ll one could say that is really not such a noble plan at all.

Additionally if you are to kill more drivers or cripple them for life one could say that there will be less traffic on the road and

So we have demanded that the Auto Makers make more fuel-efficient cars now have we? Well this is a good idea indeed however how they go about this may also be very important for the sanctity of life. You see over 44,000 people die in automobile accidents each year and of those most are in small passenger cars and SUVs.

If Auto Makers are commanded to make more fuel-efficient cars they will need to use lighter weight materials and in doing so will indeed cause them to be made of less strong materials, which will mean their safety rating is not as high, meaning more people in accidents will die. So it would seem that perhaps a caveat to the increased fuel mileage would be to make sure that the safety rating does not decrease. Because if you increase fuel economy but kill the driver, well one could say that is really not such a noble plan at all.

Additionally if you are to kill more drivers or cripple them for life one could say that there will be less traffic on the road and

You see over 44,000 people die in automobile accidents each year and of those most are in small passenger cars and SUVs.

If Auto Makers are commanded to make more fuel-efficient cars they will need to use lighter weight materials and in doing so will indeed cause them to be made of less strong materials, which will mean their safety rating is not as high, meaning more people in accidents will die. So it would seem that perhaps a caveat to the increased fuel mileage would be to make sure that the safety rating does not decrease. Because if you increase fuel economy but kill the driver, well one could say that is really not such a noble plan at all.

Additionally if you are to kill more drivers or cripple them for life one could say that there will be less traffic on the road and

eed to use lighter weight materials and in doing so will indeed cause them to be made of less strong materials, which will mean their safety rating is not as high, meaning more people in accidents will die. So it would seem that perhaps a caveat to the increased fuel mileage would be to make sure that the safety rating does not decrease. Because if you increase fuel economy but kill the driver, well one could say that is really not such a noble plan at all.

Additionally if you are to kill more drivers or cripple them for life one could say that there will be less traffic on the road and

l die. So it would seem that perhaps a caveat to the increased fuel mileage would be to make sure that the safety rating does not decrease. Because if you increase fuel economy but kill the driver, well one could say that is really not such a noble plan at all.

Additionally if you are to kill more drivers or cripple them for life one could say that there will be less traffic on the road and

ll one could say that is really not such a noble plan at all.

Additionally if you are to kill more drivers or cripple them for life one could say that there will be less traffic on the road and less people driving and thus you will be saving fuel right? Yah right, but you do not expect me to buy that argument do you? And do you really expect anyone else to go along with that reverse logic thinking either? You know maybe we need to rethink this mileage demand to include increased safety and better mileage or something in between which is the best for all concerned. Consider this in 2006.