Why do people have such a strong dislike for SUVs?

[chroot]

My point was that it's inappropriate to inline pictures with profane statements in them.

- Warren

 

[Adam]

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]

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!

 

[Njorl]

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

 

[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

 

[Kerrie]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Kerrie]

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?

 

[motai]

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]

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 that's 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 accommodate 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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

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

You mentioned that already.

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.

 

[Kerrie]

"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]

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]

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]

*YAWWNNNS*

 

[i_wish_i_was_smart]

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 don't drive like an idiot, its basic physics, don't take a sharp corner too fast and you won't flip

 

[Kerrie]

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]

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 don't see the difference if i would of been in a small car though

 

[motai]

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]

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]

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 wouldn't mind one myself..

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

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]

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]

Good work, greg. That thread had nearly been dead for 4 years. Is that a winner?

Welcome, by the way.

 

[greggoth]

oops :P I guess I was blinded by my urge to respond

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

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]

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]

I was just about to put in:

"Nice work Dagenais. I haven't seen Chroot that worked up since...since..."*bing*

 

[JasonRox]

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]

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!

 

[BobG]

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")