Comments on: Pre-emption debate in Chicago Tribune

By: Joe Bingham

Joe Bingham — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:04:57 +0000

Heh. “Suggested” AEI was an industry group. I guess explicit statements tend to be pretty “suggestive” these days.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:45:26 +0000

It’s worth noting that adding weight to the roof of a car adds very little protection in the event of a rollover: there are very few rollovers where the forces are strong enough to crush the “weaker” roof but not the “stronger” roof, and even in those, there are often other far more important factors contributing to the injuries of the driver and passengers.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:15:40 +0000

The basic problem is that almost nobody processes information as such. Mr. Frank’s statement about the weight of car roofs is straight forward and easy to understand. One must balance the added risk of a rollover against the possibility of roof collapse given a rollover. This is an engineering matter that has been given to average people who weigh credibility only. Those representing the little guy are preferred to those who represent rapacious profit seeking corporations.

It especially galls me that Ralph Nader, who spoiled the 2000 election, is always credited with his wonderful work for consumer safety and justice. The breast implant
fiasco showed Nader to be a scoundrel. I know of no matter where Nader was positive. NONE!

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:30:32 +0000

I am identified as belonging to a “conservative” think-tank, though no one else gets a political descriptor.

That’s easy to answer, Ted. Since everyone knows only conservatives are biased, they feel that it is their duty to warn us in advance so we know not to believe anything you said.