Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Well screw me.....that National Academy of Scientists are just a bunch of hicks or something.
|
so the whole NAS wrote and endorsed the report? nope, so why don't you explain what point you're makking above?
Quote:
They just don't agree with Mavdog..
Also why would speeds be reduced, unless that's the next Barry shoe to drop in our ever-increasing quest for zero-risk. I would absolutely crack-up if Barry proposed a speed-limit, but he's way too good of a politician for that.
|
actrually, the report DOES agree with mavdog....
to quote from the report:
"when a heavy vehicle strikes an object, it is more likely to move or deform that object than a light vehicle..."
iow when heavy vehicles hit light vehicles the light vehicle suffers. but if a light vehicle hits a light vehicle this is not the case, there is no additional mass hitting the light vehicle.
second, the report mentions the lack of "restraint systems" in the light vehicle, which as I pointed out has been addressed by the car manufactuers. the light vehicles now are at the top of the crash safety tests and ratings. the study's data is now over a decade old!
and to quote from the report itself:
In short, the historical trend in motor vehicle injury and fatality rates is too broad a measure, affected by too many variables, to indicate if vehicle downsizing and downweighting have increased or decreased motor vehicle travel safety
so no, it isn't a clear trade off of safety for fuel economy, and the report that you posted in an attempt to make that very point does not support your position. in fact it pulls the rug out from underneath it.