

| Subject: | Re: Vanagon vs Volvo Crash Photos |
| From: | Sam Scholten |
| Date: | Fri, 20 Nov 1998 08:59:25 -0500 |
Problem- some folks can only afford to buy, insure, and run an '83 Subaru. I'm a grad student; I should know. So, if that's all you can afford, then you're SOL as safety goes, right? That's f*cked up. Sam On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Robert A. Alexander wrote: > Kent - Some of the more radical "do-gooders", if you have watched the > national news, lately, are upset that SUV's, being heavier than than the > FWD tin-boxes, are becoming the "killers-on-the-highway", SO the > "do-gooders" are advocating that that we all should have an, uh, "equal" > chance to be killed in an automobile accident via requiring us to accept > tin-can vehicles to drive around!!! > > After taking a look at the URL showing the result of a Vanagon & a Volvo > head-on collision, I'm convinced that me five GORGEOUS daughters will be > better off driving either Vanagons, MACK dump trucks OR backup vehicles > such as my old '76 GMC long-bed pickup truck!!! Personally, I would > prefer to buy all five of me babes '38 Dodge dump-trucks to drive > around, BUT they think they need BMW or SAAB convertibles!!! I'm busy > trying to convince them that '38 Dodge dump trucks will allow them to > haul around MORE of their friends, in greater safety! > > I'm curious, though! How many of you folks out there really agree with > the traffic NUTS that SUV's present a "PROBLEM" because they "outweigh" > smaller vehicles and give an "unfair" survival advantage to those in the > SUV??? I think these ASSHOLES need to move to UGANDA! > > BOB - WA4RRN > '85GL > http://www.impeachment.org >
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »