View Full Version : SUV Hatred...Why?
Dagenais
May22-04, 01:05 AM
I don't get why almost everyone dislikes Sport Utility Vehicles so much.
It's always the same reason - usually misinformed.
The most common is that they are bad for the environment and that the gas mileage is horrible. 2 Hybrid SUVs are about to become available to consumers, one this summer and the other in January, so the gas problem is being solved. Right now, the compact SUVs like CR-V, Forester and RAV4 gas mileage isn't bad at all. Plus, a lot of environmentalists drive SUVs. At least park rangers have (for years), and so have zoologists and wildlife technicians. They don't seem to have a problem with them. Diesel sedans do harm to the environment too, but people use them because of great gas mileage. Kind of the double standard, considering they don't complain when they benefit.
The next reason is usually safety. I agree, SUVs are dangerous - to the driver of the other car getting hit. According to the IIHS, Sport Utility Vehicles fare better in collisions than sedans, statistically there less deaths in a SUV. An SUV is also perfectly safe to drive, despite the "roll-over theory". 77% of deaths in roll-overs are because the driver didn't have his safety belt on and suffered head/neck injuries or was ejected. Over 85% of injuries were caused by drivers that didn't have seat-belts on. So SUVs are safe in collisions and daily driving if you take the steps to strap up. Most Sports Utility Vehicles have side-curtain airbags available too.
These statistics come from GM and IIHS.
So...why does everyone complain about sports utility vehicles? When the Ford Escape Hybrid or Toyota Highlander Hybrid become available, no other car will have the cargo room, passenger capacity, off-road capability and safety equal to one of those hybrids...with the environmental and gas mileage problems eliminated.
Just wondering why so many people dislike SUVs...
:confused:
Dissident Dan
May22-04, 01:21 AM
The most common is that they are bad for the environment and that the gas mileage is horrible. 2 Hybrid SUVs are about to become available to consumers, one this summer and the other in January, so the gas problem is being solved. Right now, the compact SUVs like CR-V, Forester and RAV4 gas mileage isn't bad at all. Plus, a lot of environmentalists drive SUVs. At least park rangers have (for years), and so have zoologists and wildlife technicians. They don't seem to have a problem with them.
A CR-V is completely different form a Ford Excursion. Park Rangers have valid reasons to drive them. Starbucks sippers don't. A lot of the reasons for disliking SUVs also apply to large pick-up trucks.
The next reason is usually safety. I agree, SUVs are dangerous - to the driver of the other car getting hit. According to the IIHS, Sport Utility Vehicles fare better in collisions than sedans, statistically there less deaths in a SUV.
You could say the same of a tank. I'm glad to hear that you aren't concerned for anyone else's safety. The vehicles also are slower to stop, so you are more likely to hit another car or a pedestrian.
An SUV is also perfectly safe to drive, despite the "roll-over theory". 77% of deaths in roll-overs are because the driver didn't have his safety belt on and suffered head/neck injuries or was ejected.
23% is still a lot.
So...why does everyone complain about sports utility vehicles? When the Ford Escape Hybrid or Toyota Highlander Hybrid become available, no other car will have the cargo room, passenger capacity, off-road capability and safety equal to one of those hybrids...with the environmental and gas mileage problems eliminated.
How many SUV drivers need all that passenger space or ever, ever go off-road? Not many. Cargo room is only needed when moving. Then you can get a Ryder truck.
However good gas mileage is in a large, hybrid SUV, it would be better in a smaller hybrid vehicle.
There's also the increased cost of road maintenance that larger vehicles bring.
SUV's are a hazard to everyone else on the road -- their size, mass, and poor acceleration and braking endanger everyone. They're also just about completely pointless for most people. Most of the people I know who drive SUV's rarely (if ever) actually use their features -- off-road ability and cargo space. Park rangers and people who live in Alaska should definitely have SUV's. People with no kids and no gear-intensive hobbies whose commutes are all interstate just have no need for the SUV.
Having worked on the ZEburban, a zero-emission, hybrid-electric fuel-cell powered version of the Suburban, I can tell you the challenges to make a safe and environmentally-friendly SUV are daunting -- nigh impossible. Most people would realistically be just as well off with a sedan.
- Warren
Unnecessarily large vehicles unnecessarily obstruct everyone's vision on the road.
Tests here show that they roll more easily.
And that stuff Chroot said. Greater mass = reduced handling.
2 Hybrid SUVs are about to become available to consumers, one this summer and the other in January, so the gas problem is being solved.
It will be solved when those Hybrid Cars are actually used. But I've got the impression that they're mostly Detroit Motor Show prestige objects. Big cars and electric motors don't fit together well.
I've never seen a hybrid car on European roads, and, with all respect, I don't believe that you Americans will figure as the world's hybrid pioneers :wink:
At least park rangers have (for years), and so have zoologists and wildlife technicians. They don't seem to have a problem with them.
Well, SUV's are indeed built for that purpose, not? I don't see how this would be an argument for using them in town.
Monique
May22-04, 05:13 AM
I've never seen a hybrid car on European roads, and, with all respect, I don't believe that you Americans will figure as the world's hybrid pioneers :wink: There are hybrid public transportation busses in Europe, I'm sure there are some hybrid cars too. I don't like SUVs either, they are starting to catch on in Europe which is totally stupid. I've seen SUVs become useful for a commute from work to home though. That was when a blizzard hit the area and all the sedans were sliding off the roads, with the weels searching for grip, getting stuck in the slow, while the SUVs were able to at least still have some control over the car.
Ebolamonk3y
May22-04, 08:18 AM
SUVs sux. Freaky SUV drivers make the regular car drivers fear them... If they will do that then I will get a 18 wheeler to drive around when I grow up. Or a Panzer.
Many people drive SUV's because they feel more secure in it. The seats are higher, and the car feels as heavy as some freakin' warship, the suspension is smooth like a baby popo. But then I have to say: someone who doesn't feel secure in a normal car should not drive at all, should he?!
Dagenais
May22-04, 02:16 PM
A CR-V is completely different form a Ford Excursion. Park Rangers have valid reasons to drive them. Starbucks sippers don't. A lot of the reasons for disliking SUVs also apply to large pick-up trucks.
Both SUVs. The difference is that one is a compact and the other a full-size.
You need to tow more stuff or carry more than 5 people - the excursion is the favorable car.
The "Starbuck sippers" theory is so biased. 85% of Americans driving the cars they have right now, do not need that amount of HP or half the features in there. By your logic, nobody needs anything over a 4-cylinder engine. But you know why they have all that stuff they don't need? For enjoyment purposes.
You could say the same of a tank.
Illogical comparison.
Tanks are never driven on the road and are for military use. SUVs have there place on the road - even the Police use them now.
I'm glad to hear that you aren't concerned for anyone else's safety. The vehicles also are slower to stop, so you are more likely to hit another car or a pedestrian.
That would be the driver's fault, not the cars.
And my SUV with ABS brakes stops perfectly fine.
23% is still a lot.
Not as much as many of you make it out to be. Especially considering that an SUV is overall safer than a car in collisions.
Most SUV drivers go to fast or take tight turns too quickly so the car flips. That's not the way to drive an SUV.
. Cargo room is only needed when moving. Then you can get a Ryder truck.
How many people actually go the 150MPH, 170MPH, or 200MPH on there speedometer?
Tests here show that they roll more easily.
Tests here show that they are still safer than sedans during accidents.
I can prevent my SUV from rolling over - all the SUV drivers I know have never flipped. We can't avoid accidents though, but it is good to know we'll fare better.
It will be solved when those Hybrid Cars are actually used. But I've got the impression that they're mostly Detroit Motor Show prestige objects. Big cars and electric motors don't fit together well.
Um...no.
Ford begun testing awhile ago, and the SUV will be released during this summer.
I've never seen a hybrid car on European roads, and, with all respect, I don't believe that you Americans will figure as the world's hybrid pioneers
Of course not - Americans are biased. This coming from a Canadian.
They always say, "SUV drivers don't need all those features", yet this comes from drivers with speedometers that reach 160MPH, with a 6-CD changer and audiophile package, and moon-roof. Do they need all of that?
Well, SUV's are indeed built for that purpose, not? I don't see how this would be an argument for using them in town.
Jeeps/Hummers were, and Land Rovers at a time.
However, SUVs such as the Escape, Explorer, Excursion, CR-V, RAV4 wouldn't fair well off-road.
In fact, the only companies that build SUVs for those above purposes are Jeep and Land Rover, and Hummers in the American Military.
Exporers and Trail Blazers are used in the Police force.
If they will do that then I will get a 18 wheeler to drive around when I grow up. Or a Panzer.
Yeah, be sure to get a license for that so I won't have to call the Cops.
Many people drive SUV's because they feel more secure in it. The seats are higher, and the car feels as heavy as some freakin' warship, the suspension is smooth like a baby popo.
And unlike many say, SUVs handle pretty well. At least the new ones from Nissan/Infiniti and Porsche.
They are also safer since you have a better (more commanding) view of the road. Like you mentioned, a huge reason why people love driving SUVs.
They also have lots of cool stuff in them like a collection of cup holders, great sound systems, DVD players and other cool gadgets.
It's really very simple. The heavier a vehicle is, the more effort is required to stop, start, or turn it. The higher the centre of gravity, the more prone it is to rolling. The higher the body, the more likely it is to smash over and through the cabin section of lower cars. The argument "I have no trouble handling an SUV" doesn't mean a thing.
However, since you SUV fans won't believe it, here are some things about SUV tests:
http://www.suv.org/safety.html
http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releases/2004/pr041804.htm
http://www.roadandtravel.com/newsworthy/Newsworthy2002/suvsafetyratingsjuly.htm
Ivan Seeking
May22-04, 04:09 PM
I don't get why almost everyone dislikes Sport Utility Vehicles so much.
Clearly they don't. That's the problem.
It is sweet justice to see that SUVs and large PU trucks are now sitting in used car lots on consignment - the owners trying to escape the rising gas prices - with no one willing to buy them.
HA! HA! HA!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
...and everything that Chroot said.
the biggest problem i have with SUV's,-Fords to be specific- is that when one pulls up behind me in my Golf the headlights shine right into my car and into my rear view mirror taking away from my visability in general at night. compact SUV's, such as the RAV-4 (i used to own one) are a great compromise for those who want to have a better view of the road, but wish to maintain costs on a vehicle. gas, tires, parts and insurance are much more expensive for a large full size SUV if you use it to just commute. if you are an outdoors person who frequents rocky roads often, then it makes sense. people driving them in the city and suburbs are owning one more for the status of it over the practical purposes of it.
Clearly they don't. That's the problem.
It is sweet justice to see that SUVs and large PU trucks are now sitting in used car lots on consignment - the owners trying to escape the rising gas prices - with no one willing to buy them.
HA! HA! HA!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
...and everything that Chroot said.
yes, i have noticed many on the used lots lately...i didn't think of it being because of the rising gas prices. for my VW, it costs $25.00 to fill up, and for the SUVs I can only imagine how expensive it is.
Dagenais
May22-04, 04:47 PM
the biggest problem i have with SUV's,-Fords to be specific- is that when one pulls up behind me in my Golf the headlights shine right into my car and into my rear view mirror taking away from my visability in general at night.
Then get special rear-view mirros that don't reflect light. I have one...in my SUV.
Aaaah, another great safety feature!
The article you linked us to provides no new information. And it doesn't mention that the fatality rate is due to people not taking safety precautions. It's based on how much of a danger it is to small cars. Well too bad for them - don't drive a small car.
Recent studies show that SUVs pose a significant threat to drivers and passengers of other cars on the road.
Okay, and what does this have to do with the safety of the driver of the SUV? He stays safe - the other guy doesn't. Sucks to be the other guy.
80 percent of car and SUV owners strongly that automakers should make safety changes to SUVs that would make the roads safer for car occupants
Again, nothing to do with safety problems of SUVs. The driver of one is still perfectly safe.
n addition, there are indications that safety problems threaten passengers and drivers of SUVs themselves.
Yeah, there are also indications that state SUVs are safer than Sedans.
Like an arms race, as more drivers choose heavier cars, those who choose lighter cars are in more danger.
Again, nothing to do with an SUV being unsafe. It basically claims the bigger the SUV, the safer the driver. The lighter the car - the more unsafe it is.
This isn't groundbreaking news.
Oh, the "roll-over" threat again. Like NBC Dateline (and GMC) said - don't take tight turns like you're driving a Porsche, and buckle-up...you'll be just fine.
Especially now that Volvos and other SUVs have roll-over protection and side-curtains.
Your other 2 articles:
http://www.hwysafety.org/news_relea...04/pr041804.htm
http://www.roadandtravel.com/newswo...ratingsjuly.htm
The first one says nothing about SUVs being unsafe. It says it's unsafe to smaller cars. This has what to do with the driver of the SUV? Is he unsafe?
The 2nd one forgets to state that the IIHS claims that there tests are at a disadvantage to SUVs.
It is sweet justice to see that SUVs and large PU trucks are now sitting in used car lots on consignment - the owners trying to escape the rising gas prices - with no one willing to buy them.
Instead of being in the used car lot, they are looking at Escalades and Hummer H2's at the local GM dealer.
people driving them in the city and suburbs are owning one more for the status of it over the practical purposes of it.
Or they may simply enjoy the height, comfort, and spaciousness of an SUV as well as the other conviences found in full-size ones like DVD players, GPS, and killer stereo systems.
Monique
May22-04, 04:56 PM
Then get special rear-view mirros that don't reflect light. I have one...in my SUV. A mirror that doesn't refect light? :uhh:
Ivan Seeking
May22-04, 04:57 PM
New rule: No one who drives an SUV is allowed to complain about smokers.
Remember, "Jesus wouldn't drive an SUV". :biggrin:
Sucks to be the other guy.
Thus the need for regulation.
A mirror that doesn't refect light? :uhh:
... into your eyes
but most rvm have a nite setting, that will do that
I do not like the headlite hight on SUV/pickups and the fact that most SUV drivers
run hi-beams into oncomming trafic localy
but if you drive a SUV alone you ride with ben lauden
we need a road use tax hike based on weight to tax big SUV's off the road
for private use of over weight SUVs
Dissident Dan
May22-04, 06:25 PM
Has there ever been a study about wear-and-tear on roads as it relates to vehicle weight?
Dagenais
May22-04, 07:30 PM
A mirror that doesn't refect light?
I meant it doesn't glare or like it said previously, it doesn't reflect the light into your eyes. Most dim the light.
You press a button, the mirror then turns light blue and there is no more glare.
Standard on a lot of mid-size SUVs.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question20.htm
New rule: No one who drives an SUV is allowed to complain about smokers.
I don't. I have no problem with smokers.
I do have a problem with people who litter. Much worse for the enviroment than an SUV, considering it is needless. SUVs are again...useful.
I do not like the headlite hight on SUV/pickups and the fact that most SUV drivers
run hi-beams into oncomming trafic localy
Especially to aholes who cut me off. I turn on the extra power lights to maximum, the switch on my fog lights. :biggrin:
but if you drive a SUV alone you ride with ben lauden
No, lots of people love riding SUVs alone. Tall people especially love driving SUVs.
I have noticed that since the SUV craze the drive up mailbox at the post office was raised so that SUV drivers wouldn't have to lean down to deposit their mail. I have to get out of my car to deposit mail because the slot is higher than the roof of my car.
Same thing at fast food drive up windows, I can barely reach up to the window at some of the newer places.
Then get special rear-view mirros that don't reflect light. I have one...in my SUV.
Aaaah, another great safety feature!
Again, nothing to do with an SUV being unsafe. It basically claims the bigger the SUV, the safer the driver. The lighter the car - the more unsafe it is.
mirrors that don't reflect light? not sure that can be safe either if there is such a thing. why should i have to accomodate my car because of how SUV's are made? as i also said, when people choose to stop right behind me in their SUV, their headlights shine right into my car, which is annoying with a big beam of bright light glaring in with me and my kids.
and the lighter the car does not mean it is automatically more unsafe, it depends on the safety feature of the car itself. mine has side airbags as well as the standard ones in the front as well as anti-lock breaks. SUV's are heavier and take more time to stop. i don't buy they are more safe because my mother was hit with a tiny little honda in her Dodge Durango. the Durango was totalled when the honda hit her at 40mph breaking her leg and putting her in the hospital due to the damage of the Dodge. one year later after she bought herself a new Chevy Monte Carlo (one of the safer cars), she was again hit at about 40mph and walked away a little shaken but not hurt. if an SUV hits my car as oppossed to a Camry or similar car, most likely the SUV will do more damage to me then a standard car. nothing against those who choose to drive one, but it's quite common that those who drive them in the cities and suburbs are doing so for status reasons more then practical reasons.
there are reasons why people would need an SUV as i stated in my previous post, and there is also a reason why parts, gas and especially insurance rates are higher on SUV's.
Jenn_ucsb
May22-04, 09:08 PM
I do have a problem with people who litter. Much worse for the enviroment than an SUV, considering it is needless. SUVs are again...useful.
Especially to aholes who cut me off. I turn on the extra power lights to maximum, the switch on my fog lights. :biggrin:
Littering does actually serve a purpose...it gets trash out of your hand faster than if you took the time to find a trash can. Also, some people think it makes them look cool, the same reason some people drive SUVs. Face it, if you don't have 4+ kids, and you don't have an occupational or recreational reason to tote around lots of cr*p, then an SUV is useless. Furthermore it endangers everyone else on the road. And even though you don't seem to think that matters, it matters to the rest of us. I believe I remember you saying, "sucks to be the other guy". That's not exactly a humanitarian viewpoint. Last time I checked, other lives besides your's matter.
Also glad to hear that you shine your brights at other people. It makes perfect sense that if someone engages in a dangerous behavior that threatens your safety, that you in turn should do something that could potentially cause them to lose control. Good reasoning! :confused:
cookiemonster
May22-04, 10:47 PM
So, uh, what happens when one SUV hits another one?
cookiemonster
BoulderHead
May22-04, 11:13 PM
It creates a massive amount of wreckage that the smaller cars run into.
Sure, there are mirrors that don't reflect light. But we don't call them mirrors, we call them black holes. :P
one_raven
May23-04, 01:02 AM
I think most people have less of a problem with SUV's than they do SUV drivers.
This is why...
It's based on how much of a danger it is to small cars. Well too bad for them - don't drive a small car.
Okay, and what does this have to do with the safety of the driver of the SUV? He stays safe - the other guy doesn't. Sucks to be the other guy.
Again, nothing to do with safety problems of SUVs. The driver of one is still perfectly safe.
It says it's unsafe to smaller cars. This has what to do with the driver of the SUV? Is he unsafe?
Yes, safety to OTHER people is a safety issue.
In fact, it is THE safety issue when it comes to SUV's. So much more than the roll-over issue.
The larger SUV's (when people complain abour SUV's, they aren't complaining about Rav4's and other toys) are bigger, heavier, more difficult to maneuver and, despite the higher view of the road, they are often involved in accident due to the drivers misjudging distance and not seeing other cars on the road.
Plus morons who think that 4-whhel drive means they can drive 65 MPH through the snow.
I don't think SUV's should be banned (hell, I'm getting an Eddie Bauer Explorer next month), but I DO think that they should have a little wooden carnival clown at dealers that says, "You must be at least this tall to drive this truck".
I also think that people should be required to pass an oversized vehicle driving course and have a special full-size SUV endorsement on their licences for anything larger than a Rav4, or at least, an Explorer Sport.
I know you have seen a monster SUV with a 5 foot 1 soccer mom straining to see over the dash and having a blind-spot behind their truck the size of a 747 in the supermarket parking lot backing up and simply expecting people to stop for her because they MUST be able to see her behemoth even if she can't see the Honda directly behind her.
Instead of being in the used car lot, they are looking at Escalades and Hummer H2's at the local GM dealer.
Uhhh, no...
Actually GM has plans of putting out an even smaller H3 because the H2 sales have dropped off so drastically. Fewer and fewer people are buying the big guns all the time.
On that note, one_raven, I believe people should have to take mandatory additional driver's ed courses for all of the following sorts of vehicles:
- Sports cars, perhaps any car capable of sub-7 second 0-60 times, or capable of pulling more than 0.8 g lateral.
- SUV's (minimum size debatable), anything with 4-wheel drive
- Motorcycles (thankfully specialized education is already required)
Almost everyone in this country takes driver's ed in a compact sedan with a 120 hp engine and an automatic transmission. That education teaches you to drive only in a compact sedan with a 120 hp engine and an automatic transmission. If you choose to drive anything with additional capability (or reduced capability), you should have to take additional classes on it.
Let's model the driver's education system after the highly successful FAA aviation education system.
- Warren
one_raven
May23-04, 01:23 AM
Let's model the driver's education system after the highly successful FAA aviation education system.
I'm right with you.
Sports cars aren't in more accidents simply because they are faster, it's because people don't know how to drive them.
Same thing with BIG suv's.
The big difference with the big SUV's is that if you do get into an accident, you are more likely to seriously injure or kill the other person.
Ivan Seeking
May23-04, 01:32 AM
when you think about it, putting 1200 LB cars on the road with tractor-trailers that weigh up to 80,000 LBS is a bit silly, isn't it?
When you think about it, ideally, in the interest of public safety, all cars really should be same. The logic seems unavoidable...eventually.
Edit: Has anyone ever tried to sue an automotive manufacturer, say for a death due to a collision with an SUV, for product liability? It seems logical that someone would try to claim that SUVs are inherently too dangerous to be sold, say for for reasons of public safety. Sounds like a job for Nader.
one_raven
May23-04, 01:36 AM
When you think about it, ideally, in the interest of public safety, all cars really should be same. The logic seems unavoidable...eventually.
You'd have a civil war on your hands if you try and legislate American's "individuality" away.
Ivan Seeking
May23-04, 01:55 AM
No doubt these are fight'n words, and I don't expect anything tomorrow, but the precedent is already established that the public good outweighs an individual’s right to choice, even if this public good is purely a financial impact - using the seat belt law as but one cheesy example. The status quo demands that dangerous products and practices are unacceptable. Here I am torn. I demand my rights to choice, but I can't escape the logic of things like SUVs and ten foot PU trucks with five foot tires rolling over my wife while she is driving the Toyota; all because we choose to make responsible purchasing decisions that act in everyones interest.
Dagenais
May23-04, 02:27 AM
why should i have to accomodate my car because of how SUV's are made? as i also said, when people choose to stop right behind me in their SUV, their headlights shine right into my car, which is annoying with a big beam of bright light glaring in with me and my kids.
You shouldn't have to. The SUV I have came standard with a light dimmer in the rear-view mirror.
suburbs are doing so for status reasons more then practical reasons.
What status? You can get one for under $20,000USD.
and the lighter the car does not mean it is automatically more unsafe, it depends on the safety feature of the car itself. mine has side airbags as well as the standard ones in the front as well as anti-lock breaks.
Most Durangos offer side airbags and curtains, as well as anti-lock brakes. Not to mention, you're up higher so you can see the road better. A key reason why many people drive SUVs, you are lofted up higher.
on't buy they are more safe because my mother was hit with a tiny little honda in her Dodge Durango. the Durango was totalled when the honda hit her at 40mph breaking her leg and putting her in the hospital due to the damage of the Dodge.
one year later after she bought herself a new Chevy Monte Carlo (one of the safer cars), she was again hit at about 40mph and walked away a little shaken but not hurt. if an SUV hits my car as oppossed to a Camry or similar car, most likely the SUV will do more damage to me then a standard car.
Twice in 2 years? Wow, your mom should be more careful out there. That's a lot of dangerous collisions. :(
That's just one example. IIHS did a test on this crashing sedans into SUVs, and the Sports Ultility Vehicles did better in the test.
MrTraffic.com:
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. But IIHS spokesmen told the Washington Post that the report is meant to bring perspective to the car/light truck crash debate. The study shows that passengers in cars are four times more likely to die than those in pickup or sports utility vehicles.
This is what is being called a fight between automotive Gullivers and Lilliputians between 1990 and 1995. Statistics showed that if a small cars weighting less than 2,500 pounds is stuck in the side by a SUV, occupants of the car are 47 times more likely to die. By comparison, when a car hits another auto in the side there are six deaths in the car being hit for every one in the striking vehicle.
They cite the example of a pickup trucks in the 3,500-4,000 pound class, such as the Ford F150 or GMC 1500, that hits another vehicle. More than twice as many die in the other vehicles than the trucks: 115 to 52. But when a car in the same weight range, such as a Ford Taurus or Chevy Lumina , crashes with another vehicle the death ratio is 57 in the other vehicle to 53 inside the large car. And, for crashes involving sport utility vehicles, the ratio is 92 deaths in the other vehicles to 37 in the sport utility.
Littering does actually serve a purpose...it gets trash out of your hand faster than if you took the time to find a trash can. Also, some people think it makes them look cool, the same reason some people drive SUVs. Face it, if you don't have 4+ kids, and you don't have an occupational or recreational reason to tote around lots of cr*p, then an SUV is useless
Like I said previously, lots of things in American/Euro cars are useless. Do you really need anything more than a 4-cylinder engine, or leather seats and a CD-changer?
Furthermore it endangers everyone else on the road. And even though you don't seem to think that matters, it matters to the rest of us. I believe I remember you saying, "sucks to be the other guy". That's not exactly a humanitarian viewpoint. Last time I checked, other lives besides your's matter.
Then buy an SUV.
Stop blaming SUV owners and manufacturers for your problems. You act as if SUV drivers want to get into collisions with you.
So, uh, what happens when one SUV hits another one?
Nothing, because just before they collide one SUV switches into 4WD and manufavers away in the slippery road.
In fact, it is THE safety issue when it comes to SUV's. So much more than the roll-over issue.
Oh really, that's odd, since most people mention the roll-over issue first.
Again, your problem can be fixed - drive carefully.
The larger SUV's (when people complain abour SUV's, they aren't complaining about Rav4's and other toys) are bigger, heavier, more difficult to maneuver and, despite the higher view of the road, they are often involved in accident due to the drivers misjudging distance and not seeing other cars on the road.
Again, they aren't driving safely. Report them to ICBC or something.
Plus morons who think that 4-whhel drive means they can drive 65 MPH through the snow.
Tell them to read there owner's manual.
I know you have seen a monster SUV with a 5 foot 1 soccer mom straining to see over the dash and having a blind-spot behind their truck the size of a 747 in the supermarket parking lot backing up and simply expecting people to stop for her because they MUST be able to see her behemoth even if she can't see the Honda directly behind her.
Then drive away from her.
Uhhh, no...
Actually GM has plans of putting out an even smaller H3 because the H2 sales have dropped off so drastically. Fewer and fewer people are buying the big guns all the time.
Due to unfavorable reviews. It was selling extremely well during it's debut before the reviews came out. All sorts of celebreties, yuppies and atheletes were driving those things.
Then the reviews came out saying the H2 was a fad, it was too hefty, the engine was too weak to tow anything (with the weight of the car), acceleration was sluggish etc.
The Escalade is still doing very well and the reviews for them have been great.
- SUV's (minimum size debatable), anything with 4-wheel drive
You can get huge SUV's without 4WD. A lot of SUV drivers don't have 4WD since it is a costly option.
Here I am torn. I demand my rights to choice, but I can't escape the logic of things like SUVs and ten foot PU trucks with five foot tires rolling over my wife while she is driving the Toyota; all because we choose to make responsible purchasing decisions that act in everyones interest.
Tell her to trade in her Toyota for a Toyota.
Toyota has worked on a new bumper for their latest 4-Runner which is suppose to help others in collisions.
SUVs get better every day :)
Ivan Seeking
May23-04, 02:38 AM
SUVs get better every day :)
As compared to what? There is a fundamental problem of size and weight. This is not going to go away. This is like making a safe cigarette; if it was safe, fundamentally it wouldn't be a cigarette.
Jenn_ucsb
May23-04, 03:36 AM
Then buy an SUV.
Stop blaming SUV owners and manufacturers for your problems. You act as if SUV drivers want to get into collisions with you.
Why would I buy an SUV? If I felt unsafe because everyone was carrying grenades in their pockets, should I go buy a grenade? I have absolutely no need for one, and I really like the sky to be blue, not yellowish grey. So, I'll stick to a fuel efficient sedan and a bike.
It seems that I am not the one with the "problems".
My favorite saying is, "when three people tell you you're drunk, sit down." Well, you've got tons of people in this forum that disagree with you, and you are still arrogant enough to believe that we are all talking out our bums.
Do you know what is to blame for this problem? The attitude that others' safety and the status of the environment don't matter as much as getting your own personal wants met. Its called hedonism. Its a selfish, childish, empty way to live life.
And, how can you interpret my addressing a safety issue as me "acting as if SUV drivers want to get into collisions with me"? What I want is to know that if I am ever involved in an accident, that it's not going to be because some narcissist in a Durango lost control of their tank. Accidents happen (lots of them) and I think it is in the public's best interest if people are not driving vehicles that are more dangerous to those around them than is necessary.
You act as if SUV drivers want to get into collisions with you.
It's called negligence at best. Reckless endangerment at worst.
SUVs are inherently more dangerous to others than ordinary cars, yet SUV drivers do not appear, in general, to take more precausions to ensure safety. In fact, it seems quite the opposite, as you gleefully explained how you like blind people on the road that annoy you.
Dagenais
May23-04, 02:36 PM
There is a fundamental problem of size and weight.
Hardly. People buy SUVs because of the size and weight.
So, I'll stick to a fuel efficient sedan and a bike.
Or if you were really worried, the bus and a bike.
he attitude that others' safety and the status of the environment don't matter as much as getting your own personal wants met.
Don't talk to me about the environment. You are of no help to it if you're driving either.
Go take your local trans link or something like I did 2 years ago, if not, stop pretending that you give a crap.
All the environmentalists I've met (a lot), don't even own a sedan.
Its called hedonism
What you're doing is projecting (http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html).
In fact, it seems quite the opposite, as you gleefully explained how you like blind people on the road that annoy you.
That "annoy" me. I like the way you substitute: "Cutting me and others off on the highway causing traffic problems" with "annoy". I know a lot of people who would do a lot more than "turn on the lights" which was a joke. Fog lights on anything but Jeeps are way too low to hit any mirror on a car.
Try cutting someone off in the city - you'll get off lucky if all they do is turn on there headlights as opposed to tailing you and waiting for you to get out of the car.
What status? You can get one for under $20,000USD
stating this is proof of defending your position, and it seems you are really reaching for that defense. you can't even buy a stock RAV-4 for that much, and i know this from my own experience of buying one 7 years ago myself. a RAV-4 is hardly a real SUV, but as i stated before, it is a great compromise for those who wish to sit up higher, have a 4 wheel drive suspension, yet cut out the largeness of vehicle and expenses of a a real SUV.
They cite the example of a pickup trucks in the 3,500-4,000 pound class, such as the Ford F150 or GMC 1500, that hits another vehicle. More than twice as many die in the other vehicles than the trucks: 115 to 52. But when a car in the same weight range, such as a Ford Taurus or Chevy Lumina , crashes with another vehicle the death ratio is 57 in the other vehicle to 53 inside the large car. And, for crashes involving sport utility vehicles, the ratio is 92 deaths in the other vehicles to 37 in the sport utility.
did you even read this? SUV's are dangerous to other cars on the road. that is the point here many are making in this thread, thus answering your question of why the SUV hatred. THEY ARE DANGEROUS TO OTHER CARS ON THE ROAD
Twice in 2 years? Wow, your mom should be more careful out there. That's a lot of dangerous collisions. :(
a blatant ignorant statement that is not helping the reputation of SUV drivers. both accidents were not her fault. stop making assumptions, when you do, you make an *** out of U and ME.
That "annoy" me. I like the way you substitute: "Cutting me and others off on the highway causing traffic problems" with "annoy". I know a lot of people who would do a lot more than "turn on the lights" which was a joke.
Try cutting someone off in the city - you'll get off lucky if all they do is turn on there headlights as opposed to tailing you and waiting for you to get out of the car.
It wasn't a substitution; it was an inference.
I do like how you try to rationalize your behavior, though, by arguing that there are a couple people out there that would do worse.
Dagenais
May23-04, 06:17 PM
i know this from my own experience of buying one 7 years ago myself. a RAV-4 is hardly a real SUV,
It's still in the SUV segment - therefore an SUV. If it was up to you, everything safe is not an SUV, and everything else that sucks is.
THEY ARE DANGEROUS TO OTHER CARS ON THE ROAD
When they are caught in collisions. However, there 4WD gives extra traction when wet making them safer on the road and to other cars.
Also, if the driver is aware, then there is nothing to worry about.
a blatant ignorant statement that is not helping the reputation of SUV drivers. both accidents were not her fault. stop making assumptions, when you do, you make an *** out of U and ME.
I've never had an accident, and there were a lot of close calls. It's called being aware. Like the NHTSA says, crashes can be avoided if the driver is aware, and 2 collisions in 2 years is a high rate.
"Accidents are defined as unexpected, unavoidable events. And in many people's minds, the word also suggests an event due solely to fortune or chance. But crashes and injuries aren't unforeseeable or unavoidable at all. They're both predictable and preventable."
"You don't have to be psychic to predict if a driver runs a red light, speeds, drives drunk or breaks other rules of the road that the likelihood of a crash goes way up."
there are reasons why people would need an SUV as i stated in my previous post, and there is also a reason why parts, gas and especially insurance rates are higher on SUV's.
Insurance rates are just find if the driver has a good record. Parts are pretty cheap for domestic cars, or at least cheaper than your average European sedan.
Dagenais
May23-04, 06:24 PM
I do like how you try to rationalize your behavior, though, by arguing that there are a couple people out there that would do worse.
As I already mentioned, I don't blind people. I said that just to push the ridiculous stereotype since you believe that SUV drivers are reckless tyrants.
First, anyone with sense realizes that stock fog lights on a Dodge or any mid-size SUV aside from the old Jeep GCs aren't high enough to hit the rear-view mirror. They are well below the main headlights, placed just to the side of the bumpers used to light the road.
http://www.dodge.com/durango/img/durango_st.jpg
Secondly, if you've ever been caught in the city cutting people off you'll know what I mean by "people could do worse." Try it sometime and you'll see.
I do like how you try to rationalize your behavior, though, by arguing that there are a couple people out there that would do worse, character assassination, and that a part of your behavior may be irrelevant.
Ivan Seeking
May23-04, 06:29 PM
Hurkyl, Dagenais went to the trouble of getting blackbody mirrors; take it easy. :biggrin:
Dagenais
May23-04, 06:31 PM
SUVs are inherently more dangerous to others than ordinary cars, yet SUV drivers do not appear, in general, to take more precausions to ensure safety.
Wow, did you ask all the SUV drivers what precautions they take?
What would you like them to do? Slap a "Yield" sign at the back of their car like a bus? Or how about one of those stop signs found on school buses?
As long as they drive carefully, they are taking precautions. The rest is up to the manufacturers to make the cars safer.
Dagenais
May23-04, 06:32 PM
Hurkyl, Dagenais went to the trouble of getting blackbody mirrors; take it easy
They came standard. They are standard on many Sports Utility Vehicles, as are other extra safety features. :rofl:
I do like how you try to rationalize your behavior, though
As I already mentioned, I don't blind people. I said that just to push the ridiculous stereotype since you believe that SUV drivers are reckless tyrants. :grumpy:
cookiemonster
May23-04, 07:52 PM
So really, what happens after everybody goes out and buys an SUV? Are SUV-SUV collisions more safe or less safe than car-car collisions?
cookiemonster
:rolleyes: he asks why many do not like SUV drivers, he gets his answers, and doesn't like what he hears...were you looking for an argument, or did you want honest answers? this topic is an attempt to justify and rationalize your position as an SUV owner because of all the negative flack you are under.
It's still in the SUV segment - therefore an SUV. If it was up to you, everything safe is not an SUV, and everything else that sucks is.
but it can't tow more then an ordinary car...this is a major differentiating fact of smaller 4 door wagons compared to the suspension of a truck/heavy duty SUV...the RAV-4 was actually based on a Camry when I bought mine.
When they are caught in collisions. However, there 4WD gives extra traction when wet making them safer on the road and to other cars.
accidents are caused also by human error-especially those who are pompous and feel they indestructable in their big rig...as you said yourself:
Like the NHTSA says, crashes can be avoided if the driver is aware
i highly doubt you will be effective in changing anyone's mind regarding the "typical" SUV driver at this point with your attempts at justifying why it is okay to drive an SUV full time. unfortunately, you have made the negative impression i have already of SUV drivers (who choose to drive one for daily needs that live in cities and suburbs) even more valid.
So really, what happens after everybody goes out and buys an SUV? Are SUV-SUV collisions more safe or less safe than car-car collisions?
cookiemonster
i think that is more dependent on the vehicle itself and the circumstances. but now, many SUV's are getting a lower trade in value due to the rising gas prices. i don't see it getting any better at this point either.
As I already mentioned, I don't blind people. I said that just to push the ridiculous stereotype since you believe that SUV drivers are reckless tyrants.
First, anyone with sense realizes that stock fog lights on a Dodge or any mid-size SUV aside from the old Jeep GCs aren't high enough to hit the rear-view mirror. They are well below the main headlights, placed just to the side of the bumpers used to light the road.
http://www.dodge.com/durango/img/durango_st.jpg
be realistic...many SUV drivers are driving older rigs because the new car prices reach $40K and higher. with 20% down on that, your payments for 5 years at 8% interest rate are well over $600 a month. don't forget your insurance rates, gas and maintenance-oil changes run higher due to the increased oil use. great, just what we need during this sensitive time in the middle east. :yuck:
As I already mentioned, I don't blind people.
If so, I find it odd that you'd spend effort defending such behavior.
Oh, and BTW, night-vision rear view mirrors are standard on everything. They dim ordinary headlights to tolerable levels. They dim brighter lighting to not quite so tolerable levels. And even if it could dim such lights to tolerable levels, the mirror is still rendered useless because all you can see in it is the headlights.
And, of course, don't forget that side view mirrors don't have this feature; the only solution for those is to simply tilt the mirror down so you can't see anything in it.
In any case, the driver is deprived of his/her usual field of vision.
The_Professional
May23-04, 08:52 PM
I really enjoy driving my gas guzzling SUV. The high seat, the sunroof, being able to accomodate a lot of people and load, the ability to switch from 2 wheel to 4 wheel with the turn of a knob,everything.
Dagenais
May23-04, 10:22 PM
i highly doubt you will be effective in changing anyone's mind regarding the "typical" SUV driver at this point with your attempts at justifying why it is okay to drive an SUV full time
Why isn't it okay? Because of the "enviroment"?
Unless you've been taking your public transit for the past few years like I have, don't even dare bring that up with me.
In Canada, we care about the enviroment but SUVs are extremely popular. Americans should be the to talk about saving the enviroment because they don't.
Why isn't it okay? Because of the "enviroment"?
Unless you've been taking your public transit for the past few years like I have, don't even dare bring that up with me.
In Canada, we care about the enviroment but SUVs are extremely popular. Americans should be the to talk about saving the enviroment because they don't.
i never said anything regarding the environment. my issue with SUV's that are driven for casual use is they tend to attract the types who are seeking to prove their "status" over using it for practical reasons. that and the fact they are dangerous to other cars should there be some type of accident. it is plain waste when someone is commuting to and from work in a city with well maintained roads in a 15mpg rig, but serves a purpose if you frequently like to drive off the beaten path and need a vehicle that can tolerate a little more rough riding.
as i stated above, you started this thread asking a question, you were given answers that you refute-every single one. not that i judge, but when you are unable to accept anyone else's logic regarding your question posed, it shows you are looking to argue rather then get a meaningful and honest discussion.
Dagenais
May23-04, 10:48 PM
i never said anything regarding the environment. my issue with SUV's that are driven for casual use is they tend to attract the types who are seeking to prove their "status" over using it for practical reasons.
I really don't get what you mean. A typical SUV isn't a $150,000 Mercedes or something, it doesn't tell much about social/financial status.
I was just wondering what the problem with SUVs were, and I refuted because I didn't think they were real problems, or weren't problems to begin with.
SUVs like the 4-Runner actually aide the other car in collisions due to their new bumper (Car and Driver).
The SUV = The USA
It's part of your culture, so I don't see why there is such a strong hatred against a car. Especially since they are only getting better in almost every aspect.
The SUV = The USA
You're such a complete dumb****. I swear, everything you've ever posted on pf to date has just been total under-researched, illogical, Neanderthal bull****. I'm close to just declaring you a troll.
- Warren
I think that means he doesn't like SUVs... :P
Dagenais
May23-04, 11:38 PM
You're such a complete dumb****. I swear, everything you've ever posted on pf to date has just been total under-researched, illogical, Neanderthal bull****. I'm close to just declaring you a troll.
- Warren
MSNBC:
And I'm sitting in the driver's seat. Yes, your defiantly SUV-hating columnist—the man who once called sport-utility vehicles "the worst development in American culture since fast food," who once stopped letting his kid have play-dates with a neighbor because her parents owned an SUV, the one who said American auto makers would never do anything to wean us off our addiction to gasoline—accepted an invitation from Ford last week to take the new Escape hybrid-powered SUV on a test drive around New York City.
American culture, dumb****. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4724092/
Oh, another article claiming it's American Culture. Time for you to take your daily happy pill.
American Culture (http://www.thesatirist.com/satires/PoliticalSatire/DictionaryofCynicism.html)
Woohoo! Appeal to tradition!
Dagenais
May23-04, 11:50 PM
Woohoo! Appeal to tradition!
The profanity, the anger, the arrogance. Chroot, do you happen to come from the Southern part of the US?
Someone outside his country points out a 'fault' in his mind, in his culture and he attacks saying it isn't true.
Hummers are as much of American culture as Starbucks coffee.
Sure, SUVs are a part of USA culture. What has that got to do with them being good, bad, or mediocre? Nothing.
Dagenais,
Since your skull seems so thick, I'll explain. I was not denying that SUV's are part of contemporary American culture. I was simply pointing out that your mentioning that SUV's are a part of American culture is an argument totally devoid of point or merit.
- Warren
The_Professional
May24-04, 12:01 AM
This just reminds me, some guy on another forum pretended to be a woman and said really nasty, obnoxious things and he got points from members..because he's a "sexy, bad chick".
Now if a woman would've started this thread I'm sure she won't get flamed as much. Seems like if you have a ******* you can say anything and get away with it :biggrin:
Dagenais
May24-04, 12:05 AM
This just reminds me, some guy on another forum pretended to be a woman and said really nasty, obnoxious things and he got points from members..because he's a "sexy, bad chick".
Now if a woman would've started this thread I'm sure she won't get flamed as much. Seems like if you have a ****** you can say anything and get away with it
Simple, if my posts are all full of BS like Chroot claims despite the fact that everything I've said are from great sources, don't read my posts. That, or take a pill.
was not denying that SUV's are part of contemporary American culture.
That's odd, since you quoted: "The SUV = The USA" then said it was complete bull****.
I was simply pointing out that your mentioning that SUV's are a part of American culture is an argument totally devoid of point or merit.
Again, odd that an American hates a big part of their culture.
P.S. I liked your side note on my post: "I run this place". Beautiful.
The_Professional
May24-04, 12:06 AM
Simple, if my posts are all full of BS like Chroot claims despite the fact that everything I've said are from great sources, don't read my posts. That, or take a pill.
No, I wasn't picking on anyone :)
franznietzsche
May24-04, 12:12 AM
Have any of you considered that some of us are just too tall to fit into a small car? I couldn't drive most sedans comfortably. That problem seems like plenty of justification to me.
Why is it odd that an American would hate a large part of his culture? I didn't choose to be American, I was born here.
The arguments you've been making in this thread are complete bull****, indeed. Claiming that it's not important that SUVs are dangerous to other drivers -- indeed, claiming that the other drivers should just get an SUV to protect themselves against you -- is bull****. Claiming that SUV drivers don't get into accidents because "one SUV switches into 4WD and manufavers away in the slippery road" is also total bull****.
It's obvious from many of your posts that you're the sort of person who will argue himself into any convenient corner. You will defend any statement you make, however silly, and will never concede even when presented with obvious flaws in your own logic. It just makes you look stupid and immature, and that's the conclusion of virtually every other person involved in this thread.
And damn straight, I do run this place, along with many other people. What's your point?
- Warren
Have any of you considered that some of us are just too tall to fit into a small car? I couldn't drive most sedans comfortably. That problem seems like plenty of justification to me.
That is indeed plenty of justification.
Most of us here are not arguing that SUVs have no purpose, or should never be owned by anyone -- we're simply saying that most people can get away with far less, and ought to out of courtesy for other drivers and the environment.
- Warren
Dagenais
May24-04, 12:27 AM
claiming that the other drivers should just get an SUV to protect themselves against you
I'm an extremely cautious driver. There is no need to protect yourself against me. Maybe against other drivers.
laiming that SUV drivers don't get into accidents because "one SUV switches into 4WD and manufavers away in the slippery road" is also total bull****.
Yeah, as much bull as another poster claiming that sedans can simply "maneuver" out of the way.
That's the great thing about SUVs, they can switch from 2WD to 4WD which gives added traction. The added traction gives more control, which helps avoid accidents.
It's obvious from many of your posts that you're the sort of person who will argue himself into any convenient corner. You will defend any statement you make, however silly, and will never concede even when presented with obvious flaws in your own logic
I've talked to you in 2 threads and you can immediately tell me what kind of person I am. Absolutely amazing.
The other in which you made a claim about OpenBSD that an Admin at an OpenBSD forum denied. :uhh:
That's the great thing about SUVs, they can't [sic] switch from 2WD to 4WD which gives added traction. The added traction gives more control, which helps avoid accidents.
And thus you demonstrate that you really have no idea how to use 4WD.
- Warren
Dagenais
May24-04, 12:41 AM
And damn straight, I do run this place, along with many other people. What's your point?
I wouldn't know, you brought it up.
So you're admitting that your posts lack a point?
My point was that it's inappropriate to inline pictures with profane statements in them.
- Warren
How about you address each of these points directly?
1) The heavier a vehicle is, the more effort is required to stop, start, or turn it.
2) The higher the centre of gravity, the more prone it is to rolling.
3) The higher the body, the more likely it is to smash over crumple zones and through the cabin section of lower cars.
4) Unnecessarily large vehicles unnecessarily obstruct everyone's vision on the road.
jimmy p
May24-04, 11:17 AM
Why would you need that?? If you flick the rear view mirror down in my car, then it nullifies bright lights. You have been robbed!!
Has there ever been a study about wear-and-tear on roads as it relates to vehicle weight?
It is standard practice to monitor traffic and the weight distribution of vehicles in preperation for new road construction and road resurfacing. Allowances are made to determine the compostion of the road surface for damage through use, and damage through weathering.
Njorl
Yeah, as much bull as another poster claiming that sedans can simply "maneuver" out of the way.
That's the great thing about SUVs, they can switch from 2WD to 4WD which gives added traction. The added traction gives more control, which helps avoid accidents.
4WD vehicles are inherently less maneuverable. The "added traction", is often non-existant and is almost never significant. The only accidents SUVs are more capable of avoiding are those requiring acceleration on slick surfaces. Most accident avoidance requires turning or braking. The suspensions of SUVs make them inherently inferior for these activities.
Njorl
Njorl and Adam are the only ones here who seem to bring valid points to the table. Because Dagenais has found every opportunity to refute this valid and just points, it is proof enough to me that Dag is out to start an argument over this rather then have a mature and meaningful discussion. Most reasonable people can acknowledge logic even if they do not personally agree with it.
No, SUV does not equal USA. Please don't stereotype cultures. It leads to racism ultimately and makes you look like an ignorant fool. The SUV craze may have started here, but that doesn't mean all of us want or drive one. All of your points to refute the answers in which you did ask for lack any logic or substance, and are just a way to justify you driving your vehicle. It's obvious with your defensiveness you might feel slightly ashamed for your reasons of wanting to drive one (my guess is you are seeking higher status), otherwise you would be as frank as The Professional. I admire that honesty and frankness without all of the lame excuses you are providing.
If this topic were in my forum, it would be closed by now.
russ_watters
May24-04, 03:31 PM
I didn't read the whole thread, but I find the irony entertaining: Americans are often self-haters. SUVs get a lot of press for being bad, but sales are up. Americans hate them while buying them in ever accelerating numbers.
Integral
May24-04, 04:45 PM
Recognizing that a certain percentage of SUVs and huge pickups on the road are with some regularity actually used for the designed purpose, there is also a percentage which are not and never will be. Many in both groups are a replacement for the large belt buckle craze of the '80s, that is, they are a way for men, who are uncertain of their manhood, to say mine is bigger then yours.
I didn't read the whole thread, but I find the irony entertaining: Americans are often self-haters. SUVs get a lot of press for being bad, but sales are up. Americans hate them while buying them in ever accelerating numbers.
do you have recent proof? i find that hard to believe with the rising gas prices. could those figures be "up" because of how expensive each SUV costs?
So far people have said in here that SUV's are unsafe to other drivers, I guess I can elaborate on that. The bumper height of SUV's is higher than that of cars, so if the SUV should happen to smash into a car the car will not crinkle properly. If it hits the car's driver side, it will lead to a very nasty case of whiplash because the hit is near the upper-to-midsection of the body rather than near the torso like other cars.
Vision is also distorted. Because the driver is situated in a higher position than cars, they seem to be going slower than they actually are. This causes them to unconsiously speed up because they "don't feel like they are going fast enough". Try going 30 mph on a road-hugger and it seems a whole lot faster than 30 mph on one of those SUV monstrosities.
And for the replies that an alert driver in an SUV can avert disaster, they most likely cant. The driver's reflexes have to be extremely quick if they expect to move the huge weight of their vehicle around (Think Unreal Tournament Quick). Not everyone has as good reflexes as astronauts, and there is bound to be accidents. 4-wheel drive can only help so much before traction enevitably slips.
franznietzsche
May25-04, 12:07 AM
How about you address each of these points directly?
1) The heavier a vehicle is, the more effort is required to stop, start, or turn it.
2) The higher the centre of gravity, the more prone it is to rolling.
3) The higher the body, the more likely it is to smash over crumple zones and through the cabin section of lower cars.
4) Unnecessarily large vehicles unnecessarily obstruct everyone's vision on the road.
1)The heavier it is the more friction on the road, the faster it stops on its own. I've driven my uncles F-350 diesel truck before, stopping power is no more of an issue in that for me than it is driving a Sebring (though the blind spots in that truck are a nightmare.)
2)More specifically the higher the center of gravity the farther the point of application of the "inertial force" from the center of rotation. However this is a comment on the safety of a vehicle not designed to be driven like a Ferrari. Its people's misuse of the car that causes roll overs. I know a guy who flipped a Toyota Supra (i think its toyota) down a mountain. have you ever seen how low to the ground one of those is? And in this state anyway, if you're driving fast enough to flip your car on a normal turn you were legally speeding and thus were violating safety laws and it is your own fault.
3)This has more to do with the bad design of other cars. If i want to drive in a steel cage for my safety thats my choice, its not my fault your car is poorly designed and that you choose to drive it. Note i am speaking of standard height models, people who get lift kits worry me, and you could make a fair case about such vehicles because there is no way to reliably engineer a car to prepare for collisions with custom modified vehicles that will impact in unforseen ways.
4)Again this speaks to the bad design of your car more than it does of the SUV. Its the argument: my car wasn't designed to accomodate my limited abilities, so i'm at risk with you around, so you shouldn't drive that. Its the smaller cars that are unsafe, not the SUVs. I can't see around a semi (and yes this is a frequent annoyance for me) but at worst i have to assume that there is another vehicle in whatever area is obstructed from my vision. I err on the side of caution, rather than simply blame someone else.
I will grant that 1) and 2) are valid points. 3) and 4) speak to the bad design of other vehicles, not of the SUVs. However, there is no reason that 1) and 2) cannot be countered by the human element. So there is no real reason other than human stupidity that SUVs are more dangerous for their drivers. The risk to other drivers like i said only speaks to the bad design of those cars and the need for engineers to take into account the presence of larger vehicles on the road.
1)The heavier it is the more friction on the road, the faster it stops on its own.
It's a wonder that 18 wheelers can't stop on a dime then!
More weight does (I presume) give more frictional force. However, don't forget that more weight means greater momentum. Sufficiently more force is required to match an ordinary car's stopping distance. Is there enough?
3)This has more to do with the bad design of other cars.
Does it? Cars were designed to protect what was on the road; other cars. When SUV's come along it's entirely unreasonable to suggest that cars that can't protect in a crash with a SUV could possibly be due in any way to the bad design of cars.
Furthermore, I'm curious as to how feasible it is for a car to protect against a SUV crash. As is commonly mentioned, the problem is that the bulk of the SUV is above where the car's safety measures are; is it even possible to raise them?
It seems, to me, that the only reasonable answer is for SUV's to be designed to protect other cars in a crash.
4)Again this speaks to the bad design of your car more than it does of the SUV. I can't see around a semi
Does the fact you can't see around a sumi testify to the bad design of your car, or simply the fact that the semi is wide compared to the road? Why is the issue with SUV's different?
at worst i have to assume that there is another vehicle in whatever area is obstructed from my vision.
But you can't assume that something dangerous is happening in that area you can't see, and that's the problem. With limited vision, you simply cannot drive as safely as if you had a full field of vision.
Dagenais
May26-04, 12:30 PM
No, SUV does not equal USA.
According to the articles I brought up, they do.
Please don't stereotype cultures
Tell the writers of the articles, not me. As they, and many other people believe that SUVs are a part of modern US culture.
It leads to racism
SUVs lead to racism?
The SUV craze may have started here, but that doesn't mean all of us want or drive one.
Every American loving something doesn't equal American culture. The Yankees are apart of American culture, but not everyone likes them. Only a strong majority has to.
All of your points to refute the answers in which you did ask for lack any logic or substance[quote]
You mentioned that already.
[quote]It's obvious with your defensiveness you might feel slightly ashamed for your reasons of wanting to drive one
No, I'm actually quite glad I'm driving one. You're making points with lack of logic and substance.
my guess is you are seeking higher status),
You've mentioned this so many times. We already went through this, and this seems to be the only things you have against SUVs, since you keep on bringing such a weak point up.
Many in both groups are a replacement for the large belt buckle craze of the '80s, that is, they are a way for men, who are uncertain of their manhood, to say mine is bigger then yours.
Many women drive Sports Utility Vehicles too. Manufacturers claim that females like the feel that they're in control and they like the commanding view. A lot of females love driving the Liberty, which has been labeled a female's SUV.
2) The higher the centre of gravity, the more prone it is to rolling.
That only happens when the driver has no clue how to take turns with an SUV.
Furthermore, I'm curious as to how feasible it is for a car to protect against a SUV crash.
The 4Runner protects against cars in a crash. It has a special bumper to do this.
"According to the articles I brought up, they do."
You know, you don't have to believe everything you read. I highly encourage you to think for yourself.
"You've mentioned this so many times. We already went through this, and this seems to be the only things you have against SUVs, since you keep on bringing such a weak point up. "
Apparantly not weak enough for you to not dispute.
Clearly your posting this thread is your way is to justify your reasons for driving one. Your proclamation of driving a big SUV in the manner you are can only fuel this animosity towards those choosing to drive one. I suggest you get over it, drive your big rig and prepare to pay more for gasoline then the rest of us. Otherwise if you weren't feeling some sort of controversey in driving one, you wouldn't bother with arguing the point.
i_wish_i_was_smart
May26-04, 04:01 PM
whats all this hate, different strokes for different folks, i got a mercedes SUV and a camaro, they are both as bad as the next, it all depends on the person behind the wheel
Dagenais
May26-04, 07:14 PM
Apparantly not weak enough for you to not dispute.
I have actually. Maybe if you bothered to read replies as opposed to jumping to the quick reply (don't you love that feature?), you would have noticed.
"I really don't get what you mean. A typical SUV isn't a $150,000 Mercedes it doesn't tell much about social/financial status."
Before you post your next reply, let me post it for you:
"You drive an SUV just to show your status! Whatever the hell that's suppose to mean!" :grumpy:
Dag is out to start an argument over this rather
I have better things to do than start an argument about SUV safety with you. Remind yourself - it takes 2 people to tango, and right now, you're dancing with me.
it all depends on the person behind the wheel
According to many people here, SUVs are unsafe to the driver and everyone else. And no matter who the driver is you're going to flip. :uhh:
The_Professional
May26-04, 07:32 PM
*YAWWNNNS*
i_wish_i_was_smart
May26-04, 07:38 PM
According to many people here, SUVs are unsafe to the driver and everyone else. And no matter who the driver is you're going to flip. :uhh:
not if you dont drive like an idiot, its basic physics, dont take a sharp corner too fast and you wont flip
have actually. Maybe if you bothered to read replies as opposed to jumping to the quick reply (don't you love that feature?), you would have noticed.
as i stated before, you have no logic in your reasoning for driving one. you have yet to admit that you actually use the SUV for outdoor uses. so far, you have led me to believe you drive it for regular commuting. this is where i have a problem, as it is a waste-mostly for you on how much you spend needlessly on gas. many of these americans you refer to as SUV lovers are ones who use their vehicle to commute to a metro city with well paved roads. i think that is ridiculous. if you are one who actually uses your SUV for practical purposes, but then commutes to work on other means that use less energy (such as a bike, mass transit, or car pool), then you probably aren't the typical SUV driver that you proclaim we americans are.
I have better things to do than start an argument about SUV safety with you.
then what was the point of starting this thread? you asked, you got people's opinions, now you don't have time to argue??
According to many people here, SUVs are unsafe to the driver and everyone else. And no matter who the driver is you're going to flip.
you seem to keep forgetting the point i keep bringing up: if you actually use the SUV for what it is meant for on a frequent enough basis, then i see no big deal. but when there are many SUV's on the road, yes, it does add to the unsafety of other drivers who drive everyday cars. there are many people who cannot afford the extra expenses of an SUV, or don't want to afford them, thus they choose to drive a car that is meant for commuting only. why does their safety have to be jeopardized more then necessary?
10 years ago i owned a 1989 Toyota 4 x 4 truck with a canopy. i was in 3 accidents in that truck (2 not my fault, one was) and the damage was immense-to both cars involved. i spent weeks in physcial therapy for one accident and it had a major impact on my life. the main use of my truck was for commuting, and occasional camping. the accident that was my fault was because of how difficult it was to see my way around, and i backed into another car. before i bought that truck i thought i would be safer and i could see the road easier (i transitioned from a geo storm gsi). i was totally wrong. so dag, as you can see, i am speaking from my own personal experiences, and perhaps if you get into an accident yourself, you will realize just how dangerous bigger vehicles are instead of believing that illusion they are safer because of more metal. just more metal to do damage.
i_wish_i_was_smart
May26-04, 08:04 PM
10 years ago i owned a 1989 Toyota 4 x 4 truck with a canopy. i was in 3 accidents in that truck (2 not my fault, one was) and the damage was immense-to both cars involved. i spent weeks in physcial therapy for one accident and it had a major impact on my life. the main use of my truck was for commuting, and occasional camping. the accident that was my fault was because of how difficult it was to see my way around, and i backed into another car. before i bought that truck i thought i would be safer and i could see the road easier (i transitioned from a geo storm gsi). i was totally wrong. so dag, as you can see, i am speaking from my own personal experiences, and perhaps if you get into an accident yourself, you will realize just how dangerous bigger vehicles are instead of believing that illusion they are safer because of more metal. just more metal to do damage.
that sux, i had an accident also, i WAS in an SUV, and i was rear-ended, my car was totaled, and i'm still in physio and its been 2 years, i dont see the difference if i would of been in a small car though
many of these americans you refer to as SUV lovers are ones who use their vehicle to commute to a metro city with well paved roads. i think that is ridiculous.
Big Time. In Florida (pretty flat in most places) the only practical application for an SUV that I can think of is for park rangers or using 4x4 to extricate oneself from the swamp.
franznietzsche
May26-04, 11:23 PM
Does it? Cars were designed to protect what was on the road; other cars.
No cars were designed to protect the drivers and passengers inside the car, the idea being if every car was designed to protect its own passengers, all would be well. It had nothing to do with protecting other cars.
mooberrymarz
May27-04, 03:50 AM
This has been my favourite thread so far... hahah. Dag u should be on the debating team for my varsity.. . I think there is nothing wrong with driving an SUV. They are pretty hot cars. i wouldnt mind one myself..
No cars were designed to protect the drivers and passengers inside the car
Bleh, what a difference one word can make. It was supposed to say:
"Does it? Cars were designed to protect against what was on the road; other cars."
Dagenais
May27-04, 09:55 AM
No cars were designed to protect the drivers and passengers inside the car, the idea being if every car was designed to protect its own passengers, all would be well. It had nothing to do with protecting other cars.
That's obviously true, since to car manufacturers as long as the driver of their car is safe, everything is fine. The Government organizations that does crash testing doesn't test how badly the wall is damaged in a crash, they test how badly the crash dummy is damaged.
According to Hurkly, it doesn't matter as long as the evil driver of the SUV is dead and the holy sedan driver is safe.
This has been my favourite thread so far...
Mine too. Mine too.
greggoth
Apr22-08, 11:08 AM
[QUOTE=franznietzsche;218133]1)The heavier it is the more friction on the road, the faster it stops on its own. I've driven my uncles F-350 diesel truck before, stopping power is no more of an issue in that for me than it is driving a Sebring (though the blind spots in that truck are a nightmare.)
Though I may be over-simplifying the issue but, the energy required to stop a vehicle moving at a velocity v is:
E = 1/2*m*v^2
the frictional force, Fr, between a vehicle and the road is proportional to the normal force, N, and the frictional coefficient, u, assuming no slipping, but the normal force due to a surface normal to gravity, g, is simply m*g, therefore:
Fr = u*N = u*m*g
Then if we use this force to stop the vehicle, the energy energy dissipated by the friction is over the distance, d, required to stop the vehicle is:
Fr*d = u*m*g*d
then using this force to stop the vehicle leads to:
u*m*g*d = 1/2*m*v^2 --> u*g*d = 1/2*v^2
So as we can see the mass term falls out completely, and the stopping power has only to do with the frictional coefficient between the tires and the road, regardless of the mass of the vehicle; this means that the added mass of the vehicle does not provide any added benefit in terms of turning or stopping, it simply wears the tires more quickly and requires proportionally more gas=energy to accelerate the greater mass m to the velocity v to achieve a kinetic energy 1/2*m*v^2...
brewnog
Apr22-08, 01:39 PM
Good work, greg. That thread had nearly been dead for 4 years. Is that a winner?
Welcome, by the way.
greggoth
Apr22-08, 02:57 PM
oops :P I guess I was blinded by my urge to respond
For the record, motor vehicles do not brake by locking their wheels and using friction against the road; they brake by pressing the brake pads against the inner mechanisms of the car, which I believe* is both significantly more effective (more friction) and safer (more control) than locking your brakes and using friction against the road to slow down.
*: I am neither a mechanic nor any sort of car expert.
greggoth
Apr22-08, 03:25 PM
the brake pads do the work of slowing the rotation of the wheels, which in turn imparts a torque counter to that imparted by the road through the frictional interaction with the tire, which from the viewpoint of the wheel, is at that point, in motion, and which is what I described. If it weren't for friction between the wheel and the road, the action of the brake pads, and the subsequent change in wheel rotation would not slow the car, as anyone who has ever hit the brakes on a patch of ice knows, despite bringing the rotation of the wheels to a complete stop...The energy calculation I used originally does oversimplify; however, even a more complete analysis involving the torques and fictional interaction of the brake pads would yield the same result.
seycyrus
Apr22-08, 03:25 PM
An SUV is also perfectly safe to drive, despite the "roll-over theory". 77% of deaths in roll-overs are because the driver didn't have his safety belt on and suffered head/neck injuries or was ejected. Over 85% of injuries were caused by drivers that didn't have seat-belts on. So SUVs are safe in collisions and daily driving if you take the steps to strap up.
This is not logically correct. It only shows that not wearing a seat-belt has a tendency to result in greater injury when an accident does occur. This tendency is true in regards to virtually any type of automotive vehicle.
I'm not sure what conclusion you might be trying to draw in regards to the "accidents caused by people not wearing a seat belt" statistic, but it certainly doesn't support the argument regarding rollover fallacy.
If you want to address the "rollover fallacy", do so directly.
Do SUVs have a greater chance of rollover than other vehicles?
Chi Meson
Apr22-08, 04:05 PM
I was just about to put in:
"Nice work Dagenais. I haven't seen Chroot that worked up since...since..."
*bing*
JasonRox
Apr22-08, 05:54 PM
This argument of SUV's is equivalent to that of an argument over a crackpot theory.
According to the thread poster, everyone should buy an SUV to be safe on the road and buying a sedan, you're choosing to be less safe. Therefore, if I own an SUV and want to be safer, I should buy something bigger than an SUV hence overthrowing all the other SUV's on the road. Now, SUV drivers are choosing to be unsafe because they didn't buy a vehicle as big as mine. Now, some SUV drivers buy big vehicles like mine. BUT WAIT MINUTE, I want to be safe so I go out and buy something EVEN BIGGER. So, the people who bought a model like my previous vehicle are choosing to be unsafe, same as the SUV and sedan drivers because they bought a smaller vehicle than mine. To be safe I always have to simply buy a BIGGER vehicle.
That has to be the most absurd thing I've ever heard. That's exactly what the OP has been saying for like 6 pages.
A safe road is a road where everyone drives a car of equivalent size.
http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/
If you want to be safe, don't drive American cars. Research into how BMW and Mercedes designs vehicles that only makes them safe for the drives in the vehicle but also the other drivers on the road. The concepts they implemented into SUV's should be followed by American companies. Of course, American companies won't do that because they lack innovation.
Chi Meson
Apr22-08, 07:12 PM
That has to be the most absurd thing I've ever heard. That's exactly what the OP has been saying for like 6 pages.
And FOUR YEARS!
This argument of SUV's is equivalent to that of an argument over a crackpot theory.
According to the thread poster, everyone should buy an SUV to be safe on the road and buying a sedan, you're choosing to be less safe. Therefore, if I own an SUV and want to be safer, I should buy something bigger than an SUV hence overthrowing all the other SUV's on the road. Now, SUV drivers are choosing to be unsafe because they didn't buy a vehicle as big as mine. Now, some SUV drivers buy big vehicles like mine. BUT WAIT MINUTE, I want to be safe so I go out and buy something EVEN BIGGER. So, the people who bought a model like my previous vehicle are choosing to be unsafe, same as the SUV and sedan drivers because they bought a smaller vehicle than mine. To be safe I always have to simply buy a BIGGER vehicle.
That has to be the most absurd thing I've ever heard. That's exactly what the OP has been saying for like 6 pages.
A safe road is a road where everyone drives a car of equivalent size.
http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/
If you want to be safe, don't drive American cars. Research into how BMW and Mercedes designs vehicles that only makes them safe for the drives in the vehicle but also the other drivers on the road. The concepts they implemented into SUV's should be followed by American companies. Of course, American companies won't do that because they lack innovation.
Wouldn't that be: If you want to be safe, don't let other drivers drive American cars?
Mercury Mountaineers (and, by extension, Ford Explorers since it's the same basic body) do a pretty good job crumpling up in an accident. But they're not very good to trees, let alone other cars.
(Not me personally - see "Best age to have kids thread")
Safety of cars:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/P63955.asp
..."Pickups generally don't do well in these assessments," says Champion. "They usually don't protect the driver in crashes and some of them have poor brakes and sloppy handling." ...
....SUVs that did poorly were the Chevrolet Trail Blazer, the GMC Envoy and the Jeep Grand Cherokee. As for minivans, the Honda Odyssey EX, the Toyota Sienna LE and the Mazda MPV LX all did well. But the Chevrolet Venture LS, the Oldsmobile Silhouette GLS and Pontiac Montana fared poorly.
Zuby says that the Pontiac Montana, a minivan, probably was the worst vehicle the institute has tested that's still being sold. "The crush zone didn't crush as much as it should have done, meaning there's a high likelihood of a serious injury in an accident."
Conclusion: big is not equal to safe. Moreover the agility of small cars allow for better chance of avoiding/evading trouble.
Greg Bernhardt
Apr23-08, 12:29 PM
Shouldn't all vehicles by now have outstanding crash ratings? I can see how the first decade of cars maybe had problems, but by now it shouldn't be hard to make a car that has a good crash rating.
To return to the original title of this thread... after a few $100+ fillups this summer, I bet a lot of SUV owners will start to hate their own SUV's. :devil:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/04/23/gas.prices/index.html
Mech_Engineer
Apr23-08, 02:07 PM
I still like my SUV just fine.
Sure, I only get about 19mpg on the highway and 16 in the city, but carpooling helps. Offroading and camping are big parts of my summer hobbies, and I'd rather pay a little extra in gas for a vehicle that can drive wherever I like. Toyota 4Runners are very good at keeping low maintinence costs as well.
I wouldn't mind owning a motorcycle, but the drivers on my commute are crazy, and I'd be taking my life into my hands every time I got on it. Still, as gas gets more and more expensive, I'm thinking harder and harder about it...
Moonbear
Apr23-08, 02:50 PM
I wouldn't mind owning a motorcycle, but the drivers on my commute are crazy, and I'd be taking my life into my hands every time I got on it. Still, as gas gets more and more expensive, I'm thinking harder and harder about it...
I'm starting to reconsider the concept of horse-drawn carriage. :biggrin: Can you imagine the looks on people's faces as I hitched a horse up to the bike rack? It won't be long before the Amish are the only ones who can afford to "drive" anywhere.
A bumper sticker I saw on a Prius:
"Osama (heart) Your SUV"
Ouch!
Ivan Seeking
Apr23-08, 02:54 PM
I still like my SUV just fine.
Sure, I only get about 19mpg on the highway and 16 in the city,
I haven't gotten mileage that bad on a primary vehicle since the seventies. We do have an old truck that only gets about 10 mpg, but it only drives about thirty miles a year.
Okay, I did have a something or other with a huge engine, like a 454, for a short time in about 1981.
Moonbear
Apr23-08, 03:05 PM
I haven't gotten mileage that bad on a primary vehicle since the seventies. We do have an old truck that only gets about 10 mpg, but it only drives about thirty miles a year.
Okay, I did have a something or other with a huge engine, like a 454, for a short time in about 1981.
I can understand having a truck if you need to work on construction sites or a farm. I could also understand having an inexpensive, used one that mostly sits in the driveway except for the occasional hunting or camping trip that requires driving off-road into muddy conditions (why would you buy one brand new just to beat the crap out of it on rough terrain and cover it in mud?) But I'd never want that as a primary vehicle.
Poop-Loops
Apr23-08, 03:40 PM
To return to the original title of this thread... after a few $100+ fillups this summer, I bet a lot of SUV owners will start to hate their own SUV's. :devil:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/04/23/gas.prices/index.html
Hey, if you know of a better way to compensate for having a small penis, I'd like to hear it, okay?
Bought this car (http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/firstdrives/220548/peugeot_308.html) last week with a diesel TDi engine. Mileage about 1:55 mpg or 4.8 liter/100 km.
Chi Meson
Apr23-08, 04:13 PM
I wouldn't mind owning a motorcycle, but the drivers on my commute are crazy, and I'd be taking my life into my hands every time I got on it. Still, as gas gets more and more expensive, I'm thinking harder and harder about it...
I totally want a motorcycle. But my wife, and 3 kids, say no. OK, my wife says no four times.
I drive a small Jeep Liberty and I love it. I have had cars as well and the Jeep has 100x the visibility and even has better maneuverability that my car's did , this thing can turn on a dime and you can see everything (no blind spots). I have hobbies that are much easier with a SUV. It does get crap mileage though, on the highway in the summer I get about 24 mpg :(. The cost of gas is going to start killing me but I can't afford a new vehicle right now but when I graduate and can afford one I will be buying something more economical. It will be a sad day when my Jeep goes though because I really do love this thing.
I wish I lived in a place where it was warm all the time, then I would have a motorcycle as my primary vehicle and just use the jeep for the odd grocery or camping trip and whatnot.
quadraphonics
Apr23-08, 04:55 PM
One other reason to hate SUVs that I didn't see mentioned: all that extra gas they waste drives up the overall demand for gas, and so raises prices for the rest of us.
Ms Music
Apr23-08, 05:43 PM
I can understand having a truck (...........) But I'd never want that as a primary vehicle.
I would love to NOT have a truck as a primary vehicle (I do need one) but since it costs $100 a month to insure my truck, and another 75 to add a second car, the savings in gas is gone. When I am one person only, I don't understand why having insurance on 2 cars is so high. I can only drive one at a time! So I choose a truck as a primary vehicle instead of paying $175 a month for freaking insurance. :yuck: Everyone thinks I am nuts, but I can't justify the costly insurance to save a little gas.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.