How Accurate Are Your Driving Skills?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quasaire
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the evolution and implications of SUVs, starting with the 1946 Jeep Station Wagon as a precursor to modern SUVs. Participants express mixed feelings about SUVs, highlighting their large size, fuel inefficiency, and perceived environmental impact. Some argue that SUVs are unnecessary for urban commuting, while others defend their utility for families and off-road enthusiasts. There are concerns about safety, particularly regarding the danger SUVs pose to smaller vehicles in accidents, as well as the environmental consequences of their popularity. The conversation also touches on the social dynamics of SUV ownership, with some viewing them as status symbols and others criticizing their drivers as self-centered. The debate includes calls for potential regulations or bans on SUVs, particularly for those who do not utilize them for their intended purposes. Overall, the discussion reflects a deep divide in opinions on the practicality, safety, and environmental responsibility of SUVs in contemporary society.

What's your opinion on Sport Utility Vehicles?

  • They should be banned (their a hazard to the environment and other motorists)

    Votes: 9 40.9%

  • Automakers just need to improve them (gas mileage, rollover susceptibility etc)

    Votes: 9 40.9%

  • They are cool just the way they are (tree-huggers need to shutup)

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • Total voters
    22
  • #31
Originally posted by BoulderHead
So instead of merely asking you would prefer ordering ?
I’m interested in where this line of reasoning will lead.


So am I. This is the way we solve problems now.

Well, I prefer to separate myself from this ‘we’ you are speaking of, believing that I have no business charging my neighbor money before allowing him/her to indulge in drink and smoke (though I would like to receive a dollar each time they urinate, if at all possible). Perhaps someone can explain to me why the cigarette smokers and drinkers are paying such taxes in the first place. I don’t remember the reasoning behind this.
Lastly, if the SUV’s are so deadly, simply charging more money for them as you have suggested above seems kind of like the selling of indulgences to me...


We tax cigs and booze on the basis that they are a public health risk. If my actions cost you money, the gov taxes me for the difference. If my wearing a seat belt reduces your insurance, then its the law. If I don't follow suit, I pay through tickets. If my helmet makes your medical costs lower, then its law to wear one. We are holding industry accountable for pollution damages. Why not drivers also. I get 40 mpg in my car. Why should I pay the same price per gallon when I do much less damage to the roads and to the environment? Ultimately, pollution causes health problems that cost me money.


Yes, I’m sure the social planners could come up with many wonderful ways to spend every last dime a person makes. I didn’t know SUV’s were so heavy as to damage the roads, however. Is this really true to any significant degree? ('cause I didn't read any of those links).

I am taking this from my professional knowledge of roads and large vehicles. Heavier vehicles produce greater wear on the roads. This is all a matter of percentages. What is the weight of a VW compared to an SUV?...about 1/3? The feds hold the states hostage with road monies. This is a significant cost.

Are you speaking as a motorcyclist complaining about all the steel boxes (4-wheels or more), or as an economy car driver complaining about SUV’s and up ? (or as a pedestrian complaining about them all?)

I am simply following today’s political logic. I doubt that you could beat this argument in court.

This is exactly where I though it would lead. I guess I'm just going to have to sit back and start following the orders handed down from on high.

I think you get my point. And believe me, the food police are coming next. But if we are going to use this logic as a basis for governing society, it will eventually apply equally. The lawyers will make sure of that!

Besides, I think SUVs are a disgrace to anyone who cares about their children's and grandchildren's future. Heck, I can now make this argument on a political basis completely void of environmental concerns. This is why I would support such legislation…unless the entire mentality reverses of course. I think that each person is entitled to as much personal freedom as possible. But if this doesn’t apply equally, we will all be facing realities like the one I am suggesting. :wink:

Edit: and Uncle Sam will find plenty of ways to waste your $20,000 SUV tax.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by kenikov
The passenger in the other car must worry about his own safety, and I will worry about mine.

Companies like Ford and GMC have lowered their SUV bumpers protecting other cars. It is a law now.

No, it is the government's job to worry about your safety and mine. This is why we have seat belt laws. And your lower bumper does not compensate for the difference in weight. You have no right to put my life in jeopardy. So I will worry about your car; and eventually so will the government.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by vedder
Using this logic, since you seem to agree that suv's are in fact safer, regular cars should be banned.

they are more dangerous to everyone but those in the SUV. You don't care if people are dying?
 
  • #34
Allrrrright! My first hot thread :smile:. I thought this would get people going heh .

To counterbalance the anti-SUV article I posted earlier, here is a pro-SUV website I found Welcome to SUVlove.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Originally posted by Quasaire
Allrrrright! My first hot thread :smile:. I thought this would get people going heh .

To counterbalance the anti-SUV article I posted earlier, here is a pro-SUV website I found Welcome to SUVlove.

I like your style you trouble maker. :wink:
 
  • #36
Do you really want government telling you what to drive or what not to drive?

You are thinking that the legislation would favor the small car, right? What if it went the other way? What if the automobile manufacturers lobby for everyone to own SUVs to equalize the risk? That would put everyone closer in size to the big tractor trailers and buses and pickup trucks that actually rule the road.

In Europe they have vans that get over 50 mpg. This is because they don't have safety regulations that require steel panels in doors and other weight adding safety features that have been legislated to be required in US cars.

Keep the government out of it.
 
  • #37
No. People must pay for their choices. This is no different than the cigs and booze tax.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No. People must pay for their choices. This is no different than the cigs and booze tax.

So people who drive small cars should be made to pay a higher tax as well because they are more likely to be seriously injured in a crash and be more of a burdon on society. (Just as cig smokers and drinkers are more of a burdon due to health related issues.)

quote:Originally posted by Quasaire
Allrrrright! My first hot thread . I thought this would get people going heh .

quote:Originally posted by Ivan Seeking...
I like your style you trouble maker.

I like your trouble making style too, Quasaire.

This is a good topic. I don't really disagree with Ivan and Zero, I just don't think that everyone that drives an SUV is a selfish, gas guzzling, pedestrian chasing, small car crunching, roadhog.

My SUV doesn't even have air conditioning, which is another draw on fuel economy and threat to environment. How many drivers of any size car can say that now-a-days?
 
  • #39
No, it is the government's job to worry about your safety and mine. This is why we have seat belt laws. And your lower bumper does not compensate for the difference in weight. You have no right to put my life in jeopardy. So I will worry about your car; and eventually so will the government.

So, your logic here is that people should not care about their safety?

That safety of a person while driving is not up to the person but up to the Government itself?

Tell me, who instigates fights, crashes, and road rage? People, not the Government.

Tell me again, who is it that finally decides whether we strap on that seatbelt for our own safety or not?

The people.


So, in the end, we are in charge of our own safety and we should be the ones to worry about it.

Also, remember that laws are passed in the US , usually by citizens who call up their State representitive with the idea.
 
  • #40
Zero - thanks for clarifying your other points. I acknowledge the concerns...I just object to the idea that only SUVs are evil.

Oh, and Phobos: some people absolutely DO need cars. There is no public transportation where I live, and no places to work within reasonable walking or cycling distance...unless you suggest I walk or cycle 2o miles at night on country roads?

Sounds like a business opportunity to provide local services to the people of your community so they don't have to drive 20 miles for everything. See? No car needed. I was certainly exaggerating to emphasize a point. I agree that there is a need for cars...and accordingly people should be able to buy the vehicle that suits their particular need (and even style). Some people need lots of interior space and 4-wheel drive and prefer the style. As I mentioned before, I agree many people buy "more car" than they need (e.g., a single highway commuter with a large SUV), but I would prefer to see that remedied through education (cost-benefit analyses, environmental concerns) and the availability of other choices rather than through the outright banning or biased taxation of a vehicle that others may need/want.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by Phobos
Or perhaps someone can post some statistics that actually show that SUVs are head and shoulders above the rest in any particular concern. Roll overs might be the only thing that stands out (although I'm curious to see the rollover stats on pickups and vans).

Anyone?
 
  • #42
Heh, I had just had two interesting encounters with the same Expedition driver. One at night on my way home and one this morning on my way to work.

In both instances, this ass decided he would ride my rear bumper to try to make me go faster. Instead, I set the cruise control to 5 over the speed limit and watch him squirm.

Now I drive an 02 Kia optima. I've got some aftermarket 17" wheels and a few suspension mods. On the trip out this morning, I did the same thing, and cruised through a 25 mph corner at 55, in my lane, without squeeling a tire.

The SUV driver, in his apparent rage, actually broke traction and drifted through the corner, only to hook up and go plowing through a persons yard.

His behavior was completely unprovoked by me, unless he is offended by my non-american vehicle.

Normally I'm the kind of person to stop and help another out it that type situation, but I thought I'd be a good samaritan and call the cops.


What is sad, is most people in SUV's honestly believe they have a right to more road, and that if your in there way, you should move.

I've had another, who approached me in the slow lane of a 4 lane road, and instead of singaling and getting in the left lane, he blew his horn and flashed his lights, apparently wanting me to move.

And when gas prices are steadily on the rise, and talks of stricter emmisions controls due to vehicle pollution, it almost seems, for lack of a better word, rude to go out and buy a vehicle to which you will more then likely never use as it design intended.

Like I said, if your not hauling a family around, or perhaps even heavy equipment, then there is no reason in driving a full size SUV.

I personally have no problems with the Mid size ones. My mom drives an isuzu trooper. It gets about 25 mpg, which is not to bad for the size vehicle.

I'll probably get dubbed unamerican for the following comment, but I don't really care.

I read earlier where someone said sports cars get about as bad gas mileage as a SUV. In some cases this is true. For instance, a Mustang, camaro, firebird, etc. However, if you look at foriegn sports cars, you'll see a completely different picture. For instance, I own a 1979 280zx, which, in its prime, would get well over 30 mpg, in 1979. I had a strait pipe exhaust (no catalytic convertor) and it would pass tail pipe emmisions tests. Even the new 350z claims are quite similar mpg.

For that matter, even a Toyota or Nissan, honda, kia, etc SUV seems to get mph in the mid to high 20s. Honestly, I believe it is rich americans working together to make each other richer.

One big conspiracy. Ford makes a big, bulky vehicle that drinks gas. Exxon profits, road workers have more job security, as well as paramedics (my mom is one) who get to remove the mutilated victims that were run over by some monstrous vehicle.

As far as death rates go, almost anytime an SUV is involved in an accident, atleast around here in Beer and bible world, the people not in the SUV are killed/seriously & permanently injured.

SUVs are safer then a minivan however. Note that you're not seeing as many minivans anymore. You know why? Because the minivan drivers have traded them for larger SUVs.
 
  • #43
Phobos
Anyone?

While I do not have exact statistical data for ya, I can share a lil info I get from my mother, who gets to see the statistics happen.

Rollovers are very common, in SUV's and larger trucks. In most roll overs, the person either was going through a corner at to high a speed for the vehicle, or simply ran off the road due to a spaz attack when passing oncoming vehicles.

Alot of SUV's simply run off the road. Why? Talking on the cell phone? No. that's just an excuse bad drivers use to excuse there less then par driving ability.

That, is essentially what it all boils down to. Driving ability and knowledge. Personally, I believe anyone that uses the term "groove" reffering to the quickest path through a corner should be shot.

I've said it on here before, but I think a person should have to complete atleast one SCCA approved driving school before getting there license. This requirement alone, would probably reduce wrecks by 50%, if not more.
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Artman
So people who drive small cars should be made to pay a higher tax as well because they are more likely to be seriously injured in a crash and be more of a burdon on society. (Just as cig smokers and drinkers are more of a burdon due to health related issues.

You would tax patriots who support the security of their nation by reducing the need for foreign oil? The minority is you!

Just like with smokers, your outnumbered. You will lose!
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Originally posted by kenikov
So, your logic here is that people should not care about their safety?

That safety of a person while driving is not up to the person but up to the Government itself?

This is apparently what the government has decided.




Also, remember that laws are passed in the US , usually by citizens who call up their State representitive with the idea.

Sorry but no. This kind of legislation is driven by insurance companies and by a public mind that is easily controlled - like lambs led to slaughter.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Originally posted by Artman
I don't really disagree with Ivan and Zero

I don't agree with Ivan; but the logic is inescapable. :wink:

Who can we pick on next? How about people who don't get enough excersise? Then maybe we could go after people that eat too much fat.

When it comes to transportation, isn't forced mass transit really the only solution? This would make everything nice and safe and equal for everyone. Then we can all just sue the government instead of each other. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
You would tax patriots who support the security of their nation by reducing the need for foreign oil? The minority is you!

Just like with smokers, your outnumbered. You will lose!

No. Just making a point. Taxation, as in life, doesn't usually favor who you think it should. Taxes on millionaires have dropped over the last fifty years while taxes on the middle class during that same period have quintupled. Does that seem fair?

Want to bet who gets taxed? We'll see who loses. I'll bet it's the middle class.
 
  • #48
The government has the ability to set safety, emissions, and gas milage restrictions. Why? Because those issues affect everyone, not only the drivers. Personal freedom only exists until it begins to adversely affect others. SUVs could be made safer and more fuel efficient, while maintaining most of their perceived benefits.
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Zero
The government has the ability to set safety, emissions, and gas milage restrictions. Why? Because those issues affect everyone, not only the drivers. Personal freedom only exists until it begins to adversely affect others. SUVs could be made safer and more fuel efficient, while maintaining most of their perceived benefits.

I agree with this completely.

My point is that the mid size SUVs are fair on gas and, when driven by a person who is mindful of the car's limitations and abilities, are reasonably safe.

Of course any car can be hazardous when driven without regard for it's limitations (stopping distance, acceleration, turning and cornering capability, etc.). As an example, a friend of mine used to drive a truck for a living. He said that women (his word not mine) would pull out in front of him constantly, not realizing that the space required to pull out in front of a truck is not the same as the space required to pull out in front of a car in order to leave room for an emergency stop. He told me he almost creamed several of them who pulled out of a stop street and just failed to leave enough time to accelerate to the speed of traffic without forcing the truck to slam on his brakes.
 
  • #50
Part of the issue is that people don't know how to drive full-sized SUVs...maybe they should be required to get a special license after taking a class?
 
  • #51
Originally posted by Zero
Part of the issue is that people don't know how to drive full-sized SUVs...maybe they should be required to get a special license after taking a class?

Another valid point. It is true that driving an SUV is not like driving a regular car. perhaps a special test like they make a motorcyclist or a commercial driver take to get a license would be warranted.
 
  • #52
Originally posted by Zero
Part of the issue is that people don't know how to drive full-sized SUVs...maybe they should be required to get a special license after taking a class?

The more I think about this idea the better I like it.

The test would allow those who could really use an SUV for their work (I work in construction as a consulting engineer and I never know where I may have to travel or the site conditions that I may encounter.), for play (offroading beach fishing, camping, etc), need of a bigger enclosed cargo area, or even if they just want one, to have one.

It would weed out those that can't handle one and dissuade some of those who would be better suited to something else, to make them consider another vehicle choice because of the inconvenience of having to take a special driving test.

This could work without unfair restrictions (I do not consider a demonstration of driving ability to be unfair), banning or taxation.

They could even require car manufacturers to provide the training classes.

I think this is a good idea, Zero.
 
  • #53
Maybe we could all agree that many people are bad drivers and those bad drivers who buy SUVs get a false sense of empowerment (i.e., from being bigger than others on the road) which brings out the problems being discussed.

Now I wonder if, as Zero suggests, there's a trend for bad drivers to gravitate toward SUVs (either self imposed or via marketing).

Originally posted by Zero
The government has the ability to set safety, emissions, and gas milage restrictions. Why? Because those issues affect everyone, not only the drivers. Personal freedom only exists until it begins to adversely affect others. SUVs could be made safer and more fuel efficient, while maintaining most of their perceived benefits.

Agree!
 
  • #54
Nah. The majority of people cannot drive.

They just use talking on a cell phone or some other excuse to cover up the fact that they're to ignorant to drive.

Drivers education teachs you how to pass a test. It doesn't teach you how to drive.

I mean, even if we outlawed SUV's completely, crash rates wouldn't drop much. They'd just go back to crashing there Mini vans and camaros.

Artman:

(I do not consider a demonstration of driving ability to be unfair)

This is what I mean. Something like a SCCA driving course would fit the bill.
 
  • #55
I can comment on this. I work for one of the big 3, but not directly involved in the vehicles.

There are a lot of valid points on the lack of safety with SUV's vs other vehicles. I'm sure it was highlighted with the recent lawsuits brought against Ford about this. However the bottom line is that vehicle safety standards are driven by legislature. And the big 3 is a powerhouse, and most likely has lobbyists rallying the senate and various sectors of the government such as the EPA for less strict laws regarding SUVs. I believe there was an issue brought to ballot recently in california proposing an SUV tax.

The bottom line is that there is intense pressure from the big 3 on the government, and as someone said earlier, those with the power, such as the big 3, are the ones with the most influences.

PS As I said earlier, I'm not directly involved in vehicle production, so don't bother attacking me, as I do agree with some of you on the cons of SUV's. As for the premise that they are marketing to a group of people who are ill-tempered hot-heads, it's the first I've heard of it. Target demographic is probably young males 20-35, who are middle class. If there's a lot of road rage, it's purely coincidental, or a by-product of that target age group.

Oh and FYI, I don't own an SUV- I agree that it's pointless to buy an off-road vehicle that you'll never take through a park, let alone the wilderness.
 
  • #56
Like I said, if your not hauling a family around, or perhaps even heavy equipment, then there is no reason in driving a full size SUV.

I do agree. If one wants to go off-road, a Mid-size SUV like a Jeep, Land Rover would suit perfectly.

However, Full-size SUVS have more power and like that guy in the Snikers commerial quoted, "35 airbags) :wink:

They have lots of gadgets too. Not to mention very comfortable with lots of leg room.

So what if they cut you off? Sure SUV drivers may be_aggressive, but you can't say other drivers aren't.

At least SUV drivers don't mod their cars up to the maximum HP and race down a road with innocent drivers in their way. This happens with sport cars.

SUV aren't mainly for work. That is up to Pick-up trucks. SUV are used to patrol mountains and mountain passes or other rough places.

I do not however agree with taking a full-size SUV and running it through a forest over trees and deer like that are crap.

Any of you seen that VW Toureg (something like that) commercial? It shows the driver plowing through a block of snow and driving his car through a snowy forest that was as peaceful as heaven.

Too bad the car kills that tranquillity.


I must admit, when I am able to drive I myself will probably try to convince my parents for a Jeep Liberty or Mitsubishi Eclipse. I just like SUV, they are very comfortable.
 
  • #57
At least SUV drivers don't mod their cars up to the maximum HP and race down a road with innocent drivers in their way. This happens with sport cars.

I grew up drinking gasoline for breakfast (not really). I've been racing/driving something all my life. I know how to drive with the best of them.

I can say this because I was properly educated on how to drive, and had lots of practice. If I'm doing triple digits on a public road, there is nobody else around me. I've never, not once, had a so much as a close call at high speeds because I KNOW HOW TO DRIVE.

and the thing here is that, everyone should know how to drive.


As far as your little references to plowing over trees and deers, that is pure stupdity. People who go offroading cannot afford the damage done for one, and also tend to enjoy the serenity that nature has to offer.

Is it an insult when its true? my apoligys in advance if so.
 
  • #58
I have another question;
What is an SUV?
Is a Chevrolet Suburban an SUV?
I was thinking those vehicles were around back before I started hearing about SUV's, yet surely they are one of the larger vehicles out there.
 
  • #59
The suburban, K-5 blazer, Ford Bronco, International Scout, and a few others were the predecessors to SUVs. They tried it once before, but it didn't catch on.

I think they called those particular vehicles Utility trucks or something of the sort.

I think SUV was coined in the late 80's, early 90's.
 
  • #60
You mean they stopped building Suburbans?
Huh, I guess I'm outta touch on such things.
('we' pronounce them: Suber-bans, haha)
 

Similar threads

Torque specs for 6,000lb party bike
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K