I would drive it on the side roads but I would be scared to death to take this thing on the interstate.

I saw the crash test video on MSN and I don't care what the results are, this car is a death trap on wheels. The car might fair ok running into a wall or another small car, but put this up against a moderately sized Truck or SUV and two things are going to happen, you are going to be either seriously injured or dead due to the G-Forces alone that will be put onto your body. This small car has to compensate impact absorption for structure strength and because of that there is a higher risk of injury onto the body.

Um, yeah, no thanks. I would not drive this car. Not only is it ugly, and looks ridiculous on the road, it is just too small. A little tiny engine in the back, 3 feet SHORTER than a Mini....I can't see it surviving here.

i have a diesel suburban that says the a "good" rating is like saying you will die slowly. this car offers about as much protection as walking. would you walk down the interstate?
the fuel mileage isn't great neither, the honda civic with the E-VTEC got 50MPG, was bigger, safer, and longer lasting.

hybrid is not the way into the future. look to the past at what has worked, E-vtec is the way to go, honda has shown that.

i have welded a Smart to my diesel Sub-urban. Now it has 5-stars.

At last a car that is more dangerous in a collision than my own.

Hey, RETARDS

This is a city / Metro area car, not an interstate cruiser.

agreed with Noya.
THIS is meant to be a city comuter car, not a high way cuiser.

i own a M3 and a Honda Fit, that's for a good reason.

What a moronic statement.

Hey Noya, News flash big trucks and suvs drive in cities to!

I got passed by one on the interstate not long ago.
I would have shot myself on the spot if I had a gun.

Dumb car though, much better cars with more utility that get as good good or better mileage.

City car?

At least on the interstate everyone is going the same way.

There are plenty of fatal accidents in 35mph zones.

Besides, it would be nice if this could acheive the same mileage as a '88 CRX HF which was of similar mass.

As someone who has no problems riding a motorcycle down the interstate, I would have no objections to drving this vehicle on the interstate.

You people are all whiney bitches.

ive been for a few rides in a smart and ive got to say its an absolutely brilliant town car. for a quick commute or a trip down to the shops it cant be beaten

and seriously, what percentage of owners will ever take them on the interstate? 5%? lower?

for what it is its almost perfect. this is the future of urban motoring

Did anyone notice this quote?

"The Institute's test results generally demonstrate how well vehicles stack up against others of similar size and weight"

So what did they compare it to?

Did I actually read someone's writing "It's fine hitting a wall but an SUV would kill you"? Did SUVs get harder than steel and concrete crash walls?

There are two saftey questions:
1) How well can the car take a hit?
2) How much f the hit does it take?

The tests in question address the first issue by using immoveable objects. The "bigger is better" is definately not valid here. Many SUVs fare poorly and would kill their drivers in instances where smaller cars would not. The only inherent advantage of a larger (not heavier, but longer) car is the greater distance of crumple space.

The second question is indeed about mass. A surburban would take far less force than a smart if the two collided. Of course, that's "saftey at the expense of the other guy" and works only if you are driving the only suburban. Two suburbans hitting each other compared to two smarts goes back to issue "1".

There has to be some reason applied to limits on the second one: Or I'm saving for my tank. It wll crush your SUVs (in fact you will wish you were in a smaller more manuverable car to dodge me). Sure, you will always die; but I will hardly notice.

@JerryL:
"Did SUVs get harder than steel and concrete crash walls?"

No, but SUV's have kinetic energy; crash walls do not.

What a coincidence. Last weekend there was a car crash with three automobiles right in front of my house. A Fiat Maria station with a trailer behind it was standing still. A smart4two was in the middle and a Seat Toledo station with a trailer was in the rear. So the Smart was sandwhiched in between these two cars. The Fiat was standing still, waiting to the turn and the other two crashed in the rear, going approx. 40 miles an hour.

Where the Seat in the back had half it's engine in the seating area and the trailer of the Fiat was halfway inside the back of the car, the only thing, and I mean only things visible on the Smart were some dents in the plastic bumper in the rear and the bent license plate in the front. All the glass was whole, nothing was even crooked.

Seeing it with my own eyes means a helluva lot more to me than some "video on MSN". Of course, cars in general in the States are heavier, so the contrast with a small and light Smart is bigger than here in Europe, but I would not be scared driving it after seeing what happened to the other two cars.

What a coincidence. Last weekend there was a car crash with three automobiles right in front of my house. A Fiat Marea station with a trailer behind it was standing still. A smart4two was in the middle and a Seat Toledo station with a trailer was in the rear. So the Smart was sandwhiched in between these two cars. The Fiat was standing still, waiting to the turn and the other two crashed in the rear, going approx. 40 miles an hour.

Where the Seat in the back had half it's engine in the seating area and the trailer of the Fiat was halfway inside the back of the car, the only thing, and I mean only things visible on the Smart were some dents in the plastic bumper in the rear and the bent license plate in the front. All the glass was whole, nothing was even crooked.

Seeing it with my own eyes means a helluva lot more to me than some "video on MSN". Of course, cars in general in the States are heavier, so the contrast with a small and light Smart is bigger than here in Europe, but I would not be scared driving it after seeing what happened to the other two cars.

how about forbidding all big trucks/cars... THEN we will e all safe...!

the future of urban motoring is.... walking. or the subway, or a taxi. come on people....

from what I've read, the car is pretty unimpressive all around, poor shifter, poor engine, poor mpg (for the size and weight). I mean, I own a cooper, and I usually get 35-40 mpg in town (when I don't drive it like I stole it), and it's a ton bigger than the smart.

Here's the bottom line:

the smart is for people who want to look intelligent and trendy, like they are doing everyone a favor for driving a car that doesn't take up much space and saving the environment by sipping fuel, when in reality they are going to cost everyone more money in massive insurance claims because the entire car fits in my blind spot.

it's just like the toyota prius, 60 mpg sounds great, but when you consider total environmental impact, those battery packs are going to take 10,000 years to bio-degrade. There was a recent study done of which vehicle has the smallest environmental impact, from manufacturing to disposal, and everything in between. you know what won? The jeep cherokee. If you want to save the earth, drive a jeep and drive it right over all the posers who drive smarts and priuss

@bubba551

"No, but SUV's have kinetic energy; crash walls do not."

No they don't.

What's the difference between getting hit, while stopped, by an SUV doing 35mph, and hitting a parked SUV while you are moving at 35mph? Nothing.

So what's the difference between hitting a parked SUV at 35mph and hitting a wall at 35mph? The wall is more rigid (hits harder).

What the big car/little car issue does is determine *where* the deceleration goes. Hitting a solid wall means 100% goes to the car in question. Hitting another car means it gets divided (in favor of the big car) in terms of decelleration.

So while a passenger in an SUV that hit/got hit by a smart will take less force on their person (less accelleration) than the person in the smart that hit them: it will still be preferrable to a wall for the smart driver.

The real general safety question would be: would you rather be in one of two SUVs that hit each other, or would you rather be in one of two smarts. I know several cars I'd prefer to most SUVs for that.

"There was a recent study done of which vehicle has the smallest environmental impact, from manufacturing to disposal, and everything in between. you know what won? The jeep cherokee."

I call BS on this. A Toyota Yaris, for example, is made of the exact same stuff but far less of it. It's counter-intuitive to the exreme to believe your uncited claim.

Same here: the smart is made of the same stuff but smaller. It's just as recycleable (or not, though cars are almost completely recycleable) as any other standard IC car. By pure virtue of its smallness, it will consume less.

Ask yourself this: If it takes less materials and energy to produce a cherokee, why does it cost more to buy?

@akkadain

Can you post a link to that study, I'd like to read it.

yeah its safe, but how fast dose it go arround the nurburgring?

Its just as ugly wrecked as it is normal. I could have said 'european' but I'm in a good mood today and refrained from my usual. I'd rather drive my diesel Ram...it would sure have a better chance of winning an argument with another car than this death trap would...smart car. HA!

@JerryL:
"What's the difference between getting hit, while stopped, by an SUV doing 35mph, and hitting a parked SUV while you are moving at 35mph? Nothing."

Incorrect. As you mentioned later in your post it has to do with where the acceleration goes. In both cases the force gets divided by the two vehicles. Also in both cases the smaller vehicle gets the greater amount of force. In the case with the SUV being parked there is less force (kinetic energy) to divide up. When the SUV is the one moving there is more force to be divided. I would take hitting an SUV (or most other objects with more mass) than having an SUV (or most other objects with more mass) hit me.

To all those worried about "being smashed by an SUV?, have any of you actually been hit by an SUV? I asked 10 co-workers around and nobody has even ever been in an accident, let alone hit by a big SUV doing 90 when they're stopped.

One problem most people have is relying on a vehicles features too keep them safe, instead of paying attention to whats going on around them and practicing good driving skills.

Some of the people posting on here act like driving on the road is the same as an IRL race or something.

@JerryL:
"What's the difference between getting hit, while stopped, by an SUV doing 35mph, and hitting a parked SUV while you are moving at 35mph? Nothing."

Incorrect. As you mentioned later in your post it has to do with where the acceleration goes. In both cases the force gets divided by the two vehicles. Also in both cases the smaller vehicle gets the greater amount of force. In the case with the SUV being parked there is less force (kinetic energy) to divide up. When the SUV is the one moving there is more force to be divided. I would take hitting an SUV (or most other objects with more mass) than having an SUV (or most other objects with more mass) hit me.

The study on the Jeep being more earth friendly than the Prius took in a huge number of factors starting from the energy used to design and build the computers used to design and build the cars. I believe it had a Suburban coming out ahead of the Prius as well. The study is out there but I don't know who sponsored it.

These "The Prius is less green than car xyz" fall into 2 categories.

The legitimate version examines the cradle-to-grave environmental impact including the mining and smelting of the nickle for the batteries. [Google earth Sudbury OT to see; look for the brown spot from space.]

The rediculous version is the one that assumes you take the money saved from buying a non-hybrid car and buy carbon credits with it. The carbon credits you can buy would ALLEDGEDLY be enough to offset a Hummer for 700k miles. The numbers vary but these studies really demonstrate the absudity of carbon credits.

Should have known I'd be killed for not citing my source. Honestly, I read that info in a magazine, i don't remember which one. I just remember the Jeep was top and the Prius was worst, because that was so crazy it stuck out to me. I know it was a cradle-to-grave assessment that said it took in to consideration everything that goes into a car, including the electricity required to manufacture, so i would assume the jeep would beat smaller cars due to manufacturing efficiency. I'm just negative on battery hybrids because I did an internship at a coal power plant, and the only part they told us really to beware of was the giant pile of old batteries that they couldn't dispose of so and won't biodegrade for like 10k years. It's an environmental nightmare. as for the smart, I'm sure it's quite safe, but just like motorcycles, they are so small they are bound to be in more accidents than average, making it more "dangerous" than a larger car, and also making them more expensive to insure.

I'm going to search for that study on environmental impact and I'll post if I find it. If anyone else finds it, please let me know

didn't find the same one, but I found a good one

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf

measures total energy consumption from concept to disposal in dollar amounts.

jeep wrangler = $0.60
toyota prius= $3.25

not first and last or anything, but still proves the point, anyone who is interested in total environmental impact should check it out, has most every car in there

posted the link, but it's currently wait to be 'approved by the blog owner'

anyway its the dust to dust report from cnwmr . com

To the comment about this car being a "city car."

I don't know about you, but I drive about a 30-45 min commute to work on the interstate. I also don't imagine that most people still live in the 1950s where the husband's job was just a short distance from home. I don't have enough disposable income to use a second car just for getting to the grocery store or the post office.

I notice two real problems for long term acceptable of the Smart ForTwo.
1) It only seats 2 people. That is fine for the majority of commuting but forces those who have more than 2 people in the family to have a second car. a Smart ForFour would be a better option.
2) The fuel mileage (real world) suggest approx 36-40mpg. That is fine accept, it requires premium fuel and there are similiar vehicles in price that achieve similiar if not better economy (Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris,etc ) on regular fuel and can seat more.

Inertia's a bitch, aint it.

I'm in Berkeley, across from San Francisco and I've already seen a half dozen Smarts in the last few days. I'm actually seeing more pure electric kit cars than Smarts to tell the truth. In one case a Smart was parked in front of a Mini making the Mini look HUGE. It was hilarious... I wish I had a camera.

It will only sell in progressive urban areas; that means a few thousand per year for a few years then..... poof, it will disappear.

I LOVE WHINING !

If you pussies are afraid of riding or driving around in small cars, don't do it. I'm not one of you. I love small car's. Your gas hog's will soon be too expensive to drive: [problem solved]. The road will be left to us, the ones who do not live in fear.

"Sabby:
As someone who has no problems riding a motorcycle down the interstate, I would have no objections to drving this vehicle on the interstate.

You people are all whiney bitches."

Can I have your kidneys?

JerryL, yes you did read that and it was correct the wall isn't moving at 40nph when you hit it at 40mph. If an SUV was going 40pmh and this car was going 40mph and both hit each other, that crash would equal that of an 80mph crash and the people in that car would be crushed going up against something 3x to 4x times it's size in weight.

Believe it or not, Smarts are pretty popular here in europe, since we actually don't believe the myth of driving a 2ton+ vehicle with 5L+ engine will enlarge your penis size.

We all know that Smarts are popular in Europe.

The reason Americans drive large powerful cars is because they can. If the average European could drive a larger car, he would. The fact is, that they simply cannot afford either the space, the fuel, or both.

It cost less to operate a 300+hp, 5+litre, 2 ton hemi-power bohemouth in the US than it does to operate a 70hp, 1 litre, 3 cylinder fortwo in Europe.

I know a number of European expat's in the US, and they are not driving Smarts or Minis. (Against my advice, one even bought a Grand Cherokee, not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Don't get me wrong, having lived and worked there, I love Europe and would go back there on temporary assignment without hesitation. Just please don't cast this average car size discussion as anything more than a necessity of economics.

European = pwned by bubba551

Also, the smart is a very very nice car for city dwellers. I lived in Boston for a few years and I really did envy those who had the small cars. For these people interstate travel is so very infrequent that it is not a problem to rent a car when they want to drive out of town to visit a friend.

Additionally, if used for it's intended purpose as a city car this is a perfectly safe vehicle. Life threatening accidents are very rare in the city due to the low speeds involved. This myth of insurance costs being more due to more injuries is false. The fact of the matter is that small cars are much much easier to "Total" due to more of the car being designed as crumple space. Even a 10mph accident can total one of these cars, where the suburban would not be scratched. It's a physics thing. This car is designed to protect you perfectly up to about 50mph. After that point you're probly going outside of the car's design condition.

Total vehicle lifecycle cost is not what this car was meant to optimize, and neither was fuel economy. This car was strictly designed as a utilitarian city car. City dwellers also don't care about the price of gas cause they only fill up once every couple of weeks. This car is designed to be as small as possible while still getting the job done. It's truly brilliantly designed for that purpose.

Where I live, NEVs (25mph electric golf carts w/lighting) are authorized on any street with a limit of 25mph or less. Unfortunately, I live on one of the two streets that are 35mph - otherwise, I would have an NEV for local trips.

In the 9 [i.e. ~3X3] not-so-square blocks of downtown, there is a light on every corner and traffic rarely exceeds 20mph. Safety would not be an issue.

I test drove the gen 2 smart last summer, but the transmission was a deal breaker. Also the low speed harmonics from the 3cyl were unpleasant; perhaps a hybid or 1 ltr 4cyl would fix this, but I don't know how constrained the engine bay is. It just isn't the modern day CRX, which is unfortunate, really.

As for safety in the smart, I would not worry about a controlled access highway [one-way] or the city [low speed]. The place that might be unnerving are the 35-40mph secondary roads where other cars occaisionally cross the line or blow a stop sign.

Wow, that is such a great amount of bullshit. Europeans driving smaller cars is not all about economics as you make it sound.
My friend moved to the US for a while and he felt that he had no other choice but to drive a 2ton+ car, just to feel safe. You can't drive small cars when everybody else is driving monster trucks around you.

It is not just about economics and what not, look at what size of cars the japanese and european companies build, and then look at the american companies.
You get the big heavy cars because you are in the market for it, everything in US needs to be BIG; big coke, big fries, big engine, big gun. It makes you feel greater somehow.

Most europeans don't buy american cars, not that they are more expensive, but because of two simple facts, american cars have a less than half average reliability and they are JUST TOO BIG.

End of story.

If you think my prior post was "a great amount of bullshit," Then you should love this one.

The choice of a large vehicle is possible due to residential roads that are often 40ft wide and the cheapest fuel in the G8. These conditions are not universal in the industrialized world, therefore the upper threshold of practical vehicle size in other countries is constrained by space, economics, or both. If your friend moved to the US and bought a 2 ton+ car, then he did so based on a choice he did not have before. Plenty of Americans (myself included) choose to drive small cars at least part of the time without fearing for our safety.

If you wish to examine the size trends of American, European and Japanese cars, then let's. The average vehicle (inc. SUVs) sold in the US in 2007 is only 2% larger than in 1975 while consuming 35% less fuel. This is a modest weight gain especially when considering that 28% of the vehicles in 2007 are 4wd/awd compared with 3% in 1975. This seems to be about the right size for our roads.

As the economy in Europe has grown, we see that the Golf has grown in mass by 68%, the Mondeo by 22%, and the relatively young (euro) Focus by 10%. Even the fortwo has grown by 13%. On the Japanese side, since 1990 the Civic has grown 14%, the Accord 18%, and the Camry by 21%. At the same time the fuel consumption has increased on all but the Focus (thanks to the Mazda duratec.) I would expect this trend to continue as long as economics and road space permit.

Yes, in the US we like big houses, big tracts, and big cars since we don't see those as the exclusive birthright of the aristocracy and the elite. (As for the big coke, I'll happily trade it to you for eine masse bier.)

Many Europeans have a superiority complex for some reason. Tell them that a German-engineered, Antwerp-built Astra is somehow superior to a Honda or Toyota, and they will likely believe you without any additional data. Slap a Saturn badge on the same car and try that one in the US. As for reliabilty, more Americans have owned European cars than the converse. Speaking from experience rather than hearsay, the typical Euro cars have no special bragging rights.

Time to open those eyes and stop living in denial

Wow, an american guy is telling me to open my eyes.. LOL!

You have to excuse me, I just find it hillarious to hear that coming from someone who lives in the country of silent censorship.

Silent censorship. What are you smoking? Apprently you have never listened to American talk radio or else you wouldn't have made that comment.

@SteelCity1981:

I believe our European friend is referring to [the unintended consequences of] internet content filtering. If an ISP runs a spam filter, a percentage of legitimate emails are filtered also. If an ISP provides content filtering, (an increasingly common service for families,) some legitimate sites are blocked. Rather than seeing this as a side-effect of a mindless program reacting to words and patterns, some folks assume more sinister motives.

For example, AOL (a division of Time Warner) has unintentially blocked the DNC and RNC at different times. The fringe of one party claims this is the evil hand of big business, while the fringe of the other suggests this is evidence of bias in a main stream media outlet.

The reality is that this filtering is so far from perfect that it could not effectively mold political views if it intended, (though I understand that ebay has made strides blocking the sale of certain memorabilia in France.)

As you know, in the US, we don't even censor our crackpots - they can start their own newsletter, webpage, radio show etc. Our response to them is more free speech and hope that most folks are smart enough to figure out what is true. In Europe, on the other hand, a crackpot can be arrested for what he says. (David Irving, Pedro Varela, Ernst Zundel, etc.) That's real censorship!

what a bunch of whinny people in this discussion. *rolleyes*

Thanks for actually confirming what I said.

I was referring to the fact that your company-owned capitalistic media don't tell you half of the truth about your government and what really happens in their foreign-affairs politics. You think that USA is the center of the earth and you never understand why people keep commenting you like I do.

Do you ever hear anything about what's going in the Afghanistan that you "saved" anymore? No, because there is no gain in showing you, the american people, what is going on. We do get real news here, and guess what, women still get murdered and people still don't have shit for rights in Afghanistan. Also, we actually no that the earth is round, and not shaped in the form of the american flag.

You should start by putting some thought into who you vote for next time, and perhaps that government can start taking care of all the homeless people, the extremly bad way of taking care of your sick and weak and that stupid hillbilly gun law of yours.

We aren't racist or america haters here in europe, I personally just dislike ignorant people who just wont stick their head out of the box for 5 seconds and smell what's going on around them.

Anyways, this got way out of topic, and I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes.

Why is it that when I stick my head out of my box, I think I smell a troll (who hopefully isn't even european but is merely trying to stir things up?)

This may come as a shock, but we have access to the same news as everyone else and then some. As for which broadcasters I trust for objectivity: a corporate owned broadcaster who is trying to scoop the competition or a government funded broadcaster, I choose the former.

I suppose we could take pointers from the EU regarding taking care of the homeless, as long as we ignor the fact that according to United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN–HABITAT), the number of homeless in the EU is comparable to that of the US.

Or we could take pointers on the care of sick and the weak, as long as we ignor the example set by the 35,000 (mostly elderly) who died needlessly in the 2003 European heatwave.

Or we could look to the EU for guidance regarding our stupid hillbilly gun law. I find that Richard Munday's article in the "The Times" (UK) to be especially insightful. (Just google his name and you'll find it.)

I'll withdraw to my box now, and you can resume your superior attitude and call me uninformed and ignorant based on nothing more than my nationality.

On topic: As one who has driven the fortwo, the engine is shaky, the transmission is clunky, and the crash test is meaningless for comparison since nothing else is within 400lbs of it. The only advantage it has over a yaris or mini is that it can share a parking spot, which would not be legal in most US cities anyway. With the added 8 inches, the gen 2 probably shouldn't be parked perpendicular in EU anymore either.

@Also European

You simply show that you know how to generalize a vast number of people by what the information your media gives you, and the obvious superiority complex most Europeans have. Remember who when into the Middle East with Bush & Co, you guys didn't exactly sit on the sidelines.

Bubba51 hit it right on the head with an intelligent post about why certain cars sell better in different countries and the europeans decide to turn it into an America Bashing episode. I'd like to see someone with average income afford the gas or have the parking space for an Expedition or Hummer in Europe, most likely won't happen. This isn't saying Europeans have less money, as the value of the dollar shows pertty obviously. Bubba starts out by showing he knows the world isn't shaped as an American flag and you end by telling him to realize that, how about pulling your head out of the sand for a while.

WoW, I applaude you.. Standing up!

We are the ones with superiority complex huh? Is that why USA have military bases all around the world? How many countries have military bases in your country? What happens in Guantanamo Bay "Mr Human Rights"?

Don't you ever want to realize why you probably are the most hated country in the world?

I thought this was an automotive website not michaelmoore-dot-com.

Anyway, with one or two exceptions our bases are where they are at the request of the host governments who either feel threatened by a neighbor or simply enjoy an economic benefit. (As it did in the Philippines, the time has probably to leave western Europe for more interested hosts.)

As for foreign bases here, I really don't think we need any help protecting ourselves from our good neighbors with whom we share some of the longest unguarded borders in the world. [Where we can use always use the help though is the diligent security at your airports, which you are handling quite well by the way.]

Who said anything about Human Rights? I certainly didn't.

As for being the most hated country, I'm sure North Korea is still ahead of us. 4 letters and 1 word sum up why we're probably a close 2nd. Bush. Another 6 months and we won't have to worry about it unless McCain manages to steal an election like Bush did. Too bad Ron Paul couldn't make it into the running...

@Bubba
You might understand why I call you ignorant when you make comments like "our bases are where they are at the request of the host governments". But let me add "naive" to your attributes aswell.

90% of your bases are for your governments gain and not the host country. It's called politics, if the host country says no, then there will be consequences for that specific country's economics and import, export markets.

Our airports don't need the extreme kind of protection that yours need. Somehow, we are not the main goal of the hatred that creates terrorism, I wonder why. Those few times terrorism attacks have occured in Europe, it hass been mainly because of the country backing up USA, like Spain did in the beginning of Iraq war (invasion), where you were looking for oil, I mean nuclear weapons. None of the european governements that helped you out during this war had any support from the people.

Btw, what was your explanation for Guantanamo now again?

This may come as a shock, but we have closed bases on foreign soil and have not punished the host country in any way, economic or otherwise. (In some cases the closures have been combined with aid packages or otherwise managed to mitigate the impact on the local economy.)

Your statements comparing airport securities causes me to question your personal experience, since the airport security measures are similar on both sides of the pond (though security on other public modes of transport seems to be stricter in Europe.)

Now that Spain has left Iraq and UK has committed to, I am sure that the EU has no more terrorism concerns, and that all those precautions around the Euro 2008 are just a waste of time and money. (I do hope this is true, anyway.)

I didn't address Guantanamo because frankly, it is just too easy. With climate controlled buildings, a halal diet that prisoners actually gain weight on, and access to health care, religious materials, exercise facilities, and a library, Gitmo has arguably the best conditions of any prison camp in the history of warfare. It doesn't even begin to compare to the historical treatment of foreign fighters such as Angola in the mid-70's. (If you had paid attention to your superior news services, instead of Gitmo you would have known to ask me about Camp Bocca, for which there is no suitable answer yet.)

At this point I am really wondering if you are a post-adolescent American boy trolling the internet in his mom's basement, or whether you are just really this easy. If it is the former, then I hope you have had fun; if the latter, then I am feeling a little guilty and apologize if I have been a little rough.

Finally, for any post-adolescent boys in their mom's basement, let me go ahead and apologize for that crack as well.

Bubba551 ...OUT

Hey Bubba, I think it really is a euro-peon because he thinks our censorship is silent... HA HA HA

The discussions of our censorship are censored, the funny thing is, anybody who cares gets around it. Americans typically (I know generalities are generally a bad idea) fit into the following categories...

1) those so stupid they can't figure out the truth, which is okay because their lack of brainpower "can't handle the truth" either
2) those smart enough to figure out the truth if they want to.
3) those who for one reason or 500 don't care about the truth.

I have friends who are 1) 2) and 3). I am 2) with a side of 3). I have given up trying to enlighten 1)s, like you Also...

Have a nice big fat (ever-closer-to-american), stuck-up, lazy, socialist, hairy-legged, smelly, european day :)

@Bubba

Your explanations and the way you make a positive thing out of every negative thing talk for themselves. The way you make sound everything I've complained about so "easy" and "non-problematic" just confirms your arrogance and ignorance.

*Sigh*
There is no point really in trying to learn an old dog to sit. Unfortunatly, you older dogs have a bad influence on the next generation americans who could make a difference in how the rest of the world sees them.

end;

It's true - you can't teach old dogs new tricks, because old dogs have seen the tricks before and know that there is nothing new about them. (Old dogs and a few historians know what I am talking about.)

I probably don't qualify for old dog status yet anyway, but I have learned my best tricks from them. As such, you may have noticed that I never complain about the internet bubble, the housing bubble, the cost of fuel, or the so-called recession.

I'm going out on a limb here...but I would imagine Americans and Canadians drive large cars because they spend more time in them and they drive much longer distances.

Seriously. We travel across several states / provinces all the time. Our countries are HUGE in comparison to Europe and who the hell wants to drive 500 to 5000 kms in a small car?

I have travelled from Calgary to Halifax many times (over 5300kms) and sure wouldn't do that in a euro car :p

The only reason things are starting to change is people are now having smaller families, but at the same time, people are making longer commutes to work.

We also have millions of people living and/or working in rural areas where you NEED to have trucks and SUVs. I'd like to see a Smart car make it out to a farm or oil patch in the snow or muck.

We have millions of holiday trailers people need to pull. That also requires lots of power in a comfy ride for a long trip.

WTF is wrong with people? We live in very different parts of the world and lead very different lives. Wake up!

@gr8kindoffool

Actually, I must say I find your explanation much more probable than Bubba's economical perspective.

Once we get past the America bashing, I think we are starting to reach some kind of understanding!

Economics in its broadest sense addresses the balancing act that is performed in the fulfillment of needs (real or perceived) through the application of limited resources (i.e. affordability).

My original post on this topic was refuting the notion that car size in the US was based mainly on the need to amplify one's manhood. My post addressed the differences in the resouce side of the economic equation - fuel affordability and space affordability (including parking, width of roads, etc.)

gr8kindoffool has done a fine job of addressing the needs side of the equation. (I especially agree with his summary paragraph.)

In short, the cars we buy are not based on myths of penis size, but reflect the fact that we are balancing different sets of needs and resource affordability.

The fortwo just doesn't make economic sense right now in the US. In surburban or rural areas, it does not meet the needs of a primary vehicle. As a second car, the additional insurance (of a second car) negates much if not all of the fuel savings. If you live in one of the major cities, the best car is no car - renting when needed is cheaper than insuring and parking.

(And if penis size is still a concern, just date women with small hands - perspective goes a long way.)

The Smart Car is 100x safer than any motorbike out there. I've been driving my Ninja 250 for about a year now and have had 4 close calls already, due to drivers not paying attention to the road and almost clipping me. At highway speeds, a motorbike accident will most certainly be fatal. At least in a smart, if I get clipped, chances are I will survive.

Why would u want this car???? Its the littilest car ive ever seen.... U cant even take it off road. Sumone plz tell me why u wuld wnt this?????

You americans are so ignorant.
SUV's are much unsafer cars than this very cool smart

The Smart is safe for what I need it to do. That's being a dingy for my RV. Now, I have a new RV with a garage. I now just drive the ForTwo into it's new garage and lock it down for the night. Too sweet! As for safety; it's still safer than a motorcycle.

"Still, doors shouldn't unlatch because in some crashes it could allow partial or complete occupant ejection, especially if an occupant is unbelted."

Interesting statement, probably ignorance showing though, in the State of Illinois you can receive a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt!

If the "occupant" that is not seatbelted chooses to not wear a seatbelt then they are not longer libel for having brains, since they are little more that crash test dummies.

I know, the old story, if the car was to crash into a lake and I could not get my belt off!

This is called panic, not to be confused with people in control of the car in the first place, then you would not be in the water in the first place.

I have some knowledge of seatbelt use, in 1973 my brother was standing up in the back of his Jeep when someone else was driving and lost control, he died. Since June of 1973 I refuse to move a car in a parking lot without using the seatbelt...Before then, I too was a crash test dummy getting ready to show my peers how to die.

Question, for every crash over 100 mile an hour at a race track does the driver automatically DIE?

Well, the racing season would be over after one year....wouldn't it?

"Still, doors shouldn't unlatch because in some crashes it could allow partial or complete occupant ejection, especially if an occupant is unbelted."

Interesting statement, probably ignorance showing though, in the State of Illinois you can receive a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt!

If the "occupant" that is not seatbelted chooses to not wear a seatbelt then they are not longer libel for having brains, since they are little more that crash test dummies.

I know, the old story, if the car was to crash into a lake and I could not get my belt off!

This is called panic, not to be confused with people in control of the car in the first place, then you would not be in the water in the first place.

I have some knowledge of seatbelt use, in 1973 my brother was standing up in the back of his Jeep when someone else was driving and lost control, he died. Since June of 1973 I refuse to move a car in a parking lot without using the seatbelt...Before then, I too was a crash test dummy getting ready to show my peers how to die.

Question, for every crash over 100 mile an hour at a race track does the driver automatically DIE?

Well, the racing season would be over after one year....wouldn't it?