I am consistantly amazed by these plagiaristic bastuhds,,,, devoid of any
conscious thought, they can only offer links to sensationalistic articles or
do a very bad cut and paste in order to look like they can form any sort of
I'm not sure that any of us are here to discuss Ford restructuring
efforts.... and I'm not really sure we need to be demanding safer cars when
it is safer drivers that we need. We have ventured onto a slippery slope....
we are demanding that cars offer better survivability in a wreck, yet nobody
seems to be trying very hard to avoid having a wreck in the first place....
(kinda like spilling a fresh cup of coffee in your lap and being surprised
that the coffee is hot).
Since 1992, Canada has legislated daytime running lights on motor
vehicles.... I can attest to their efficacy since there have been many times
I would have thought it safe to pass except for the added visibility of
oncoming cars that DRLs afford. And yet some feel these are an infringement
on their "freedoms". Still others are overwhelmingly concerned about the
restraints control module being able to store crash data..... if you weren't
doing something wrong, is there anything to worry about? If you're not doing
something wrong and you are worried, I have to wonder how free you really
In the end, it will always boil down to us.... We are the people that
operate these machines.... We are the people that maintain these machines.
If we are lax in one or both of these areas, can we truly blame those that
build the machines?
All it would have taken for the old Pintos to stop bursting into flames
would be that the guy behind desn't run into the Pinto. Obviously, common
sense is something too big to ask for....
"Jim Higgins" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> Ford owners not told of ways to reduce fuel-tank fire risk
> Life's tough.
> It's tougher if you're stupid.
> John Wayne