How SUVs are the problem

[El_Machinae]

Is it right for us to tell that person they can't buy or drive one?

I'm only asking people to make an honest value judgement, and to factor in the damage that's being done. Other than raising the CAFE standards, I cannot think of a way to legislate this issue.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ El_Machinae -

I'm not saying all laws forcing morality are bad, just that some earlier posters were throwing that phrase back and forth a bit.

Despite my position I can see your point about unneeded pollution and unneeded waste. I tried hard to address those points in my first posts by saying I don't see them as unneeded as I feel the safety issue allows them all the 'need' I morally require.

I wouldn't even complain if gas taxes were raised or if a surcharge were added for fuel-inefficient vehicles(O.K. maybe I'd complain a little...).

If that happened though I would cut back as needed on other expenditures in order to still pay for my SUV. In my case at least the goal of the law, to reduce pollution and waste, would not have much success.

We all have our sacred cows I guess, and mine is my beloved SUV.

 

[El_Machinae]

I wouldn't even complain if gas taxes were raised or if a surcharge were added for fuel-inefficient vehicles

It's tough to do it properly. I have a friend who owns a painting company, and he uses a van to cart around his supplies (it's big, it's full, and he ports everything around). If the price of gasoline or vans increased, it would affect his bottom-line. He might not be able to afford his own company, or would have to raise prices (affecting all his customers). I'd feel bad for him.

I cannot afford a smart car, because I often drive around two additional people. If a surcharge was brought into effect for a four-seater, it would raise the price of the car that I make very good use of. OTOH, if a person never uses the back seat, I can see encouraging them to get a two-seater.

It's tough. I don't want to take the SUV away from the family of 5 who drive everyone around a lot. But I don't think that a person should be driving his half-ton into the middle of downtown to sit at a desk all day either. Sadly, increasing the fuel price will not convince the truck owner to not purchase a truck next time as much as it will negatively affect a whole lot of people who are making good use of the fuel at its reduced price.

I'm hoping that moral suasion will make some difference, but it's unlikely to. People respond to money and laws - not to asking them to do the right thing.

 

[luiz]

Let's face it most of the reason anyone would by an SUV is ego, it's not safety features it's I got a big expensive car, I'm the big man look at me, pretty much. Any other consideration is secondary to all but the working minority who'd need one. To be honest I fail to see the point of them, hugely expensive and if you hit anyone you'll probably live, but the poor driver and passangers you hit will probably have to be scraped out of the car with a spatula. Fine if you want the huge overheads and you don't care about polution. Otherwise not very wise at all.

SUV worship is one step away from the sort of people who are easily distracted by shiny objects IMO

What's the point of having a Ferrari or a Porsche, or even a Mercedes or a BMW?

Let's all drive small VW cars.

 

[newfangle]

Why not just ban all automobiles? And all polluting consumer products for that matter. I mean...we only have one earth. What right do we have to ruin it for our children?

I say we return to the days of horse drawn carriages and candlelight. Woops, horses produce methane and candles release CO2. Well, let's just go back to the era of caves and hunt with spears. No fire for warmth or cooking thought- too much pollution.

But then overpopulation may still be a problem. Pro-active genocide may be the answer. I mean, if we are all dead, how can we possibly pollute the earth? There. I think that's the solution.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm picking on SUVs, but I agree that all types of inefficient vehicles cause more problems for your local society than is reflected in its market price

Why not just ban all automobiles?

Because we can get excellent utility out of automobiles, clearly. The trick is to maximize the utility per unit of energy

 

[potatokiosk]

Despite my position I can see your point about unneeded pollution and unneeded waste. I tried hard to address those points in my first posts by saying I don't see them as unneeded as I feel the safety issue allows them all the 'need' I morally require.

We all have our sacred cows I guess, and mine is my beloved SUV.

As far as safety is concerned, what it you get hit by another SUV? Or a Hummer? Clearly, you need the biggest thing out there. It is to that end that I propose the conversion of Boeing 747's into automobiles for safety purposes. Sure, they're not very efficient or practical, but they are roomy.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

As far as safety is concerned, what it you get hit by another SUV? Or a Hummer? Clearly, you need the biggest thing out there. It is to that end that I propose the conversion of Boeing 747's into automobiles for safety purposes. Sure, they're not very efficient or practical, but they are roomy.

Did you read the thread?

Post #33:

If you're going to get into a wreck with a big-rig, would you rather be in a full size SUV or a tiny car?

Post #29:

The 'size war car race' spiral has a practical limit. My SUV must fit into my garage and into a standard parking space.

 

[potatokiosk]

There are people who can afford bigger garages than you. And if everyone had an SUV or a Hummer, I'm sure they would be sure to outdo you.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

SUVs are rather poorly designed vechiles. The only real advantage is having more room, and having better towing capabilities, otherwise other car classes are vastly superior. SUVs have poor gas miliage, produce more pollution, and are much more likely to be involved in accidents due the rather high center of gravity that makes them more prone to flipping.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

There are people who can afford bigger garages than you. And if everyone had an SUV or a Hummer, I'm sure they would be sure to outdo you.

Do I have to explain this? It isn't a contest, and despite having a bigger garage, parking spaces are a limiting factor as mentioned already.

Post #80:

We are comparing small, economical cars with large full-size gas-hog SUVs. A big, heavy steel box will protect you better than a small, light-weight steel box.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

SUVs are rather poorly designed vechiles. The only real advantage is having more room, and having better towing capabilities, otherwise other car classes are vastly superior. SUVs have poor gas miliage, produce more pollution, and are much more likely to be involved in accidents due the rather high center of gravity that makes them more prone to flipping.

And survivabiltiy of the occupants in case of an accident.

All your other statements are true, but to me survivabiltiy outweights all the others.

Post #14:

I always wear my seatbelt so even in a rollover I should walk away.

 

[Lotus49]

I can't wait until these EMP devices the cops in L.A. are testing out right now - make it onto the black market.

I'd be happy to spend a couple o' grand, to be "road-raged-SUV-prepared". Ha-HA! Your over-sized top-heavy POS is good for nothing now, sucka!
'Til then, a Glock must suffice... so you can take out some tires.

Unless of course, you just want to outrun them - which is easy. And the better choice, really.

Wait 'til the road starts bending... when car HANDLING comes into play... and watch them disappear from the rear-view.

Btw, I find it amusing that you actually think a large, heavy, unmaneuverable, high center of gravity vehicle is more "safe".

Sure, maybe if you're playing bumper cars with smaller vehicles of weak construction... but E=mc² my friend... and if YOU lose control in that thing... you're screwed! It'll just keep going... and going... and crashing into everything in it's path. You'll learn first hand what it means to have lots of weight, speed (therefore energy), and be subjected to what it means to be a part of all that when it goes tumbling off the road... snowballing through the trees.

Whereas, a light-weight, yet strong, well-built car would would have stopped crashing much sooner. (And, probably wouldn't be crashing in the first place, since it handles so much better.)

But, if you have virtually NO driving skill whatsoever (typical Americans...) yes, I recommend getting the SUV, tank, etc. It's your best bet for "safety".

Personally, I'd rather have speed, traction, balanced & responsive handling, acceleration, and braking power on my side as 'safety' features. But then, I one of those rare ones that actually knows how to use that stuff to my advantage - not peril.

"Catch me if you can".

-SUV's are only effective bullies, against weak underpowered cars. They prey on the weak. What does that tell you?

No class.

None.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

"Catch me if you can".

-SUV's are only effective bullies, against weak underpowered cars. They prey on the weak. What does that tell you?

No class.

None.

Reality check there , do you have any idea how many tens of millions of SUVs are on the roads? And you're going to stop them. Good luck as many police drive SUVs too due to their increased safety in a collision. They know first hand what happens to the occupants of small cars when they crash.

Breaking the law and going to prison would indeed be classy.

Once again thanks for your contribution to the conversation. Hope you enjoy your time in prison.

 

[Lotus49]

Reality check there , do you have any idea how many tens of millions of SUVs are on the roads? And you're going to stop them. Good luck as many police drive SUVs too due to their increased safety in a collision. They know first hand what happens to the occupants of small cars when they crash.

Breaking the law and going to prison would indeed be classy.

Once again thanks for your contribution to the conversation. Hope you enjoy your time in prison.

I only act silly from time to time in meaningless internet chat. On the actual road, I think you'd be a lot more impressed.

Now, until you get a vehicle with a curb weight of at least 10 tons, I can't take you seriously anymore. I mean, like they say in the gym... "go heavy - or go home!"

"Small cars" - you say? Sure, there's lots of POS's out there. That's not what I'm talking about. On the other extreme, maybe you heard about that Ferrari Enzo that lost control at over 120mph in southern California earlier this month, and crashed right into a telephone pole. Car was totally destroyed, practically in pieces (driver had more money, than skill). He walked away... with a cut lip... nothing else.

"Small(er)" (relatively speaking - to an SUV), does not necessarily mean 'weak', my friend. Some of the lightest, smallest cars in the world, are also the safest. F1 cars, for example. There's a lot more that goes into automotive safety design, than just sheer "tonnage".

But, go on thinking the way you do, I care not.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

But, go on thinking the way you do, I care not.

You care, or you wouldn't have posted. And I care, or I wouldn't be responding.

SUVs are more prone to rollovers. An SUV can tumble and roll just like the Ferrari you mentioned and the occupants can be uninjured just the same.

Many injuries from accidents come from the sudden whiplash to the occupants. Did you see how Dale Earnhardt the racecar driver died? It was from the G-force of the collision. His brain was literally crushed inside of his skull, with only very minor damage to his state-of-the-art, safety-feature laden NASCAR racer and no damage externally to his body.

When a heavy object collides with a lighter object the heavier one is more likely to continue on its path while the lighter one is suddenly displaced on a new vector. That sudden displacement causes many fatal injuries. The layman's term for this is whiplash.

I don't see how the crumple zone argument is relevant. A POS car or SUV still is dangerous, and a newer car or SUV has modern crumple zones. My SUV has dual front and dual side airbags and all the same features as any modern car would. Both are built as safely as possible, one is just bigger with more steel and more actual space distance between the outside of the vehicle and the seats. More space equals more crumple zone to crush before entering into the passenger compartment.

Attack my SUV as wasteful or impractical if you like, but to attack it as being less safe than a tiny little economy car is just silly.

I also suspect my SUV is more economical than the Ferrari Enzo you mentioned. If you don't like mine then you shouldn't like that one either.

Now, until you get a vehicle with a curb weight of at least 10 tons, I can't take you seriously anymore. I mean, like they say in the gym... "go heavy - or go home!"

Post #29:

The 'size war car race' spiral has a practical limit. My SUV must fit into my garage and into a standard parking space.

If you don't like SUVs what practical solution would you suggest instead.

 

[Lotus49]

It is tempting to get an armored car. And by that, I mean a military-AFV (armored fighting vehicle). You probably know what the Stryker is... but that's overkill. I was on an Army base one time, parked at a red light, and this armored car pulled up right next to me. It wasn't a Stryker... for sure. It had 4 wheels. Looked bad-@ss. I had no idea what it was, but I wanted one. I thought I could ask around and find out what it was - but alas, no one knew what I was talking about. I'm an aviator - don't ask me what it was.

If I could go back, I would have rolled down the window and asked. Possibly, it was some foreign thing the Army was using, that they don't have very many of (thus explaining why I haven't seen it since).

But anyway, point being - sure you could go that route.... but REALLY... what fun is that?? Come now, you know it's more fun to drive something sporty, not... tanky.

There's the kind of guy that wants to go to a monster truck show, and the kind of guy that wants to go to an open-wheel car race. I am amongst the latter. Thus, I just wouldn't be happy driving some behemoth.

I've had so many "moments" (aka close calls) in my car it's hard to remember them all. But every time, I get through, because I'm alert, ballsy, and have what they call good 'car control'.

So, I guess I'll "take my chances". Though really, like I said, if you keep your eyes open, and learn how to really 'handle' your car (yet know it's limits), you can see these things coming, and avoid them.

But, I've been in a wreck before, in a 1980 'Vette (fiberglass), I was the passenger, and the car had a head-on w/ an old solid-steel Ford pickup from the early 60s.

I thought it was fun. Scary, yeah, but still - it all depends on how you react to it. If you know how to react to a crash, that's half the battle. It takes a pretty huge crash to really get hurt. And as long as you're looking out for all the other idiots, it's no problem. No need to live "large" - just for the sake of everyone else.

All I need is a wheel, and some pedals, and I can prevent us from crashing. Regardless of what you do. Thus, I don't need a tank/SUV. In fact, maneuverabiilty, acceleration, cornering, etc. is preferrable in accomplishing this.

I am done babbling now. Seriously.

 

[Phlegmak]

Mainly because I feel safe. I sit up high with a commanding view and know that if I do get into an accident I will be much, much more likely to be uninjured. Have you ever seen what happens when a full size vehicle crashes with a tiny little car? I really don't want to die or have my legs amputated or my body crushed in some hideous way all because I wanted to save a few gallons of gas or not contribute to global warming. I always wear my seatbelt so even in a rollover I should walk away. Whenever I ride in a tiny car I always feel exposed and at risk. Death by auto accident is a very popular way to die and I'd prefer not to be such a statistic.

That bothers me a lot. You're basically saying that your increased safety comes at the expense of other drivers. Also, your commanding view comes at the expense of the vision of other drivers. Your SUV blocks my vision. And I have had situations where that lack of ability to see beyond your car really hurts my ability to drive safely.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

That bothers me a lot. You're basically saying that your increased safety comes at the expense of other drivers. Also, your commanding view comes at the expense of the vision of other drivers. Your SUV blocks my vision. And I have had situations where that lack of ability to see beyond your car really hurts my ability to drive safely.

That's a negative spin, but basically correct. I'm driving a legal vehicle. You are free to drive whatever you choose as well. My increased safety only comes at your expense if you allow it to, as you can buy my model of SUV too (or even drive something larger).

I don't claim to be right, I just mentioned my point of view. The world is not a fair place and I will not compromise my safety unless I am forced to do so.

 

[Phlegmak]

That's a negative spin, but basically correct. I'm driving a legal vehicle. You are free to drive whatever you choose as well. My increased safety only comes at your expense if you allow it to, as you can buy my model of SUV too (or even drive something larger).

I don't claim to be right, I just mentioned my point of view. The world is not a fair place and I will not compromise my safety unless I am forced to do so.

I find this hard to type, but it's true. First of all, I'm not going to argue with you about your SUV. If you want your SUV, that's fine. However, your post really makes me think, "how American of you." Ug, there, I said it. Maybe it would be more accurate if I said, "how Republican of you." You're saying that the fact that it's legal for you to do something is more important to you than the morality of it.