Why do people have such a strong dislike for SUVs?

[Dagenais]

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...

 

[Dissident Dan]

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.

 

[chroot]

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

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[kuengb]

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

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]

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

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]

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.

 

[kuengb]

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]

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.

 

[Adam]

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]

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.

 

[Kerrie]

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.

 

[Kerrie]

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]

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]

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]

New rule: No one who drives an SUV is allowed to complain about smokers.

Remember, "Jesus wouldn't drive an SUV".

 

[Hurkyl]

Sucks to be the other guy.

Thus the need for regulation.

 

[ray b]

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]

Has there ever been a study about wear-and-tear on roads as it relates to vehicle weight?

 

[Dagenais]

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 environment 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.

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Kerrie]

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 accommodate 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]

I do have a problem with people who litter. Much worse for the environment 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.

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!

 

[cookiemonster]

So, uh, what happens when one SUV hits another one?

cookiemonster

 

[BoulderHead]

It creates a massive amount of wreckage that the smaller cars run into.

 

[Adam]

Sure, there are mirrors that don't reflect light. But we don't call them mirrors, we call them black holes. :P

 

[one_raven]

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.

 

[chroot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

why should i have to accommodate 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]

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]

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.