Re: Cell phone driving = drunk driving

Jack May wrote:
> "Eric Vey" <junker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:fq596l$ed3$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Jack May wrote:
>>
>> What law? Why would we need such "stupid, stupid laws" if the market 
>> "cleaned up" things on it's own?
> 
> I said absolutely nothing like that.
>> Oh, yeah. Car manufacturers took it upon themselves to clean up the 
>> environment. They didn't need the government to push them, did they?
> 
> That is exactly what the data shows.   Probably what happened is that
with 
> present design software it is cost effective to design for low
pollution. 
> With good software, maybe there is no payoff to design for higher
pollution.
> 
> You are a total loser wanting to claim conspiracy everywhere, but there
is 
> some data at:
> 
> http://www.highways.org/Mar06-speaker-slideshows/Schwartz.ppt#15
> 
> It is well known that the cheapest way to reduce pollution is to get
people 
> to replace their cars with newer cars. 
> 
> 

WoW!! You sure have read some bad history as to what happened back in 
1970-1975 when it came to pollution control. The Clean Air Act of 1963 
and it's amendments in 1967 and 1970 was the "stupid, stupid law" that 
forced the auto companies to install the catalytic converter.

The auto companies and lots of people complained bitterly about how it 
would kill horsepower (causes exhaust pipe back pressure) and that it 
wouldn't do anything. People in Iowa were saying "What air pollution 
problem?" while pictures of LA socked in with smog were on TV.

Looking in the rear view mirror, were the skeptics right? Was it one of 
those "stupid, stupid laws" that should never had been passed?