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 19th September 2019, 11:07 AM   #41
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,968
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sorry. I should have been more clear. I understand the what, as such. I guess I'm asking, why does it need to be spun?
Sorry, I'm not altogether clear on your reaction.

Do you agree that Trump's comments were asinine and ignorant?

If so, the answer to the question would be, "I don't spin these comments at all. I agree that Trump is simply wrong on this issue."
phiwum 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 19th September 2019, 11:28 AM   #42
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Sorry, I'm not altogether clear on your reaction.
It's a muddled reaction to a muddled complaint.

Quote:
Do you agree that Trump's comments were asinine and ignorant?
No.

Not noticing that cars have gotten safer over the last few decades, in part due to regulation of the industry, would be pretty asinine and ignorant. But it's not entirely clear that this is what's going on here. If it is what's going on here, I don't think it needs any spin. Trump often says asinine and ignorant things. Case closed. I'm not here to titillate Phantom Wolf with "spin" every time Trump does something stupid.

Not knowing the role of crumple zones in engineering automobile safety is kind of ignorant, but not particularly asinine, in my opinion. I doubt a lot of people think very much about how things are made, and the kinds of trade-offs that go into engineering a safe and functional complex machine. Certainly we know that Donald Trump isn't that kind of thinker. But again, it's not clear that this is what's going on. So, uh, I guess there's your "spin", if "spin" is what you're looking for.

Ineptly bringing up the issue Ziggurat alludes to is neither asinine nor ignorant. Just inept. Which, again, probably doesn't need any spin. Unless you count Zig's much more coherent and reasonable description of that particular issue to be "spin". But again, it's not clear that what Zig is talking about is what's going on, either.

Quote:
If so, the answer to the question would be, "I don't spin these comments at all. I agree that Trump is simply wrong on this issue."
It's not clear to me that Trump is simply wrong on this issue. We should probably consider the possibility that you and PW (among others) are spinning Trump's comments away from the perfectly cromulent issue that Zig refers to.

So there you go. If it's ignorance about car safety, then no spin necessary. It's just asinine and ignorant.

If it's anything else, then the first thing to address is yours and PW's spin.
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 19th September 2019, 11:43 AM   #43
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So, anyone want to voice their opinion about the actual tradeoff here?
I'm not an expert on these issues, but I think you have massively oversimplified them. I do know that carmakers contain many experts. And the carmakers would rather just stick to the California standards.

Probably for business reasons, but with a far better understanding of the design challenges they face and the litigation costs of ignoring passenger safety as a part of the design process.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith 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 19th September 2019, 11:53 AM   #44
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,197
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I'm not an expert on these issues, but I think you have massively oversimplified them. I do know that carmakers contain many experts. And the carmakers would rather just stick to the California standards.
California sets emission standards which are stricter than the EPA emission standards that most manufacturers try to meet. But in addition to emission standards, the federal government also sets mileage standards. And it's the mileage standards which I think are more relevant in regards to possible tradeoffs with safety.
__________________
"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 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 19th September 2019, 11:53 AM   #45
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,623
They will spin it like they always do:

Dear Leader is incapable of error.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 19th September 2019, 11:57 AM   #46
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
California sets emission standards which are stricter than the EPA emission standards that most manufacturers try to meet. But in addition to emission standards, the federal government also sets mileage standards. And it's the mileage standards which I think are more relevant in regards to possible tradeoffs with safety.
Thanks, that is a meaningful distinction but emission standards and mileage standards are very closely related.

And the fact that the automakers have to meet mileage standards everywhere else they want to sell cars just makes it easier for them to move forward, rather than backwards. They know the tide is moving towards higher and higher efficiency vehicles. One president is not likely to change that trend in the long run.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith 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 19th September 2019, 12:03 PM   #47
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,302
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
"It's true, just look at how these new deathtraps collapse in a car crash. The old beasts of steel could brush off collisions that total the new cars. Think of the children!"

They've come so far, they might as well go all the way to Retardtown.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


McHrozni
That's a pretty dramatic demonstration. I've been showing it to people recently and it's absolutely rocked their worlds. Or at least their preconceptions.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite 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 19th September 2019, 12:03 PM   #48
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,197
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Thanks, that is a meaningful distinction but emission standards and mileage standards are very closely related.

And the fact that the automakers have to meet mileage standards everywhere else they want to sell cars just makes it easier for them to move forward, rather than backwards. They know the tide is moving towards higher and higher efficiency vehicles. One president is not likely to change that trend in the long run.
Quite possibly. But the flip side of that is, if repealing the regs won't have much effect, then what's the harm in doing so? Why bother keeping the regs if they're superfluous?

Note that I don't really have a position myself on how important the regs are or whether or not they should be repealed, I'm mostly just trying to sketch out the boundaries of what the debate is really about.
__________________
"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 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 19th September 2019, 12:09 PM   #49
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
They will spin it like they always do:

Dear Leader is incapable of error.
Let us know if you ever find that happening.
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 19th September 2019, 12:09 PM   #50
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Quite possibly. But the flip side of that is, if repealing the regs won't have much effect, then what's the harm in doing so? Why bother keeping the regs if they're superfluous?
Because the car companies want the regs to keep themselves in line. Like car dealerships wanting laws that make it illegal for them to be open on Sunday because it saves them all money.

Quote:
Note that I don't really have a position myself on how important the regs are or whether or not they should be repealed, I'm mostly just trying to sketch out the boundaries of what the debate is really about.
I think the debate is really about Trump owning libs by rolling back wimpy regulations. Anything more complex than that is just trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith 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 19th September 2019, 12:13 PM   #51
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,067
I posted this in the Trump thread but it goes here too:

So about that CA milage efficiency override: There's a news conference speech? right now. There was clapping and no questions so the audience was a bunch of old white men in favor of it.

Yes, this is all about undoing yet one more thing of Obama's not just something in CA regulations. They touted evidence we are driving cars longer before buying new ones saying that was because of the cost of new autos.

Of course no one looked at other variables like stagnant wages as the reason. Why should they when they look for justification after the fact.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 19th September 2019, 12:17 PM   #52
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,613
No need to work on CO2 because "our air is the cleanest." But we ned to interfere with CA because of car safety. Sounds Trump-logical.
Tero 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 19th September 2019, 12:23 PM   #53
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 27,123
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I posted this in the Trump thread but it goes here too:

So about that CA milage efficiency override: There's a news conference speech? right now. There was clapping and no questions so the audience was a bunch of old white men in favor of it.

Yes, this is all about undoing yet one more thing of Obama's not just something in CA regulations. They touted evidence we are driving cars longer before buying new ones saying that was because of the cost of new autos.

Of course no one looked at other variables like stagnant wages as the reason. Why should they when they look for justification after the fact.
Then again we could be waiting longer to buy cars because they are much better made and last far longer. Time was that a 5 year old car with 100k miles was clapped out, these days it's barely run in. Mrs Don's 11 year old Skoda supermini hatchback has no visible corrosion and runs perfectly. My 1981 Austin Allegro was a colander after 5 years.
The Don 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 19th September 2019, 12:23 PM   #54
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,197
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Because the car companies want the regs to keep themselves in line.
No. It keeps their competitors in line. Usually when companies want regulations, it's to reduce competition in some form.

Furthermore, if the regs are needed to keep them in line, then they aren't superfluous, and repealing them would have an effect. The question becomes what the effect would be. I don't have a good answer for that, but I'm not convinced anyone else here does either.

Quote:
I think the debate is really about Trump owning libs by rolling back wimpy regulations.
I wouldn't put it past him. But his motives are distinct from the actual merits of the position. People can do good things for bad reasons, and bad things for good reasons. His motives are rather secondary to the effects.
__________________
"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 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 19th September 2019, 12:27 PM   #55
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,569
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Then again we could be waiting longer to buy cars because they are much better made and last far longer. Time was that a 5 year old car with 100k miles was clapped out, these days it's barely run in. Mrs Don's 11 year old Skoda supermini hatchback has no visible corrosion and runs perfectly. My 1981 Austin Allegro was a colander after 5 years.
I've heard tale of these older cars that lasted forever. They are often told by people who have 800 stories that start "so my buddies and I were working on one of our cars over the weekend..."

Now we have cars that you pull into a garage with a pit about once a quarter, watch some obscure cable TV channel and drink stale coffee for about 30 minutes and then drive off.
Delphic Oracle 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 19th September 2019, 12:39 PM   #56
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,032
It has occurred to me that Trump may be going on a deregulation binge because it's something he can do without the approval of Congress. He's pretty much getting nothing done that requires Congressional approval. With the 2020 elections coming up, he touts that his administration as done more than any administration in history within the same time frame. Without his Executive Order binge, he wouldn't have much to base that (false) claim on.
Stacyhs 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 19th September 2019, 12:43 PM   #57
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It has occurred to me that Trump may be going on a deregulation binge because it's something he can do without the approval of Congress. He's pretty much getting nothing done that requires Congressional approval. With the 2020 elections coming up, he touts that his administration as done more than any administration in history within the same time frame. Without his Executive Order binge, he wouldn't have much to base that (false) claim on.
Everybody acts like the President is the God Emperor of the United States. In reality, the Executive branch is pretty limited in what it can do. It just has supreme authority within those limits.
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 19th September 2019, 12:45 PM   #58
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,197
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It has occurred to me that Trump may be going on a deregulation binge because it's something he can do without the approval of Congress.
That may be part of it, but reducing regulations has been a Republican goal for decades, it's not like Trump is the first guy to think of it.
__________________
"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 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 19th September 2019, 01:14 PM   #59
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,203
Just a reminder that the guy mouthing off about winding back safety regulations doesn't have a driving license, and his only yardstick for vehicle design is this:
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander 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 19th September 2019, 02:00 PM   #60
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Let us know if you ever find that happening.
Sure, just as soon as you start paying attention.
Cabbage 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 19th September 2019, 02:33 PM   #61
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,886
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Thanks, that is a meaningful distinction but emission standards and mileage standards are very closely related.

And the fact that the automakers have to meet mileage standards everywhere else they want to sell cars just makes it easier for them to move forward, rather than backwards. They know the tide is moving towards higher and higher efficiency vehicles. One president is not likely to change that trend in the long run.
Globally? Because as far as I can tell this isn't happening in the U.S. It all seems to be going to trucks and SUVs. I say "seems" because I haven't done a lot of quantitative research - I'm basing it on my perceptions as I looked for a newish used car. In the short term, one American president and a season of low gas prices was enough to sway many consumers and manufacturers. You did specify the "long run," but many Americans don't think that way. A fair amount probably think it's more patriotic to "buy American."

I don't see U.S. cars being competitive globally unless they are filling some kind of status niche. There's not much of an upside for the rest of the planet.
Minoosh 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 19th September 2019, 02:37 PM   #62
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 8,745
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?
Is that what he really meant? Do crumple zones save lives or prevent injuries? Perhaps a stronger mass of metal, steel perhaps would make for fewer deaths and injuries. He's not banning crumple zones just any longer making them mandatory.

Trump in 2020.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 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 19th September 2019, 02:45 PM   #63
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,032
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Everybody acts like the President is the God Emperor of the United States. In reality, the Executive branch is pretty limited in what it can do. It just has supreme authority within those limits.
And this has what exactly to do with my post?
Stacyhs 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 19th September 2019, 02:46 PM   #64
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,886
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
They've come so far, they might as well go all the way to Retardtown.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


McHrozni
Kind of sad for that Bel Air
Minoosh 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 19th September 2019, 02:51 PM   #65
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,886
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
Is that what he really meant? Do crumple zones save lives or prevent injuries? Perhaps a stronger mass of metal, steel perhaps would make for fewer deaths and injuries.
Just stick with your '59 Bel Air - what could possibly go wrong?
Minoosh 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 19th September 2019, 02:56 PM   #66
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,032
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That may be part of it, but reducing regulations has been a Republican goal for decades, it's not like Trump is the first guy to think of it.
True. I'll admit that my disgust for the Toad does color how I see it but I suspect he's targeting Obama regulations more for who instituted them rather than why they were instituted and for his own financial advantage. He has earned my distrust thoroughly.
Stacyhs 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 19th September 2019, 03:28 PM   #67
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,886
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
Is that what he really meant? Do crumple zones save lives or prevent injuries? Perhaps a stronger mass of metal, steel perhaps would make for fewer deaths and injuries. He's not banning crumple zones just any longer making them mandatory.
Serious answer: You want a stronger mass of steel - protecting the passenger compartment. The crumple zones absorb the kinetic energy of the crash. Don't take my word for it; look it up.

The U.S. fatality rate per billion miles driven has dropped steadily since 1925. Cars are getting much safer. Crumple zones save lives and prevent injuries. It's not controversial.

ETA: They use physics to design cars, Cainkane1. We don't have to wonder whether a given feature makes a car safer. There's proof. Honestly.

Last edited by Minoosh; 19th September 2019 at 03:29 PM.
Minoosh 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 19th September 2019, 03:45 PM   #68
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,032
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Serious answer: You want a stronger mass of steel - protecting the passenger compartment. The crumple zones absorb the kinetic energy of the crash. Don't take my word for it; look it up.

The U.S. fatality rate per billion miles driven has dropped steadily since 1925. Cars are getting much safer. Crumple zones save lives and prevent injuries. It's not controversial.

ETA: They use physics to design cars, Cainkane1. We don't have to wonder whether a given feature makes a car safer. There's proof. Honestly.
That's what the Russians want us to believe!
Stacyhs 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 19th September 2019, 06:02 PM   #69
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,968
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's a muddled reaction to a muddled complaint.


No.

Not noticing that cars have gotten safer over the last few decades, in part due to regulation of the industry, would be pretty asinine and ignorant. But it's not entirely clear that this is what's going on here. If it is what's going on here, I don't think it needs any spin. Trump often says asinine and ignorant things. Case closed. I'm not here to titillate Phantom Wolf with "spin" every time Trump does something stupid.

Not knowing the role of crumple zones in engineering automobile safety is kind of ignorant, but not particularly asinine, in my opinion. I doubt a lot of people think very much about how things are made, and the kinds of trade-offs that go into engineering a safe and functional complex machine. Certainly we know that Donald Trump isn't that kind of thinker. But again, it's not clear that this is what's going on. So, uh, I guess there's your "spin", if "spin" is what you're looking for.

Ineptly bringing up the issue Ziggurat alludes to is neither asinine nor ignorant. Just inept. Which, again, probably doesn't need any spin. Unless you count Zig's much more coherent and reasonable description of that particular issue to be "spin". But again, it's not clear that what Zig is talking about is what's going on, either.


It's not clear to me that Trump is simply wrong on this issue. We should probably consider the possibility that you and PW (among others) are spinning Trump's comments away from the perfectly cromulent issue that Zig refers to.

So there you go. If it's ignorance about car safety, then no spin necessary. It's just asinine and ignorant.

If it's anything else, then the first thing to address is yours and PW's spin.
I genuinely appreciate the thorough reply.
phiwum 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 19th September 2019, 06:32 PM   #70
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,355
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I genuinely appreciate the thorough reply.
Yeah, but it's silly.

He says it's not asinine to not know about things like crumple zones and other aspects of safety engineering. True, for the average person.

But this is the friggin president of the US who is wanting to make industrial policy and remove regulations based on that ignorance. Moreover, it would be trivial for him to contact someone in the industry to ask, and he could get all the information he needs.

Why in the hell should he get a pass? That's asinine. He's not your drunk uncle at Thanksgiving, he's the friggin President. He's not the guy you want making ignorant policy suggestions.
__________________
"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 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 19th September 2019, 07:17 PM   #71
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Yeah, but it's silly.

He says it's not asinine to not know about things like crumple zones and other aspects of safety engineering. True, for the average person.

But this is the friggin president of the US who is wanting to make industrial policy and remove regulations based on that ignorance. Moreover, it would be trivial for him to contact someone in the industry to ask, and he could get all the information he needs.

Why in the hell should he get a pass? That's asinine. He's not your drunk uncle at Thanksgiving, he's the friggin President. He's not the guy you want making ignorant policy suggestions.
This sums up my frustration with Trump and his supporters.

He acts like the drunk uncle who shoots off his mouth with his ill-informed opinions, and his supporters figure that's ok.

I want better from the President of the United States. Apparently, there are an awful lot of people who aren't bothered by it. There are some that are equally ignorant and don't realize what Donald is doing, and there are others that don't care, as long as they get their tax cuts, but none of them are all that bothered by it.

I can understand how he won the election, but the fact that he won the nomination is something I find very disturbing.
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 19th September 2019, 08:58 PM   #72
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 22,905
Trump's push for less efficient, less safe, more polluting cars is based solely on his hatred of Obama. As are pretty much all of his other "policies".
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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 19th September 2019, 09:52 PM   #73
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: 41,052
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Serious answer: You want a stronger mass of steel - protecting the passenger compartment. The crumple zones absorb the kinetic energy of the crash. Don't take my word for it; look it up.

The U.S. fatality rate per billion miles driven has dropped steadily since 1925. Cars are getting much safer. Crumple zones save lives and prevent injuries. It's not controversial.

ETA: They use physics to design cars, Cainkane1. We don't have to wonder whether a given feature makes a car safer. There's proof. Honestly.
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.
__________________
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 19th September 2019, 10:15 PM   #74
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Also, a heavier vehicle has greater relative kinetic energy,. making it harder to come to a stop or safely avoid an obstacle at high speed..
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 19th September 2019, 11:46 PM   #75
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,197
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Also, a heavier vehicle has greater relative kinetic energy,. making it harder to come to a stop or safely avoid an obstacle at high speed..
Nope. Friction force scales with mass, so that's really not a problem with 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 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 19th September 2019, 11:57 PM   #76
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,032
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Yeah, but it's silly.

He says it's not asinine to not know about things like crumple zones and other aspects of safety engineering. True, for the average person.

But this is the friggin president of the US who is wanting to make industrial policy and remove regulations based on that ignorance. Moreover, it would be trivial for him to contact someone in the industry to ask, and he could get all the information he needs.

Why in the hell should he get a pass? That's asinine. He's not your drunk uncle at Thanksgiving, he's the friggin President. He's not the guy you want making ignorant policy suggestions.
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
This sums up my frustration with Trump and his supporters.

He acts like the drunk uncle who shoots off his mouth with his ill-informed opinions, and his supporters figure that's ok.

I want better from the President of the United States. Apparently, there are an awful lot of people who aren't bothered by it. There are some that are equally ignorant and don't realize what Donald is doing, and there are others that don't care, as long as they get their tax cuts, but none of them are all that bothered by it.

I can understand how he won the election, but the fact that he won the nomination is something I find very disturbing.
Exactly. If he doesn't understand something, he should damn well ASK about it before opening his pig ignorant mouth. What he says has a real effect. Look at the way the stock markets roller coaster whenever he makes an idiot remark. But Trump can't be bothered to ASK because he already knows more about everything than everybody else.
Stacyhs 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 19th September 2019, 11:58 PM   #77
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Nope. Friction force scales with mass, so that's really not a problem with cars.
in theory, yes.
In practice, that depends on so many factors (like tire surface and material, road conditions) that the increased weight doesn't offset the increased kinetic energy.
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, 12:16 AM   #78
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,554
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
When you watch the Malibu/Bel Air crash what drives it home for me is the interior camera where it shows that almost at the exact moment of impact the entire interior of the Bel Air almost immediately ceases to exist. Like a few milliseconds after the impact there is just no "interior" of the Bel Air left. You ain't walking away from that.
You might not walk away from the Malibu either. "A foot injury is possible"...
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando 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, 12:26 AM   #79
erlando
Graduate Poster
 
erlando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,554
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Nope. Friction force scales with mass, so that's really not a problem with cars.
So that's why a 60 ton road train has the same braking distance as a normal sized car...
__________________
"If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved?
Evolution IS a blind watchmaker
erlando 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, 04:29 AM   #80
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,197
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
in theory, yes.
In practice, that depends on so many factors (like tire surface and material, road conditions) that the increased weight doesn't offset the increased kinetic energy.
No. Road surface is a constant, and tire materials are only not constant if you change them. If they don’t change, then coefficient of friction doesn’t change. The main relevant thing which may change with weight is the car’s 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.
__________________
"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 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 10:44 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.