[equalizer]

[quote=svelte]Glad you’re okay Navydoc.

Interesting phenomenon that you point out with Prius drivers, as has also been noted at this link I posted previously:

“Ever been cut off by a prius with an Obama sticker? It happens more often than it should. The tipping point for the One Less Prius sticker was nearly being hit by one such vehicle IN THE BIKE LANE on Sunset Blvd. The guy gave me the finger when I threw my hands up.”

from:

http://nowhip.blogspot.com/2009/07/one-less-prius.html

I don’t ever see this because I don’t ride a bicycle. I might if they had dedicated separate paths where I need to ride, but sharing the roadway with autos is too dangerous for my blood.

But why you cyclists notice an increased danger from Prius owners is very interesting. Three possible reasons I can think of:

(1) Maybe they are generally less attentive drivers? I sometimes think that many Prius owners don’t like visiting gas stations because they just don’t like cars. Since they don’t like cars, I wonder if that gives them poorer than average driving skills – maybe they don’t take the time to hone those skills.

(2) Maybe they are envious of someone greener than they are?

(3) (thought I had a third possibility but have forgotten)

This would make an interesting case study…if one every gets done, let me know because I’d love to find out the psychology behind this behavior![/quote]
First, hope NavyDoc is feeling better!

I pulled up IIHS data and found that in small car segment that Prius [drivers] had fewest claims for bodily injury and lowest overall claims. Of course the age and stature of these drivers is the dominant factor for this data instead of the actual car.

Cars with highest losses bodily injury (2006-2008)
(Pretty much young male drivers)

[100 represents the average result for all vehicles in each loss coverage category]

Suzuki Forenza Small four-door models 205

Mitsubishi Lancer Small four-door models 181

Scion tC Small two-door models 172

Infiniti FX35 4dr Midsize luxury SUVs 171

Pontiac G5 Small two-door models 161

Chevrolet Cobalt Small two-door models 160

Dodge Magnum Large station wagons/minivans 160

Kia Spectra Small four-door models 156

Dodge Charger Large four-door models 156

Hyundai Tiburon Small two-door models 154
———————————————
Collision Rate
BMW 3 series 2dr 180
Prius 103

———————————————
Cars with fewest losses bodily injury claims

Chevrolet Corvette Midsize sports models 41

Infiniti M35 4dr 4WD Large luxury models 44

Chevrolet Corvette convertible Midsize sports models 48

Toyota Tundra double 4WD Large pickups 48

GMC Acadia 4dr 4WD Large SUVs 53

Mazda MX-5 Miata convertible Mini sports models 54

Toyota Highlander 4dr 4WD Midsize SUVs 57

Mercedes E class 4dr 4WD Large luxury models 57

Pontiac Solstice convertible Small sports models 58

BMW Z4 convertible Small sports models 58

———————————————

What’s the lesson? Ride two wheelers in neighborhoods with all Corvettes!

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?y=2006-2008&cls=2&sz=2&sort=bodilyInjury

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_bw.aspx?y=2006-2008&cv=bod

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1%5B/quote%5D

Sure, his Maserati does 185 but he should still worry about the budget since he still faces the huge potholes opening up all over town.

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1%5B/quote%5D

Sure, his Maserati does 185 but he should still worry about the budget since he still faces the huge potholes opening up all over town.

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1%5B/quote%5D

Sure, his Maserati does 185 but he should still worry about the budget since he still faces the huge potholes opening up all over town.

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1%5B/quote%5D

Sure, his Maserati does 185 but he should still worry about the budget since he still faces the huge potholes opening up all over town.

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj]
Very good recent article by Joe Stiglitz on income inequality, in which he’s basically addressing what I refer to as the “Revolution Factor” (above).

The punch line:

“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=1%5B/quote%5D

Sure, his Maserati does 185 but he should still worry about the budget since he still faces the huge potholes opening up all over town.

[equalizer]

Bethany McLean has a good background story on 30 year mortgage here.

“For a homeowner, a mortgage with a 30-year fixed rate (especially one that he can pay off early without a penalty) is a wonderful thing. For lenders and investors, however, it is a financial Frankenstein’s monster, an unnatural product filled with the potential for losses. Absorbing some of the risk of those losses is a large part of what the government does in the housing market.”

It’s been a great subsidy for homeowners and a real path to wealth, which is why Greenspan was pushing for increased home ownership for all. Of course he didn’t bother to study or counter the massive risks.

Who Wants a 30-Year Mortgage?

Podcast:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/01/14/132940442/the-friday-podcast-the-frankenstein-mortgage

[equalizer]

Bethany McLean has a good background story on 30 year mortgage here.

“For a homeowner, a mortgage with a 30-year fixed rate (especially one that he can pay off early without a penalty) is a wonderful thing. For lenders and investors, however, it is a financial Frankenstein’s monster, an unnatural product filled with the potential for losses. Absorbing some of the risk of those losses is a large part of what the government does in the housing market.”

It’s been a great subsidy for homeowners and a real path to wealth, which is why Greenspan was pushing for increased home ownership for all. Of course he didn’t bother to study or counter the massive risks.

Who Wants a 30-Year Mortgage?

Podcast:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/01/14/132940442/the-friday-podcast-the-frankenstein-mortgage

[equalizer]

Bethany McLean has a good background story on 30 year mortgage here.

“For a homeowner, a mortgage with a 30-year fixed rate (especially one that he can pay off early without a penalty) is a wonderful thing. For lenders and investors, however, it is a financial Frankenstein’s monster, an unnatural product filled with the potential for losses. Absorbing some of the risk of those losses is a large part of what the government does in the housing market.”

It’s been a great subsidy for homeowners and a real path to wealth, which is why Greenspan was pushing for increased home ownership for all. Of course he didn’t bother to study or counter the massive risks.

Who Wants a 30-Year Mortgage?

Podcast:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/01/14/132940442/the-friday-podcast-the-frankenstein-mortgage

[equalizer]

Bethany McLean has a good background story on 30 year mortgage here.

“For a homeowner, a mortgage with a 30-year fixed rate (especially one that he can pay off early without a penalty) is a wonderful thing. For lenders and investors, however, it is a financial Frankenstein’s monster, an unnatural product filled with the potential for losses. Absorbing some of the risk of those losses is a large part of what the government does in the housing market.”

It’s been a great subsidy for homeowners and a real path to wealth, which is why Greenspan was pushing for increased home ownership for all. Of course he didn’t bother to study or counter the massive risks.

Who Wants a 30-Year Mortgage?

Podcast:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/01/14/132940442/the-friday-podcast-the-frankenstein-mortgage

[equalizer]

Bethany McLean has a good background story on 30 year mortgage here.

“For a homeowner, a mortgage with a 30-year fixed rate (especially one that he can pay off early without a penalty) is a wonderful thing. For lenders and investors, however, it is a financial Frankenstein’s monster, an unnatural product filled with the potential for losses. Absorbing some of the risk of those losses is a large part of what the government does in the housing market.”

It’s been a great subsidy for homeowners and a real path to wealth, which is why Greenspan was pushing for increased home ownership for all. Of course he didn’t bother to study or counter the massive risks.

Who Wants a 30-Year Mortgage?

Podcast:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/01/14/132940442/the-friday-podcast-the-frankenstein-mortgage

[equalizer]

So I open the computer the son was using and I’m at kissinggames.com. Clicked back one screen and he had typed kissing games on search and before that Angry Birds. He didn’t find Angry Birds so he said he remembered Spider Man and though of kissing games but he hadn’t clicked on anything. I clicked on Risky-motorcycle-Kissing game and said to wife, honey we should play this game! Probably not appropriate for the first grader. I guess that’s why Spider Man is rated PG-13.

What exactly is the market for this site? Teenage girls? Why do I see Lysol and BMW ads here??

[equalizer]

So I open the computer the son was using and I’m at kissinggames.com. Clicked back one screen and he had typed kissing games on search and before that Angry Birds. He didn’t find Angry Birds so he said he remembered Spider Man and though of kissing games but he hadn’t clicked on anything. I clicked on Risky-motorcycle-Kissing game and said to wife, honey we should play this game! Probably not appropriate for the first grader. I guess that’s why Spider Man is rated PG-13.

What exactly is the market for this site? Teenage girls? Why do I see Lysol and BMW ads here??

[equalizer]

So I open the computer the son was using and I’m at kissinggames.com. Clicked back one screen and he had typed kissing games on search and before that Angry Birds. He didn’t find Angry Birds so he said he remembered Spider Man and though of kissing games but he hadn’t clicked on anything. I clicked on Risky-motorcycle-Kissing game and said to wife, honey we should play this game! Probably not appropriate for the first grader. I guess that’s why Spider Man is rated PG-13.

What exactly is the market for this site? Teenage girls? Why do I see Lysol and BMW ads here??

[equalizer]

So I open the computer the son was using and I’m at kissinggames.com. Clicked back one screen and he had typed kissing games on search and before that Angry Birds. He didn’t find Angry Birds so he said he remembered Spider Man and though of kissing games but he hadn’t clicked on anything. I clicked on Risky-motorcycle-Kissing game and said to wife, honey we should play this game! Probably not appropriate for the first grader. I guess that’s why Spider Man is rated PG-13.

What exactly is the market for this site? Teenage girls? Why do I see Lysol and BMW ads here??

[Author]

Posts