# What's your opinion on SUVs?

## 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
Quasaire
According to sources I read, the 1946 Jeep Station Wagon is considered by many to be the first SUV. It had two-wheel drive, a seven-passenger capacity and a top speed of 65 mph. I don't know about its' gas mileage or weight. Today's SUV more likely has four-wheel drive, a five to nine-passenger capacity and a top speed of 120 mph. SUVs seem to weigh anywhere from 3 - 3.5 tons and gas mileage is usually around 10-20 mpg.

So what do you think? Do you have an SUV or do you prefer smaller cars? Do you think SUVs make the US a hostage to OPEC? What's the big fuss about SUVs[?]

Last edited:

## Answers and Replies

SUVs SUK.

eNtRopY

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
I voted "improve" with the understanding that better gas mileage means better Hydrogen mileage.

Convert to hydrogen and we can have muscle cars again.
400Hp. YOW!

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
i think it is absolute ridiculous when i see people in the city driving their huge ford expeditions here...(i live in portland oregon)...we have one of the best mass transit systems in the u.s., and they still choose to drive their huge cars (which i think is absolutely arrogant and yuppified) in a city that promotes environmentalism...

and i drive a gas efficient 2 door vw...

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Originally posted by Kerrie
i think it is absolute ridiculous when i see people in the city driving their huge ford expeditions here...(i live in portland oregon)...we have one of the best mass transit systems in the u.s., and they still choose to drive their huge cars (which i think is absolutely arrogant and yuppified) in a city that promotes environmentalism...

and i drive a gas efficient 2 door vw...

How about the 35,000 land cruisers or trucks with lift kits, splash guards, skid plates, roll bars, headlight guards, tires the size of your car, headers, oversized pistons, illegal mufflers, a full sized winch with 500 ft of cable, they get 8 mpg, and that never go off road because at that price no one can afford to break it? . Andy I cant standf the tree hugging hippies but i also cant stand the people that buy a large 4x4 and never take it off road, i have been off roading with my uncle in his range rover and it is really good fun, but during the day just for running around to work and stuff he tries to use his wifes smaller car as much as possible. And having a larger car also makes it easier to run over the commoners and hippies that get in the way! Quasaire Anymore opinions? It is an even vote so far with 33% for each. That's exactly what I expected because a lot of people seem to hate and love SUVs. But three votes isn't that much. Anymore opinions? This is an anti-SUV article I found at http://autozine.kyul.net/0_Inspiration/54/Inspiration.htm [Broken]: Title: No more SUV please By: Mark Wan This year, Sport Utility Vehicles are going to account for nearly 60% of USA’s new car sales. What’s more, the trend is still growing. These popular SUV consists of 4-wheel-drive offroaders and pickups, usually weighing in excess of 2 tons. I can’t quite understand the American love affair of these monsters. A typical family of a developed country consist of 4 members and 2 cars, one for the husband and one for the wife. In United States the car to people ratio is even approaching 1. Most people live in cities or country side nearby. And the call for environmental protection is increasing year by year. Considering such background, what modern human need is a small car being able to carry 4 people and weighing no more than 1000kg, drinks 3 litres of gas for every 100 kilometers and with a dimension to enable parking at ease. SUV ? No way. Surveys confirmed that most of the time your vehicle carries only 1 or 2 people including you, this makes a 2 tons SUV nonsense for everyday use. Instead of SUV, the most logical vehicle is a 2-seater named Smart. Commercially it has been proved as a failure, but I maintain that the failure is due to overprice and its flaw technical design, not because of the concept as a tiny city car. Anyway, SUV is never the most efficient way to move people. There are many MPV can carry 7 people with comfort. They tip the scale at 1500-1700kg, with all independent suspensions and multi-valve V6 but without the gas-wasting 4-wheel-drive. What SUV wins over MPV is off-road ability. It is understandable that the agricultural area of Southern USA need SUVs to travel on muddy roads, but when you see SUV also dominates the streets of Los Angeles, New York and the Silicone Valley you know the world is really going crazy. Among all these SUVs, how many of them really need to go offroad ? Anyone have been in Hong Kong must know that this city never need SUVs. However, Rover Discovery and Mitsubishi Pajero are common scene in here. Most people use them to travel to picnic sites nearby (just behind the city), but every time I saw them I can’t find any mud on their body. Moreover, the roads to countryside are better than most British or French country roads, at least there is cement covering the surface. Someone said they want SUV for all-weather ability. Pardon ? It’s not the question of SUV, it’s about 4-wheel-drive only. A Subaru Legacy goes as well on wet or snow while providing superior handling and ride comfort. Moreover, even the Swedish are not very keen about 4-wheel-drive, as you can find only the minority of Volvo S70 equips with 4wd. Ridiculously, the most SUV-alike Swedish car is the Volvo V70XC, which is primarily designed for the US market. Another popular reason for defending the SUV is the superiority of crash protection. All of us know big cars (or more accurately speaking is heavy car) transfer less force to the occupants than small cars during a crash, simply because of the conservation of momentum. Therefore a 2.5 ton SUV crash face to face to a 1 ton Civic must favour the former. In other words, we can also say the popularity of SUV is harming other conventional road users. However, a SUV crash into another SUV won’t be so good. The law of conservation of momentum won’t favour any one of them, so both will be hurt severely, although the larger crumble zone of SUV still has an edge over normal cars. One day, when every car on the road become SUV, you might see a new trend of BUV (Bus Utility Vehicle) start, each weighing in excess of 10 tons in order to have superior crash protection against SUV, just like today’s SUV versus normal cars. Undoubtedly, to upgrade safety by means of adding weight and size is nonsense. Since there is not a single reasonable explaination for the popularity of SUV, I can’t help thinking this is a fashion driven by emotion. A friend of mine told me she was dreaming for a Jeep (she even didn’t know "Jeep" is a brand name rather than a term equivalent to off-roader.) Why ? "It looks cool !" replied her. I guess most other people think the same. They want SUV not because of any practical reason but because they like the idea. An example is Toyota RAV 4, which once dominated here before the arrival of CR-V. It could win any beauty contest but off-road ability is nearly zero. The same for CR-V and HR-V. In here and Japan, a large portion of the sales of Lexus RX300 are the front-wheel-drive version, the conclusion couldn’t be clearer. For "cool look", American is paying heavy price : inferior performance inspite of heavyweight engine, awful handling, poor ride from the non-independent or even leaf spring suspensions, premium price (profit margin is much higher than other cars) and most important is the impact to environment. You might not know, in the US SUVs are excluded from the emission regulation for normal cars. They have a regulation allowing much more pollutant. Right now the Clinton government is planning to raise the requirement for SUV to align with cars. Undoubtedly, Big 3 is protesting against this so it is unlikely to be fully effective until 2007. Even by 2007, Federal emission regulation does not limit the so-called "non-pollution gas" - carbon dioxide, which leads to green house effect to not only US but all over the world. No matter how clean the engine is, the amount of CO2 emission is always proportional to fuel consumption. With their 2 tons weight and old technology engines, SUVs are inherent enemies to fuel efficiency as well as the environment. 2 years ago an international environment conference focused on the emission of CO2, during which the US government was pressured by EU and Japan to accept a strict time table to reduce CO2 emission. With the popularity of SUV still growing, this target will never be fulfilled. The root of the problem is fuel price. Nowhere in the world, excluding oil-export countries, has gas price lower than the US. Low fuel price policy leads to big engines, big cars and big SUVs. Pershaps the US need another oil crisis to force car makers return to develop compact cars, small and fuel-efficient engines. Last edited by a moderator: Science Advisor Some guys just got'ta make up for that hormonal imbalance... Science Advisor I voted they should be banned, but I think more broad guidelines are needed. For instance, they should not be used as a single persons commuter vehicle to work and home. It makes me sick seeing a vehicle designed to carry itself twice over hauling one person 50 miles one way to work. Also, if you are not going to actually go offroad, why opt for 4 wheel drive, which adds to the weight, thereby decreasing effiecency. Or even worse, put some nice 44" mud knobbies on it and the only dirt it sees is when the driver swerves off the road by accident. For there defense though, if you had a large family, or are an active offroader, then there is good reason to have one. For some reason, people feel safe in SUV's cause of there size. Personally, if I ever see an SUV about to hit me, I'll do all in my power to make sure they tip a few times. HBar I voted they need to be banned which was the closest option to my opinion. I don't think they should be sold to people that don't need them. If you're volunteering for some "Stop the Hunger" organization in Africa and need a heavy-duty car then I am not opposed to you buying an SUV but if you're a single man living in NY and need something to get you to work then an SUV should not be an option. I also think offroading should be banned. I just don't understand the whole "Paved roads are boring lets go run over a tree" mentality. Also, SUVs' high bumpers make the road dangerous for everyone. Crashes involving SUVs and small cars look more like monster truck derbies than crashes. I just bought an isuzu trooper today and i must say it will be used to go off road. I like trees just as much as the next guy and to be quite frank, i got the trooper to get me deep into the trees. The un-natural fiber backpack is for the remaining 5-10 miles where there are no roads. Artman I drive a Kia Sportage 4x4. It gets fairly good milage, over 26 miles per gallon combined driving conditions. It has good power, a steel frame, better view of the road than a small car and better traction during rain or snow. If you want to ban something, ban people that drive while using cell phones, old people that get confused and press the gas pedal when they meant to press the brake, middle aged people who are bored with driving and get careless, and young people that drive like they are invincible. SUVs are dangerous to other cars, and to their own occupants. SUV drivers, in general, are lousy human beings. They are marketed for 1)insecure types who are compensating, and 2) self-centered people who don't car4e if they kill people, so long as they aren't hurt. Staff Emeritus Gold Member wow zero, you sound pretty bitter...i don't think that attitude you describe of SUV drivers is just limited to them...matter of fact, just yesterday a young gal in her GEO metro (license plate read: I am the princess, who the hell are you?) was zigzagging in and out of traffic while on a cell phone...it doesn't matter what car you drive, just how you drive it, and this gal seriously needed a reckless driving ticket to knock out her arrogant driving... my mom had a dodge durango (nice rig) but was totaled by a little 4 door honda civic...my mom escaped with a broken leg only because she was not wearing her seat belt...the gal in the honda was completely unharmed as far as i understand... years ago i had a 4 x 4 toyota truck that i loved driving because i could actually see the road...i never used it for offroading, it cost me twice the money in gas to commute, and repairs, tires, batteries etc are twice as much as a regular car...i think SUV's have their place, but most of the city folks have them for a status symbol over the real intended use, and that is not to commute... Last edited: Originally posted by Kerrie wow zero, you sound pretty bitter...my mom had a dodge durango (nice rig) but was totaled by a little 4 door honda civic...my mom escaped with a broken leg only because she was not wearing her seat belt...the gal in the honda was completely unharmed as far as i understand... Bitter? Nah, I actually recall reading an article last year, claiming that Ford and Chevy actually market SUVs to creeps. There are very few people who need SUVs...they combine the worst parts of trucks and vans, with no added benefit, besides looking cool and killing people. Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member The main problem/gripe about SUVs pertains to the fact that they're so popular. They have become a scapegoat (a symbol for a greater problem). Many other vehicles get equally poor mileage (pickups, vans, minivans, sports cars, limos, etc.). There are many other large vehicles which are safer for the drivers than for other people during an accident. Bad drivers own all kinds of cars, not just SUVs. SUVs have become an easy target for people to complain about even though the reality is much more complex than that. 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). Sure, many SUV drivers don't need a vehicle that big. Others do. Shall we also complain about the commuters who like to drive big pickup trucks? Or the single senior citizen in the huge caddy? Are you going to disallow someone to purchase a SUV if they actually need something like that? Is the government going to decide who gets one and who doesn't? What about different types of SUVs (large/small, etc.)? If they are to be banned, there had better be clear evidence that they are a clear and present danger compared to other vehicles. Otherwise, the proper way to pursue this issue is through education (teach people about fuel economy) and offering better alternatives. Or just wait out the fad. Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Originally posted by Zero There are very few people who need SUVs... No one needs a car at all (walking, cycling, mass transport, taxis, etc. are all options). Need alone cannot be a reason to ban SUVs. (perhaps need combined with fuel economy and safety...but I'm still waiting to see the stats on that) they combine the worst parts of trucks and vans, with no added benefit, Explain? Why the worst parts of trucks/vans instead of the best parts? besides...killing people. This needs to be backed up. That's quite the accusation. Dagenais So what do you think? Do you have an SUV or do you prefer smaller cars? Do you think SUVs make the US a hostage to OPEC? What's the big fuss about SUVs I love SUVs. My family owns a Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango SLT Plus, and they are amazing cars. Great for off-road and on-road driving. I will hope my father gets me a Jeep Liberty Renegade when I start driving. The big fuss about SUV are that they are: 1. Big 2. Safe 3. Comfortable 4. Versatile 5. Ready 6. Sporty 7. Luxurious 8. A bunch of cool gadgets inside What is there not to like about SUVs? If you can pay for the gas, I don't see any problem. Note that I am talking about real truck-based SUVs here like Jeeps, Land Rover, Dodge and GMC. Not those Toyota Rav4s or Honda Elements... SUVs may be safer for the driver...but they almost guarantee the death of anyone in a regular car that they hit. Cars are designed to withstand impact with other cars. SUVs hit so high on a car, they bypass whatever reinforcement the car has. By the worst elements of vans and trucks, I mean that they have less ability to haul than a pickup, less interior space than a van, horrible fuel efficiency, crappy visibility of other drivers, etc. 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? Artman Originally posted by Zero SUVs are dangerous to other cars, and to their own occupants. SUV drivers, in general, are lousy human beings. They are marketed for 1)insecure types who are compensating, and 2) self-centered people who don't car4e if they kill people, so long as they aren't hurt. What a load of cr@p. I had a 54 mile commute for 14 years and in that time I never had an accident. I drove various small cars one that got over 50 mpg. So I do not consider myself an unsafe driver, nor am I affraid to drive small cars. An SUV affords better views of the road and better traction in poor weather than most other cars. As for what kind of human being I am, I will match my contributions to society against anyone elses' any day of the week. I chose my Sportage because I thought it was cute, I could put my dog's crate in the back to take her on vacations with us, the cargo space is enclosed (unlike a pickup), and it was one of the least expensive 4 wheel drive vehicles on the market. Finally, the only person I know who admittedly drives a large vehicle just to be safer than anyone else around her, drives a huge pickup truck not an SUV and the reason she drives a pickup is because she believes that SUVs are not as safe as pickups. So, all of your selfish, kill-rather-than-be-killed drivers don't drive SUVs some drive enourmous pickup trucks. Probably equally prone to rollover and far more prone to fishtailing. Science Advisor I also think offroading should be banned. I just don't understand the whole "Paved roads are boring lets go run over a tree" mentality. Uhm, if that was the mentality, then I'd agree with you. However, people do not go offroad to hit trees. In many places, the government has setup state parks for this purpose. Here is one near me. http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/recreation/uwharrie/index.htm [Broken] What do you suggest? We all stop doing things that are fun, pick up a nice lazy man sport like golf, eat cheese burgers until we become the fattest nation on earth (if we're not already)? No thanks. I mean, lets eliminate every single thing that could possibly considered fun, and then ask why crime rates and teen pregnancys are up so much. Sorry to hijack the thread, but the attitude portrayed in quotes is one bread of pure ignorance. Last edited by a moderator: Andy I agree with Megashawn, Offroading is really good fun, but nobody i know that goes off roading would ever run over a tree, purely because its too expensive to have the vehicle repaired if anything where to get broken underneath. In the UK there are small country lanes called "green lanes" that can be used by any vehicle but these lanes are so old that the only vehicles that can get down them are big 4x4's i dont see what all the fuss is about, i do agree with some of the comments against them though because they are dangerous to other road users, but then again in the UK most of the 4x4 drivers are much safer cos they no their limitations, the only bad drivers are the 4x4 drivers that never go offroad dont ask me why it just is, also i have noted that these tend to be women aswell. I consider it none of my business what any of you choose to drive. If your vehicle costs more money than I consider worth it, well, that is my problem. If your pollution-mobile gets 5 MPG less than my pollution-mobile, I still can’t get too excited about it. The stuff about SUV’s causing damage to passenger cars seems lopsided to me. What is to stop the motorcyclists from joining hands next, complaining that passenger cars are not only gas guzzlers, but are too dangerous when they slam into a motorcycle? I guess I’m just not into managing and engineering society as perhaps this post demonstrates. Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Originally posted by BoulderHead I consider it none of my business what any of you choose to drive. If your vehicle costs more money than I consider worth it, well, that is my problem. If your pollution-mobile gets 5 MPG less than my pollution-mobile, I still can’t get too excited about it. The stuff about SUV’s causing damage to passenger cars seems lopsided to me. What is to stop the motorcyclists from joining hands next, complaining that passenger cars are not only gas guzzlers, but are too dangerous when they slam into a motorcycle? I guess I’m just not into managing and engineering society as perhaps this post demonstrates. It is hardly fair to ask people to be energy conscious and then to risk their lives on the roads because others choose to ignore such concerns. If we are going to tax cigarettes and booze, then one who chooses to put my life in jeopardy should at least pay a 100-200% tax on the purchase of their vehicle...just like a cigarette smoker does for his smokes. This could go towards the increased damage to the environment, the greater number of casualties per accident...in the other vehicle of course, and for compensation for the extra wear on the roads. I think large vehicle owners fail to recognize the threat they pose to others. If they do, they understandably act to protect themselves. This is hardly fair…without a price at least. The logic behind lifestyle and public safety legislation can hardly avoid this issue. I have to wear a helmet while riding my motorcycle, or to wear a seatbelt in my Toyota, but you can drive a car that can run over mine like a speed bump? How does this equate? Artman Originally posted by Ivan Seeking It is hardly fair to ask people to be energy conscious and then to risk their lives on the roads because others choose to ignore such concerns. If we are going to tax cigarettes and booze, then one who chooses to put my life in jeopardy should at least pay a 100-200% tax on the purchase of their vehicle...just like a cigarette smoker does for his smokes. This could go towards the increased damage to the environment, the greater number of casualties per accident...in the other vehicle of course, and for compensation for the extra wear on the roads. I think large vehicle owners fail to recognize the threat they pose to others. If they do, they understandably act to protect themselves. This is hardly fair…without a price at least. The logic behind lifestyle and public safety legislation can hardly avoid this issue. I have to wear a helmet while riding my motorcycle, or to wear a seatbelt in my Toyota, but you can drive a car that can run over mine like a speed bump? How does this equate? Ivan, life is not fair. While you are out there being energy conscious you could also be run over by a tracktor trailer truck hauling a shipment of VW Jettas to a dealer. You can get just as killed by hitting a tree, a telephone pole, a motorcycle, or even a person walking. As I have stated in two previous responses, SUVs provide the driver with a better view of obstacles, and better traction to help avoid accidents. Dagenais SUVs may be safer for the driver...but they almost guarantee the death of anyone in a regular car that they hit. Cars are designed to withstand impact with other cars. SUVs hit so high on a car, they bypass whatever reinforcement the car has. 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. By the worst elements of vans and trucks, I mean that they have less ability to haul than a pickup, less interior space than a van, horrible fuel efficiency, crappy visibility of other drivers, etc. The Ford Excursions do not have less room than a van. They are quite large. The Lamborgini SUV has the biggest interior known in the history of cars. Less ability to haul? Maybe. Do remember that an SUV's main job is to go off-road, and they haul boats and trailors quite well depending on what kind of SUV you get. Their fuel is horrible, but Ford is developing Hybrid SUV. You can find this at their site. Crappy visibility? The reason SUV drivers are so aggresive (by statistics) is because their car is lofted higher off the ground, giving them a better and more commanding view below them including the ground and other vehicles. Originally posted by Ivan Seeking It is hardly fair to ask people to be energy conscious and then to risk their lives on the roads because others choose to ignore such concerns. So instead of merely asking you would prefer ordering ? I’m interested in where this line of reasoning will lead. If we are going to tax cigarettes and booze, then one who chooses to put my life in jeopardy should at least pay a 100-200% tax on the purchase of their vehicle...just like a cigarette smoker does for his smokes. 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... This could go towards the increased damage to the environment, the greater number of casualties per accident...in the other vehicle of course, and for compensation for the extra wear on the roads. 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 think large vehicle owners fail to recognize the threat they pose to others. 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 have to wear a helmet while riding my motorcycle, or to wear a seatbelt in my Toyota, but you can drive a car that can run over mine like a speed bump? How does this equate? 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. As an aside, I saw a film titled Ghost Rider just the other day. This motorcycle lunatic averages 170mph on a run from Stockholm to some other place. I'm curious if anyone here has seen this film. Talk about a deadly weapon swerving in and around the traffic… Last edited by a moderator: Originally posted by Zero SUVs may be safer for the driver...but they almost guarantee the death of anyone in a regular car that they hit. Cars are designed to withstand impact with other cars. SUVs hit so high on a car, they bypass whatever reinforcement the car has. Using this logic, since you seem to agree that suv's are in fact safer, regular cars should be banned. Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Originally posted by Artman Ivan, life is not fair. While you are out there being energy conscious you could also be run over by a tracktor trailer truck hauling a shipment of VW Jettas to a dealer. You can get just as killed by hitting a tree, a telephone pole, a motorcycle, or even a person walking. As I have stated in two previous responses, SUVs provide the driver with a better view of obstacles, and better traction to help avoid accidents. The logic behind lifestyle and public safety legislation can hardly avoid this issue. I have to wear a helmet while riding my motorcycle, or to wear a seatbelt in my Toyota, but you can drive a car that can run over mine like a speed bump? How does this equate? Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member 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. Edit: and Uncle Sam will find plenty of ways to waste your20,000 SUV tax.

Last edited:
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
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.

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
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?

Quasaire
Allrrrright! My first hot thread . I thought this would get people going heh .

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

Last edited:
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Originally posted by Quasaire
Allrrrright! My first hot thread . I thought this would get people going heh .

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

I like your style you trouble maker.