Re: Cell phone driving = drunk driving

"Jack May" <jack.may@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:17-dnYPBUr5-oFvanZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.

That may be true from government's perspective.  But then that's why
private 
cars are attractive to governments anyway...they ****ft the investment from

the public sector to the private sector.  If every individual has to buy a

car rather than pooling their money to buy a bus, then no money comes out
of 
the pool to buy vehicles, but the total cost to everyone is higher.