Sport Utility Vehicles - Your Opinion

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

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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:

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

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

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

[IMG]https://img93.imageshack.us/img93/36...01024x7.th.jpg[/IMG]

This is a TRUCK

[IMG]https://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8440/pj2521wu.th.jpg[/IMG]

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.

Quote:

---

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:

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

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiol...sculinity.html

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

"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

Quote:

---

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.