system?

#131 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 July 2013 - 15:15

... let their agents drive it on the test track, and film/time it.

The final test could be the drive-by shaped charge survival test, with Clarkson, May and Hammond taking it in turns to drive...

#132 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,433 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 27 July 2013 - 15:19

I find the "Beast," as the Secret Service calls it, fascinating because it looks convincingly car-like, partly due to touches like the production Cadillac grille and lamp pieces...but from some angles and especially in person, you can see this ain't no car. First of all, it's enormous, and when you look at stuff like, oh say, the windshield and how it is installed....Also, check out the door and latch system. Gas or diesel? Sorry, that's classified...though many sources say it's diesel.

Posted Image
Posted Image


#133 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,842 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 27 July 2013 - 15:28

In the first picture without the flags and Cadillac markings you could think it was a rear shot.

I bet it's Fusion powered.

#134 rory57

rory57
  • Member

  • 89 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:06

Presidents, Popes, Queens and Dear Leaders all depend on the guys who work in these things:-

http://www.military-...acat_jackal.htm

Shame they are'nt willing to ride in them.

Oh yes, not enough protection.

#135 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:13

Security detail is grunting trying to open the vault-like door :D

#136 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:15

Presidents, Popes, Queens and Dear Leaders all depend on the guys who work in these things:-

http://www.military-...acat_jackal.htm

Shame they are'nt willing to ride in them.

Oh yes, not enough protection.

Main defenses of this vehicle are speed and maneuvering. The Supacat Jackal is powered by a Cummins 5.9-liter turbocharged diesel engine, developing 185 hp.

Speed? 185hp? I'm finding that hard to believe.

#137 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:26

Loads of torque, though...

#138 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:37

:lol:

#139 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,842 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 27 July 2013 - 18:29

Presidents, Popes, Queens and Dear Leaders all depend on the guys who work in these things:-

http://www.military-...acat_jackal.htm

Shame they are'nt willing to ride in them.

Oh yes, not enough protection.


What was this post meant to be about?

Advertisement

#140 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 837 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 28 July 2013 - 05:09

Getting back the OT, the increase in body mass of the average US driver over the past half century is basically irrelevant with regards to automotive crash injury or fatality rates. Assuming the body mass of the 95th percentile US driver has increased by 20 lbs over the past 50 years, this would have little real effect. While fatality rates per mile traveled have fallen drastically over this period, the accident rate per mile traveled has not fallen so much. In other words, there are still accidents occurring, but these accidents are far less likely to result in injury or deaths. This is entirely due to huge improvements in safety and control systems in the average automobile.

It is silly to propose that the average US driver being 20 lbs heavier than they were 50 years ago would have any real impact on the crash safety or fuel economy of current automobiles. Does the fact that the battery and electric motor of a Prius hybrid adds around 400 lbs to the vehicle empty weight cause you similar concern?

And since it is established that a large, heavy vehicle will usually suffer less damage in an impact with a small, lightweight vehicle, why would you criticize someone with a wife and kids for choosing to purchase a larger, safer SUV or van as their family vehicle?

#141 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,815 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 28 July 2013 - 12:47

And since it is established that a large, heavy vehicle will usually suffer less damage in an impact with a small, lightweight vehicle, why would you criticize someone with a wife and kids for choosing to purchase a larger, safer SUV or van as their family vehicle?


Most certainly...that supposition completely overlooks vehicle primary safety considerations...and says "to hell with everyone else on the road! I'm alright Jack!"

#142 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 28 July 2013 - 14:42

Getting back the OT, the increase in body mass of the average US driver over the past half century is basically irrelevant with regards to automotive crash injury or fatality rates. Assuming the body mass of the 95th percentile US driver has increased by 20 lbs over the past 50 years, this would have little real effect. While fatality rates per mile traveled have fallen drastically over this period, the accident rate per mile traveled has not fallen so much. In other words, there are still accidents occurring, but these accidents are far less likely to result in injury or deaths. This is entirely due to huge improvements in safety and control systems in the average automobile.

It is silly to propose that the average US driver being 20 lbs heavier than they were 50 years ago would have any real impact on the crash safety or fuel economy of current automobiles. Does the fact that the battery and electric motor of a Prius hybrid adds around 400 lbs to the vehicle empty weight cause you similar concern?

And since it is established that a large, heavy vehicle will usually suffer less damage in an impact with a small, lightweight vehicle, why would you criticize someone with a wife and kids for choosing to purchase a larger, safer SUV or van as their family vehicle?

The only reference to the mass of the individual, or what I suspect most people read as "Americans are getting fatter" was an amusing lead into an overweight vehicle discussion. Even the topic title specifically notes "obesity in vehicles", not their drivers. This entire line of discussion is completely off topic.

Would I criticise someone for buying a large SUV for their family... Yes and no. If I want to haul my 3 kids, dog, gear, bicycles and a proper trailer through the 8% grades to the west of me, my options are very limited - minivan and a small (tent) trailer or large fuel-guzzling SUV. If I'm towing that trailer / camper / caravan on a constant basis, then perhaps option B makes sense but I don't know of too many people who genuinely live that way. Using said SUV to drop the kids at school, soccer, scouts, band, chess club, swimming, music, gymnastics, hockey, run to the grocery store, visit the grandparents, hit the dog park and everything else in day to day life is rightfully the object of criticism. It is needless pollution, a waste of oil, an over-consumption of the space and it has a demonstrated tendency to induce poor driving because of the increased passenger safety while putting me and my family in our van, small car, motorcycle or bicycle at much greater risk.

When I lived a few blocks from our motorcycle dealership, I would walk to work through downtown. The vehicles most likely to ignore the crosswalk were German sedans and big SUVs driven by women. These things seem to breed a high level of don't give a !*%# in people behind the wheel. Large Cadillacs weren't an issue despite their high-end sedan status as even though they couldn't see me, the geriatric drivers were going so slow as to not be a threat.

#143 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,842 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 28 July 2013 - 16:16

Most certainly...that supposition completely overlooks vehicle primary safety considerations...and says "to hell with everyone else on the road! I'm alright Jack!"


So basically you want people to take the less safe option, to give everyone a fair chance. I can't see anyone disagreeing with that. Particularly if you throw their children into the equation.

#144 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 28 July 2013 - 18:09

Why not - they're throwing my children into the equation.

#145 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,842 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 28 July 2013 - 19:21

That bit of the equation isn't balanced :lol:

If you try to frame it as a safety option OF COURSE they're going to want the safer one. You're trying to pitch to some sort of anti-familial benevolence that just doesn't exist.

#146 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,170 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 28 July 2013 - 23:17

It is silly to propose that the average US driver being 20 lbs heavier than they were 50 years ago would have any real impact on the crash safety or fuel economy of current automobiles.

I think it would be silly to assume that obesity would have no effect.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2528402.html

Edited by gruntguru, 28 July 2013 - 23:18.


#147 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,815 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 28 July 2013 - 23:40

So basically you want people to take the less safe option, to give everyone a fair chance. I can't see anyone disagreeing with that. Particularly if you throw their children into the equation.


That's a negatory, good Buddy, come on...

just that all the good work making average family conveyances safer are cancelled when colliding with something larger....hey even Truck, Tractor/trailer, Semi are no match for the freight train at the level crossing...or the meteor strike...or the earthquake ..or...

#148 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,433 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 29 July 2013 - 00:09

Getting back the OT, the increase in body mass of the average US driver over the past half century is basically irrelevant with regards to automotive crash injury or fatality rates.


Your observation seems well-founded, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the OT.

#149 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,433 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 29 July 2013 - 00:13

I think it would be silly to assume that obesity would have no effect.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2528402.html


This apparently contrary position is also worthy of consideration.


#150 Robin Fairservice

Robin Fairservice
  • Member

  • 490 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 29 July 2013 - 00:46

Just a comment about 4 by 4's and SUV's. When winter comes to northern BC, nearly all of the vehicles in the ditch are SUV's and 4 by 4's! Front wheel drive sedans on winter tires are much safer, or else the drivers are more cautious.