http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan?hl=en
alt.autos.nissan@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* TOYOTA SEZ IT HAS [another] FIX FOR PEDAL ... DO YOU BELIEVE IT? - 8
messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/b3778869cfbea966?hl=en
* Do you know about the 'Move Over' traffic law? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/66f3a995c0437e95?hl=en
* Mike Hunter the hypocrite is plonked... - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/8dd54d337b9013fe?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: TOYOTA SEZ IT HAS [another] FIX FOR PEDAL ... DO YOU BELIEVE IT?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/b3778869cfbea966?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 18 2010 4:03 pm
From: jim beam
On 02/18/2010 05:33 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> When are you going to address Toyota's problems?
when are you going to address frod's issues?
> It is obvious to
> anyone who look that Toyota has major quality / safety issues.
it's obvious to anyone who looks that frod has major safety/executive
ethics issues.
> Sticking your head in the sand and making up "facts" about 15 year old
> domestic vehciels isn't addressing the current problems.
sticking your head in the sand and making up [unproven] "problems" with
domestically produced vehicles that use non-union labor isn't addressing
the fact that detroit produces crap and is prepared to kill citizens
rather than design properly.
>
> As for you trial lawyer Explorer attack sites. They are ridiculous.
yeah, all except for the parts where they subpoena frod's internal
documents that show them to be deciding to continue production, even
though they know vehicles to be fatally unsafe.
> The cites trolling for clients usually show pictures of 1996 - 2001
> models. The only problem is, by those years, the Explorer had
> completely different front suspension than the early 90 models.
no, it's the /post/ 2001 that are completely different.
> So
> they claim a design defect for late 90's models based on a design from
> a completely different version of the vehicle. It is ridiculous.
logical fallacy. see above.
> All
> the crap about how Ford didn't update the suspenison from a 1990
> Ranger is completely wrong when you are talking about vehicles from
> 1996 on.
stick to the correct dates dude. please.
> If you would bother to do any research at all, you would
> understand this was a bunch of half baked crap written by a bunch of
> trial lawyers looking for a pay day.
and yet, oddly enough, trial lawyers have to stick to provable facts in
order to win cases. strange how you'd not want to admit that. or not.
> The time line reference is
> unbelieveable. It mixes letters regarding the Bronco II, early
> Explorers, late Explorers, etc.
"unbelievable"??? it shows the clear and consistent policy of frod
executives to dismiss safety because it would cost more. if you don't
think that's wrong, there's something wrong with you.
> They do just about as much research as
> you - ZERO.
see above.
> Repeating the lies / misinformation originated by other is
> not research.
translation: "daring to point out facts that contradict what i don't
want to see makes me feel uncomfortable."
> Accident statistics have never supported the idea that 4
> door Explorers were particulary dangerous compared to other vehciles
> in the class.
except that their single-vehicle rollover fatality rate - you know,
where no there vehicles were involved, so only that vehicle was
responsible, and the stats you carefully avoided citing - was three
times that of its next rival.
> Find some statistics that say otherwise....
for you to dismiss as "lies and misinformation"???
>
> Ed
you know ed, your arguments always work great. right up until the point
where you ignore/dismiss facts, operate double standards, and won't use
logic.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 5:40 am
From: "C. E. White"
"jim beam" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:q4-dnf5CkvjMSODWnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> On 02/18/2010 05:33 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> When are you going to address Toyota's problems?
>
> when are you going to address frod's issues?
I did. You just ignore the facts and refuse to see the truth.
>> It is obvious to
>> anyone who look that Toyota has major quality / safety issues.
>
> it's obvious to anyone who looks that frod has major
> safety/executive ethics issues.
Compared to Toyota? I suppose you are ignoring the latest revelation
of how Toyota destroyed documents that discussed how unsafe 4Runners
were. As I pointed out to you several times, 4Runners from the 1990's
were more likely to roll and kill the occupants than Explorers. You
conveniently ignore that FACT when you start trashing Explorers.
>> Sticking your head in the sand and making up "facts" about 15 year
>> old
>> domestic vehciels isn't addressing the current problems.
>
> sticking your head in the sand and making up [unproven] "problems"
> with domestically produced vehicles that use non-union labor isn't
> addressing the fact that detroit produces crap and is prepared to
> kill citizens rather than design properly.
What exactly does this mean? No manufactuerer is prepared to kill
citizens. All manufacturers make mistakes. I am more concerned with
Toyota's unwillingness to address problems. There is plenty of
evidence that Toyota has known about the sticky accelerator pedals for
at least 3 years. I posted a link to a Design News article where the
Toyota engineers discussed how they learned of the problem in 2007.
They knew the pedals might be slow to return, or even stick in place.
And yet, they did nothing. They didn't even change the design until
this year. Explain to me how that is reasonable.
>> As for you trial lawyer Explorer attack sites. They are
>> ridiculous.
>
> yeah, all except for the parts where they subpoena frod's internal
> documents that show them to be deciding to continue production, even
> though they know vehicles to be fatally unsafe.
>
>
>> The cites trolling for clients usually show pictures of 1996 - 2001
>> models. The only problem is, by those years, the Explorer had
>> completely different front suspension than the early 90 models.
>
> no, it's the /post/ 2001 that are completely different.
Not true. The original, generation 1, Explorers used the twin I-Beam
/ Twin Traction beam front suspension. After 2005 the front suspesnion
of the generation 2 Explorers was competley different (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer for a better explanation of
the differences). They used upper and lower A-arms with torsion bars.
The Generation 1 two door models with the twin I beam type suspension
are the ones that are alway talked about in the early engineering
memos regarding the Consumer Reports lane change manuever. The 2 Door
version had a shorter wheelbase and took a lot of work to get it to
pass the Consumer Reports manuver. The Consumer Reports test is not
any sort of regulatory requirement, but if your vehicle fails the
test, CR makes a big deal out of it (ask Isuzu ans Suzuki about that).
Ford wanted to make sure they could pass it. As I recall, even the
Generation 1 2 Door model passed the test when CR tested them. The 4
Door version (the one built in by far the largest numbers) never had
the same level of difficulty with this test. It had a longer
wheelbase. The 4 door, 4WD version was even more stable. In terms of
stability, the 2 door, 2 wd version made before 2005 was the least
stable. All of the Generation 2 models were much better. Ironically
most of the bad Firestone tires were on the Generation 2 models. Most
of the memo's in your long list of memos were dealing with discussions
between Ford and Firestone regarding recalling tires. Read some of
them. Not only was Firestone unwilling to recall the defective tries,
they constantly pressured Ford not to recall them either.
>> So
>> they claim a design defect for late 90's models based on a design
>> from
>> a completely different version of the vehicle. It is ridiculous.
>
> logical fallacy. see above.
Not at all. The problem is you don't care to know the facts.
>> All
>> the crap about how Ford didn't update the suspenison from a 1990
>> Ranger is completely wrong when you are talking about vehicles from
>> 1996 on.
>
> stick to the correct dates dude. please.
Which dates do you want me to stick to. After 1995, the Explorer's
front suspension was completely different than the prior models. You
apparently did not know that. And since you only are willing to read
Trial Lawyer misinfomration sites, you don't have the actual facts,
just their skewed version designed to help them win clients and cases.
>> If you would bother to do any research at all, you would
>> understand this was a bunch of half baked crap written by a bunch
>> of
>> trial lawyers looking for a pay day.
>
> and yet, oddly enough, trial lawyers have to stick to provable facts
> in order to win cases. strange how you'd not want to admit that.
> or not.
Do you really beleive this? That list you sent includes a lot of memos
that are true, but the interpertation is often skewed. The list is
constructed in such a manner as to confuse the issue. The early memos
regarding Generation 1 and even Bronco IIs are highlighted. Yet most
of the conclsuions drawn from these memos have nothing to do with
Generation 2 Explorers. Generation 2 Explorers had a wider front
track. Generation 2 Explorers had the engine lowered to improve the
COG. So the trail lawyers get in front of jury and parade a out a
bunch of carefully selected memos that indicate that some Ford
engineers wanted to widen the track and lower the engine for
Generation 1 Explorers. Other Ford Engineers siad it was not
necessary and they could pass the CR test just by adjusting tire
pressure. The goal was to pass a magazine's BS test. They were able to
pass it. Where is the smoking gun? And none of these discussions about
lowering the engine or widening the track had anythig at all to do
with Generation 2 Explorers (1995-2001). But these are the models that
mostly had the bad tires. So trail lawyers took documents related to
one model of the Explorer and used those to indicate that another had
problem - which it didn't. Is that fair? And the fact remains, that
even when you factor in the bad tires, Explorers did not have a
particualrly high rollover rate. If you average all Explorers together
(the relativvely bad 2 door 2 wheel drive models, and the very stable
4 door 4wd models) the overall Explorer rollover rate was at least
average for the class (mid sized SUVs). As I have pointed out several
times, the Toyota 4Runner from the same era (1990's) was far more
likely to be involved in a rollover accident that an Explorer. Why
don't you address that issue?
>> The time line reference is
>> unbelieveable. It mixes letters regarding the Bronco II, early
>> Explorers, late Explorers, etc.
>
> "unbelievable"??? it shows the clear and consistent policy of frod
> executives to dismiss safety because it would cost more. if you
> don't think that's wrong, there's something wrong with you.
See above
>> They do just about as much research as
>> you - ZERO.
>
> see above.
See above
>> Repeating the lies / misinformation originated by other is
>> not research.
>
> translation: "daring to point out facts that contradict what i don't
> want to see makes me feel uncomfortable."
>
>
>> Accident statistics have never supported the idea that 4
>> door Explorers were particulary dangerous compared to other
>> vehciles
>> in the class.
>
> except that their single-vehicle rollover fatality rate - you know,
> where no there vehicles were involved, so only that vehicle was
> responsible, and the stats you carefully avoided citing - was three
> times that of its next rival.
Show me your link to that statistic.
Here is one I found:
From
http://hl2.bgu.ac.il/users/www/2673/project/Rollover%20risk%20of%20cars%20and%20light%20trucks.pdf
Single-vehicle fatal rollover crashes per million registration-years,
1995-98, 1-3-year-old selected passenger vehicles
2WD utility Vehicles
Light Chevrolet Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick two-door 1994-95 - 196
Light Jeep Cherokee four-door 1995-96 - 37
Midweight Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo four-door 1996-97 - 150
Midweight Toyota 4Runner four-door 1996-97 - 80
Midweight Jeep Grand Cherokee four-door 1996-97 - 66
Heavy Ford Explorer four-door 1995-97 - 84
Very heavy Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon four-door 1995-96 - 23
4WD utility Vehicles
Light Chevrolet Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick two-doora 1994-95 - 127
Midweight Jeep Cherokee four-door 1995-96 - 12
Midweight Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo four-door 1996-97 - 104
Midweight Toyota 4Runner four-door 1996-97 - 119
Midweight Jeep Grand Cherokee four-door 1996-97 - 27
Heavy Ford Explorer four-doora 1995-97 - 51
Very heavy Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon four-doora 1995-96 - 40
For the 2WD vehciles the Explorer and 4Runner were very close with a
slight edge in favor of the 4Runner (probably not statistically
significant). I assume that these stats included the shorter wheelbase
2 door version of the Explorer. But for the 4WD versions it wasn't
close. The 4Runner had a rollover rate over twice that of the 4WD
Explorer. So again, I ask, if you are so upset about the "dangerous"
Explorer, why haven't you gone super nova over the 4Runner from the
same era. Could it be you are completely blinded by a pro-Toyota bias?
Here is the bottom line from a source I don't think even you could
claim, was pro-Ford:
From
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/before.html
"Is the Ford Explorer more rollover-prone than the dozens of other
SUVs?
"No. According to federal data and safety ratings, the four-door
Explorer's rollover record is pretty typical of midsize SUVs."
>> Find some statistics that say otherwise....
>
> for you to dismiss as "lies and misinformation"???
Do you take lesson from Mike Hunter? This seems like his tactic - make
a ridiculous claim, back it up with "data" no one else can find, and
when challenged lie like hell.
> you know ed, your arguments always work great. right up until the
> point where you ignore/dismiss facts, operate double standards, and
> won't use logic.
It seems to me you don't care about truth. And certainly you son't
use logic. Instead of addressing the original topc of this thread you
try to defelct attention by dragging misinfomration from a decade ago.
Where is the logic in that?
Ed
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:24 am
From: jim beam
On 02/19/2010 05:40 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> "jim beam"<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:q4-dnf5CkvjMSODWnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> On 02/18/2010 05:33 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> When are you going to address Toyota's problems?
>>
>> when are you going to address frod's issues?
>
> I did. You just ignore the facts and refuse to see the truth.
wow, are you really that delusional? or are you just trying to be
insulting?
>
>>> It is obvious to
>>> anyone who look that Toyota has major quality / safety issues.
>>
>> it's obvious to anyone who looks that frod has major
>> safety/executive ethics issues.
>
> Compared to Toyota? I suppose you are ignoring the latest revelation
> of how Toyota destroyed documents that discussed how unsafe 4Runners
> were. As I pointed out to you several times, 4Runners from the 1990's
> were more likely to roll and kill the occupants than Explorers. You
> conveniently ignore that FACT when you start trashing Explorers.
1. an accusation is not fact.
2. subpoenaed documents from ford have mysterious gaps. surely that
couldn't be because stuff was "destroyed" could it?
3. oh, wait, corporations are only required to retain this type of
documentation for a few years. my company routinely destroys aged
documents. as i'm sure do your paymasters.
>
>>> Sticking your head in the sand and making up "facts" about 15 year
>>> old
>>> domestic vehciels isn't addressing the current problems.
>>
>> sticking your head in the sand and making up [unproven] "problems"
>> with domestically produced vehicles that use non-union labor isn't
>> addressing the fact that detroit produces crap and is prepared to
>> kill citizens rather than design properly.
>
> What exactly does this mean? No manufactuerer is prepared to kill
> citizens.
except the the frod documentation proves otherwise. they deliberately
chose not to make safety improvements to a vehicle they knew had a
problem. many times, over many years.
remember the pinto payouts? [rhetorical] the documentary evidence
clearly showed frod did the math on payouts to the bereaved vs. cost of
recall, and decided to continue with the lowest cost option -
manufacturing vehicles as-is despite the loss of life.
the exploder is exactly the same people making exactly the same decision.
> All manufacturers make mistakes. I am more concerned with
> Toyota's unwillingness to address problems.
unwillingness to get burned at the stake for a bunch of lying hysterical
xenophobic bullshitters you mean.
> There is plenty of
> evidence that Toyota has known about the sticky accelerator pedals for
> at least 3 years.
you mean all 12 vehicles? out of how many million? and how many
billion driver miles?
> I posted a link to a Design News article where the
> Toyota engineers discussed how they learned of the problem in 2007.
> They knew the pedals might be slow to return, or even stick in place.
> And yet, they did nothing.
lying bullshit - they changed the materials because they wanted to fix it.
> They didn't even change the design until
> this year. Explain to me how that is reasonable.
it's not a design issue - it's a supplier issue. there are no problems
with japanese componentry, only domestic crap.
>
>>> As for you trial lawyer Explorer attack sites. They are
>>> ridiculous.
>>
>> yeah, all except for the parts where they subpoena frod's internal
>> documents that show them to be deciding to continue production, even
>> though they know vehicles to be fatally unsafe.
>>
>>
>>> The cites trolling for clients usually show pictures of 1996 - 2001
>>> models. The only problem is, by those years, the Explorer had
>>> completely different front suspension than the early 90 models.
>>
>> no, it's the /post/ 2001 that are completely different.
>
> Not true. The original, generation 1, Explorers used the twin I-Beam
> / Twin Traction beam front suspension. After 2005 the front suspesnion
> of the generation 2 Explorers was competley different
wow, you really do have a twisted mind trying to wriggle and squirm like
that. the problem lies with the rear suspension [leaf springs], high
center of gravity, and narrow wheel spacing. those were not addressed
until the 2002 model year [which came out mid 2001]
> (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer for a better explanation of
> the differences). They used upper and lower A-arms with torsion bars.
> The Generation 1 two door models with the twin I beam type suspension
> are the ones that are alway talked about in the early engineering
> memos regarding the Consumer Reports lane change manuever. The 2 Door
> version had a shorter wheelbase and took a lot of work to get it to
> pass the Consumer Reports manuver. The Consumer Reports test is not
> any sort of regulatory requirement, but if your vehicle fails the
> test, CR makes a big deal out of it (ask Isuzu ans Suzuki about that).
> Ford wanted to make sure they could pass it. As I recall, even the
> Generation 1 2 Door model passed the test when CR tested them. The 4
> Door version (the one built in by far the largest numbers) never had
> the same level of difficulty with this test. It had a longer
> wheelbase. The 4 door, 4WD version was even more stable. In terms of
> stability, the 2 door, 2 wd version made before 2005 was the least
> stable. All of the Generation 2 models were much better. Ironically
> most of the bad Firestone tires were on the Generation 2 models. Most
> of the memo's in your long list of memos were dealing with discussions
> between Ford and Firestone regarding recalling tires. Read some of
> them. Not only was Firestone unwilling to recall the defective tries,
> they constantly pressured Ford not to recall them either.
red herring bullshit.
>
>>> So
>>> they claim a design defect for late 90's models based on a design
>>> from
>>> a completely different version of the vehicle. It is ridiculous.
>>
>> logical fallacy. see above.
>
> Not at all. The problem is you don't care to know the facts.
er, quite the opposite. you're the one refusing to address facts. see
above.
>
>>> All
>>> the crap about how Ford didn't update the suspenison from a 1990
>>> Ranger is completely wrong when you are talking about vehicles from
>>> 1996 on.
>>
>> stick to the correct dates dude. please.
>
> Which dates do you want me to stick to. After 1995, the Explorer's
> front suspension was completely different than the prior models.
see above. it's not a front suspension issue.
> You
> apparently did not know that. And since you only are willing to read
> Trial Lawyer misinfomration
you mean the subpoenaed documentary facts that you don't like?
> sites, you don't have the actual facts,
except that they are actual facts.
> just their skewed version designed to help them win clients and cases.
so, the families of the bereaved should just shut up and take one for
the team? dude, you're a fucking sociopath.
>
>>> If you would bother to do any research at all, you would
>>> understand this was a bunch of half baked crap written by a bunch
>>> of
>>> trial lawyers looking for a pay day.
>>
>> and yet, oddly enough, trial lawyers have to stick to provable facts
>> in order to win cases. strange how you'd not want to admit that.
>> or not.
>
> Do you really beleive this?
this is not a matter of faith - trial lawyers have to stick to the
facts. it's the law. and you think judges don't know their way around
this stuff? disingenuous bullshitter.
> That list you sent includes a lot of memos
> that are true, but the interpertation is often skewed.
translation: "clear, but inconvenient".
> The list is
> constructed in such a manner as to confuse the issue.
no, the facts speak for themselves!
> The early memos
> regarding Generation 1 and even Bronco IIs are highlighted. Yet most
> of the conclsuions drawn from these memos have nothing to do with
> Generation 2 Explorers.
bullshit they are exactly the same issue, and frod are continuing with
their calculated policy of cast savings above safety in the face of a
know problem.
> Generation 2 Explorers had a wider front
> track. Generation 2 Explorers had the engine lowered to improve the
> COG.
but not enough to fix the known problem. read the docs!
> So the trail lawyers get in front of jury and parade a out a
> bunch of carefully selected memos that indicate that some Ford
> engineers wanted to widen the track and lower the engine for
> Generation 1 Explorers. Other Ford Engineers siad it was not
> necessary
ever heard of "management direction"?
> and they could pass the CR test just by adjusting tire
> pressure.
a fatally ridiculous concept - since any tire is subject to blowout.
> The goal was to pass a magazine's BS test.
you mean, a safety test?
> They were able to
> pass it.
no, they were able to fudge it.
> Where is the smoking gun?
er, in front of your nose?
> And none of these discussions about
> lowering the engine or widening the track had anythig at all to do
> with Generation 2 Explorers (1995-2001). But these are the models that
> mostly had the bad tires.
red herring bullshit. no vehicle should roll because of a flat. period.
> So trail lawyers took documents related to
> one model of the Explorer and used those to indicate that another had
> problem - which it didn't. Is that fair?
"fair" would be you manning up to the facts. which you still refuse to do.
> And the fact remains, that
> even when you factor in the bad tires, Explorers did not have a
> particualrly high rollover rate.
but they did. your "stats" are not single vehicle fatalities - where
only that vehicle's faults have killed the occupants. the exploder is a
standout nightmare.
> If you average all Explorers together
> (the relativvely bad 2 door 2 wheel drive models, and the very stable
> 4 door 4wd models) the overall Explorer rollover rate was at least
> average for the class (mid sized SUVs). As I have pointed out several
> times, the Toyota 4Runner from the same era (1990's) was far more
> likely to be involved in a rollover accident that an Explorer. Why
> don't you address that issue?
the 4runner didn't cabin crush like the exploder did. frod know cabin
crush was an issue, not just stability.
>
>>> The time line reference is
>>> unbelieveable. It mixes letters regarding the Bronco II, early
>>> Explorers, late Explorers, etc.
>>
>> "unbelievable"??? it shows the clear and consistent policy of frod
>> executives to dismiss safety because it would cost more. if you
>> don't think that's wrong, there's something wrong with you.
>
> See above
no, see the facts - frod executives fudged and bullshitted to save
money, even in the face of known killer safety issues. that's fact.
>
>>> They do just about as much research as
>>> you - ZERO.
>>
>> see above.
>
> See above
no, see the facts - frod executives fudged and bullshitted to save
money, even in the face of known killer safety issues. that's fact.
>
>>> Repeating the lies / misinformation originated by other is
>>> not research.
>>
>> translation: "daring to point out facts that contradict what i don't
>> want to see makes me feel uncomfortable."
>>
>>
>>> Accident statistics have never supported the idea that 4
>>> door Explorers were particulary dangerous compared to other
>>> vehciles
>>> in the class.
>>
>> except that their single-vehicle rollover fatality rate - you know,
>> where no there vehicles were involved, so only that vehicle was
>> responsible, and the stats you carefully avoided citing - was three
>> times that of its next rival.
>
> Show me your link to that statistic.
like i told you before - it was on nhtsa's website. now removed.
>
> Here is one I found:
>
> From
> http://hl2.bgu.ac.il/users/www/2673/project/Rollover%20risk%20of%20cars%20and%20light%20trucks.pdf
"strangely", just like i've told you, the stats from which that paper
are drawn, ref nhtsa, are no longer available.
>
> Single-vehicle fatal rollover crashes per million registration-years,
> 1995-98, 1-3-year-old selected passenger vehicles
>
> 2WD utility Vehicles
> Light Chevrolet Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick two-door 1994-95 - 196
> Light Jeep Cherokee four-door 1995-96 - 37
> Midweight Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo four-door 1996-97 - 150
> Midweight Toyota 4Runner four-door 1996-97 - 80
> Midweight Jeep Grand Cherokee four-door 1996-97 - 66
> Heavy Ford Explorer four-door 1995-97 - 84
> Very heavy Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon four-door 1995-96 - 23
>
> 4WD utility Vehicles
> Light Chevrolet Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick two-doora 1994-95 - 127
> Midweight Jeep Cherokee four-door 1995-96 - 12
> Midweight Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo four-door 1996-97 - 104
> Midweight Toyota 4Runner four-door 1996-97 - 119
> Midweight Jeep Grand Cherokee four-door 1996-97 - 27
> Heavy Ford Explorer four-doora 1995-97 - 51
> Very heavy Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon four-doora 1995-96 - 40
"registration years", not driver miles. twisted stats again.
>
> For the 2WD vehciles the Explorer and 4Runner were very close with a
> slight edge in favor of the 4Runner (probably not statistically
> significant). I assume that these stats included the shorter wheelbase
> 2 door version of the Explorer. But for the 4WD versions it wasn't
> close. The 4Runner had a rollover rate over twice that of the 4WD
> Explorer. So again, I ask, if you are so upset about the "dangerous"
> Explorer, why haven't you gone super nova over the 4Runner from the
> same era. Could it be you are completely blinded by a pro-Toyota bias?
no, i just hate lying xenophobic bullshitters who can't man up to the
facts. i don't much care for corporate persons getting away with
manslaughter either.
>
> Here is the bottom line from a source I don't think even you could
> claim, was pro-Ford:
>
> From
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/before.html
>
> "Is the Ford Explorer more rollover-prone than the dozens of other
> SUVs?
> "No. According to federal data and safety ratings, the four-door
> Explorer's rollover record is pretty typical of midsize SUVs."
>
>>> Find some statistics that say otherwise....
>>
>> for you to dismiss as "lies and misinformation"???
>
> Do you take lesson from Mike Hunter? This seems like his tactic - make
> a ridiculous claim, back it up with "data" no one else can find, and
> when challenged lie like hell.
how ironic that you would accuse your opponent of precisely the tactic
that you are using. that's sociopathy - you have no shame.
>
>> you know ed, your arguments always work great. right up until the
>> point where you ignore/dismiss facts, operate double standards, and
>> won't use logic.
>
> It seems to me you don't care about truth.
hey mr sociopath, that's the opposite of the truth! surprise?
> And certainly you son't
> use logic.
hey mr sociopath, that's the opposite of the truth! surprise?
> Instead of addressing the original topc of this thread you
> try to defelct attention by dragging misinfomration from a decade ago.
> Where is the logic in that?
raw nerve? don't like to have your lies and bullshit exposed?
>
> Ed
you're a goddamned lying bullshitting paid sociopath ed.
"nomina rutrum rutrum" means "call a spade a spade". i just did.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:41 am
From: "Mike Hunter"
(Cross posting deleted automatically)
"jim beam" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:q4-dnf5CkvjMSODWnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> On 02/18/2010 05:33 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> When are you going to address Toyota's problems?
>
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:42 am
From: "Mike Hunter"
(Cross posting deleted automatically)
"jim beam" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:cK-dncud4JvEJuPWnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> On 02/19/2010 05:40 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>> "jim beam"<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:q4-dnf5CkvjMSODWnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> On 02/18/2010 05:33 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>> When are you going to address Toyota's problems?
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 10:56 am
From: IYM <"S U N risr"@optonline.net>
Mike Hunter wrote:
> (Cross posting deleted automatically)
>
Screw you Mike, you wanna be newsgroup cop. Aren't you late for work at
the Security Kiosk at the mall? Run along now...
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 10:59 am
From: IYM <"S U N risr"@optonline.net>
Mike Hunter wrote:
> (Cross posting deleted automatically)
>
> "jim beam" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:cK-dncud4JvEJuPWnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> On 02/19/2010 05:40 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> "jim beam"<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:q4-dnf5CkvjMSODWnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> On 02/18/2010 05:33 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>>> When are you going to address Toyota's problems?
>
>
Screw you Mike, you wanna be newsgroup cop. Aren't you late for work at
the Security Kiosk at the mall? Run along now...
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:08 pm
From: me
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:24:57 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> There is plenty of
>> evidence that Toyota has known about the sticky accelerator pedals for
>> at least 3 years.
>
>you mean all 12 vehicles? out of how many million? and how many
>billion driver miles?
Funny, everyone else seems to have a different count than you.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you know about the 'Move Over' traffic law?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/66f3a995c0437e95?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 3:22 am
From: E Z Peaces
willshak wrote:
> I saw a news item about this on the TV news this morning.
> I did not know there was such a law (there isn't in NYS, Maryland, D.C.,
> or Hawaii).
> Apparently, many motorists (~71 %.) in the states that have the law do
> not know it.
> http://www.moveoveramerica.com/
> In some, or maybe all, the states that have it include other than for
> law enforcement safety.
> Check your state law for specifics.
> I do these things as a matter of courtesy and safety without any law
> telling me to do so.
>
I've always believed in moving over if anybody is parked on the right,
but I don't like the law.
Why give police special status? Of 750,000 police in America, about 10
per year are killed beside the road in the line of duty, so the danger
is small. Wouldn't changing lanes be more important for the safety of a
woman with children who has car trouble, a tow-truck operator hooking
up, or somebody changing a tire, for example?
When a cop is killed this way, it seems to be because a car moved well
to the right of the travel lane due to inattention or loss of control.
Would making millions of other drivers use the left lane eliminate this?
Won't this sudden lane-changing increase the chance that a car will be
knocked out of control and hit the cop?
If a car in the left lane prevents a big rig from moving left, a cop may
be unable to see the car and unwilling to believe the trucker.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:45 am
From: me
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:22:30 -0500, E Z Peaces <cash@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>Why give police special status?
Because it's politically expedient. The Legislators look out for the
cops and the cops then vote for them (or just don't campaign against
them for not being pro-cop enough).
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 10:58 am
From: "Max Magister"
Jeesh. So cynical. :-)) Weren't we all taught that the policeman is our
friend? After the many scandals with Canada's national police force I think
most Canadians now have an entirely different opinion of that gang. At
least they no longer investigate themselves for wrongdoings. Having said
that, I wouldn't be a policeman for the world, not with society as it is
today.
Max
"me" <noemail@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:icctn5di5480i3rgjoe3q203lks6t2797k@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:22:30 -0500, E Z Peaces <cash@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Why give police special status?
>
> Because it's politically expedient. The Legislators look out for the
> cops and the cops then vote for them (or just don't campaign against
> them for not being pro-cop enough).
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mike Hunter the hypocrite is plonked...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/8dd54d337b9013fe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:05 pm
From: IYM <"S U N risr"@optonline.net>
Mike Hunter wrote:
> Did that missive hit home, perhaps? I did not cross post, nor did I
> originate the thread. I was merely responding to one of the OT posts that
> proliferate this NG, as did you ;)
>
>
>
> "IYM" <"S U N risr"@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:hlmmlr$km1$8@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> Isn't that what he meant when he said any number of leftist-loons in this
>>> group? ;)
>>>
>>
>> <Gasp> Isn't this a automotive newsgroup, not a political one??? How
>> dare you reply with a non-automotive reply you hypocritical ass.
>
>
Good - now I did.
You, sir, are one of the biggest asses I have encountered on Newsgroups.
You, sir, are a HYPOCRITE!!! You talk about not posting politics in
auto newsgroups, and then you do and hide under the guise of not
originating the thread, or that you were responding to an existing post.
You, sir, are an asshole. You sir, need to head back and get a life
other than patrolling newsgroups.
You, sir, are the damaged sperm that made it to the egg.
You, sir are now plonked
My appoligies to the rest of the groups for going off on this idiot
today. I'm done - He's plonked and my board is all the more sane and
clean. Now back to your regularly scheduled newsgroups... :)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:05 pm
From: me
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:05:09 -0500, IYM <"S U N risr"@optonline.net>
wrote:
>Mike Hunter wrote:
<snip>
>You, sir, are one of the biggest asses I have encountered on Newsgroups.
Mike Hunter is a brainwashed moron, but publicly announcing a plonking
is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "I can't
hear you".
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.autos.nissan"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.autos.nissan+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment