ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th September 2019, 04:32 AM   #81
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by erlando View Post
So that's why a 60 ton road train has the same braking distance as a normal sized car...
How high up is the center of mass for a 60 ton road train? How much acceleration can the tires sustain before the force is enough to scrape off rubber? There are major difference between all cars and heavy trucks that don’t exist between light cars and heavy cars.

ETA also forgot to mention air brakes take time to engage, and braking power has to be constrained to maintain stability. But truck stopping distance doesn’t depend on the weight of the load, because again, friction forces are proportional to weight.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 20th September 2019 at 04:38 AM.
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 05:57 AM   #82
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,372
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Nope. Friction force scales with mass, so that's really not a problem with cars.
And yet the stopping distance for a given car increases with the car's weight (number of passengers, luggage, bags of cement in the back ...)

Whether a heavier structure in this kind of case would be significant enough to warrant an upgrade to more powerful brakes is another matter.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 06:21 AM   #83
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,728
So why do trucks have a longer breakpath?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 06:24 AM   #84
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,361
A lot of this depends on how essential you view a car to be to average day to day life in America and ironically I think it might not go in the way you'd think on the surface.

I actually think, as counter-logical as it might seem on the surface, people who see cars as essential actually (this is all in tendencies, not in absolutes) be more lax with how safe cars should have to be.

If you think it's possible to maintain a reasonable lifestyle in a America without a car, it makes sense (g)you would tend (I said tend, not absolute) toward the idea that cars should be safer, because if the safety features price people out of buying cars they can just... well not have a car.

If (g)you think that a car is a necessity, again generally speaking, there is more of a tendency to see a "a less safe car is better then no car" angle to the whole thing.

In rural areas the concept of a "beater car" is much more ingrained. As I've noted before a vehicle is not a luxury for someone doesn't live in a dense urban core and who can't walk to work, two Starbucks, and vinyl record store. If they can't afford a brand new car with lane departure assist and automatic breaking they aren't going to take the bus or ride a bike... they're gonna buy a 20 year old beater with even less safety features. "Not driving" isn't a viable option.

So somewhere in the margins the idea of at least considering the idea of a lower cost car with fewer safety features or at least looking at the "Are we making people safer by pricing safety features out of their reach" question is not absolutely across the board unreasonable.

I do wonder in a purely intellectual sense if we just used already sunk costs for things where the R&D was the major cost factor and built a car with just those and with fewer added "safety features" that actually add cost as it where how safe the end car could be.

Too long; didn't read: Have we priced the "cheap safe car" out of some people's reach?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 06:25 AM   #85
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
And yet the stopping distance for a given car increases with the car's weight (number of passengers, luggage, bags of cement in the back ...)

Whether a heavier structure in this kind of case would be significant enough to warrant an upgrade to more powerful brakes is another matter.
Brakes are matched to the size of the car, whatever it is. Higher weight on weaker brakes may push the brakes farther away from their limiting behavior (ie, best braking capabilities), but that isn't relevant when we're talking about designing a car, since we can up the brake strength as needed. A heavy luxury sedan can stop just as quickly as a subcompact, if it's designed to do so.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 06:31 AM   #86
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,372
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
So why do trucks have a longer breakpath?
I'd say because their weight is relatively great for the surface area of the brake pads/drums and the force being applied to those. In other words I think that Ziggurat is oversimplifying. Mass is an issue in braking because the force being applied to stop the vehicle is independent of its weight.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 06:32 AM   #87
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
So why do trucks have a longer breakpath?
Because they can't come as close to the limits of braking that cars can, for several reason. One is that commonly used air brakes have a delay before they fully engage at maximum power. Another is that if you brake too hard with a truck, it becomes unstable and you can jacknife it (very dangerous). Another is that you'll get material failure (ie, tires rubbing off on the pavement) much more easily, so you can't get as close to using the maximum acceleration of the static friction coefficient. But these problems don't show up when you're comparing lighter and heavier cars, because even heavy cars aren't that heavy.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 06:38 AM   #88
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I'd say because their weight is relatively great for the surface area of the brake pads/drums and the force being applied to those. In other words I think that Ziggurat is oversimplifying. Mass is an issue in braking because the force being applied to stop the vehicle is independent of its weight.
No, the force is generally NOT independent of weight.

What limits the force that you can apply when braking? In most cars, the brakes can apply enough force to lock the wheels. This is undesirable, so modern cars typically use antilock braking systems. These systems dynamically limit the braking force applied. How do they know where to limit the braking force? When it senses the wheels begin to lock up. How much force does it take to make the wheels begin to lock up? That depends on the mass of the car. The more mass, the harder it is to lock the wheels. Which means the more mass, the harder the brakes will apply.

If you get to the point where the wheels cannot lock up because the car is too heavy, then you have reached a maximum braking power, and more mass will certainly increase braking distance. But if you've designed your car so that this can occur with normal loads, then you've done it wrong.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 07:35 AM   #89
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,146
For reference:

Best Car Safety Performance
Good braking and handling can help you avoid an accident


It's the best I can find, but only lists a smallish number of cars.

The ones with the shortest stopping distance are mostly sports cars, with a few small sedans thrown in. The longest stopping distances are all full-size pickups.

Avoidance testing follows a similar pattern, only with a few more cheap sedans in the "best" category and a few big SUV's in the "worst" category.

ETA: Those cheap little Ford Fiestas seem to be the biggest bang for your buck, safety-wise.

Last edited by crescent; 20th September 2019 at 07:38 AM.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 07:51 AM   #90
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
For reference:

Best Car Safety Performance
Good braking and handling can help you avoid an accident


It's the best I can find, but only lists a smallish number of cars.

The ones with the shortest stopping distance are mostly sports cars, with a few small sedans thrown in. The longest stopping distances are all full-size pickups.
I wouldn't be surprised if the difference is largely due to tire selection. All tires are not made equal, and there are necessarily tradeoffs in tire design, particularly between friction and durability. Sports cars are likely to prioritize friction more than trucks, whereas I would expect trucks to prioritize durability more than sports cars.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 09:21 AM   #91
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,337
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I'd say because their weight is relatively great for the surface area of the brake pads/drums and the force being applied to those. In other words I think that Ziggurat is oversimplifying. Mass is an issue in braking because the force being applied to stop the vehicle is independent of its weight.
Exactly. If braking were an issue of lock up the tires and skid, then heavier vehicles would indeed have greater friction, and that would matter.

But that's not how you stop a car. To do that, you apply friction between the brake pad and the wheel. There is no mass involved in that friction, and the place the mass comes into place is in the momentum that needs to be stopped.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 09:29 AM   #92
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
At his New Mexico rally, Trump stated that as part of his wanting to make cars safer he was planned to get rid of rules and regulations so that cars could be made of stronger materials that won't "collapse" in an accident.

So just curious, how does removing crumple zones make cars safer?
He knows just as much about automotive design as he does about anything else - -0-.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 09:36 AM   #93
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Exactly. If braking were an issue of lock up the tires and skid, then heavier vehicles would indeed have greater friction, and that would matter.

But that's not how you stop a car. To do that, you apply friction between the brake pad and the wheel. There is no mass involved in that friction
But there is, because brake force is dynamically limited in antilock braking systems, which are basically universal on cars now. And the force at which they start to lock up is in fact directly related to the mass of the car. If the force of the pads was limited below what's necessary to lock up the brakes, then what you say would be true, but they aren't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 10:23 AM   #94
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,482
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. Road surface is a constant, and tire materials are only not constant if you change them. If they donít change, then coefficient of friction doesnít change. The main relevant thing which may change with weight is the carís suspension, but that can be adjusted appropriately with proper engineering. Center of gravity might change as well, but with proper engineering it might even lower with more weight.
Your analysis only applies when skidding, but skidding is bad.

Heavier cars need more powerful brakes to stop quickly without skidding.

I haven't worked out the physics myself, but I'm sure. Automotive engineers have.

Let's not lose sight of the real point. Cars are safer than they used to be, but Donald Trump promises to get rid of regulation related to safety, and uses flawed reasoniy to justify. It.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 10:41 AM   #95
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Your analysis only applies when skidding
, but skidding is bad.
No, it doesn't only apply then. It also applies when you're near or at the limit of the static coefficient of friction between the tires and the road, which is what antilock brakes are designed to produce.

Quote:
Heavier cars need more powerful brakes to stop quickly without skidding.
Depends how much heavier. Car brakes are designed to handle a range of weights, and be able to lock up the brakes across that range. And significantly heavier cars HAVE more powerful brakes.

Quote:
I haven't worked out the physics myself
I have.

Quote:
Automotive engineers have.
Undoubtedly. And I don't think anything I've said really contradicts what they would say.
Quote:
Let's not lose sight of the real point. Cars are safer than they used to be, but Donald Trump promises to get rid of regulation related to safety, and uses flawed reasoniy to justify. It.
I don't think he promised to get rid of any safety regulations. He promised to get rid of certain environmental regulations, on the premise that these regulations conflict with safety improvements. Repealing environmental may or may not do much to improve safety, and that may or may not be worth the environmental cost, but that's still quite different.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 11:01 AM   #96
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,214
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
A rigid, rail chassis vehicle be more dangerous than one with a crumple design. The rigid chassis stops dead, the crumple zone absorbs shock and slows the rate of acceleration.
You actually want both. A rigid cage around the passengers, that does not crumple onto the passengers. And a collapsible cage around that, which absorbs most of the kinetic energy from the crash by crumpling. The idea is to transfer no more energy to the passenger cage than the cage (and the passengers inside) can withstand.

Obviously there are upper limits to this system. Hit the car hard enough, and the crumple zone won't absorb enough energy to preserve the cage. One possible solution for increasing passenger survivability at high energies is to increase the strength of the passenger cage, so that it can resist more "overflow" energy from the overloaded crumple zone. But this solution tends to require more and heavier material for the cage. This adds to the weight of the car, and reduces its fuel efficiency. So there's a trade-off there.

Crumple zones make a car safer. But so does the rigid cage around the passengers.

Regulators could mandate that all automobiles be built like literal tanks, with so much armor that they don't even need crumple zones. In the name of passenger safety, right? But they don't.

So. When it comes to making cars safer by further strengthening the passenger cage, does it make sense to relax mileage regulations so that manufacturers can add more weight to their designs?

Maybe.

To me, that's a much more interesting discussion than bickering about whether Donald Trump should know about crumple zones, or fantasizing that the presidency should magically transform an average person into a polymath renaissance man.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 11:29 AM   #97
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,712
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
To be fair the cars themselves did better in accidents, just not the occupants which some people think is important.
Speed never killed anyone. Sudden stops on the other hand.....
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 12:09 PM   #98
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,372
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But there is, because brake force is dynamically limited in antilock braking systems, which are basically universal on cars now. And the force at which they start to lock up is in fact directly related to the mass of the car. If the force of the pads was limited below what's necessary to lock up the brakes, then what you say would be true, but they aren't.
The basic principles held long before the advent of ABS. Try it with a motorbike or bicycle that doesn't have ABS. A heavier driver or the presence of a passenger makes the bike harder to stop.

The final element from Braking, Energy Education, which is just one source from hundreds easily found:

"F=(mv^2)/2d

From this equation it can be seen that increasing the velocity or mass of an object means the applied friction force must be increased to bring the object to a stop in the same distance."
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 20th September 2019 at 12:10 PM.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 12:43 PM   #99
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
The basic principles held long before the advent of ABS. Try it with a motorbike or bicycle that doesn't have ABS. A heavier driver or the presence of a passenger makes the bike harder to stop.
Not equivalent. On a motorcycle, you need to worry about flipping if you brake too hard, and additional (or heavier) passengers shifts the center of gravity upwards, making it easier to flip. This can constrain braking power below the limit of static friction. But that doesn't happen in a car.

Quote:
The final element from Braking, Energy Education, which is just one source from hundreds easily found:

"F=(mv^2)/2d

From this equation it can be seen that increasing the velocity or mass of an object means the applied friction force must be increased to bring the object to a stop in the same distance."
Well, yes. And what limits the force that can be applied? The friction between the ground and the tires. The braking force cannot exceed the maximum static friction between them. And how do you determine the maximum static friction? You multiply the static friction coefficient by the normal force between the two surfaces. And what's the normal force proportional to? The weight of the vehicle, and hence its mass. So mass is contained within the force term in the case of maximal braking.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 03:59 PM   #100
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,482
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Undoubtedly. And I don't think anything I've said really contradicts what they would say.
I would agree. You're pretty close to right, and errors are of the "simplified for conversation" kind rather than, "just wrong" kind.

Quote:
I don't think he promised to get rid of any safety regulations. He promised to get rid of certain environmental regulations, on the premise that these regulations conflict with safety improvements. Repealing environmental may or may not do much to improve safety, and that may or may not be worth the environmental cost, but that's still quite different.
So was he saying that cars crumple because they are made too light due to environmental regulations, or that they crumple due to crumple zones? I thought he was addressing the fact that modern cars tend to be a lot more expensive to repair after a minor collision than was previously the case.

Or was he just yammering with no knowledge.

My objection to Trump is not that he is ignorant of automotive engineering, but that he does not admit his ignorance nor listen to people who have knowledge. Like so many people, he decides what he wants to be true, and then asserts that it is, in fact, true.

(For what it's worth, this problem is not limited to right wingers, but Trump has taken it to a whole new level, at least among people with power.)
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 07:29 PM   #101
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So was he saying that cars crumple because they are made too light due to environmental regulations, or that they crumple due to crumple zones? I thought he was addressing the fact that modern cars tend to be a lot more expensive to repair after a minor collision than was previously the case.

Or was he just yammering with no knowledge.
Itís hard to tell how much he understands. His rhetorical style doesnít go for subtleties, so even if he knows that crumple zones are supposed to crumple and the passenger cage is not, he wonít draw that distinction.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 07:54 PM   #102
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,427
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
At his New Mexico rally, Trump stated that as part of his wanting to make cars safer he was planned to get rid of rules and regulations so that cars could be made of stronger materials that won't "collapse" in an accident.

So just curious, how does removing crumple zones make cars safer?
Well, you have your answer to your headline. Trump supporters are delighted to spin this element into a massive distraction about bad science.

When I saw the first line of your OP I figured you were going to hammer him on the more-damaging exchange between him and Cortes at that rally. Donnie shot himself in both feet and his dick. Condescending. Stupid. Bigoted. He hit the Stephen Miller trifecta.

So, yeah, they're happy that they can argue bad fourth grade physics and misinterpreted statistics. They can bury, or so they hope, the further evidence of his White Power Hour campaign. Thing is, I'm pretty sure every Hispanic voter in the country saw that exchange and cringed along with their families and friends watching Cortes have to try to suck it up and be cheerful in support of the fuhrer.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 03:48 AM   #103
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
We never need to guess how Trump critics will spin things. It always ends with Trump = Hitler.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 05:42 AM   #104
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 936
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
We never need to guess how Trump critics will spin things. It always ends with Trump = Hitler.
Nope. Hitler (and his calamitous regime) comes into it as a ready lesson from history that most halfway aware people have some familiarity with. While the parallels are far from widespread, there are a sufficient number of rough similarities to draw lessons from. Perhaps a better comparison is made with Mussolini.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 06:08 AM   #105
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Nope. Hitler (and his calamitous regime) comes into it as a ready lesson from history that most halfway aware people have some familiarity with. While the parallels are far from widespread, there are a sufficient number of rough similarities to draw lessons from.
Wait, what? I'm wrong that Trump keep getting compared to Hitler, because comparisons to Hitler are valid? That's... not how it works.

Quote:
Perhaps a better comparison is made with Mussolini.
But that's not where it always ends up.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 07:11 AM   #106
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,223
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
We never need to guess how Trump critics will spin things. It always ends with Trump = Hitler.
Your post is the first mention of Hitler in this thread.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 08:43 AM   #107
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Your post is the first mention of Hitler in this thread.
Are you seriously claiming that Foolmewonz didn't mean to make a Hitler reference when he said "fuhrer"?

Really?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 09:12 AM   #108
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,589
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Are you seriously claiming that Foolmewonz didn't mean to make a Hitler reference when he said "fuhrer"?



Really?
Trying to understand how this ties into the topic of the thread?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 09:36 AM   #109
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 13,249
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Trying to understand how this ties into the topic of the thread?
Just perfectly. Getting everyone bogged down in relevant minutiae is a perfect spin.
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 10:02 AM   #110
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,144
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Trying to understand how this ties into the topic of the thread?
Why don't you ask Foolmewunz, since he brought it up.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 10:22 AM   #111
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,223
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Are you seriously claiming that Foolmewonz didn't mean to make a Hitler reference when he said "fuhrer"?

Really?
No, I missed that. My apologies.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 10:40 AM   #112
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 30,237
The Mango Moron should definitely be able to have manufacturers make less safe cars and order that only Republicans can drive them. I assume that's what he has planned for the presidential limousine? That'll show the libs!
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 02:56 PM   #113
IsThisTheLife
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 382
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The cage around the passengers is not supposed to collapse in an accident. And even with crumple zones, the sections that crumple still need significant strength, or the crumpling process won't absorb enough energy.

The real argument here is about gas mileage requirements, and how they affect car safety. The argument Trump is referring to is basically that in order to meet gas mileage requirements, car manufacturers have to make their cars as light as possible. But if they could make their cars heavier (and with worse gas mileage), they could make them stronger and therefore safer. And it's a very reasonable argument.

It's not an open-and-shut case for three reasons, though. First, how much safety benefit you get, and how much worse mileage you get, from adding more weight is not a simple question, it's a complex engineering one. But it can probably be figured out with enough effort.

The second and third are related, and harder to predict though less technical. Second, since using more material costs more, and car manufacturers have an incentive to cut costs even in the absence of gas mileage regulations, it's not clear how much car manufacturers would change their designs if the gas mileage regs were scaled back. Third, it's not obvious what customers would prefer in the tradeoff between gas mileage and safety.

But even in the absence of such answers, the case for it is basically that manufacturers and consumers should be the ones deciding, not the government. In other words, consumers should be allowed to pick less fuel efficient cars in exchange for more safety, if that's what they want.

So, anyone want to voice their opinion about the actual tradeoff here?
Crumple zones are 'sacrificial', so they are also effectively 'single use' - they will spread the deceleration of ONE impact, after that the only protection passengers have is in the strength of the passenger 'cell' or cage.

If the vehicle rolls or 'endos', or if it's in a multi-vehicle and multi-impact crash, you're at the mercy of that cell.

In current safety tests almost any modern car will massively out-score the Volvos or Saabs which 30 years ago were known as the safest of cars. However, in many circumstances, such as if I was being squished between a couple of HGV's in a M-way pile-up, I'd rather be in the 1985 Saab 900i I used to own (which was heavy because it was built so strongly) than pretty much any of them.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 04:30 PM   #114
Hercules Rockefeller
Woof!
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,293
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Itís hard to tell how much he understands. His rhetorical style doesnít go for subtleties, so even if he knows that crumple zones are supposed to crumple and the passenger cage is not, he wonít draw that distinction.
It's really not.
__________________
Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra
Hercules Rockefeller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 10:38 PM   #115
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,728
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Are you seriously claiming that Foolmewonz didn't mean to make a Hitler reference when he said "fuhrer"?

Really?
I'm sure he meant Mussolini - now he is a very similar character to Trump.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 10:55 PM   #116
llwyd
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 503
I think his supporters will spin pretty much anything and bloody easily at that. In any functioning democracy his support would be in the low 20's at most but as it is: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...roval-ratings/
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2019, 12:50 AM   #117
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,589
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why don't you ask Foolmewunz, since he brought it up.
I asked about your post and your content, if I was asking about a post Foolmewunz had made I would have quoted his post.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2019, 02:50 AM   #118
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 41,025
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Itís hard to tell how much he understands. His rhetorical style doesnít go for subtleties, so even if he knows that crumple zones are supposed to crumple and the passenger cage is not, he wonít draw that distinction.
It's not hard at all. He wouldn't understand it.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2019, 03:14 AM   #119
Parsman
Muse
 
Parsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
We never need to guess how Trump critics will spin things. It always ends with Trump = Hitler.
It seems to me that 95% of the criticisms of Trump don't compare him to Hitler. He is his own bigoted, sexist, racist person and he runs an administration staffed with amateurs and idiots who are equally as incompetent as their boss. Despite his admiration for despots and tyrants like Kim and Putin there are still enough checks and balances in the system to prevent him going full fascist dictator. All of which said he is still a unique disaster for the USA.
__________________
I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus

When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.
Parsman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2019, 05:08 AM   #120
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,214
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I asked about your post and your content, if I was asking about a post Foolmewunz had made I would have quoted his post.
You asked about a topic FMW raised.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.