Ford Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
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
self-ascribed opinion.

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
are....

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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Ford owners not told of ways to reduce fuel-tank fire risk
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/23/ford.fires/index.html
>
> --
> Life's tough.
> It's tougher if you're stupid.
>
> John Wayne
>
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
but Jim, you must remember that these are the people who think that guns
kill people, not other people. if there is no one to pull the trigger, then
all you have is a heap of metal and wood....
"Jim Warman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> 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
> self-ascribed opinion.
>
> 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
> are....
>
> 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 protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Ford owners not told of ways to reduce fuel-tank fire risk
> > http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/23/ford.fires/index.html
> >
> > --
> > Life's tough.
> > It's tougher if you're stupid.
> >
> > John Wayne
> >

>
>
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
If the Ford owners in question are deaf and blind and therefore can't
read a paper or listen to the news, they should not be driving.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
There is no question the current practice of allowing people that do not
know how to drive, to teach others to drive, is not working. Better driver
training is sorely needed. More than half the drivers on the road today do
not even know how to properly position their vehicle to make a left turn,
where to stop at a stop sign to be able to see cross traffic approaching.
Few drivers actually know the proper procedure of how to overtake or be
overtaken by another vehicle passing in the opposing lane.

As to DRS, they have been debated to death in the US. The consensus is
they cause more accidents than they prevent ESPECIALLY when passing! That
was the conclusion of engineering department of several universities when
the Congress decided to NOT make them mandatory in the US. You obvious
disagree but as far as the US is concerned that makes no difference. DRL's
are available as an option for those that do not think to turn on their
headlamps when they believe they need to be extra visible to other drivers.
You cans search the US Congressional Record for the detailed deficiencies of
DRLs, if you are interested.


mike hunt




"Jim Warman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

<snip>
> 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 are....
>
> 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?
>
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
"Jim Higgins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Ford owners not told of ways to reduce fuel-tank fire risk
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/23/ford.fires/index.html


I was behind a Jeep Grand Cherokee this morning on the way to work. The gas
tank on that vehicle is hanging out the rear of the vehicle staring me right
in the face. It is in between the trailer hitch and the rear axle. There is
no way that the gas tank on one of those is safer than the gas tank on a
Crown Victoria which is mounted at the front of the trunk, above and
slightly behind the rear axle (and separated from the trunk by a metal
bulkhead). So, why is it that the press constantly rants about Crown
Victorias (which actually are involved in very few fires), while ignoring
other vehicles that have far less safe gas tank locations? Could it be that
the way Police use Crown Victoria makes them especially vulnerable to high
speed rear end crashes? And if this is true, is it likely that civilian
Crown Victoria are not at much risk for fires? Think people!

Ed
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
If Ford is reporting the accident/injury rate accurately, the Crown
Victoria has a good record. Move the tank somewhere else and other
problems will crop up. If there is a way to improve the old vehicles,
let customers pay and have them upgraded. Ford has to be careful about
liability when they start doing it for free.
I've been flamed for saying this before, but I have personally seen
minor accidents where those vehicles were crunched up to the rear
glass. I guess I would say it was only minor to the vehicle that did
the hitting, not the CV. Still, that would not stop me from driving or
owning such a vehicle.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
C. E. White wrote:
> "Jim Higgins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>Ford owners not told of ways to reduce fuel-tank fire risk
>>http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/23/ford.fires/index.html

>
>
> I was behind a Jeep Grand Cherokee this morning on the way to work. The gas
> tank on that vehicle is hanging out the rear of the vehicle staring me right
> in the face. It is in between the trailer hitch and the rear axle. There is
> no way that the gas tank on one of those is safer than the gas tank on a
> Crown Victoria which is mounted at the front of the trunk, above and
> slightly behind the rear axle (and separated from the trunk by a metal
> bulkhead). So, why is it that the press constantly rants about Crown
> Victorias (which actually are involved in very few fires), while ignoring
> other vehicles that have far less safe gas tank locations? Could it be that
> the way Police use Crown Victoria makes them especially vulnerable to high
> speed rear end crashes? And if this is true, is it likely that civilian
> Crown Victoria are not at much risk for fires? Think people!
>
> Ed
>
>

I don't think I've ever seen a Grand Cherokee in Police duty either.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Grand Cherokees are indeed use by police agencies, we employed several over
the past few years in the agency in my town (I retired last August from the
department)..

As far as the Crown Vics in police use, it seems that the majority of burned
up police cars were a result of officers on traffic stops on an expressway.
Motorists drive into parked police cars all the time, for some reason,
motorists, often drunk drivers, drive into the flashing lights. Common
practice (in Michigan) is for police officers is to angle park their car
behind the violator's car in order to reduce a direct hit to the rear of the
police car.


"Tom Adkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> C. E. White wrote:
>> "Jim Higgins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>>Ford owners not told of ways to reduce fuel-tank fire risk
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/23/ford.fires/index.html

>>
>>
>> I was behind a Jeep Grand Cherokee this morning on the way to work. The
>> gas
>> tank on that vehicle is hanging out the rear of the vehicle staring me
>> right
>> in the face. It is in between the trailer hitch and the rear axle. There
>> is
>> no way that the gas tank on one of those is safer than the gas tank on a
>> Crown Victoria which is mounted at the front of the trunk, above and
>> slightly behind the rear axle (and separated from the trunk by a metal
>> bulkhead). So, why is it that the press constantly rants about Crown
>> Victorias (which actually are involved in very few fires), while ignoring
>> other vehicles that have far less safe gas tank locations? Could it be
>> that
>> the way Police use Crown Victoria makes them especially vulnerable to
>> high
>> speed rear end crashes? And if this is true, is it likely that civilian
>> Crown Victoria are not at much risk for fires? Think people!
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>

> I don't think I've ever seen a Grand Cherokee in Police duty either.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:25:58 -0500, "C. E. White"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Jim Higgins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> Ford owners not told of ways to reduce fuel-tank fire risk
>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/23/ford.fires/index.html

>
>I was behind a Jeep Grand Cherokee this morning on the way to work. The gas
>tank on that vehicle is hanging out the rear of the vehicle staring me right
>in the face. It is in between the trailer hitch and the rear axle. There is
>no way that the gas tank on one of those is safer than the gas tank on a
>Crown Victoria which is mounted at the front of the trunk, above and
>slightly behind the rear axle (and separated from the trunk by a metal
>bulkhead). So, why is it that the press constantly rants about Crown
>Victorias (which actually are involved in very few fires), while ignoring
>other vehicles that have far less safe gas tank locations? Could it be that
>the way Police use Crown Victoria makes them especially vulnerable to high
>speed rear end crashes? And if this is true, is it likely that civilian
>Crown Victoria are not at much risk for fires? Think people!
>
>Ed

Chevies ain't without problems as pursuit vehicles either:
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/GM-Steering-Problem-part2.htm
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
More anti Ford BS. The fact is the CV is the safest of ALL of the certified
police vehicles available in the US. The NHTSA standard for rear collision,
is the ability of the fuel system to withstand a 30 MPH collision. All CVs
are built to withstand a 50 MPH collision. Even greater protection for the
Interceptor is available for those departments that specify fuel cell tank
liners. Efforts by trial lawyers to extort money from Ford were thwarted
by the results of the NHTSA investigation of rear collision fires cleared
the CV of any defects. The tests of CV proved it exceeded federal standards
and performed better than any other sedan on the market today in high speed
rear end collisions.


mike hunt

..
"Tom Adkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> C. E. White wrote:
>> "Jim Higgins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>
>>>Ford owners not told of ways to reduce fuel-tank fire risk
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/23/ford.fires/index.html

>>
>>
>> I was behind a Jeep Grand Cherokee this morning on the way to work. The
>> gas
>> tank on that vehicle is hanging out the rear of the vehicle staring me
>> right
>> in the face. It is in between the trailer hitch and the rear axle. There
>> is
>> no way that the gas tank on one of those is safer than the gas tank on a
>> Crown Victoria which is mounted at the front of the trunk, above and
>> slightly behind the rear axle (and separated from the trunk by a metal
>> bulkhead). So, why is it that the press constantly rants about Crown
>> Victorias (which actually are involved in very few fires), while ignoring
>> other vehicles that have far less safe gas tank locations? Could it be
>> that
>> the way Police use Crown Victoria makes them especially vulnerable to
>> high
>> speed rear end crashes? And if this is true, is it likely that civilian
>> Crown Victoria are not at much risk for fires? Think people!
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>

> I don't think I've ever seen a Grand Cherokee in Police duty either.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Hey, for the outsiders looking in, I spent 30 years in police work, with
close to 20 years pushing a scout car. Our agency used;

Fords 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's years
Mercurys mid 70's
Pontiacs late 70's mid-sized, great handling, fair power
Impalas mid 70's and mid 80's Floors rotted away fairly quick in the
converter area.
Dodges, Plymouths late 70's ungodly speed, poor brakes, quality control
poor, cars fell apart, used a lot of gas.

I have seen all of these makes smashed up in about every type of situation,
Ford's seemed to hold up the best in crash situations. Cars that got
crashed and you would think that the crash were not survivable, officers
survived.

All of these brands had their strengths and weaknesses, I am not painting a
rosey picture about Fords, I am objective in my opinion.

I will drive a Crown Vic in any police type situation without second
thoughts. Their only drawback, is they are poor, to drive in snow deeper
than 3-4 inches (comon snow falli in Michigan). The get stuck easy on
pavement and in parking lots. I suppose that is due to their good handling
ability on dry pavement. They are a pretty tough car, and hold up well with
routine maintenance.

In law enforcement circles, some of the problems with fires were blamed on
equipment bolted in the truck and the bolts piercing the fuel tank, not
Ford's problem. Some agencies store a firemans pick axe, called a halligon
tool (Google search) in the trunk of the Crown Vic, and this tool will
pierce the fuel tank. (The halligon tool is indistructable, will last
longer than dinosaur fossels).

Frank

"Mike Hunter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> More anti Ford BS. The fact is the CV is the safest of ALL of the
> certified police vehicles available in the US. The NHTSA standard for
> rear collision, is the ability of the fuel system to withstand a 30 MPH
> collision. All CVs are built to withstand a 50 MPH collision. Even
> greater protection for the Interceptor is available for those departments
> that specify fuel cell tank liners. Efforts by trial lawyers to extort
> money from Ford were thwarted by the results of the NHTSA investigation of
> rear collision fires cleared the CV of any defects. The tests of CV
> proved it exceeded federal standards and performed better than any other
> sedan on the market today in high speed rear end collisions.
>
>
> mike hunt
>
> .
> "Tom Adkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> "Jim Higgins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>>>Ford owners not told of ways to reduce fuel-tank fire risk
>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/23/ford.fires/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I was behind a Jeep Grand Cherokee this morning on the way to work. The
>>> gas
>>> tank on that vehicle is hanging out the rear of the vehicle staring me
>>> right
>>> in the face. It is in between the trailer hitch and the rear axle. There
>>> is
>>> no way that the gas tank on one of those is safer than the gas tank on a
>>> Crown Victoria which is mounted at the front of the trunk, above and
>>> slightly behind the rear axle (and separated from the trunk by a metal
>>> bulkhead). So, why is it that the press constantly rants about Crown
>>> Victorias (which actually are involved in very few fires), while
>>> ignoring
>>> other vehicles that have far less safe gas tank locations? Could it be
>>> that
>>> the way Police use Crown Victoria makes them especially vulnerable to
>>> high
>>> speed rear end crashes? And if this is true, is it likely that civilian
>>> Crown Victoria are not at much risk for fires? Think people!
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>

>> I don't think I've ever seen a Grand Cherokee in Police duty either.

>
>
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top