Elizabeth Warren and consumer rights – FAIL!

Elizabeth Warren claims to be an advocate for consumer rights.  The mere mention of the phrase ‘consumer rights’ brings to me visions of Ralph Nader and his one-man full-frontal assault on the automobile industry.  Ralph Nader, also an elitist Harvard snob wrote articles titled: “The safe car you can’t buy” and then later books attacking the auto industry such as “Unsafe at any speed”.  Ralph Nader never met a US car company he didn’t hate – or file suit against!

Elizabeth Warren is cut from that same radical left cloth.  She finds fault in almost every interaction with private enterprise, and somehow she feels it is her job to build a government bureaucracy to fix it.  

Ralph Nader has never worked for any car company that I know of, and his radical left-wing nanny Elizabeth Warren has never worked for any big bank that she wants to throw rocks at.  They are the type that stand outside and point fingers at the efforts of young entrepreneurs and business leaders and yell ‘shame’, ‘shame on you’.

That aside they both claim to fight for ‘consumer rights’.  What exactly consumer rights are needs to be defined.  In the 1950’s and 1960’s the federal government began a movement to search out and make right companies they thought were unfair to consumers.  The efforts culminated in The Consumer Bill of Rights in 1962, which established standards that products and companies must meet.  They include the right to safety, information, choice and to be heard.  The ‘rights’ have since been expanded to include the right to redress.

These aren’t really rights in the truest sense of the word because nobody has the ‘right’ to demand a company satisfy their needs.  I have no right to demand McDonalds make a hamburger for me that is healthy, tastes great and is reasonably priced.  I can either take what they offer or walk away.  That is known as ‘caveat emptor’ or buyer beware.  In other words, it is incumbent upon the purchaser of a product or service to make a reasonable inspection before making the transaction.  A purchase is a shared responsibility and agreement between two parties.  Each being honest and up front.

The idea of ‘caveat emptor’ is unknown to Elizabeth Warren.  Warren feels it is the federal government’s responsibility to monitor the transactions of everyone so that nobody ends up being burdened with a bad purchase.  Her creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’ was to impress upon people the evil money-hungry horrors of the financial world.  If not, then why do they need to be protected?  

If you go to the CFPB webpage you can see this:

The central mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans – whether they are applying for a mortgage, choosing among credit cards, or using any number of other consumer financial products.

Strange isn’t it, that a bureau of the federal government has been created to make sure the consumer has ALL the power in the private transaction in the marketplace.  Remember, the market place is for both purchaser and provider!  This federal bureau does not at all respect or represent the provider!  In Elizabeth Warren’s eyes – the purchaser has ALL the power.  

Why is this bad?  Easy, it prevents the buyer from truly having the freedom to purchase as they sought in the original Consumer Bill of Rights.  Companies at a competitive disadvantage will generally not offer anything more than what is dictated by the federal government.  Haven’t you heard companies making claims that their product meets all government safety standards, or meets all the recommended daily allowances of this or that?  Sure, there will be some companies that break away from the pack and market themselves or their products as elite or premier, but then they charge a much higher price, which in essence, creates a marginalized marketplace.  It creates a marketplace where you have only two choices: either you can buy the product that fulfills the lowest common denominator of the federal government, or you can buy the better item.  (Gee, sounds like healthcare!)  In either case, the cost of meeting the federal government standards, and having the goods inspected to be sure, will ALWAYS result in higher prices for all.  And, it will also result in lesser variety in the marketplace.  

Had Ralph Nader and Elizabeth Warren just left the free market to determine what products, including what features are wanted in the marketplace things would be a lot better.  Banks that give out bad loans would be quickly discovered using ‘caveat emptor’ and they would be run out of town.  People would read the 15 pages of legal documentation included in a mortgage application, instead of assuming that a federal regulator would be watching over everyone’s shoulder.  The consumer would voluntarily educate themselves!  The consumer would never assume they are getting the best deal!  They would be better shoppers and more prudent spenders of the resources they have!

The concept of ‘caveat emptor’ is amazing and powerful.  It both protects the purchaser and the provider in the transaction.  It maximizes the product offerings in the marketplace making it easier for shoppers to find what truly fits their unique need.  That is what consumer rights are all about!

Luckily we have ‘caveat emptor’ in the world of politics.  The voter/consumer gets to make informed decisions about the candidates.  We get to review the wide assortment in the marketplace – even if Elizabeth Warren refuses to acknowledge her competition in Marisa DeFranco and James Coyne King.  If Elizabeth Warren’s idea that the federal government has to be involved in all transactions were true – then they would want to tell us who to vote for.  

Elizabeth Warren’s dogged efforts to limit the equality of the provider in financial transactions weakens the marketplace.  It unduly restricts banking institutions from offering anything but what some federal ‘know nothing’ bureaucrat imagines as fair and in the best interest of the shopper.  

I am hoping that Elizabeth Warren will be as well received in the world of politics as her mentor Ralph Nader.  The free market has told Nader to stay out of politics many times.  Now its time for the free market to send Elizabeth Warren the same message.

About Vote3rdpartynow


  1. Simple J. Malarkey

    And what was the result of this “assault” on the auto industry?  Seat belts; shoulder belts; air bags; dash boards that absorbed a person’s impact, instead of steel that killed people; bumpers and exterior designs that made cars far more safer when involved in an accident…

    Thank you for giving me a chance to outline a number of government regulations–that the auto industry fought tooth and nail–that have proven to save lives, prevented horrendous injuries and reduced property damage.  

    I was thinking of writing a tongue and cheek post on the virtue of gov. reg. of the auto industry after Tim Murray walked away from his car crash.  

    Anyone who has been in a car accident in the last decade has Ralph Nader and government regulation to thank for either saving your life or greatly reducing any injury received.  Speaking for myself, I had a head-on collusion with a tractor trailer.  My car of course was totaled, but the only “damage” to me was a burn hole in my shirt caused by the air bag igniting.  

  2. that you feel the only way advancements in product design and safety will come about is thru the blunt force of government intervention and regulation?  

    And as for auto safety – things are improving, but not for the reasons you sight.  This website shows that serious auto accidents are less life-threatening since 2005, but none of the safety features you list were implemented during those years.  Seat belts became mandatory in 1984, but since 1996 there are still a number of people, as much as a third, that refuse to wear them.  And, for many years between 1986 and 2005 there were times when the fatality rate went UP!  Air bags became mandatory in the early to mid 1990’s so that is not accounting for the recent decline either.

    And guess what Simple – it wasn’t the federal government that invented the seat belt or the air bag.  It was private citizens and auto companies concerned about user safety that invented them.  The seatbelt and air bag existed long before the federal government demanded people wear them.  The Ford Motor company offered seatbelts in 1955 and Nash in 1949.  In fact, Saab started to offer the seat belt as standard equipment in 1958 – that is almost 30 years before the federal government imposed its will on consumers.  

    Though I cited NHTSA statistics in the above link – it pays to understand the facts behind the dropping number of deaths as a result of auto accidents.  It appears the deaths are measured in the 30 day period following the accident – so it isn’t instant death that is dropping, as far as we know.  It could well be that the immediate availability and access to medical care immediately following the accident is what is truly saving lives.  

    Also, surprisingly you did not cite any examples of drivers injured or killed by the mandatory air bag now fitted on automobiles as required by law.  

    From the National Institute of Health:

    There have been multiple reports of head and neck injuries related to airbags, mostly (but not uniquely) from the USA.  Injuries include facial trauma,8 temporomandibular joint injury,13 decapitation,14 and cervical spine fractures.15 16 In addition to bony neck injuries soft tissue injuries are also seen with both types of system, including damage to the vasculature.17-19 The eye seems to be particularly vulnerable to injury, especially if spectacles are worn20: injuries include orbital fractures,21 retinal detachment,22 and lens rupture.23

    The chemicals involved in inflating the bag have been implicated in eye injury,24 as have the cover components.25

    Front seated children are also at risk of eye injury.26 Eye injuriesare more commonly reported in the USA.

    The federal government FAILED to understand the implications of forcing auto makers to install air bags on vehicles.  I am sure at least one person, who would have survived the initial accident, was ultimately killed by the airbag itself.  

    Net-net, I think companies understand and appreciate the advantage gained by adding safety features to products as a way to distinquish them from other lesser products.  If the federal government mandates all products have the safety features in all cases then the market constricts and product variety decreases – thus offering fewer people real consumer rights.  People have the right to buy ‘lesser’ products.  

  3. Simple J. Malarkey

    …like when a blizzard hits and you post claiming this proves global warming does not exist.

    Have you ever heard of the recent initiatives to reduce drunk driving?  You might want to look into that and see how it has had an impact in reducing automobile deaths.

    In fact auto deaths–per capita–have dropped over the last 30 years due to a combination of building safer cars and increased awareness and crack down on drunk drivers.  

    And you can’t just rewrite history.  We are the same age, and I very much remember the opposition the auto industry had to mandatory airbags in the 1970s / 80s and their opposition to bumpers that absorb crashed (it was the insurance companies that aligned with consumer groups to force the bumper issue).

    Sure the seat belt and air bags we invented by people…dah.  Sure a few cars had them–I remember a teacher who drove a ’68 SAAB…a real earthy crunchy car that had zero market appeal.

    You can claim that the safety features would have been implemented because of the “market”.  But can you give me one example of market conditions that actually resulted in increased safety features (and the increased costs along with it) instead of government action (or the threat of action)?

  4. …but it got me to thinking…..

    I wonder if government mandates for higher mileage contributed to the increase in driving fatalities, necessitating/creating a need for better safety features.

    I have seen some articles that kind of touch on it, but no where near the exhaustive study I’d need to be sure…



  5. There is an entire industry that has grown out of parent’s concern for children’s safety around their own home.  This demand has produced gates for the top of stairs, plugs for electrical outlets, cushioned covers for sharp cornered furniture, intercom type monitors so parents can listen from another room, and the list goes on.  NONE of those items are mandated by law for the home, yet surprisingly the products were produced and demanded.  Some at considerable expense to the parents…

    But alas, the original topic was not about child safety, but rather Elizabeth Warren’s desire to regulate banks, and the goods and services they provide.  And I iterate her desire, as expressed thru the creation of the CFPB, to force businesses to yield to the consumer using the brute force of federal regulations.  Always a job killer!

    And I implied that seat belts and air bags were created by ‘people’ so that you could realize that non federal regulators were hard at work making the auto industry safer without the prompting of the federal government.  They were getting to it!  You hint that without federal prompting the auto companies would remove every safety feature possible to reduce cost and increase profit, which isn’t true – and Elizabeth Warren ought to know that as well.

  6. Simple J. Malarkey

    The government has nothing to do with making products safe for children…”it’s the market”.  The government has lead the pack in making products safe for children and with all the crap coming in from oversees with lead paint in it…it still needs to be very aggressive.

  7. Simple J. Malarkey

    …making credit card companies adhere to their agreements with consumers, instead of having the unilateral right to change the terms and conditions?

    To have banks and credit companies fully disclose all fees?

    Why wouldn’t you want a two page (or so) mortgage agreement that was simple to understand, instead of the hundred’s of pages we have to go thru?

    I’ve got to run…but those are a few things  Warren wants to have happen and I’d like to know why you have a problem with them?

  8. Simple J. Malarkey

    …but you linked to critiques about future mileage standards recently imposed.  The air bag and other safety features mandated by government happened years ago…I’m missing the coloration.  

  9. Your premise thru this discussion has been that forced government adherence to ‘safety or regulatory’ standards is a good thing, and my argument has been that the market doesn’t need the government’s brute force as it will get there on its own thru caveat emptor.

    From today’s news:

    Macaroni and cheese again? Students at a Texas junior high school staged a four-day boycott of cafeteria food last week to press for more menu choices and healthier alternatives.  About 30 students at Austwell-Tivoli Junior High School in Tivoli, Texas, near the Gulf Coast, shunned the cafeteria’s offerings and brought their lunches from home for four days last week, The Victoria Advocate reported over the weekend.

    They demanded less menu repetition and more choice in what is served, including salads. President of the seventh-grade class Mckenzi Simmons said “boycott” was a vocabulary word in a recent Texas history class, and that students put what they’d learned into action.

    It seems the students were being fed subsidized lunches that met standards established by the Texas Department of Agriculture.  They refused to eat the lunches as they believed them to be poor quality and lacking in variety and nutrition.  They demanded a far healthier option, salads!

    Superintendent Antonio Aguirre said his Austwell-Tivoli Independent School District offers free lunch to students and staff because a large portion of the district is deemed low-income by the state.

    Aguirre defended the school’s menus, saying they are based on policy set by the Texas Department of Agriculture – which provide specific nutritional guidelines for foods like fruits and vegetables, portion sizes and fried foods.

    So just as I suggested – the free market demanded lunches that were good quality and better for you.  The government imposed option reduced variety and demand.  I could not have asked for a better example of why it is important for government to stay out of the way…

    Now we know from other recent news stories that had bureaucrats gotten their way the kids would have been forced to eat government lunches and the parents would have been billed for the inconvenience of forcing their kids to eat government approved lunches…..

    So tell me Simple, where were the consumer rights in this situation?  Was the school offering macaroni and cheese day after day because of consumer rights?  NO, they were squelching their rights.  

  10. a government agency does not mean that child safety products are BECAUSE of that agency.   None of these “at home” safety product mentioned is because of a government mandate.  The government does nota date the use of child gates at the top and bottoms of stairs, coffee table corner cushions, electrical outlet child-proofing, lever-doorknob locks, regular doorknob devices, cupboard and drawer locks, toilet seat locks, stove knob locks, oven door locks, refrigerator/freezer door locks, audio baby monitors, VIDEO baby monitors…..all the child safety stuff V3 was talkin about that government did not mandate.

    They came about because….THERE’S A MARKET FOR THEM…but you’re too busy being your contrarian dishonorable lying self to admit it.

  11. And whenever I get one there is written a bunch of tiny wording on the back of the application stating EXACTLY what the agreement is and how everyone is affected.  I challenge you to find a credit card application without the detail.  Even when they send you one in the mail, which no longer happens, they include the details.

    And I have a problem with these things because it is not government’s job to regulate my every consumer transaction.  I should be allowed to conduct business with whomever I want, and under any circumstances – whether or not the federal government likes it or not.  

    If I want to borrow money from a bank at 1%, 3%, 20% or 100% interest that should be between me and the bank.  If the bank wants to take my house for missing a single mortgage payment then that is up to me and if I sign a contract with them.  The fact that I am susceptible, and or vulnerable, forces me to be a better shopper, and to read all the facts and details.  Having ‘Big Brother’ stand behind me threatening the bank I do business with is wrong.  

    Its all part of the victim mentality – ‘Gee I need the federal government to protect me when I ask for a loan, or use my credit card, or have a savings account.  I might be victimized!’.  

  12. you and people like you are too stupid to read the details when borrowing money on credit or through loans is not the fault of the lender or the lack of proper regulation.

    It’s the lack of intelligence on your part.

    I didn’t need the government to get between me and Bank of America.  They added a fee to my account….I closed my account and web elsewhere without crying to the government.

  13. Simple J. Malarkey

    …when you lost your job, you ran start to Mr. Big Government and got yourself on the dole.

    Big talk about personal freedom, until it’s you who needs the help.  There is a word for that.

  14. you have yet to address the real issue of Elizabeth Warren being a nanny state big brother federal bureaucrat type that wants to take freedom away from the marketplace and put it into the hands of a committee somewhere in Washington….

    If you can’t win the argument on substance then change the argument to something else.    

  15. Simple J. Malarkey

    …I find it incomprehensible to defend common sense.

    You want to live in a world where the buyer must beware every time they make any kind of purchase or transaction.  I want sensible rules to govern the process, so that I don’t have to check and recheck to make sure I’m not getting ripped off.  You call this “big brother / nanny state”, I call it the rule of law of a civil society.  You just want to ignore the systematic exploitation of US consumers over the last decade (or two) by the financial industry.  Sure we don’t need laws to safe idiots from their own behavior.  But when you have millions of people caught in a web of financial products so complex that even many of the top brains on Wall Street didn’t understand  their complexities or their dangers.  When we get to that point…we need regulations that make sure this doesn’t happen again.  

    By you way of thinking, why do we pay for police and fire protection?  Should each person be responsible for their own protection and if the locks on their doors are not strong enough, or they are not aware that the wiring behind the wall is failing–should they be responsible to catch the thief or put out the fire themselves?  What is the difference between a company that knowingly sells a unsafe product to a consumer and a petty street thief?  We are a civil society that can only operate under the rule of law, not buyer beware.

  16. …it’s just something that has been bouncing around in my head.

    I have a feeling that throughout the 50’s and 60’s, highway deaths probably had a fairly even increase based on the numbers of drivers on the road…..

    … and that in the 70’s when gas mileage standards were mandated by the government…auto makers began to lighten cars to meet the standard.  I’m guessing that there was a fairly obvious spike over a short period of time of highway deaths and/or injuries.

    Once the injury spike became obvious, the government stepped in and mandated a lot of safety requirements.  

    I would also guess that the industry was in the process of figuring out safety equipment prior to the mandate, but in this case the government worked a bit faster than the industry.

    I just remember cars with heavy metal parts.  Many times my dad would use his car to push other cars that had broken down…..if you did that now, you would collapse the bumper.  The skin of cars, especially the front and rear bumpers, is a lot of plastic….. I can’t even push a car with my Nissan Pathfinder or Ford Pick-up.

    It’s just a guess on my part based on some simple reasoning…I may be wrong.  I haven’t really had the time to look for studies or put data together.

    From a pure market standpoint…as a shopper….if I want/need a safer car, the market has almost always provided one….remember the Volvo?  So…if I needed a tank, I could buy one.

  17. In the 60’s there were less (safer) interstates, less seat belt use (and no shoulder harnesses), no car seats for children, plus a variety of other factors.

    Cars did get lighter in the 70’s but that wasn’t universal and it was only later when plastics replaced metal did they really lighten up. We’re really talking the 90’s here.

    The US car industry stayed away from promoting safety issues because of liability- you can’t say you’re safer because the next thing you know is that an injured person is suing you for making that claim.

    One thing about the government and standards is that the car industry wanted a go-slow approach on airbags, but the government insisted on forging ahead.

    This resulted in many people being killed initially by airbags because some people were too small. The solution was to move children to the backseat, having the airbag not work on the passenger side based on the weight of the occupant, and reduce the force with which the bag opened.  

  18. Simple J. Malarkey

    There has been a steady, consistent decline in auto fatalities vs miles traveled.

    There has been no spike relative to when mileage standards were imposed.  In fact, it could be argued that the need for lighter cars resulted in the adoption of lighter materials that resulted in safer, crash absorbent plastic material.  

    Yes, we may have lost the “freedom” of having cars push other cars (I haven’t friend that lately) but the trade off is the freedom of not being badly injured in crashes.  That is a trade off I’d gladly take…howbout you?  (In another accident I was involved in, a car plowed into me on 128…back in the day, two metal containers would have not only been totaled, but I would have been either pushed into the steering wheel or been a projectile thru the windshield…instead I had $4,000 damage and the car acted like an accordion).

  19. …but some of the variables you point out actually make my theory seem more plausable.

    I had not, for instance, taken into consideration that roads are better constructed now than they were then.  I’m sure that had a significant impact in lowering driving deaths.

  20. SJM, you haven’t convinced me of anything other than vehicle miles traveled deaths are down.  Correlation doesn’t = causation.

  21. and there a lot more of them ETL etc. I feel a lot safer with a UL listed product then one approved by the US government.

    I think industry does a better job at setting standards then your governments.  

  22. Simple J. Malarkey

    You lay out your argument based on guesses and feelings.  At least I gave you some facts.

    As for Correlation and causation…well let’s have people decide on their own…

    I suggest that a combination auto safety creatures and a crackdown/awareness efforts regarding drunk driving impacted the steady decline in fatal auto accidents.  And I presented the facts that auto fatalities have steadily decreased over the last 30 years.

    You suggest that gas standards have resulted in an increase auto fatalities, even though the facts refute the notion that fatal deaths have been on a steady decrease.  Never mind getting my mind around the argument that gas standards somehow have a real impact on auto crashes (unless you want to suggest that lowering the speed limit decreases auto fatalities…something that I assume you also would suggest has no causation.

  23. ….but that doesn’t mean your facts add up.  They don’t.  

    Why is it that liberals always leave the burden of proof to others?  I simply laid out some general feelings I had, that’s all.  I never (as you point out yourself) claimed them to be facts.

    You yourself used the causality argument against V3PN, yet you somehow think you don’t have to live by that?  So typical of you lefties.  One standard for others, one for yourself.

    I was VERY clear when I said:

    It’s just a guess on my part based on some simple reasoning…I may be wrong.  I haven’t really had the time to look for studies or put data together.

    tomasek1000 posted an informative critique of my reasoning (which you have not) recognizing that I was spit-balling.  

    You go on to state your opinion as fact, without any real facts at all:

    In fact, it could be argued that the need for lighter cars resulted in the adoption of lighter materials that resulted in safer, crash absorbent plastic material.


    At least I’m honest about my guesses here.  I laid out no “argument”.  I laid out a feeling, a guess…clearly stated as a guess.  My “guess” was posted because I wasn’t buying into your argument with V3PN.

    The burden of proof here is on you Simple, not me.

  24. When I look, I actually find facts to back up my guess.

    I’m still not completely convinced but:

    A 2002 National Research Council study (p. 26) estimates that in a typical year (1993), CAFE contributed to 1,300-2,600 additional auto fatalities and ten times as many serious injuries.

    Last and certainly not least, CAFE kills. This is hard for some folks to swallow, but it’s a matter of physics. Fuel economy regulation restricts the sale of larger, heavier vehicles. Such vehicles get fewer miles to the gallon than similarly equipped smaller vehicles, but they provide more protection in collisions. Heavier vehicles have more mass to absorb collision forces, and larger vehicles provide more space between the occupant and the point of impact.


    Echoing a similar conclusion, in 2002 the National Academy of Science estimated that CAFE was responsible for between 1,300 and 2,600 fatalities and 13,000 to 26,000 incapacitating injuries in 1993. Based on data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), USA Today reported on July 2, 1999 (based on data through 1998) that 46,000 people had died needlessly since the CAFE legislation became law. The article also stated: “Small cars comprise 18 percent of the vehicles on the road. . . . Yet they accounted for 37 percent of the vehicle deaths in 1997.” Given that the congressionally mandated killing and maiming has been going on another seven years, it is probably time to revise the total carnage figure to around 60,000 fatalities.

    It has been 28 years since CAFE became law. A case could be made that this was (and continues to be) the worst piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. Contrary to grandiose predictions, it did not reduce oil consumption and it did not decrease our dependency on uncertain foreign sources of oil. It did, however, result in 60,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of serious injuries. And it has all but destroyed America ‘s Big Three auto companies. Given the damage done, CAFE should be scrapped. Any pending CAFE legislation should be permanently tabled as well.


  25. a ludicrous statement….

    “In fact, it could be argued that the need for lighter cars resulted in the adoption of lighter materials that resulted in safer, crash absorbent plastic material.”

    Take a simple physics course, Festus.  The outer skin of my former Saturn SW2 was in ZERO way a “safer, crash absorbent plastic material”…..than any one of the metal alloys that could have been used.  Plastic skin sucks at absorbing milliseconds of high the velocity momentum of another vehicle.

    Of course, neither does the thin aluminum alloy of my current car.  

    It’s not the plastic or metal alloy skin of the cars that makes them crash absorbent.

    Hint:  it’s the crumple-zones in the framing that absorb high momentum forces.  Pre-crumple zone days, more of the force was translated….less absorbed.

    Double hint:  Saturn using plastic and marketing it as “dent-resistent doorfs” was all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

    So was using heat resistent plastic as engine parts.  Plastic is cheaper than metal.

  26. someone crashing like LtG Murry in one I those Smart cars……shudder….

    My Mazda make those things look like a tricycle.

  27. Simple J. Malarkey

    A 1965 Town Vic vs a 2010 Crown Vic…I’d love to hear the argument that Murray would have walked away uninjured if he was driving a 1965 Corwn Vic  

  28. …the burden of proof is on YOU Mr. Malarkey.  And you FAIL.

    You can deflect, you can equivocate, you can bluster….you can put up straw men…it doesn’t matter at all…..your opinion still isn’t fact.

    I’m not a car expert by any means, but I can’t find a 1965 “Town Vic” anywhere…..I can find a 1961 Galaxie Town Victoria and a 1965 Galaxie….



    You throw out an argument as if it were completely logical….sure….let’s compare the two cars.

    …. forget that statistically it is extremely difficult to determine the inherent safety of a vehicle type because of the difficulty in separating the contribution of driver and behavior(Timmy)from the contribution of vehicle design.

    If you can find crash statistics for the 1965 Ford Galaxie and the 2010 Crown Vic, I’d be happy to look at them.

    The Data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rates the 2010 Crown Vic here (http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=308).

    If you took the time to do a Google search for the Crown Vic, you wouldn’t be puffing your chest about the safety of the 2010…but then again, your opinion is better than the facts, right?



  29. what a Town Vic is….but there was no ’65 CRown Vic.

    YOU are the one that brought up plastic cars…and I doubt there was much plastic in ’65 cars.

    Here I thought you were goin to talk all about those impact absorbing plastic cars you mentioned instead of remaining to be the dishonorable liar you are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *