Sport Utility Vehicles - Your Opinion

By Bartix

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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...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. ~;)

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

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/742/scen...yonero-800.jpg

Quote:

---

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!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

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

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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. ~;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

From there it devolved into a rather pathetic scene, her telling me what a bad person I was

---

At last ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dgb

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.