Sport Utility Vehicles - Your Opinion

[PanzerJaeger]

We havent kicked this around in a while. What do you guys think of SUVs and the people who own them?

I got into an altercation at the gas station just yesterday with some woman over my own SUV.

I guessed early on that she was not of my political persuasion do to her appearance, or lack of any attempt to correct it. (Like a spawn of jeane garofalo.) The "Bush Lied, People Died" sticker on the back of her 198? POS only confirmed it.

What I didnt expect was for her to walk right over to me at the pump and tell me that I was destroying the planet. The only other place Ive been confronted in such an overt political manner was the college campus.

From there it devolved into a rather pathetic scene, her telling me what a bad person I was and me telling her what an ugly person she was.. I was a little disapointed in my performance, but by the way she laid out her talking points it was obvious she was a seasoned veteran of the unwilling gas station confrontation.

Finally, she pulled out a flyer and told me something to the effect that "if I could handle the truth, I should read it". Well that was it! She was an activist! She had apparently been doing this all day to SUV owners. My tank had long since been full so I told her to take a shower and left.

In any event, this lead me to believe that there is still a lot of hostility over SUVs. I thought it had sort of died down a little, but apparently SUVs are still a major target of the left wing activists.

[Steppe Merc]

Only ok if used by people in say Colorado, where you need 4 wheel drives. I hate all those damn SUVs in my town. Damn huge things and few of them need it. And no one ever needs a Humvee, unless your in a battle zone.
But I'd never walk up to someone and say they were destroying the planet, becuase there is far worse thing than SUVs polluting the world.

[Del Arroyo]

SUVs are pretty stupid vehicles. If you want off-road, get a pickup. All that extra space is not improving your quality of life, any more than all the extra space in one of those new monster houses they keep building everywhere nowadays.

He who owns a roomy sedan and a ranch home on a sizeable, well-manicured lot is enjoying his affluence. Super-sizers just don't get it.

DA

[Azi Tohak]

SUVs suck. They're pointless and wasteful. Want a 4x4? Get a deisel pickup. Want to carry the family around? Just get a four-door car.

No reason to have an SUV.

Sure there is, compensating for a little unit, and to kill other people on the road. What other reason do you need? Fuel efficiency? Cost effectivness? HA! You're American! You NEED to have the best otherwise you will die alone, unloved, poor and dead.

Can you tell I don't like those stupid things?

Azi

[Strike For The South]

~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: TRUCK THE REAL MANS SUV ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:

[The_Doctor]

I typed suv in google and found an odd image.

http://finurlig.se/wp-content/suv-i-pool.jpg

If you have a large family then they are ok.

[Ser Clegane]

Hmm ... curious.

While I agree that SUVs are non-necessary fun vehicles that need too much gas and I do not consider them to be particularly appealing, I don not quite understand why a lot of people get so upset about SUVs.

Many people seem to have less of a problem with expensive sports cars like e.g., a Porsche or a Ferrari - both equally unnecessary in a county with a tempolimit, and both also not the most efficient cars when it comes to gas consumption.

Why the borderline (or even beyond borderline) aggressive opinions about SUVs?

[Adrian II]

Why the borderline (or even beyond borderline) aggressive opinions about SUVs?
http://www.markstivers.com/cartoons/Cartoons%202003/Stivers%201-12-03%20SUV%20cartoon.gif

[PanzerJaeger]

SUVs are pretty stupid vehicles. If you want off-road, get a pickup.

Thats actually not the case.

Offroading is one of my favorite hobbies and I have never see pick-ups on any trails over class 1 - and many of them must be pulled out of the mud. The wheel base is too long, they are not agile, and they do not have differential that is needed for off-roading.

Of course, in that same vein, you never see Ford Explorers or Chevy Trailblazers out there either - unless they are heavily modified. Pretty much only Jeeps, Land Rovers, and Land Cruisers can handle the tough trails.

[PanzerJaeger]

I would love to see a pickup try this! (As long as im not responsible for towing it off the trail!)

http://www.discoweb.org/rrlarrygrubbs/pb1010056.jpg

[sharrukin]

I think a lot of people get SUV's who have no real need for them just as people get BMW's or a Porsche for the same reason. I am a practical guy and these seem silly to me but if the owner is willing to pay the freight on them and the gas bill, then its their business IMO.

[Geoffrey S]

Bah, chose the wrong option. I meant to vote "if 4x4 is necessary". I've got nothing against SUVs in principal, it's simply that when I see one driving through the busy streets of Utrecht or Amsterdam I can't help but wonder what the point is of using one in that kind of a situation, other than purely as some kind of status symbol.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

who honestly NEEDS a Porsche?

[Zharakov]

I like them... ~D

[kiwitt]

My 4WD (http://www.clubvr4.com/forum/vbgarage.php?do=view&id=398) is the only 4x4 I want. It looks like a standard car, but handles like an EVO, yet is sedate enough to have an an everyday car.

My other complaint, is that 99% of the 4x4s I see in Auckland are to drive the "kids" to school. What is wrong with catching the bus or walking. I did as a kid.

[Meneldil]

I voted 'I dislike SUVs' but that's only because there's no 'SUVs really suck *** and people who drive SUVs are all idiots' option.

[Zharakov]

So my sister is an idoi.... Ohh your French... that explains it... ~D ~:cheers:

[GodsPetMonkey]

I don't have a problem with people who use SUVs for their intended purpose, either recreationally or for a living (there is some very rough country out there!). But it is easy to tell those which have been outside of the suburbs and those that haven’t, look for the factory fresh shine.

What really ticks me off is when the suburbanites complain that it is costing them to much in petrol to drive little Timmy 100m down the road to school... seriously, as Kiwitt said, what’s wrong with walking or catching the bus? In a few years time parents will be dispatching armoured convoys to keep their kids safe, it's crazy.
If your SUV is costing you an arm and a leg in fuel, perhaps the problem is you don't have a very fuel efficient car? Whuda thunk it. I don't see why you should get a special petrol price just because you didn't think about running costs when buying that shiny tin can.



who honestly NEEDS a Porsche?


I don't care much about the need, but I would rather be hit by a Porsche then a SUV at the same speed.
Then again, SUV owners are unlikely to be able to afford a Porsche, I knew a lot of SUV owners who got them because they wanted a big, luxury car, but couldn't afford a decent BMW/Mercedes.
If you got the money for a real status symbol, why buy a fake one?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

so that's the need for a Porsche...

I bought one because it was a fun drive.

[BDC]

I have an issue with them here because they are killing machines, and Britain's roads are too old and really can't cope with them. Given the choice between being hit by one or a regular car, I'd rather not end up completely splatted over the road/windscreen.

Plus they are pretty fuel inefficient.

[Ronin]

unless you have a farm on some other real need for a 4x4 vehicle you shouldn´t have one.....

there´s nothing i hate more in the traffic in my city then the morons that prance around in their SUV´s that probably never even saw mud let alone actual off-road conditions.

[Proletariat]

I'm happy with my Subaru Legacy and I'd probably stick with this manufacturer even if I won the lottery or was adopted by the Bush family.

Anyway, I hope all of you getting 3 miles to the gallon right now are enjoying your SUVs.

[Strike For The South]

A question is there really any evidence that SUVs are really "killing machiens"

[Steppe Merc]

Well they are big. Normal cars are small. Small things get crunched by big things.
See? ~;)

[Strike For The South]

Well they are big. Normal cars are small. Small things get crunched by big things.
See? ~;)

Any evidence this happens more often than two cars

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

they totally trash normal cars. The impact is much higher and makes normal cars just crumple.

[Ronin]

A question is there really any evidence that SUVs are really "killing machiens"


you mean besides the excessive gas consumption and polution production?....i think that classifies them as killers allready....other than that....if an SUV hits a smaller car it doesn´t take a genious to guess that it makes more damage than 2 small cars hitting each other.

[Strike For The South]

Touche :bow:

[JimBob]

If your into off-roading, live in Montana and your neighbor is 10 miles away, or if you work in the woods regularly, sure you need it. But its those damn suburbanite soccer moms who think roughing it is the lake cabin that gets two channels, that's just dumb.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Fashion SUVs annoy me. No-one who actually needs off-road capability drives a bloody Porsche 4X4. It just seems slightly crazy to me that off-road vehicles are marketed to people who will never, ever drive them on anything other than the school run.

I dislike the arrogance of them too. Driving one is like saying 'My life is more important than yours, so I must drive this huge vehicle that will crush you in a collision, while preserving my life'.

Personally I think we should bring in legislation which requires you to prove you need an off-road vehicle before you can buy one.

[Azi Tohak]

My biggest problem is not the vehicle, but the people who drive them. Just like guns, it takes a person (read: idiot) to turn an inanimate object into a killing machine.

I drive a mini-van (yes, I call it my 'Sexy Mobile'), but I bike everywhere now. However, I have noticed (maybe I'm just unlucky) but the people who cut me off, turn without signals, force themselves into traffic drive big vehicles. I.e. SUVs. I also don't like them in parking lots because they execute site lines. I hate not being able to see around them. Trucks don't bother me as much because of their (usual) bed, or I can see through the cover's windows.

Regular trucks to haul things, mini-vans to haul people, I think that works fine.

Personally, I really like 'toy' cars, like Porshe, Ferrari, Corvette, Viper etc. I know they are even more useless than a SUV, but at least the cars are not any more dangerous than anything else on the road. Sure, they are inefficient, but I think of them as toys, and I don't know if anything else can replace them as toys.

Azi

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

soccer moms:
what's wrong with mini-vans and people carriers nowadays???????

[Steppe Merc]

The worst is not the soccer moms. It's the rich 17 and 18 year olds who drive Humvees and SUVs, and whose parent's bought it for them. And live in a suburb.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I was wondering where those little girls got their fancy cars.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The worst is not the soccer moms. It's the rich 17 and 18 year olds who drive Humvees and SUVs, and whose parent's bought it for them. And live in a suburb.

The type of driver you're describing there will invariably be on a mobile phone as well, and veering all over the road as a result of it.

[Kanamori]

A question is there really any evidence that SUVs are really "killing machiens"

Picture this: A pretty little butterfly collides with a coach bus. The butterfly pushes on the coach bus as it collides into it. The bus also pushes into the butterfly, admittedly quite a lot harder. Becuase the bus is xxxx X more massive the bus pushes xxxx X harder with devistating and graphic results. Now, Imagine this: A Geo Metro, bearing a "Bush lied, People Died" sticker, collides with a big Jeep. As in the earlier example, there are similar, but less drastic, results. Big Jeep is doing a lot better than the little Geo.

[Crazed Rabbit]

My opinion?

meh.

I don't care. Nor do I care for one. But the way some people act, its as though people were clubbing baby seals and burning the whole body.

Crazed Rabbit

[Del Arroyo]

I would love to see a pickup try this! (As long as im not responsible for towing it off the trail!)

http://www.discoweb.org/rrlarrygrubbs/pb1010056.jpg

Well, I would submit that if it's not practicable to walk on, then it's not technically a trail. In rural Mexico in mountainous areas (in other words HARD CORE, there are no roads), everyone uses pickups and they work just fine. As long as you're not going over boulders, you're good with a pickup.

I suppose a more jeep-like vehicle might handle a bit better. And if you enjoy roaring over boulders for fun, then yes, a genuine Sport Utility Vehicle might be the answer.

But please, enough of the Ford Explorer crap. :dizzy2:

DA

[Skomatth]

Picture this: A pretty little butterfly collides with a coach bus. The butterfly pushes on the coach bus as it collides into it. The bus also pushes into the butterfly, admittedly quite a lot harder. Becuase the bus is xxxx X more massive the bus pushes xxxx X harder with devistating and graphic results. .

Actually the butterfly and the coach feel the same force. It's the resulting acceleration that differs.

[PanzerJaeger]

This is interesting. There are tons of SUV owners on the roads but apparently not at the .org. I seem to be the only SUV owner here.. I wonder why that is. In fact, there seems to be a palpable anger over them and their owners that is hard to understand.

Anyway, any vehicle is a killing machine with someone at the wheel who cannot operate it correctly. I would wager far more people have been killed in collisions with cars than SUVs.

[Kanamori]

Actually the butterfly and the coach feel the same force. It's the resulting acceleration that differs.

Quite right, that's what I get for using what I seemed to remember rather than using the equation to use my words correctly :embarassed:

[_Martyr_]

I would wager far more people have been killed in collisions with cars than SUVs.

http://www.metw.net/images/computerman2ur.gif

[PanzerJaeger]

As much as Id love to see you beat your brains out on your keyboard, Ive got some bad news.


About 10 percent of all car occupant deaths occur in crashes with pickups and about 4 percent occur in crashes with sport utility vehicles. Most of the people killed in cars are involved in collisions with other cars, big trucks or in single-vehicle crashes, so making light trucks safer is no panacea.

http://www.mrtraffic.com/suv.htm

And thats from an Anti-SUV site. ~:cheers:

[Strike For The South]

PJ comes through and the its the gas guzzlers by a nose ~:cheers:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I do not oppose SUV's, nor do I own one.

I once drove a pick-up, but it was 2WD (probably doesn't count by SFTS's standards).

Any larger vehicle that goes 60+mph is likely to use more fuel than a smaller vehicle does to attain that speed.

I have never viewed an SUV'er as "destroying the planet" (I am, as yet, unconvinced by the Global Warming studies), though it is clear that they are using more of a resource that is slower to replenish than most (oil is being produced all the time, but it takes a bit of time even by geologist standards).

One other theme in this thread is emerging, however, the dangers of poor driving.

Since driving badly directly threatens my inalienable right to life, I do feel that the law can address it. How about?

Proper driver training (classroom, simulators, dual-driving).

Rigorous testing (everybody every 1-3 years gets the vision test, the written "rules of the road" test, and a driving test).

Stiff penalties for tailgating, failing to signal, or ignoring traffic signals, especially for repeat offenses. Ruinous penalties for driving under the influence of any substance. Speed laws, of themselves, are pointless without the above.

Seamus

[Strike For The South]

Seamus you are right 2wd are not and for refrence this is a car with a bed

https://img93.imageshack.us/img93/3606/ford20lightning20rod20201024x7.th.jpg (https://img93.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ford20lightning20rod20201024x7.jpg)

This is a TRUCK

https://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8440/pj2521wu.th.jpg (https://img51.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pj2521wu.jpg)

[AntiochusIII]

I oppose SUV's in my suburbs. Damn those bloody arrogant bastards!

I have no problem whatsoever with those who live in the "country" and probably needs tough/large vehicles. Despite their negative environmental effects. It's just a fact of life.

But, for the hell of it, many of these SUV's drivers drives me nuts since I'm normally either a pedestrian or takes a bus around my suburb, and their loud engine noises, combined with the reckless attitude of many SUV's owners (I'm big, I'm strong, So what if people behind me couldn't see the street properly, I couldn't care less about the world and who I may kill on the road with my heavy weight - hence I buy big, big SUV's just to drive around my house) pisses me off, greatly.

What's the point of driving such large things in the city?

I like those toy cars though, they feel "nimble" and "swift." However I had no plans of buying them anytime soon.

[PanzerJaeger]

What's the point of driving such large things in the city?

Hehe, be careful with such questions. There are a lot of things people enjoy that have no meaningful point to them. ~;)

I think a lot of the anger towards SUVs is justified, but its based on the actions of people who dont own real SUVs. Most SUVs with real off-road abilities are not really that large. Land Rovers are quite reasonably sized vehicles and Jeeps are actually pretty small.

You wont see any huge Suburbans or Excursions out on the trails because its simply not capable or practicle. And I read that a majority of SUVs made today do not even have 4X4.. now that is pointless. :dizzy2:

[Papewaio]

Yes the Toyota landcruisers and other models are favoured in exploration because they are lighter and easier to maintain.

[ichi]

What I find interesting is that most so-called SUVs today have very little off-road capability. Most are designed for city use and fare poorly when used off-highway, let alone off-road.

If you drive an SUV and use it for travelling in the country, on rough roads or in tough conditions, then that's great. If you need a 4WD to be able to sit up higher than others or to be cool or otherwise compensate for something, then that's not good.

In our city the main street is called the Boulevard, and we refer to some guys trucks as Boulevard Queens.

But this is America, and if you can afford it, you get to drive whatever you want. If you don't care what others think of you, then its not a problem.

ichi :bow:

[Kongamato]

My family owned a chevy suburban for about 12 years, and I think we made it useful. We did not use it for the usual things, like trips to work or to the store. We went on yearly vacations where we would haul a full set of camping gear and our luggage into the rocky mountains. Also, every winter hockey season would come around and we would haul mine and other kids' hockey gear up to northern lower Michigan to places like Big Rapids, Cadillac, and Traverse City. Some of those roads can get hours of lake effect snow during the day, and on days like that you don't want to be caught in the wrong vehicle.

I'm not asking for a medal, I'm just looking to paint some shades of grey.

On the other side, a few months ago I was alongside an F-150 at a stoplight, and I accelerated fairly quickly at green, going almost 45 in a 35 zone... and this guy would not let me go. He ended up passing me near the next light, and I glanced at his truck and he was looking right at me. Gotta be ego there, or perhaps I blocked him from the turn lane. There's also this guy I sometimes see on the Monday commute who feels the need to drive his suburban like a race car, passing everyone he possibly can.

EDIT: I'll make my own thread.

[Productivity]

I would wager far more people have been killed in collisions with cars than SUVs.

In absolute numbers, almost certainly.

Per vehicle, I doubt it.

[Bartix]

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050802_masculinity.html

PJ may be compensating for some thing? ~D
Perhaps he is thinking some how he is not all man? ~;)

[drone]

I don't see anything wrong with a SUV if you need it (country use/heavy snow area), but it's the suburban assualt vehicle that I despise. If you intend to climb rock trails (nice pic PJ) or haul firewood and lumber, that's fine, if you use it to transport yourself and 100 cubic feet of air 15 miles to and from work everyday, that's just wasteful. They are difficult to see around, I'm pretty sure if I die in a car crash, my last vision is going to be the rear differential of the SUV in front of me. This is also probably one of the main reasons car people hate them.

SUVs are exempt from many of the safety and emission standards, since they are lumped into the "light truck" category meant for farm vehicles. They do not have to have crumple zones, so the SUV body does not absorb as much of the force in a collision. The impact areas are higher than the normal vehicle standard, so they are more lethal to the occupants of cars. The "real" SUVs are built on frames, not unibody construction, the solid frame will punch through lighter cars with ease (and the cabin of the SUV has a good chance of separating from the frame in a crash, bad news for the SUV occupants). The height of an SUV is not compatible with the guardrails on roads, hitting a guardrail sideways in an SUV has much greater odds of flipping the vehicle. All of the safety regulations applied cars over the years are aimed at car-on-car or car-on-pedestrian (peds hit by SUVs are SOL, car hoods are made to soften the blow), SUVs are exempt from these. Even little things like window tinting and brush guards for lights would be illegal for cars. Now that they are a larger percentage of the fleet (and are being used solely for normal, everyday driving), they need to be regulated to conform to normal car safety.

Detroit made a killing over the past decade with SUVs. They had huge profit margins per vehicle and they sold like hotcakes. If the price of gas continues to go up, Ford and GM are in serious trouble (more so than now). The employee-pricing deal they have going on now can not last forever. Name a popular American-made car (not SUV/truck). If Americans decide to conserve fuel, they are screwed.

[ah_dut]

What I find interesting is that most so-called SUVs today have very little off-road capability. Most are designed for city use and fare poorly when used off-highway, let alone off-road.

If you drive an SUV and use it for travelling in the country, on rough roads or in tough conditions, then that's great. If you need a 4WD to be able to sit up higher than others or to be cool or otherwise compensate for something, then that's not good.

In our city the main street is called the Boulevard, and we refer to some guys trucks as Boulevard Queens.

But this is America, and if you can afford it, you get to drive whatever you want. If you don't care what others think of you, then its not a problem.

ichi :bow:
As usual, dead on target Ichi. Get one if you actually need the utility...if the utility is to look cool and drive little johnny 100m down the road, I'll carry you can Johnny ~;) ~D

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So far, the American consumer has gone on a "must conserve fuel" binge only once from 1974-1981 or so.

That timeframe did, indeed, see the advent of the Japanese car in America as Honda and Toyota econoboxes proved they could out-compete the wondrous Vega, the Gremlin, and the much-storied Pacer. American small cars were dreck, and we mostly bought foreign stuff.

Other than that, Americans have generally preferred cars that were more powerful, and have always been partial to vehicles (station wagon, SUV, pickups) that could also haul a good deal of gear/people for their size.

Since this last impinges on cultural issues as well as purely automotive or economic ones, my prediction would be that the larger vehicle may wane for a decade or so -- but don't bet on it being down for the count.

Yes, many Americans do draw a sense of identity from their cars -- never been oriented that way or I'd have held out for a proper Truck (SFTS's def) -- so, for better or worse, "I'm small, but efficient -- please don't bump into me" probably will never be an ideal appeal for the American consumer.

Note: As with many citizens of the USA, I tend to use "American" when I am referring to my fellow citizens. Those of you who also share residence on an American continent should not take offense, none is intended.

Seamus

[_Martyr_]

As much as Id love to see you beat your brains out on your keyboard, Ive got some bad news.



http://www.mrtraffic.com/suv.htm

And thats from an Anti-SUV site. ~:cheers:

Damn... PJ, you just dont get it do you? Of course more people have been killed by cars than SUVs... BECAUSE THERE ARE A HELL OF A LOT MORE CARS! It doesnt exactly take a genious to work out the logic there. Posting the graphic as I did was an illustration not of my cringing of you being incorrect on a matter, but more of you so wholeheartedly missing the point, altogether!

I sometimes wonder do you even bother reading these supposed "rebuttals" you post? Lets look at an extract of the first paragraph:

"A newly released study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows that when a car is hit by a light truck or SUV, the car is the loser... The study shows that passengers in cars are four times more likely to die than those in pickup or sports utility vehicles."

Further down:

"The UMTRI study shows that when an SUV strikes a passenger car in a frontal crash, there are five fatalities in the car for each fatality in the sport utility vehicle; and when an SUV strikes a passenger car on the side, there are 30 fatalities in the car for each fatality in the SUV."

Doesnt that answer any question you have about why people arent too fond of soccer moms driving Canyoneros? And thats only looking at one of many negative sides.

:charge:

[Mikeus Caesar]

I have a great dislike of SUV's. They're loud and nasty, but if the idiots who drive them don't mind spending $100 everytime they fill up or flipping over when going around tight bends, then that's fine with me. The sooner they go bankrupt or die, the better.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"The UMTRI study shows that when an SUV strikes a passenger car in a frontal crash, there are five fatalities in the car for each fatality in the sport utility vehicle; and when an SUV strikes a passenger car on the side, there are 30 fatalities in the car for each fatality in the SUV."

Doesnt that answer any question you have about why people arent too fond of soccer moms driving Canyoneros? And thats only looking at one of many negative sides.

:charge:

Does this not argue, however, that allowing my spouse to drive anything BUT an SUV is immoral as I am placing her and my children at greater risk?

(Though actually, I'm the one taking the child to Tae Kwon Do ~:) , but you get my point).

Seamus

[_Martyr_]

Does this not argue, however, that allowing my spouse to drive anything BUT an SUV is immoral as I am placing her and my children at greater risk?

(Though actually, I'm the one taking the child to Tae Kwon Do , but you get my point).

Seamus

No. It argues that by increasing the number of these behemoths on the roads, you increase the number of children dying. Period. Driving an SUV means that the person you hit is more likely to die. Try arguing that with the mother of the dead toddler you plowed into in your SUV and see how far you get.

[PanzerJaeger]

By Bartix
PJ may be compensating for some thing?
Perhaps he is thinking some how he is not all man?

You've found me out! I can only imagine Strike For the South's shame.. .look at how big a truck he wants. ~:eek:

By Martyr
Posting the graphic as I did was an illustration not of my cringing of you being incorrect on a matter, but more of you so wholeheartedly missing the point, altogether!

What is the point exactly? You dont like a particular type of vehicle because it does better in crash tests? Why dont you call cars death traps because they apparently cant hold up? Would you rather people in both cars die?

As my link said, only 4% of all auto related deaths are due to SUVs in the US and I doubt its much different in Europe..

And shouldnt the anger be directed towards poor driving, not the vehicle? If someone cannot drive well, it doesnt matter what sort of vehicle they have.

By Mikeus
I have a great dislike of SUV's. They're loud and nasty, but if the idiots who drive them don't mind spending $100 everytime they fill up or flipping over when going around tight bends, then that's fine with me. The sooner they go bankrupt or die, the better.

You're turning green. ~D

[Ronin]

What is the point exactly? You dont like a particular type of vehicle because it does better in crash tests? Why dont you call cars death traps because they apparently cant hold up? Would you rather people in both cars die?

As my link said, only 4% of all auto related deaths are due to SUVs in the US and I doubt its much different in Europe..



I have no problem with a vehicle that does good on crash tests....

I do have a problem with a class of vehicles that does good on crash tests at the expense of the drivers of the others cars.......a car is suposed to make itself safer by reducing the damage potencial....not by passing the bill to someone else.

[drone]

What is the point exactly? You dont like a particular type of vehicle because it does better in crash tests? Why dont you call cars death traps because they apparently cant hold up? Would you rather people in both cars die?
I think his point is that for years, all of the automobile safety regs have been put in place to prevent deaths in car-on-car crashes. In the past 10 years, the influx of SUVs (essentially unregulated, exempt from these safety regs) into the fleet is bypassing the gains made. The popularity of SUVs was not foreseen, and the safety regs have not caught up (mainly due to pressure from GM/Ford/Chrysler). Small econoboxes ARE deathtraps, even in car-on-car collisions. A Civic is not going to fare well against a Ford Taurus, but at least the bumpers will be at the right height and some of the force absorbed.

One question all SUV owners should be asking themselves: once everybody is driving an SUV, will I be as safe? It has essentially been an arms race. Want to be able to see over the cars in front of you? Good luck, when all of those cars are Explorers and Yukons. Back to square one. Having a majority of 3+ ton vehicles on the road is not a recipe for safety, considering the handling and braking characteristics of SUVs. The mindset of "the other guy will die, not me" will no longer apply.

[_Martyr_]

What is the point exactly? You dont like a particular type of vehicle because it does better in crash tests?


I have a distinct urge to repost that graphic...

PJ, seriously, are you pretending to be stupid? Doing well in a crash test does not consist of causing as much damage and killing as many people in the other car as possible. That is what is called doing well in a game of destruction derby... Safe cars have crumple zones, airbags, ABS, smart traction controll, roll cages - smart technological features designed to reduce damage (or to avoid it in the first place) due to kinetic energy (or to be more correct momentum) in an impact situation. Simply having a much greater mass and a much higher profile is not a safety feature, its a murderous one, an irresponsible one and a selfish one. It shows an absolute disregard for the safety of other road users. Instead of a relatively mild accident between two cars at 60 kmph, you will have fatalities between an SUV and a car. A pedestrian still has a pretty good chance if hit by an average car at relatively low speed. Hit by an SUV? Not a hope.


Why dont you call cars death traps because they apparently cant hold up? Your logic is priceless PJ. OK, so if the latest fad becomes Monster Truck or Freight Train Driving, and all the yuppis and soccer moms start driving them, then you in your SUV will be put in grave danger due this this latest ridiculous, vain, selfish fad... but it is your fault for not upgrading your now whimpish SUV into a battleship on wheels. And dont even mention those wierdo car drivers, theyre just crazy! Are you suggesting some sort of arms race in the bullishness of ones mode of transport?


Would you rather people in both cars die?
No, I would rather that no one dies, and that is much more likely to be the case if niether of the vehicles are SUVs.

[PanzerJaeger]

You are basing your entire response on the assumption that SUV crashes are inevitable. You are completely ignoring personal driver responsibility, which is what I would expect from a pinko. ~;)

Any vehicle can become a weapon if a person cannot drive it correctly.

Ive driven a SUV for all of my driving years and as it happens Ive been in two wrecks, both caused by Volvo drivers.(whatever that means) Is the problem the Volvos or the drivers?

There will always be cars that are better and worse in crashes. Id wager being hit by a Rolls is a lot more deadly than being hit by a asian economy car. Does that mean we should all be driving little tin cans?

The cars are not the problem. The drivers are. Again, its called personal responsibility.

[_Martyr_]

What utter tosh!

All drivers make mistakes sometimes, it is an inevitability to do with the human error, not with what type of bloody car someone is driving. You want Personal Resposibility? Ill give it to you. Anyone who actually has this trait, not just someone who spouts on about it at any available oppertunity, wouldnt need to be told that the responsible thing to do is to drive a sensible car that will not needlessly put the lives of other road users in any more danger than they have to be when things go wrong!

[drone]

There will always be cars that are better and worse in crashes. Id wager being hit by a Rolls is a lot more deadly than being hit by a asian economy car. Does that mean we should all be driving little tin cans?

The cars are not the problem. The drivers are. Again, its called personal responsibility.The cars (combined with SUVs) are the problem. SUV crashes are inevitable, they happen all the time (same with normal cars). Accidents WILL happen, regardless of how careful people are. Cars have been designed to accomodate crashes with other cars. Much research has been done to test the effects of frontal, rear, and side impacts, but this research was done with other cars in mind. Safety regulations (bumper height, crumple zones, side-impact bars) were all put in place for car-on-car collisions. The heavier mass and higher strike zone is lethal to the occupants in the cars, and until the regulations are modified, SUVs will continue to kill car occupants. The point is, SUVs and light trucks were not meant to be popular, normal street-driving vehicles. They are new to this role, and the safety provisions are not in place.

As far as personal responsibility, I can be perfectly responsible in my car, but that is not going to help me if some yahoo in a Expedition rams me because HE isn't paying attention. If said yahoo is in a BMW 330, I have a better chance of survival. How does personal responsibility help me there? Or am I personally irresponsible for not driving a tank?

As a fun side note, some SUVs are technically illegal in LA. Because of their heavy weight, they are supposed to be banned from side streets and residential areas, but of course this is not enforced.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104755/

For a good perspective on the perverse way SUVs have evolved (and how the government and auto companies have milked the craze), I suggest that you read High and Mighty, by Keith Bradsher. Interesting history on the SUV (Suburbans were the first "SUV", originally used as hearses ~D ), but probably a tad too left for you.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586482033/qid=1126565579/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-6142963-6814335?v=glance&s=books

I won't comment about Volvo drivers, I've had my share of bad experiences with them, so I know what you mean. ~;)

[ichi]

Oh, I almost forgot. The Simpsons dealt with this issue

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/742/scenes/canyonero-800.jpg


Song: Canyonero Lyrics

Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
[Krusty:] Hey Hey

The Federal Highway comission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)

Drive Canyonero!

Woah Canyonero!

Woah!

[ICantSpellDawg]

If your into off-roading, live in Montana and your neighbor is 10 miles away, or if you work in the woods regularly, sure you need it. But its those damn suburbanite soccer moms who think roughing it is the lake cabin that gets two channels, that's just dumb.


i personally thin kthat it is stupid - but my family has a suburban

my father's reasoning is that if he feels like spending the money on gas in order to ensure that his family is in a tank in case of an accident, it is his perrogative.

i believe that laws regulating companies production of high emulsion tank-vehicles should exist, but that people should be free to decide their own priorities when it doesnt break any laws

whether or not laws should be altered or not is not what i am arguing

[Kaiser of Arabia]

We havent kicked this around in a while. What do you guys think of SUVs and the people who own them?

I got into an altercation at the gas station just yesterday with some woman over my own SUV.

I guessed early on that she was not of my political persuasion do to her appearance, or lack of any attempt to correct it. (Like a spawn of jeane garofalo.) The "Bush Lied, People Died" sticker on the back of her 198? POS only confirmed it.

What I didnt expect was for her to walk right over to me at the pump and tell me that I was destroying the planet. The only other place Ive been confronted in such an overt political manner was the college campus.

From there it devolved into a rather pathetic scene, her telling me what a bad person I was and me telling her what an ugly person she was.. I was a little disapointed in my performance, but by the way she laid out her talking points it was obvious she was a seasoned veteran of the unwilling gas station confrontation.

Finally, she pulled out a flyer and told me something to the effect that "if I could handle the truth, I should read it". Well that was it! She was an activist! She had apparently been doing this all day to SUV owners. My tank had long since been full so I told her to take a shower and left.

In any event, this lead me to believe that there is still a lot of hostility over SUVs. I thought it had sort of died down a little, but apparently SUVs are still a major target of the left wing activists.


I'd ask her why 2000 casualties in a war to protect america was unjustified but 400,000 sorting out Europes problems was. ~:cool:

[Strike For The South]

You've found me out! I can only imagine Strike For the South's shame.. .look at how big a truck he wants. ~:eek:


Well youve found me out that is MY TRUCk (well the famlies but you know and ours has a deer guard )

so yes im over compensating same thing with guns eh please you guys need new arguements before you lose all credibility

[GoreBag]

I don't like SUV's, but then, I don't like cars at all. I don't really have a problem with people who drive them into the woods and use them, well, for the purpose for which they were created. The same thing goes for pickup trucks?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No. It argues that by increasing the number of these behemoths on the roads, you increase the number of children dying. Period. Driving an SUV means that the person you hit is more likely to die. Try arguing that with the mother of the dead toddler you plowed into in your SUV and see how far you get.

Well now, how to respond....

First, I would like to have you explain how this avoids being insulting. My post suggested that personal safety concerns may be a valid reason for purchasing an SUV for me and mine. Your response stops just short of calling me a murderer. I am not amused.

Second, having driven in Dublin as well as the USA, I am aware of the terrible standard of driving safety you are forced to endure, but I can assure you that the vast majority of US highways can handle these larger vehicles as well as those of smaller size.

Finally, before hauling out a dead baby reference and going for the cheap-shot emotional play, you might try addressing the valid point about personal safety I brought up.

Increasing the safety of my family is a paramount concern both morally and legally for me. Since my wife, who is the one interested in such a vehicle, has a superb safety record and is demonstrably unlikely to be a threat to other drivers, your weakling counter-argument seems to carry little weight.

Seamus

[Strike For The South]

I don't like SUV's, but then, I don't like cars at all. I don't really have a problem with people who drive them into the woods and use them, well, for the purpose for which they were created. The same thing goes for pickup trucks?

Pickups have so many uses you can carry kegs feed smaller vehicles people you can sleep in the bed or sleep with someone ~;) so versitale so amazing ~:cheers: sorry for hijacking ~:cheers:

[GoreBag]

Pickups have so many uses you can carry kegs feed smaller vehicles people you can sleep in the bed or sleep with someone ~;) so versitale so amazing ~:cheers: sorry for hijacking ~:cheers:

You can do all that with any other car.

[ICantSpellDawg]

in a similar arguement, it is unethical to work out and become strong, because in the event of hitting someone, you are more likely to do serious harm to them.

who would have thought that we would see socialists arguing against people having better/safer stuff than others or being responsible for themselves? God, thank you for making the world look a little more like Harrison Bergeron

[Lemur]

Increasing the safety of my family is a paramount concern both morally and legally for me. Since my wife, who is the one interested in such a vehicle, has a superb safety record and is demonstrably unlikely to be a threat to other drivers, your weakling counter-argument seems to carry little weight.
But despite your primary responsibility for your family, you might want to consider the fact that your wife will be no safer in an SUV. I did a bunch of reading on this subject, since I'm purchasing a vehicle for my wife, child and child-to be, so I'm not idly speculating here. If you want me to go find my primary resources, I'll do so.

Because of their higher center of gravity and longer braking distances, SUVs are more likely to be involved in crashes, and more likely to tip and/or roll once in accidents. An emergency evasion that might work fine in a sporty sedan will roll you into the ditch in a Ford Explorer. Also, the extra mass of the SUV (which makes a person feel so safe) has to be accounted for in the accident, and there's every possibility the bonus 2000+ pounds will affect your wife's situation adversely.

The only thing all of that extra mass does is safeguard you from smaller vehicles. So you're not really safer; you're just more dangerous to other drivers. There's a safety engineer who worked with the big three automakers on the perception of safety, as opposed to the reality, and he came up with some hilarious conclusions. There are the obvious ones, such as being up high makes people feel safe. But then there are some, such as the number of cupholders, which really surprised me. According to his research, people equate liquids with safety, since when they were babies there were lots of warm liquids within easy reach. So if you stick a bunch of easy-to-reach cupholders in a tall vehicle, people decide that the car is safe, regardless of any real-world performance.

To illustrate the mass problem, allow me to present a lovely picture of an offset-frontal crash test given to both a Mini Cooper and a Ford F150. Same exact test. It illustrates the problem of "where does all of that mass go in a crash?"

http://www.bridger.us/pictures/mini_vs_f150.jpg

Obviously, the Cooper is on the left, the F150 on the right. Note the level of intrusion into the passenger cabin. Obviously one test isn't a conclusive measure, and there are many factors to take into consideration when buying a family vehicle. But I think it is important to distinguish between the perception of safety and the reality.

[Crazed Rabbit]

But what would happen if the F-150 crashed into the Mini Cooper?

Crazed Rabbit

[Productivity]

But what would happen if the F-150 crashed into the Mini Cooper?

Crazed Rabbit

The F-150 would probably come out better - but then you're getting into game theory and the prisoners dilemma. You're going to come up with a suboptimal outcome if you work on continuously trying to transfer the danger, rather than minimuse it on an agregate level.

[Bartix]

By Bartix

You've found me out! I can only imagine Strike For the South's shame.. .look at how big a truck he wants. ~:eek:

Please be annoyed instead! You are so cute when you get angry. ~;)

[Franconicus]

The answer is easy. It is a free country and if you like them use them. (I do not but that does not matter). If they do any harm to anybody or damage to all (like green house effect) the government can ban them or raise the tax for fuel. It is as simple as that.

[Franconicus]

From there it devolved into a rather pathetic scene, her telling me what a bad person I was
At last ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

The F-150 would probably come out better - but then you're getting into game theory and the prisoners dilemma. You're going to come up with a suboptimal outcome if you work on continuously trying to transfer the danger, rather than minimuse it on an agregate level.


cmon

this is absurd. you can make a solid statement. if an f-150 crashed into a mini cooper it would PROBABLY come out better? chances are, depending on speed, your f-150 would probably need a new fender and an orthodontist to pick the teeth and jaw peices of the mini driver out of your air conditioner

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But despite your primary responsibility for your family, you might want to consider the fact that your wife will be no safer in an SUV. I did a bunch of reading on this subject, since I'm purchasing a vehicle for my wife, child and child-to be, so I'm not idly speculating here. If you want me to go find my primary resources, I'll do so.

Because of their higher center of gravity and longer braking distances, SUVs are more likely to be involved in crashes, and more likely to tip and/or roll once in accidents. An emergency evasion that might work fine in a sporty sedan will roll you into the ditch in a Ford Explorer. Also, the extra mass of the SUV (which makes a person feel so safe) has to be accounted for in the accident, and there's every possibility the bonus 2000+ pounds will affect your wife's situation adversely.

The only thing all of that extra mass does is safeguard you from smaller vehicles. So you're not really safer; you're just more dangerous to other drivers. There's a safety engineer who worked with the big three automakers on the perception of safety, as opposed to the reality, and he came up with some hilarious conclusions. There are the obvious ones, such as being up high makes people feel safe. But then there are some, such as the number of cupholders, which really surprised me. According to his research, people equate liquids with safety, since when they were babies there were lots of warm liquids within easy reach. So if you stick a bunch of easy-to-reach cupholders in a tall vehicle, people decide that the car is safe, regardless of any real-world performance.

Interesting points, and worthy of consideration. As my original post noted, the rollover issue was and is a weak point for similar high c of g vehicles. Some good things here.

Moreover, thank you for addressing the issue intelligently, I despair of Martyr.

Seamus

[_Martyr_]

Well now, how to respond....

First, I would like to have you explain how this avoids being insulting. My post suggested that personal safety concerns may be a valid reason for purchasing an SUV for me and mine. Your response stops just short of calling me a murderer. I am not amused.

No insult intended at all my friend, I am sorry that you picked it up like that. Let me assure you that I did not intend with my hyperbole to accuse you of murdering children or anything of the sort. Im a little surprised you have reacted so strongly to it. It certainly wasnt meant the way you have seemingly picked it up. Perhaps you did not pick up the intended flippant tongue-in-cheek tone that was implied?



Second, having driven in Dublin as well as the USA, I am aware of the terrible standard of driving safety you are forced to endure

What... Seatbelts? Not allowing people to jabber away on mobile phones while driving? Cant think of what other implied awful tyrany you speak of? Please enlighten me.


Anyway to address the topic at hand... again. Increasing the mass of a vehicle and the hight of the profile of that said vehicle will increase the available momentum and energy to do damage if the vehicle is involved in a crash. A car crash is a perfect example of an inelastic collision, where some of the total kinetic energy of the system before the collsion is lost afterward due to energy being spent in breaking up the cars and all the nasty destruction that takes place. Depending on the circumstances, that extra energy will either be absorbed by the vehicle itself (and its inhabitants) or whatever other unfortunate object happens to be involved in this collision (normally a combination of both).

By increasing the mass of the vehicle you drive, you are essentially increasing the stakes for all road users including the inhabitants of your vehicle. The materials used to build the cars and SUVs are the same, so with increasing energies (from being more massive) these materials are more likely to fail when impacted in ways that will cause injury and death. More mass involved means more energy is available. More energy available means more destruction will occur. More energetic destruction means more loss of life. Therefore there is a direct link between needlessly increasing the mass of road vehicles and the amount of road fatalities.

That extra mass will increase braking and acceleration times, which very often allow drivers to avoid collisions in the first place. Road medians are designed to prevent a vehicle with the profile and weight distribution of a car from crossing a divide or plunging into a ditch. An SUV will simply tip over as if tripped up and roll into oncoming lanes of traffic, killing and injuring god knows how many, where a normal car would probably just smash up the front of the bumper and collapse the crumple zone and the median, with noe serious injuries.

For the last 100 years or so, car design engineers have been trying to figure out how to minimise the damage in an accident. In the begining, they attempted to make the cars as rigid and strong as possible. Needless to say, the result was absolute carnage. Sure, the cosmetic damage to the cars was minimal, unless the crash was REALLY severe, but the drivers and passengers of the cars were absolutely smashed to pieces. A new departure in car design was the realisation that the car should absorb the impact of the collision, thus reducing the impact on the humans. Crumple zones, dummies and crash tests were developed. The idea being that the car should be a right-off, but the people alive. Just look at the technology behind it, its pretty impressive how safe certain designs have become.

Now also consider that the SUV design is a complete abandoning of all this evolution in the last 50 years and of the lessons learnt in the years before that. The regulations concerning the area are sidesteped because SUVs werent meant to be used as they are. What was meant to be a niche market for the rural farmer has now mushroomed into a suburban nightmare. All these under designed, over sized SUVs are absolute madness. As in most design cases, there is a sweet spot that is achieved in the size/material/hi-tec design/cost tradeoff in car. The SUV design is very far from this position. Being uneconomical, low-tech and unsafe all at the same time. The more SUVs on the road, the more dangerous the road becomes.

As for your, or your wife's driving, I have absolutely no reason to think that either of you are anything but the best drivers. But unfortunately that does not garuntee anything. Fatal accidents happen to the worlds best drivers, whether it is their own error or as a result of unforseen and uncontrolable circumstances, they will still happen, regardless of how good of a driver one is. Prepare for the worst by buying a good quality medium sized car that has the highest scores in safety tests and all the latest safety technology. That is the best thing you can do to insure the safety of you and yours.

[Lemur]

if an f-150 crashed into a mini cooper it would PROBABLY come out better? chances are, depending on speed, your f-150 would probably need a new fender and an orthodontist to pick the teeth and jaw peices of the mini driver out of your air conditioner
Wow, Tuff, thanks for the image. Have you ever talked to a Highway Patrolman? Do you have any idea of the variables involved in crashes? Are you even aware that the majority of accidents are one-car crashes?

I know, big truck makes you happy. Nobody's arguing with that. But you're falling into exactly the fallacy I was talking about in my earlier post. You seem to think that a big, massive, high center of gravity vehicle is always safer, simply because it would do better in a head-on with a smaller vehicle.

Fine, if you ram a 7000 lb vehicle into a 2000 lb vehicle, head-on, the heavier vehicle will have more mass, and therefore do more damage to the smaller vehicle. In that particular scenario, bigger is better. Heaven forfend that there are any other ways in which one might crash a truck.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow, Tuff, thanks for the image. Have you ever talked to a Highway Patrolman? Do you have any idea of the variables involved in crashes? Are you even aware that the majority of accidents are one-car crashes?

I know, big truck makes you happy. Nobody's arguing with that. But you're falling into exactly the fallacy I was talking about in my earlier post. You seem to think that a big, massive, high center of gravity vehicle is always safer, simply because it would do better in a head-on with a smaller vehicle.

Fine, if you ram a 7000 lb vehicle into a 2000 lb vehicle, head-on, the heavier vehicle will have more mass, and therefore do more damage to the smaller vehicle. In that particular scenario, bigger is better. Heaven forfend that there are any other ways in which one might crash a truck.


I get it, but when it comes to fatal car crashes - does anyone know whether it is single car crashes or an accident with other vehicles that claims more lives? I would assume that more people crash into inanimate objects, but i believe the accidents that claim the most lives are head on or side crashes. In the most dangerous kinds of accidents (the ones that we are thinking of protecting ourselves from) a bigger car is better FOR THE MOST PART. Also, you are claiming that most accidents are single car crashes, doesnt this detract from your arguement that big cars are indescriminatly killing people in small cars (if my point about the most dangerous crashes is incorrect)? In addition, if you are claiming that cars fare much more poorly agaisnt trucks in crashes, wouldnt it make more sense for a father to buy his family a truck for protection?

i do see where you are coming from, but in fatal accidents i believe that trucks are a better bet for survival.

[yesdachi]

I love SUV’s.

I don’t have one, nor do I need one but when I ride in one with friends/family I love the “luxury” I love how roomy they are, how high up you sit, the ability to hit a pot hole and not loose your exhaust, the additional safety to me, I just feel safer in one. I have been in accidents before as a passenger and driver and in the instance of me being a passenger my mom was driving my bro and me to school in a small eco safe car and were hit by a station wagon. He walked away and it took the Jaws of Life to get my mom out. Had we been in an SUV my mom wouldn’t still have trouble with her legs and the a-hole who hit us could have been the one hurt. Anyone that cries that SUV’s are killers is a hypocrite unless they drive a pillow that runs on angel farts.

I call them “luxury” because that’s what they are and if you can afford them and don’t break the law go for it. We are creatures of excess (I considered inserting a list of materialistic crap we spoil ourselves and our environment with but I don’t think I need to, to make my point) and “luxury” and SUV’s are just another excess we indulge in. Some people just don’t like them and that’s fine but don’t try and justify it by saying they “kill” unless you are 100% “kill” free yourself. (Now if you don’t like the person driving then that is a different story.)

Your sin is worse than mine doesn’t cut it IMO.


Side note: I applaud the stinky girl for being passionate and helping her cause but what frustrates me is that she obviously looked like crap and was hostile and confrontational rather than being presentable and friendly. She could have easily given PJ the flyer and told him the benefits of a world w/o the SUV. If you are out in public trying to sell people on your cause remember that you are a representative of that cause and try and not make your cause appear trivial by looking/acting like a freak.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No insult intended at all my friend, I am sorry that you picked it up like that. Let me assure you that I did not intend with my hyperbole to accuse you of murdering children or anything of the sort. Im a little surprised you have reacted so strongly to it. It certainly wasnt meant the way you have seemingly picked it up. Perhaps you did not pick up the intended flippant tongue-in-cheek tone that was implied

Fair enough. I freely admit that I may have read it with a different "tone" than was intended. Lacking face-to-face interaction, such mis-communication is even more inevitable.


What... Seatbelts? Not allowing people to jabber away on mobile phones while driving? Cant think of what other implied awful tyrany you speak of? Please enlighten me.

No legal tyranny of any kind, nor are the measures noted above a problem. My memories of driving in Ireland (admittedly 12 years old now) include a plethora of overly narrow and poorly graded roads coupled with a bevy of motorists devoted to driving those roads at break-neck speeds. I can't concieve of a cell-phone experience being possible under such conditions, even if it were advisable in the first place.


Anyway to address the topic at hand... again. Increasing the mass of a vehicle and the hight of the profile of that said vehicle will increase the available momentum and energy to do damage if the vehicle is involved in a crash. A car crash is a perfect example of an inelastic collision, where some of the total kinetic energy of the system before the collsion is lost afterward due to energy being spent in breaking up the cars and all the nasty destruction that takes place. Depending on the circumstances, that extra energy will either be absorbed by the vehicle itself (and its inhabitants) or whatever other unfortunate object happens to be involved in this collision (normally a combination of both).

By increasing the mass of the vehicle you drive, you are essentially increasing the stakes for all road users including the inhabitants of your vehicle. The materials used to build the cars and SUVs are the same, so with increasing energies (from being more massive) these materials are more likely to fail when impacted in ways that will cause injury and death. More mass involved means more energy is available. More energy available means more destruction will occur. More energetic destruction means more loss of life. Therefore there is a direct link between needlessly increasing the mass of road vehicles and the amount of road fatalities.

That extra mass will increase braking and acceleration times, which very often allow drivers to avoid collisions in the first place. Road medians are designed to prevent a vehicle with the profile and weight distribution of a car from crossing a divide or plunging into a ditch. An SUV will simply tip over as if tripped up and roll into oncoming lanes of traffic, killing and injuring god knows how many, where a normal car would probably just smash up the front of the bumper and collapse the crumple zone and the median, with noe serious injuries.

For the last 100 years or so, car design engineers have been trying to figure out how to minimise the damage in an accident. In the begining, they attempted to make the cars as rigid and strong as possible. Needless to say, the result was absolute carnage. Sure, the cosmetic damage to the cars was minimal, unless the crash was REALLY severe, but the drivers and passengers of the cars were absolutely smashed to pieces. A new departure in car design was the realisation that the car should absorb the impact of the collision, thus reducing the impact on the humans. Crumple zones, dummies and crash tests were developed. The idea being that the car should be a right-off, but the people alive. Just look at the technology behind it, its pretty impressive how safe certain designs have become.

Now also consider that the SUV design is a complete abandoning of all this evolution in the last 50 years and of the lessons learnt in the years before that. The regulations concerning the area are sidesteped because SUVs werent meant to be used as they are. What was meant to be a niche market for the rural farmer has now mushroomed into a suburban nightmare. All these under designed, over sized SUVs are absolute madness. As in most design cases, there is a sweet spot that is achieved in the size/material/hi-tec design/cost tradeoff in car. The SUV design is very far from this position. Being uneconomical, low-tech and unsafe all at the same time. The more SUVs on the road, the more dangerous the road becomes.

I might debate your safety evaluation of this class, though as I have noted already they do have some shortcomings. Interior safety barriers on SUVs in the USA are usually just as well set up as the minivans and cars now. The higher center of gravity, of course, continues as a greater concern. Your are quite correct that the use of their "light truck" designation to evade the tougher CAFE standards for sedans was a "dodge" used by the auto makers, but the uneconomical charge isn't as well grounded. While you are correct from the perspective of engineering efficiency, the US market did not find the economics relevant given available cash flow v cost of operation, and the marketing economics worked (still work?) just fine. By the way, much better sense of your views in this post. Not sure I agree, but much more compelling.


As for your, or your wife's driving, I have absolutely no reason to think that either of you are anything but the best drivers. But unfortunately that does not garuntee anything. Fatal accidents happen to the worlds best drivers, whether it is their own error or as a result of unforseen and uncontrolable circumstances, they will still happen, regardless of how good of a driver one is. Prepare for the worst by buying a good quality medium sized car that has the highest scores in safety tests and all the latest safety technology. That is the best thing you can do to insure the safety of you and yours.

Actually, I'm no more than an average driver -- though I am much better than I was ~:) . The SUV appeal is, from a safety perspective, an issue of holding the high ground in a collision -- and while we don't own one, many people do and for just this reason. Your current post is a better counter argument.

Seamus:

Fun fact: 85% of US drivers, in self report surveys, consistently characterize themselves as above average or better drivers. :dizzy2:

[drone]

Side note: I applaud the stinky girl for being passionate and helping her cause but what frustrates me is that she obviously looked like crap and was hostile and confrontational rather than being presentable and friendly. She could have easily given PJ the flyer and told him the benefits of a world w/o the SUV. If you are out in public trying to sell people on your cause remember that you are a representative of that cause and try and not make your cause appear trivial by looking/acting like a freak.
And for her approach, PJ would have been well within his rights to point out that her "198? POS" should have been upgraded to a modern ULEV or SULEV vehicle. Those old cars have terrible emissions! ~D


I might debate your safety evaluation of this class, though as I have noted already they do have some shortcomings. Interior safety barriers on SUVs in the USA are usually just as well set up as the minivans and cars now. The higher center of gravity, of course, continues as a greater concern. Your are quite correct that the use of their "light truck" designation to evade the tougher CAFE standards for sedans was a "dodge" used by the auto makers, but the uneconomical charge isn't as well grounded. While you are correct from the perspective of engineering efficiency, the US market did not find the economics relevant given available cash flow v cost of operation, and the marketing economics worked (still work?) just fine. By the way, much better sense of your views in this post. Not sure I agree, but much more compelling.The government regs have been instrumental in creating the situation we have today. The current regs give no incentive to build smaller, effecient SUVs, as this takes time and money to develop. The bigger and heavier the vehicle the better since the reg exemptions kick in. The engineering ineffeciency is what is going to hurt US automakers in the near future. The profit margins for SUVs are high because the design is low tech (not counting the cool gadgets) compared with cars. Automakers have been forced to engineer cars to be lighter, stronger, cleaner, and more effecient, while SUV/light truck engineering has been lacking. GM/Ford/Chrysler rode huge profits in the past decade on SUVs, if the demand drops they have nothing to fall back on. The financial health of these companies currently relies on SUVs, so I'm not holding my breath for the government to clamp down on SUV safety and emissions standards (unless California get in on the action). Rising gas prices are likely to hurt SUV sales, so the US automakers will need to catch up. I guess market forces will win here, and the heads of GM and Ford have a lot of work to do.

[_Martyr_]

No legal tyranny of any kind, nor are the measures noted above a problem. My memories of driving in Ireland (admittedly 12 years old now) include a plethora of overly narrow and poorly graded roads coupled with a bevy of motorists devoted to driving those roads at break-neck speeds. I can't concieve of a cell-phone experience being possible under such conditions, even if it were advisable in the first place.

As you alluded to yourself, Ireland has undergone a dramatic transformation in the last 12 years. The so called Celtic Tiger has transformed a backwards stagnant economy into one of the most successful and richest in the world. In line with dramatic growth, the roads, and indeed all infastructure and almost everything else has improved by orders of magnitude. Many of the narrow death roads still exist (they do have charm though...) but they are fast being replaced. There are a lot of roads being built all around the place, including proper motorways eventually connecting all major urban centers. I think you would be pleasantly surprised if you were to return! ~:)



might debate your safety evaluation of this class, though as I have noted already they do have some shortcomings. Interior safety barriers on SUVs in the USA are usually just as well set up as the minivans and cars now. The higher center of gravity, of course, continues as a greater concern. Your are quite correct that the use of their "light truck" designation to evade the tougher CAFE standards for sedans was a "dodge" used by the auto makers, but the uneconomical charge isn't as well grounded. While you are correct from the perspective of engineering efficiency, the US market did not find the economics relevant given available cash flow v cost of operation, and the marketing economics worked (still work?) just fine. By the way, much better sense of your views in this post. Not sure I agree, but much more compelling.
With increasing oil prices, running an SUV for suburban school and shopping runs in what is presumably pretty heavy traffic is going to start costing a serious amount of money, even on comparitively low American petrol prices. Up till now, what you call gas has been so damn cheap for you guys that it hasnt been a real concern for most of your population. However with $70 per barrel, its going to start to bite into available cash, and the market will respond. The only reason it hasnt already is because gas was so cheap. Anyway, regardless of how the market or the public responds to it, SUVs are extremely uneconomical. They are essentially double the mass of a normal car, and I would guess that the consumption of the engines is near enough double as well.

[PanzerJaeger]

What utter tosh!

:laugh4:

Youve insulted my intelligence, implied im irresponsible, and in general just been an ass simply because you dont like what kind of vehicle I drive. Just when I start to think "this guy's not very nice" - you pull out tosh! Tosh!! I cant help but smile, its so adorable.

Anyway, you still havent answered an important question. A Rolls will most likely do a lot more damage to an economy car than the economy car will do to the Rolls.

If we take your thinking to the next logical step, all vehicles would have to have the exact same crash test ratings so no one will be more dangerous on the road than anyone else.

The focus should be on bad drivers, not vehicles that happen to do better in head on crashes. Its very much like the gun arguement. Just as guns dont kill people, vehicles dont kill people. I think you can figure out who kills people. ~;)

[Lemur]

Does anyone know whether it is single car crashes or an accident with other vehicles that claims more lives? I would assume that more people crash into inanimate objects, but i believe the accidents that claim the most lives are head on or side crashes ... i do see where you are coming from, but in fatal accidents i believe that trucks are a better bet for survival.
Here's an article which contains a 2004 breakdown of fatalities by car model (http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html), including occupant deaths and "other" deaths (i.e., people killed in other cars, bystanders, etc.). Please examine the ratings, and see if the numbers match your suppositions. Note that these figures apply to nothing but crash-related fatalities, so they apply precisely to your point.

But don't let any empirical studies dissuade you from a tall, heavy vehicle with lots of cupholders.

I'd repost the table here, but I haven't the foggiest notion of how to re-create tables in php format. Knock 5% off my geek score.

[Adrian II]

A Rolls will most likely do a lot more damage to an economy car than the economy car will do to the Rolls.My dear Panzy, the issue would be primarily one of aesthetics. One would rather be driven over by this (http://www.luzzago.com/img/servizi/big/05a_$rolls%20royce%20silver%20cloud.jpg) than by any Sports Futility Vehicle.
:toff:

[Tachikaze]

There are very few people who need an SUV. First of all, for their size, they don't hold much. A full-sized van holds a lot more passengers or cargo with the same gas mileage. Spacewise, SUVs are very inefficient. I can carry more cargo in my Mazda mini pickup that gets 30 miles per gallon (about 13km per liter, I think).

The vast majority of SUV owners never take them into situations that require four-wheel-drive or excessively high ground clearance.

People buy SUVs because they are fashionable. It's disgusting that people buy these gas pigs because of a fad. If they really wanted to "support the troops" and make the US self-sufficient in oil, they would buy fuel-efficient cars. While thousands of people are giving their lives in Iraq for the oil companies, the SUV owners are here using as much fuel as they can to make the US more fuel-dependent and more polluted in the bargain. This high demand for gasoline drives the prices up for all of us.

In addition, I'm tired of huge vehicles taking up valuable parking space, and taking ten minutes to back out of said space because they are so long and have enormous turning radiuses. The drivers also can't see around them.

In a related note, I was down at San Diego's Mission Bay last weekend. In a time of national crisis with gas supply problems, what did I see? Everywhere, people were speeding around in V8-powered boats and other gas-guzzling watercraft. They can't take a weekend off from their petrol-gorging fun even in a time of disaster! There were just as many internal combustion watercraft emitting smoke and dumping unused fuel into the water than ever.

Stop supporting the US by waving flags and singing anthems. Support the nation by being conscious of its needs. Stop entertaining yourselves like unsupervised children and start being mature, conscientious people.

[Tachikaze]

A Rolls will most likely do a lot more damage to an economy car than the economy car will do to the Rolls.
There are a lot less Rolls Royces on the road than SUVs. If there were the same number of SUVs, I wouldn't complain about them.

[_Martyr_]

Youve insulted my intelligence, implied im irresponsible, and in general just been an ass simply because you dont like what kind of vehicle I drive. Just when I start to think "this guy's not very nice" - you pull out tosh! Tosh!! I cant help but smile, its so adorable.

Hey, no skin off my nose. Adorable's a better thing to be than many others. I cant personally see whats so adorable, but then again Im not such a sophisticated SUV driving Krieger like yourself. Some of us can only ever aspire to reach those dizzy heights of supreme advancement! :charge: ~D

It is 2am here and I've to be up early in the morning for work, so unfortunately I can't address your question at this minute. I will state though that the case for a RR and for an SUV are worlds apart. Totally different vehicles in just about every way. Not a very valid comparison. I will also state that crash safety test ratings are not a rating of how much of a cars momentum can be offloaded to the other car in the crash, but how well that said car can protect its inhabitants by absorbing the impact of the collision.

Here Lemur, when in doubt, just stick to the basics! ~D

http://www.metw.net/images/table.JPG

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here's an article which contains a 2004 breakdown of fatalities by car model (http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html), including occupant deaths and "other" deaths (i.e., people killed in other cars, bystanders, etc.). Please examine the ratings, and see if the numbers match your suppositions. Note that these figures apply to nothing but crash-related fatalities, so they apply precisely to your point.

But don't let any empirical studies dissuade you from a tall, heavy vehicle with lots of cupholders.

I'd repost the table here, but I haven't the foggiest notion of how to re-create tables in php format. Knock 5% off my geek score.

alright. I drive a mid-size
but i still believe that competent drivers who do not speed (to excess) like my mother are much safer in SUV's. I agree that impact is worse with more weight, but i do not agree that mid-sized cars are safer for families with competent and responsible driverss. Better against hitting things by accident? you bet. Better against getting hit by an irresponsible driver? no way.

this is what we are talking about

since you love stats - could you find me the statistics of families killed in accidedents by car type?

mothers tend to be slower and more cautious drivers - especially with children in their cars. men may also acount for a much higher percentage of SUV driver deaths because males would be more likely to speed in an SUV due to male insanity and the probability that most women who own SUV's probably haul around families while most men probably do not AND drive like fools

lets keep this debate going
there are a million ways to call those numbers into question
and a million ways to distort facts through a 5 column graph on a reporters personal website


SO if you are a guy who drives like an idiot - you are more likely to be killed driving an SUV than a mid-size (generally)? i could agree to this

i find no point in driving an SUV
but i would still buy one for my family if my wife drove responsibly

i am not discounting your arguement wholesale - just certain aspects of it - like the idea that the bigger the car you drive the more chances of losing your life you have. i believe that this is only the case if you drive irresponsibly

[Proletariat]

Subaru Legacy/Outback - Driver Deaths, 74 Other Deaths, 24

~:eek:

Well, it's been swell, everyone! Please, not too much profanity at my eulogy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Here's an article which contains a 2004 breakdown of fatalities by car model (http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html), including occupant deaths and "other" deaths (i.e., people killed in other cars, bystanders, etc.). Please examine the ratings, and see if the numbers match your suppositions. Note that these figures apply to nothing but crash-related fatalities, so they apply precisely to your point.

But don't let any empirical studies dissuade you from a tall, heavy vehicle with lots of cupholders.

I'd repost the table here, but I haven't the foggiest notion of how to re-create tables in php format. Knock 5% off my geek score.

Skeptical of a New Yorker piece given its editorial stance, but you have to give kudos to an article that actually reports facts and labels sources clearly. Seems the minivans do best, SUV's no better than average and a bit worse than that for the driver, but subcompacts are hammered. Does put the safety numbers in a new light. Good food for thought.

Seamus

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is 2am here and I've to be up early in the morning for work, so unfortunately I can't address your question at this minute.

Oh that's right, there are actually jobs in Ireland now... ~;)


Just kidding. I am well aware of the phenomenal economic growth over the last 8-10 years there. Glad to hear the road system is getting the lift it needs.

I agree about quaint, but heavens. One trip over the old Conor pass road to Dingle was enough to make me think about swearing off Guiness. Fortunately, I regained my senses.

Seamus

[Lemur]

since you love stats - could you find me the statistics of families killed in accidedents by car type?
Oh for Pete's sake -- I've already thrown more hard data down than anybody in their right mind ought to. Do your own research! Post some data!

I haven't the foggiest notion of how to find breakdown by "families killed." Sheesh.

[edit]

And this quote from the article directly challenges this whole Bigger Is Always Better canard:


In a head-on crash, an Explorer or a Suburban would crush a Jetta or a Camry. But, clearly, the drivers of Camrys and Jettas are finding a way to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans. The benefits of being nimble--of being in an automobile that's capable of staying out of trouble--are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big.

The biggest accident in my extended family had to do with a semi merging into the lane my sister-in-law was in at the time. There was nothing she could do but an emergency evasion -- there was no question of accelerating or braking out of that mess. She wound up doing a controlled slide in the grass and gravel by the side of the road, rather than getting smushed by the semi. The car didn't flip or roll, she didn't hit anything, and ultimately she was fine after a scary but controlled bout of deceleration. She was driving a VW Passat. I think that sort of evasion maneuver would have been much more difficult in a Suburban.

[GoreBag]

I agree about quaint, but heavens. One trip over the old Conor pass road to Dingle was enough to make me think about swearing off Guiness. Fortunately, I regained my senses.

What do you mean? The Guinness in North America is trash.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well, it's been swell, everyone! Please, not too much profanity at my eulogy.

Well thats it then, we'll have to all pitch in and buy Prole a safer car. We cant afford to lose her to an out of control soccer mom in an Expedition! ~:eek:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What do you mean? The Guinness in North America is trash.

Certainly of lesser quality than that available at St. James Gate -- which I relished. However, if you are a fan of Guinness, much of what is commonly marketed in the USA is seems a bit...thin. Somewhat sub-par Guiness or Pabst Blue Ribbon.....nolo contendore. Fortunately the Microbrews et. al. are providing alternatives with flavor now. Moreover, the Guinness cans with widget are actually pretty decent.

Seamus

[GoreBag]

Certainly of lesser quality than that available at St. James Gate -- which I relished. However, if you are a fan of Guinness, much of what is commonly marketed in the USA is seems a bit...thin. Somewhat sub-par Guiness or Pabst Blue Ribbon.....nolo contendore. Fortunately the Microbrews et. al. are providing alternatives with flavor now. Moreover, the Guinness cans with widget are actually pretty decent.

Seamus

Well, I do enjoy independent beer (although, technically, I believe the term "Micro-brewery" belongs to the ones run in the basements of pubs) very much. The Guinness in widget cans in Canada are still brewed by Labatt's...so... :no:

[t1master]

http://www.swit-tx.com/images/Pickup5.jpg

now that's an suv :)

though i like the red one better. ;)

http://www.swit-tx.com/images/Pickup1.jpg

[Lemur]

i am not discounting your arguement wholesale - just certain aspects of it - like the idea that the bigger the car you drive the more chances of losing your life you have.
Eh? I never suggested any such thing. My argument is that you are no safer in an SUV than in a more nimble car, not that you are less safe. To boil my position down to its barest bones:


Extra mass can help, but it can also hurt
Maneuverability, braking distance and center of gravity are just as important as size and height
People tend to gauge their safety emotionally, rather than logically

And that's it. If someone choses to drive a Lincoln Navigator rather than a Toyota Camry, safety-wise it's a wash. So you might want to find a reason besides safety to drive an SUV.

Panzer, for instance, likes to offroad. That's a pretty legit reason to have a 4x4. It would also make economic sense, if his budget allows, to have a thriftier commuter car, since there's no real reason to drive to the mall hauling all of the gear and weight associated with 4x4 capability.

I am not arguing that SUVs are bad, bad, BAD! I'm suggesting that the primary reason people give for getting them -- safety -- is bogus.

Oh, and T1Master, does it come in blue? If it doesn't come in a nice shade of blue, the sale is off.