Why do people have such a strong dislike for SUVs?

[The_Professional]

I really enjoy driving my gas guzzling SUV. The high seat, the sunroof, being able to accommodate a lot of people and load, the ability to switch from 2 wheel to 4 wheel with the turn of a knob,everything.

 

[Dagenais]

i highly doubt you will be effective in changing anyone's mind regarding the "typical" SUV driver at this point with your attempts at justifying why it is okay to drive an SUV full time

Why isn't it okay? Because of the "enviroment"?

Unless you've been taking your public transit for the past few years like I have, don't even dare bring that up with me.

In Canada, we care about the environment but SUVs are extremely popular. Americans should be the to talk about saving the environment because they don't.

 

[Kerrie]

Why isn't it okay? Because of the "enviroment"?

Unless you've been taking your public transit for the past few years like I have, don't even dare bring that up with me.

In Canada, we care about the environment but SUVs are extremely popular. Americans should be the to talk about saving the environment because they don't.

i never said anything regarding the environment. my issue with SUV's that are driven for casual use is they tend to attract the types who are seeking to prove their "status" over using it for practical reasons. that and the fact they are dangerous to other cars should there be some type of accident. it is plain waste when someone is commuting to and from work in a city with well maintained roads in a 15mpg rig, but serves a purpose if you frequently like to drive off the beaten path and need a vehicle that can tolerate a little more rough riding.

as i stated above, you started this thread asking a question, you were given answers that you refute-every single one. not that i judge, but when you are unable to accept anyone else's logic regarding your question posed, it shows you are looking to argue rather then get a meaningful and honest discussion.

 

[Dagenais]

i never said anything regarding the environment. my issue with SUV's that are driven for casual use is they tend to attract the types who are seeking to prove their "status" over using it for practical reasons.

I really don't get what you mean. A typical SUV isn't a $150,000 Mercedes or something, it doesn't tell much about social/financial status.

I was just wondering what the problem with SUVs were, and I refuted because I didn't think they were real problems, or weren't problems to begin with.

SUVs like the 4-Runner actually aide the other car in collisions due to their new bumper (Car and Driver).

The SUV = The USA

It's part of your culture, so I don't see why there is such a strong hatred against a car. Especially since they are only getting better in almost every aspect.

 

[chroot]

The SUV = The USA

You're such a complete dumb****. I swear, everything you've ever posted on pf to date has just been total under-researched, illogical, Neanderthal bull****. I'm close to just declaring you a troll.

- Warren

 

[Adam]

I think that means he doesn't like SUVs... :P

 

[Dagenais]

You're such a complete dumb****. I swear, everything you've ever posted on pf to date has just been total under-researched, illogical, Neanderthal bull****. I'm close to just declaring you a troll.

- Warren

MSNBC:

And I'm sitting in the driver's seat. Yes, your defiantly SUV-hating columnist—the man who once called sport-utility vehicles "the worst development in American culture since fast food," who once stopped letting his kid have play-dates with a neighbor because her parents owned an SUV, the one who said American auto makers would never do anything to wean us off our addiction to gasoline—accepted an invitation from Ford last week to take the new Escape hybrid-powered SUV on a test drive around New York City.

American culture, dumb****. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4724092/

Oh, another article claiming it's American Culture. Time for you to take your daily happy pill.

American Culture

 

[Adam]

Woohoo! Appeal to tradition!

 

[Dagenais]

Woohoo! Appeal to tradition!

The profanity, the anger, the arrogance. Chroot, do you happen to come from the Southern part of the US?

Someone outside his country points out a 'fault' in his mind, in his culture and he attacks saying it isn't true.

Hummers are as much of American culture as Starbucks coffee.

 

[Adam]

Sure, SUVs are a part of USA culture. What has that got to do with them being good, bad, or mediocre? Nothing.

 

[chroot]

Dagenais,

Since your skull seems so thick, I'll explain. I was not denying that SUV's are part of contemporary American culture. I was simply pointing out that your mentioning that SUV's are a part of American culture is an argument totally devoid of point or merit.

- Warren

 

[The_Professional]

This just reminds me, some guy on another forum pretended to be a woman and said really nasty, obnoxious things and he got points from members..because he's a "sexy, bad chick".

Now if a woman would've started this thread I'm sure she won't get flamed as much. Seems like if you have a ******* you can say anything and get away with it

 

[Dagenais]

This just reminds me, some guy on another forum pretended to be a woman and said really nasty, obnoxious things and he got points from members..because he's a "sexy, bad chick".

Now if a woman would've started this thread I'm sure she won't get flamed as much. Seems like if you have a ****** you can say anything and get away with it

Simple, if my posts are all full of BS like Chroot claims despite the fact that everything I've said are from great sources, don't read my posts. That, or take a pill.

was not denying that SUV's are part of contemporary American culture.

That's odd, since you quoted: "The SUV = The USA" then said it was complete bull****.

I was simply pointing out that your mentioning that SUV's are a part of American culture is an argument totally devoid of point or merit.

Again, odd that an American hates a big part of their culture.

P.S. I liked your side note on my post: "I run this place". Beautiful.

 

[The_Professional]

Simple, if my posts are all full of BS like Chroot claims despite the fact that everything I've said are from great sources, don't read my posts. That, or take a pill.

No, I wasn't picking on anyone :)

 

[franznietzsche]

Have any of you considered that some of us are just too tall to fit into a small car? I couldn't drive most sedans comfortably. That problem seems like plenty of justification to me.

 

[chroot]

Why is it odd that an American would hate a large part of his culture? I didn't choose to be American, I was born here.

The arguments you've been making in this thread are complete bull****, indeed. Claiming that it's not important that SUVs are dangerous to other drivers -- indeed, claiming that the other drivers should just get an SUV to protect themselves against you -- is bull****. Claiming that SUV drivers don't get into accidents because "one SUV switches into 4WD and manufavers away in the slippery road" is also total bull****.

It's obvious from many of your posts that you're the sort of person who will argue himself into any convenient corner. You will defend any statement you make, however silly, and will never concede even when presented with obvious flaws in your own logic. It just makes you look stupid and immature, and that's the conclusion of virtually every other person involved in this thread.

And damn straight, I do run this place, along with many other people. What's your point?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Have any of you considered that some of us are just too tall to fit into a small car? I couldn't drive most sedans comfortably. That problem seems like plenty of justification to me.

That is indeed plenty of justification.

Most of us here are not arguing that SUVs have no purpose, or should never be owned by anyone -- we're simply saying that most people can get away with far less, and ought to out of courtesy for other drivers and the environment.

- Warren

 

[Dagenais]

claiming that the other drivers should just get an SUV to protect themselves against you

I'm an extremely cautious driver. There is no need to protect yourself against me. Maybe against other drivers.

laiming that SUV drivers don't get into accidents because "one SUV switches into 4WD and manufavers away in the slippery road" is also total bull****.

Yeah, as much bull as another poster claiming that sedans can simply "maneuver" out of the way.

That's the great thing about SUVs, they can switch from 2WD to 4WD which gives added traction. The added traction gives more control, which helps avoid accidents.

It's obvious from many of your posts that you're the sort of person who will argue himself into any convenient corner. You will defend any statement you make, however silly, and will never concede even when presented with obvious flaws in your own logic

I've talked to you in 2 threads and you can immediately tell me what kind of person I am. Absolutely amazing.

The other in which you made a claim about OpenBSD that an Admin at an OpenBSD forum denied.

 

[chroot]

That's the great thing about SUVs, they can't [sic] switch from 2WD to 4WD which gives added traction. The added traction gives more control, which helps avoid accidents.

And thus you demonstrate that you really have no idea how to use 4WD.

- Warren

 

[Dagenais]

And damn straight, I do run this place, along with many other people. What's your point?

I wouldn't know, you brought it up.

So you're admitting that your posts lack a point?

 

[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!"

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.

 

[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.

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.