Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Elio Motors cars, urban transportation

Elio Motors cars, urban transportation (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2013, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Or a flip.
Done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQh56geU0X8
( Last edited by Phileas; Jul 12, 2013 at 09:27 AM. )
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2013, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post
The Smart was written off, I happily replaced it with another, if it can take a Mercedes 4x4 up the back and keep me with everything intact, thats good enough for me.
The Smart can turn upside on a ML too !!

     
Baninated
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2013, 03:21 PM
 
SUV owners are rarely intelligent, I'd disregard anything they have to say as they're clearly morons in the first place. They are either gullible and believe they're actually safer in their top heavy deathtraps with shitty brakes and soft suspension, or they are just lemmings that buy what everyone else has.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2013, 03:51 PM
 


</thread>
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2013, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
the bulk of this sentiment comes from an ideological bend and the reason it's "important to get you to see outside the box" is because the current box uses more fossil fuels, period. He'd render everyone childless, in charcoal grey jumpsuits, doing nothing more than commuting back and forth to the Obama Corps offices in their personal, urban transport units.
I don't think that's really fair. The majority of vehicles on the road at any given time are people driving solo, or maybe 2 people. Not families going on road trips, hunting, camping or mudding, regardless of whether they have kids. Besides kids can be hauled around in a small 5 seater car just like we did in the good old days. So...
Otherwise, he's asking you to care for and insure two vehicles when one has suited you and your entire family's needs just fine the past 20+ years. Of course, being able to help him move all his junk is just the perk of having a friend with one of these big hunks of steel.
I think it's legit to wonder why the people who do mostly solo driving and own 2-3 vehicles wouldn't choose at least one smaller car. The fact you've been able to get by with just one vehicle is great; but not the average American. And as usual I think we should be directing most of our disgust at the government on the subject of "being forced to insure 2 vehicles" - insurance should follow the driver not the vehicle. In which case more people would be able/willing to afford a second (niche) vehicle for when they're driving alone or for when one breaks down. Whats wrong with having safer roads and cleaner air?

This matter is purely subjective
It's not really subjective when you, your family member, or friend end up disabled or killed because what would have been an otherwise low consequential driving mistake was made by someone driving a proverbial tank. The environment isn't really subjective when there's so much pollution over cities we can see it... mildly blocking out the sun on some days. When acid rain is changing the chemistry of lakes, rivers, seas, hundreds of miles away from metro areas. Anti-consumerism isn't subjective when considering how much of today's consumerism is subsidized or shaped by the modern government, against the will of many of us. it would save a ton of money for people to rent vehicles for the few times they camp or road-trip w the kids. There's nothing noble about people's right to wasteful, subsidized consumerism that stomps on the rights of other's in so many ways.

The "bigger is better arms race on the road" is the perfect analogy. I'd love to drive a smaller vehicle but the thing stopping me and many others is the fact that I feel I'm forced to drive something big enough that a cell phone driver in a tank wont pulverize my car when they ram it. If the majority had equally small cars we'd all be relatively safe.

There's too many people taking sides of wanting others to drive small, or wanting to prove their rights by driving big and declaring war on the road. If we have to share the road with people who drive SUVs just to prove a point, thats fine; we should be talking about pushing government to improve, standardize, add shoulders, and simplify roads. We know there's plenty of money because the government spends countless billions (trillions?) on terrorism which hasn't cost nearly as many lives.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2013, 04:00 PM
 
ah dammit i got in too late. anyway if you don't feed the troll he wont associate food with people...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2013, 04:02 PM
 
Good post!

I sometimes wish there were separate roads for trucks. Maybe we should put all of the trucks and people that drive tanks on those roads?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2013, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 View Post
SUV owners are rarely intelligent, I'd disregard anything they have to say as they're clearly morons in the first place. They are either gullible and believe they're actually safer in their top heavy deathtraps with shitty brakes and soft suspension, or they are just lemmings that buy what everyone else has.
We see you trollin',
you hatin',
patrollin' even though we know your wagon's dirty
we know your wagon's dirty,
can't admit your wagon's dirty
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2013, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Good post!


-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 03:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post


-t

I'm about to make your experience on the internet more enjoyable, you can thank me later.

You say that my posts frustrate you, right? Well then, what incentive do I have to frustrate you less when you seek out conflict like this?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Except of course there is now a widely accepted interpretation of the state of the environment and fossil fuels, at least by those of us who believe in, and put their trust in, science rather than wishful thinking. This has nothing to do with personal interpretation or preference.
You have an international governmental body of politicians and authors commissioned specifically to study the impacts of anthropogenic global warming and draft legislation to mitigate it. That's it. Outside this circle-jerk of peer review, there is a long continuum of thought on the scope and root cause of climate change as well as the state of a science in its infancy. There is no room in the IPCC tribe for critical analysis because it does not behoove them to distribute information that does not serve their commission, evidenced by their well-documented abuses of the scientific method. Yes, your belief in Science!™ is a faith in consensus, but establishment consensus is not the advancement or progress of science and it never has been. Unless of course you'd readily lap up any widely accepted ideals from yesteryear like bloodletting for diarrhea or global cooling until of course, science catches up with reality over the wishful thinking of those seeking grants and publication by exploiting the populist hype du jour. I'd rather those with this lack of regard for the integrity of the discipline not draft or advocate legislation based on their myopic and temporary interpretation of natural variability. You can call it a healthy separation of Science!™ and State.

Observation of fact ≠ ridicule. The most commonly produced argument in favour of large vehicles is safety.
Citing an "addiction" to larger vehicles by virtue of the fact that North Americans register more of them than do Europeans is an opinion, not a fact. The most commonly produced argument in favor of larger vehicles is their cargo space and in your words convenience.

Fair enough. I am aware of the irony. I do what I can to mitigate the effects of my choice, by using public transport, biking and walking whenever possible.
And it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a great many SUV owners do this as well. While I own a Jeep Wrangler, I've biked to work often and ride very frequently. There's no reason others' desire for the convenience of a larger vehicle should be any less important to them than yours or that they're any more addicted to consumerism than you are.

Incorrect. U.S. vehicle CO2 emissions still almost double that of Europe, and also Japan. In the US, the market’s average CO2 output is 268.5 g/km. This figure compares very unfavorably to Japan (130.8 g/km) and Europe’s five biggest markets, which average 140.3 g/km.
I didn't say vehicle emissions, there's a much larger picture to consider when looking at the production of GHGs. You see, by sacrificing your convenience for a smaller vehicle, it'd be nice to know this was having an appreciable impact on the environment or fossil fuel consumption. When it does not, the sacrifice is for naught. What I cited were the differences in levels of emissions between the US and the EU being essentially negligible and in fact, they are different by just 6% of total emissions and that's excluding a few EU members.


Why is the difference so small (and decreasing substantially, more on that in a sec) when considering vehicle ownership in the US per 1,000 inhabitants is nearly twice that of the EU? Because transport via road, rail, air, and marine accounts for only 13% of the entire GHG emissions picture. To make the case for swapping out your SUV for a side-car like the good sheeple of Europe have done in their sacrifice is to miss a far greater problem. For example, in spite of the noble intentions of member EU countries through cap and trade schema, carbon production has indeed dropped 15% from 1990 to 2005, but carbon consumption has actually increased by more than 19% over the same period. Why? Massive deindustrialization throughout Europe resulting in nothing more than outsourcing industry to coal-burning countries like China. Europe is more than negating its eco-consciousness in its increased consumption of carbon while studies continue to show greater progress in reduction throughout the US; the annual rate of increase for U.S. CO2 emissions is about a third of 1 percent, compared to more than 1 percent by the EU... over the same period even the smaller EU-15 economy increased its CO2 emissions by more than 20 percent greater than the United States. So yes, while you may be amused at our addiction to larger vehicles, the EU addictions are apparently far more destructive to anyone truly concerned about the state of the environment and SCIENCE!

Also incorrect is your statement regarding traffic deaths per capita. Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitant in the US is 12.3 - worse than the Ukraine, where the number is 11.2 or even Uzbekistan.
It's simple really -- Americans drive more. Traffic deaths per capita - km traveled are negligable;


In Germany (small cars, high speed) the number is 4.5, in France 5.5 (small cars, high speed) , in the UK 3.5 (small cars, low speed) . Whoops.
Whoops? We're talking about the EU vs US and you're singling out specific countries that support your argument. Okay, can I use traffic deaths in say... Maryland to support mine then?

Otherwise The raw EU average traffic deaths per 100,000 population is 7.5 vs the US at 11.4 again keeping in mind of course Americans currently register nearly twice the vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants than in the EU.

I am not sure if you realize that you a: made my point for me, as in larger vehicles do not contribute to a reduction in traffic fatalities per capita and b: that you're contradicting yourself by claiming in the next sentence that larger vehicles do somehow contribute to traffic safety.
We're not going to be able to effectively compare traffic "behaviors" between the US and the EU as there are simply too many variables. However, virtually all benchmarks in vehicle safety give larger vehicles the greater edge in safety including crash tests and fatality rates. What comprises the majority of these death rates of course are pedestrians killed by vehicles, followed by motorcycles, and bicycles. i.e. vehicles certainly resembling the more intimate driving experiences such as the Elio over anything else we've been talking about.

Nothing could be further from the truth. A Mercedes ML 350 BlueTEC, as an example, takes neither more energy to produce, nor is the fuel more costly (outside the US), nor is there smell pollution, nor does a modern diesel engine sound like a truck engine.
You have a reading comprehension problem. I'm talking about a comparison of the fuels and the production of the fuel itself, not the Mercedes ML 350 BlueTEC. This is a vehicle that literally injects a chemical to cleanse the diesel's carbon particulate matter; PM 10-20.

Nice SUV by the way! The specs on the Mercedes ML 350 BlueTEC fly in the face of all the ignorance espoused by those like besson and the socially-challenged knife enthusiast who're obviously working with 20 year old information. i.e. Your example best establishes my point that they've come a long; evidenced by the 4-cylinder rivaling datasheet provided the Mercedes ML 350 BlueTEC engine. Now, about the fuel itself; it is well known that diesel burns exponentially dirtier than standard petrol. Diesel technology (like the BlueTEC) has come a long way, but it requires more fossil fuel usage in energy to produce the newer, cleaner diesel fuels. For example, A 2005 study found that biodiesel production using soybeans required 27% more fossil energy than the biodiesel produced and 118% more energy using sunflowers.

Your entire post is made up.
Uh-huh, sure. To be clear, your reading comprehension problem and feigned dedication to what is nothing more than a caricature of science is noted.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
However, virtually all benchmarks in vehicle safety give larger vehicles the greater edge in safety including crash tests and fatality rates.
No, no they don't. You are so incredibly wrong in this assertion I don't even know where to start.

SUVs use "ladder frame" chassis, much like large trucks, and are far more stiff and lack the extensive crumple zones of modern passenger cars. They transfer the force of impact more directly to the driver which will result in greater injury. They also classify as "light trucks" and do not need to meet the same crash-rating as do passenger cars, or fuel efficiency for that matter. They have a high center of gravity and, due to their large mass, a very poor stopping distance.

Now I don't really give two sh!ts what other people drive, but for the most part a large SUV gets utilized for its ability maybe 1% of the time it's on the road. The other 99% it is being piloted by a 105 pound mom yakking away on her cellphone and drifting between lanes of traffic.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I don't think that's really fair. The majority of vehicles on the road at any given time are people driving solo, or maybe 2 people.
Right, and that's primarily what you see on the road... people in their sedans. SUVs in the US account for just 11.42% of the vehicles on the road at any given time. I think folks who approach these matters emotionally tend to get all riled up in minutia.

Not families going on road trips, hunting, camping or mudding, regardless of whether they have kids. Besides kids can be hauled around in a small 5 seater car just like we did in the good old days. So...
What "good ol' days are you talking about"? I'd put today's SUV against any vehicle from the good ol' days of any class including motorcycles. Otherwise, the average vehicle occupancy rate for cars in the US is 1.59, SUVs at 1.92 which immediately tells me the SUV owners have purchased these vehicles for greater capacity. Because remember, when we're not going to and from work, we people come with accessories not always elegantly tucked into an unoccupied back seat. This speaks to their convenience as cited by an SUV owner arguing your specific line of reasoning in this thread, ironically.

I think it's legit to wonder why the people who do mostly solo driving and own 2-3 vehicles wouldn't choose at least one smaller car.
Why is wondering legit? I think it's more legit to know. I mean, why would you assume those who own 2-3 vehicles wouldn't choose at least one smaller vehicle? Not an exact comparison, but indicative of my point; the most common pairing of vehicles in American households with two to four cars is a full-sized pickup truck and a standard, mid-range vehicle.

The fact you've been able to get by with just one vehicle is great; but not the average American. And as usual I think we should be directing most of our disgust at the government on the subject of "being forced to insure 2 vehicles" - insurance should follow the driver not the vehicle. In which case more people would be able/willing to afford a second (niche) vehicle for when they're driving alone or for when one breaks down. Whats wrong with having safer roads and cleaner air?
What's wrong with having all of the above? I wasn't a 1-vehicle household. Our household has always owned one minivan or SUV and one or two sedans. Personal choice in vehicle given any number of the households' preferences or needs should not be marginalized by overreactions from antiquated or inaccurate information.

It's not really subjective when you, your family member, or friend end up disabled or killed because what would have been an otherwise low consequential driving mistake was made by someone driving a proverbial tank.
One's choice in vehicle does not dictate their skill at the art of driving. Most people are dying on foot, bicycle, and motorcycle. Again, this is an emotional appeal to be sure, but not really valid in the context of the reasons for our disagreement.

The environment isn't really subjective when there's so much pollution over cities we can see it... mildly blocking out the sun on some days. When acid rain is changing the chemistry of lakes, rivers, seas, hundreds of miles away from metro areas. Anti-consumerism isn't subjective when considering how much of today's consumerism is subsidized or shaped by the modern government, against the will of many of us. it would save a ton of money for people to rent vehicles for the few times they camp or road-trip w the kids. There's nothing noble about people's right to wasteful, subsidized consumerism that stomps on the rights of other's in so many ways.
With all due respect, the above is all over the place. Consider the alternatives to consumerism my friend; you would place all this distaste for consumerism predicated on government folly in the hands of government action to mitigate it? At the end of the day, it'd likely save us all a whole bunch of disenfranchisement and trampled rights to simply allow people their own choice in vehicle.

The "bigger is better arms race on the road" is the perfect analogy. I'd love to drive a smaller vehicle but the thing stopping me and many others is the fact that I feel I'm forced to drive something big enough that a cell phone driver in a tank wont pulverize my car when they ram it. If the majority had equally small cars we'd all be relatively safe.
At this point I'm going to ask that the next person to engage me in this thread, not actually own an SUV for the very reasons they're arguing against. Of course, all the other sheeple who own SUVs are doing so for the exact same reasons you and others cite, but it is their reasoning that is suspect.

There's too many people taking sides of wanting others to drive small, or wanting to prove their rights by driving big and declaring war on the road. If we have to share the road with people who drive SUVs just to prove a point, thats fine; we should be talking about pushing government to improve, standardize, add shoulders, and simplify roads. We know there's plenty of money because the government spends countless billions (trillions?) on terrorism which hasn't cost nearly as many lives.
Now we're getting somewhere, sort of... another thread.
ebuddy
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 01:38 PM
 
.NM
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Things
Ahh, the old "lets change the subject matter of the argument" tactic.

We were discussing two very specific points:
  • US CO2/km car emissions are similar to those produced in Europe, where people (typically) drive smaller cars
  • There is a correlation between size and safety of a car

Neither of these points ended up being supported by numbers.

At no point was the discussion about total CO2 output/capita or the effects of outsourcing manufacturing to China. That's an entirely different discussion.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
SUVs use "ladder frame" chassis...
AFAIK, both of the SUVs I've owned (Cherokee, X5) are unibody.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 02:59 PM
 
Also, what percentage of the time do I need to be hauling stuff for it to be "acceptable" to have an SUV? I want to apply for a peanut gallery indulgence.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Also, what percentage of the time do I need to be hauling stuff for it to be "acceptable" to have an SUV? I want to apply for a peanut gallery indulgence.
It is not for me to judge what is acceptable, but I will say that perhaps it is *logical* when the costs of owning and maintaining an SUV are close to what it would cost to rent one when needed?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 03:12 PM
 
Are you counting the cost of buying your non-SUV?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are you counting the cost of buying your non-SUV?
The difference between the cost of a non-SUV and an SUV, assuming you are able to do the bulk of your transportation in your non-SUV.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 03:32 PM
 
Without including time wasted ****ing with a rental, or the cost of your daily vehicle, my rough calculation is about 1½ times per week over five years equals a non-luxury SUV.

If it's 10 years, which is my average, that's ¾ times per week.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Without including time wasted ****ing with a rental, or the cost of your daily vehicle, my rough calculation is about 1½ times per week over five years equals a non-luxury SUV.

If it's 10 years, which is my average, that's ¾ times per week.

I'm sorry if anything I said made you personally feel defensive. I obviously know nothing about your personal situation, and never wanted to imply that nobody should own a large vehicle.

Would you agree though that there are certainly tons of people who have them for what appear to be silly reasons on the surface? Not that it is my place to judge them either, but hypothetically if I were to start judging and if I got to know them I'm sure some would be transferred from my silly to sensible category, but many would remain in the silly category.

Why does this matter to me? I have a pretty big problem with any kind of illogical thinking. It is a problem for me because it obviously makes it difficult for me to not be an overly judgmental person, but it is also a big problem because it bugs the fence out of me more than most things in life. I would really like to fix this about myself, I'm not proud of this flaw of mine.

There are a myriad of other reasons the SUV fetish bothers me too (e.g. stupid people feeding a vehicle with gas using money that doesn't really need to be spent), but underneath all of this is my difficulty with what I deem stupidity. Yes, I'm sure if people were to start analyzing my life there would be things that could be labeled as stupid, so I don't need any sort of lecture or talking down, I realize this is a problem of mine, I'm just being open.

Also, the stupidity I'm referring to is generally with general real life stupidity, people here are usually a breath of fresh air.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The difference between the cost of a non-SUV and an SUV, assuming you are able to do the bulk of your transportation in your non-SUV.
That makes it worse then. Biweekly for five years is $10,000. Add that to the cost of your daily and you have an SUV.

Biweekly is 7% use over a year.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm sorry if anything I said made you personally feel defensive. I obviously know nothing about your personal situation, and never wanted to imply that nobody should own a large vehicle.

Would you agree though that there are certainly tons of people who have them for what appear to be silly reasons on the surface? Not that it is my place to judge them either, but hypothetically if I were to start judging and if I got to know them I'm sure some would be transferred from my silly to sensible category, but many would remain in the silly category.

Why does this matter to me? I have a pretty big problem with any kind of illogical thinking. It is a problem for me because it obviously makes it difficult for me to not be an overly judgmental person, but it is also a big problem because it bugs the fence out of me more than most things in life. I would really like to fix this about myself, I'm not proud of this flaw of mine.

There are a myriad of other reasons the SUV fetish bothers me too (e.g. stupid people feeding a vehicle with gas using money that doesn't really need to be spent), but underneath all of this is my difficulty with what I deem stupidity. Yes, I'm sure if people were to start analyzing my life there would be things that could be labeled as stupid, so I don't need any sort of lecture or talking down, I realize this is a problem of mine, I'm just being open.

Also, the stupidity I'm referring to is generally with general real life stupidity, people here are usually a breath of fresh air.
First off, and this is important. What you call logic is in fact reasoning.

Secondly, looking back, I think my initial statement may have been interpreted as "I got an SUV because it's safe".

As someone who has driven (and owned) more than one SUV, I can tell you from personal experience there is no correlation between the term SUV and safety. My Cherokee was not a safe car. As I said, it was tippy when unloaded, front heavy, and had a low density.

My initial statement was I got that car because it was safe, and that particular car happens to be safe both because of and despite being an SUV. As I said, it weighs about as much as Suburban, but isn't much bigger than my old Cherokee. All three of these have vastly different safety profiles, but they're all SUVs.

As far as gas prices go. If you can afford it, have at it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
No, no they don't. You are so incredibly wrong in this assertion I don't even know where to start.
I can appreciate your conundrum. After all, you won't be able to start with the most fundamental metrics imaginable...

The IIHS study evaluates National Highway Traffic Safety Administration crash test data;
  • Minivans fare best in crashes, and have a driver death rate of 25.
  • SUVs have a slightly higher death rate of 28.
  • In the new analysis, the death rate for SUVs is half that of cars.
  • Cars have the highest death rate of 56, but the smaller the car, the higher the overall death rate is for that vehicle class.

besson talking about front visibility in spite of updates to the cab-forward designs, knifecarrier cutting himself up over bad brakes and soft suspensions in spite of updates to electronic stability control and braking, you talking about ladder-frame designs... y'all seem to be working from some really dated information here.

The other stuff about cell phone usage and drifting between lanes is emotionally appealing again, not a phenomena exclusive or relevant to the vehicle classes in question.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 05:10 PM
 
While out and about this thread came to mind, so I stopped by the local dealership and picked up a `12 Cayenne Turbo to test (it's crossed my mind before) and I'll see what it's like. So far, it's impressed the hell out of me; very roomy, well built, goes like stink, handles like a sports car, and supposedly gets >20MPG (which is similar to my wagon). I'll see how it grows on us over the next 72 hours.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 05:19 PM
 
Smaller, and not as nice, but that's how I'd describe the X5.

Similar mileage too. I get about 19.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Ahh, the old "lets change the subject matter of the argument" tactic.

We were discussing two very specific points:
  • US CO2/km car emissions are similar to those produced in Europe, where people (typically) drive smaller cars
  • There is a correlation between size and safety of a car

Neither of these points ended up being supported by numbers.

At no point was the discussion about total CO2 output/capita or the effects of outsourcing manufacturing to China. That's an entirely different discussion.


Originally Posted by Phileas
Given the state of the environment in general...
Originally Posted by ebuddy
... the differences in levels of emissions between the US and the EU are negligible...
So, my problem here was that I took your alleged concern for the environment seriously or that I challenged your actual lack of awareness and regard for it? Of course, using numbers that illustrated my point perfectly which I'm sure was most offensive.

There is most definitely a correlation between the size of a vehicle and its safety. Some more or less safe, but on the whole -- yes, the size of car has a direct correlation to its safety. Of course, if it makes you feel more scientific, I could tout the consensus of the IIHS and the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration evaluation of crash test data.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
besson talking about front visibility in spite of updates to the cab-forward designs, knifecarrier cutting himself up over bad brakes and soft suspensions in spite of updates to electronic stability control and braking, you talking about ladder-frame designs... y'all seem to be working from some really dated information here.
I guess making incredibly deadly vehicles for a decade made them clean up their act, by making the vehicles more car-like, they have made them safer...interesting. I'd also be curious as to what percent of car fatalities include a much larger vehicle being involved in the accident. I'd also also be curious on what factors would put a passenger car in a more dangerous situation more often (commuting into a busy metropolis) versus a mom-tank driving around suburbia. In short, I'm not dumb, and I drive large vehicles very often. There is no way a 3-ton truck is going to be safer to drive than a sedan. It simply feels safer because of its mass and size.

Many SUVs, the really big ones, still use ladder frames (Yukon, Expedition, etc). Braking distance is going to be terrible on any large vehicle versus a small car. Center of gravity is still going to be an issue.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
While out and about this thread came to mind, so I stopped by the local dealership and picked up a `12 Cayenne Turbo to test (it's crossed my mind before) and I'll see what it's like.
Well from everything I've ever heard about it it's a brilliant vehicle, but IMO an utterly pointless and absolutely horrendous looking car....I mean SUV. I can't imagine the person who looks at a Cayenne and thinks..."Yeah, that's a sexy car."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 05:50 PM
 
I wasn't going to tell him.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 06:01 PM
 
Also also also......

I'd like to say, again, that I really don't give a single sh!t what other people drive. If you bought a monstrosity for image then have fun filling it up. But I will say this....that 99.9% of what most SUVs are used for can be accomplished with a Minivan...but those are uncool so people go with SUVs instead.

I've considered getting a Minivan for a work vehicle for construction for several reasons. More gas efficient than a truck, but still plenty of oomph. My mom had a 99 Dodge Caravan with the 3.6l V6, that thing had some serious sack for a minivan. 7 passenger Minivan will be rated to carry quite a bit of weight. I can build a pretty sweet cargo rack on top. Can cruise the coast looking for single mother-ass. The list goes on.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I guess making incredibly deadly vehicles for a decade made them clean up their act, by making the vehicles more car-like, they have made them safer...interesting.
Agreed, at half the fatality rate of cars I'd say they've more than come a long way. Maybe now instead of trying to beat me up with antiquated information, we can focus some of that zeal and ire toward the classes of vehicles that haven't enjoyed such appreciable progress. As it turns out today, car-like isn't nearly as safe as SUV-like.

I'd also be curious as to what percent of car fatalities include a much larger vehicle being involved in the accident.
As I understand it, the death rates go in order of pedestrians first, followed by motorcycles, and then bicycles, and I don't remember seeing any mention of SUVs in that relationship. Perhaps someone with the wherewithal to look into this would respond, though I wouldn't look forward to hearing back from any of my detractors here. Folks seem to be long on opinion, short on anything to substantiate them.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Smaller, and not as nice, but that's how I'd describe the X5.

Similar mileage too. I get about 19.
Not as nice? You think? I test drove the X5 back when I got the estate ~2 years ago, and didn't like it. Too much body roll, bad road noise (likely the tires), non-linear brakes ("Am I stopping anytime soon? Oh hell!! *head goes through windshield*), interior plastics felt a little cheap (but it had great seats), and acceleration, although not bad (I've not driven the M version), wasn't nearly as quick as this Cayenne (no surprise there, the Porsche has 500hp).

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Well from everything I've ever heard about it it's a brilliant vehicle, but IMO an utterly pointless and absolutely horrendous looking car....I mean SUV. I can't imagine the person who looks at a Cayenne and thinks..."Yeah, that's a sexy car."
I think all SUVs are ugly, so it doesn't really matter.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 08:25 PM
 
99.9% of the time, car owners are not exceeding 45mph, we'd better cap their top speeds at 50. It'd be safer and it might save the planet. You can always rent a "sports" car for any needs that would require you exceed 50 mph.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
99.9% of the time, car owners are not exceeding 45mph, we'd better cap their top speeds at 50. It'd be safer and it might save the planet. You can always rent a "sports" car for any needs that would require you exceed 50 mph.

That's quite the strawman argument, unless you think that going on the highway is any way comparable to towing a boat.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Not as nice?
Sorry for the indefinite subject. I was saying the Porsche is nicer than the BMW.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Right, and that's primarily what you see on the road... people in their sedans. SUVs in the US account for just 11.42% of the vehicles on the road at any given time. I think folks who approach these matters emotionally tend to get all riled up in minutia.

Im not riled up in minutia. SUVs were fresh on my mind as I headed out Friday so I took this pic while stopped on the 59 highway downtown. Regardless of what stats say nationally, in my southern city this pic shows what some of us have to dodge from day to day. As you can see none of the vehicles on the left lane are cars. The pic doesn't do it justice; I was trying to get it right down the center of the 2 lanes to show that all the vehicles as far as one can see in front of me are SUVs/trucks, aside from the commercial vans/18wheelers etc. (there is only 1 car slightly visible in 1st lane). This is why I don't like stats too much; or the way they're presented on a broad scope that doesn't take into account details. In this case the article you cited briefly takes location into account but that wasn't the way you cited it. There's great disparity from one city/state to another. Some states I reckon like CA, NY etc get along just fine with mostly cars; which begs the question why do inner city Texans think they can't? Surely it's not about outdoors and recreation, because we know when it comes to outdoorsy people CA walks all over TX. In my pic most those suvs are solo drivers headed home from work on a half hour drive from DT to the Humble suburb of ~90,000 people.

59 is one of 6 north south highways - 2 to 5 lanes - serving 6 million people. That's 1 highway per million. The same goes for east - west. I hope now we see the real problem.

What "good ol' days are you talking about"? I'd put today's SUV against any vehicle from the good ol' days of any class including motorcycles.
The days when the average family put 2-3 kids in the back of the car and had no problem with it.
Otherwise, the average vehicle occupancy rate for cars in the US is 1.59, SUVs at 1.92 which immediately tells me the SUV owners have purchased these vehicles for greater capacity. Because remember, when we're not going to and from work, we people come with accessories not always elegantly tucked into an unoccupied back seat.
So your saying the average occupancy rate for SUVs isn't much greater than a car? In fact the average doesn't even get past 2 complete people. I don't think the extra .33 person in suvs requires much more capacity for people, cargo or anything.
Why is wondering legit? I think it's more legit to know. I mean, why would you assume those who own 2-3 vehicles wouldn't choose at least one smaller vehicle? Not an exact comparison, but indicative of my point; the most common pairing of vehicles in American households with two to four cars is a full-sized pickup truck and a standard, mid-range vehicle.
We still don't know. A standard mid-renge vehicle could be a really large car or small suv. It makes sense that if someone already had an suv that their 2nd car would be as small as possible when everything except safety is taken into account. 1 versatile suv, and 1 money/gas saving small car that doesn't severely hurt everyone it hits.
One's choice in vehicle does not dictate their skill at the art of driving. Most people are dying on foot, bicycle, and motorcycle. Again, this is an emotional appeal to be sure, but not really valid in the context of the reasons for our disagreement.
A few things:
Do you have a link for foot, bike, etc.?
It's not just about dying, but permanent injuries as well.
..And how would I say it so it's not an appeal to emotion? It's because it's a serious issue to consider when talking about suv safety which I believe comes at the cost of the other driver's safety.
I agree with you about skill level; and I don't like that really young or dangerous drivers are often driving suvs.
Consider the alternatives to consumerism my friend; you would place all this distaste for consumerism predicated on government folly in the hands of government action to mitigate it? At the end of the day, it'd likely save us all a whole bunch of disenfranchisement and trampled rights to simply allow people their own choice in vehicle.
No, I didn't mean to imply gov 'taking' our suvs if I did; but I do think one should have to be at least 21 y.o. to drive an suv/truck. Get some driving experience, get the wild, drunken part of life mostly behind them. Traffic fines for suvs should be higher. How many times have you heard someone say they want an suv for their teen so he/she can be safe? Who's more likely to do the killing in this case?

I want government to fix our roads so I can feel safe driving on the same road as suvs: Expand our highway lanes; here in urban center our highways are erratic dropping 2-3 lanes at a time leaving a downtown highway at just 2 lanes. It causes accidents every day. There should be 2 lanes marked as constants so people don't have to guess about what lane they need to be in just to stay on the same highway. There should be a truck, towing, lane. There's a lot that can be done to stop all these big vehicles from last minute traffic weaving.

Government is already in our business forcing us to have insurance; so right there lots of free market common sense is gone while they influence this end of the market. So I say while they're at it make it so insurance follows the driver not the car. I can't drive 2 cars at the same time so why pay like I am?
At this point I'm going to ask that the next person to engage me in this thread, not actually own an SUV for the very reasons they're arguing against. Of course, all the other sheeple who own SUVs are doing so for the exact same reasons you and others cite, but it is their reasoning that is suspect.
I don't own suv. I rent them as I need them. I wish tucks were more readily available for landscaping purposes. I own a camry which I consider a huge car compared to my last car.

When I said this:

" I'd love to drive a smaller vehicle but the thing stopping me and many others is the fact that I feel I'm forced to drive something big enough that a cell phone driver in a tank wont pulverize my car when they ram it. If the majority had equally small cars we'd all be relatively safe. "
I meant I'd love to drive something smaller than my camry such as this Elio or smart car; but that I'm scared to. I've already been injured in my camry while sitting at a light getting rammed by a 23 yo driving solo, from work, in an suv who wasn't even shaken up. I don't blame her that much. The government planted trees along the road so that as it bends you can't see the light until right up on it. People shouldn't have to memorize the roads to drive safely on them. Roads should be common sense. But the fact remains if she'd been driving a car more suited for her purpose damage to the victims would have been mitigated.

P.S. Im not anti owning suvs; Im anti driving them EVERYwhere. Im not concerned with suv's contribution to climate change. My city smells like smog though, and smog does kill people. Our water supply has a cocktail slick of oil, steering fluid, transmission fluid, brake fluid, coolant and tar. Some of the agriculture land by roads are contaminated by lead from fuel run off back in the day.... So my die hard environmentalism isn't just for the sake of being a tree hugger about everything. We see environmental issues pop up from the past that have major impact down the line.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sorry for the indefinite subject. I was saying the Porsche is nicer than the BMW.
It is, but not for the money ($90k). I've been told by an acquaintance that I need to try an X5 M, but I can't find one available within 500 miles.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I think all SUVs are ugly, so it doesn't really matter.
Same here, why some people think of them as a status symbol is beyond me.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 10:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
99.9% of the time, car owners are not exceeding 45mph, we'd better cap their top speeds at 50. It'd be safer and it might save the planet. You can always rent a "sports" car for any needs that would require you exceed 50 mph.
My avg speed is 32mph, which means that I exceed 45mph far more than .1% of the time I drive my car. My g/f's avg speed is 45, meaning she lives on the highway. Also no-one is trying to say that SUVs need to be regulated out of the market, at least I know I'm not, I'm just pointing out that the majority of reasons to own an SUV can EASILY be accomplished with any number of normal, more efficient vehicles. I used my KIA compact the other day to pick up 8' long 2x4s, just because you have 2 kids doesn't mean you need a 18 foot long V8-powered urban assault vehicle. In fact, modern cars have boatloads of interior and trunk space, it really is amazing how much space they find in these little cars. I can load up a slew of tools, a stepladder, cords, etc.. in my Forte and then get 36MPG on the way to a job.

Real utility for a family would be a Sprinter-style van. Tons of storage space, enough room for a few kids, efficient diesel engine, high tow-rating and great visibility with an extreme cab-forward design.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2013, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Regardless of what stats say nationally, in my southern city this pic shows what some of us have to dodge from day to day.
Whatever the case, I've never tried to take a picture in my SUV while behind the wheel on the highway.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2013, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That's quite the strawman argument, unless you think that going on the highway is any way comparable to towing a boat.
I'm not saying folks can't own sports cars that can do 80 mph. I'm just saying for those who don't need to use the highway 99.9% of the time, they should rent a sports car to do that when they need to, otherwise using something with a much more modest engine capped at 45 mph. All vehicles would have much smaller, more efficient engines since they wouldn't be required to carry so much torque and we could save the planet. Or... we could lower the speed limit to accommodate the more efficient vehicles, you know -- since no one mentioned having to tow a boat, you certainly don't need a race car.

After all, folks talk about their need for SUVs, having to haul their families and their families' belongings and what-not, but others insist that these needs don't apply 99.9% of the time. They just know this. While SUVs (when accounting for full size pickups) account for only 30+% of the vehicles on the road, this ratio must still be skewed according to many here. In spite of the numbers I've provided regarding average occupancy differences between SUVs and cars indicating more passengers per SUV and all the factors related to family-living that would justify a larger vehicle, detractors are generally in disagreement maintaining that SUV owners don't need the extra cargo. So... same argument applies in reverse. You can cite people's highway needs, but that isn't most people. Regardless, I'm not going to care about their alleged needs because their greedy consumerism is suspect and facts will have no bearing on this view.

99.9% of the time, you don't need to exceed 45 mph. For those times when you do, rent a sports car and save the planet.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Jul 14, 2013 at 09:34 AM. )
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2013, 08:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
My avg speed is 32mph, which means that I exceed 45mph far more than .1% of the time I drive my car. My g/f's avg speed is 45, meaning she lives on the highway. Also no-one is trying to say that SUVs need to be regulated out of the market, at least I know I'm not, I'm just pointing out that the majority of reasons to own an SUV can EASILY be accomplished with any number of normal, more efficient vehicles.
A. First two examples are entirely anecdotal. There are three other people in this thread arguing your view, but happen to own SUVs for their towing capabilities, safety, and cargo space. Your "99.9%" of the time argument is likely flawed, but you won't accept that so... I don't except your alleged need to exceed 45 mph.

B. I'm not trying to say you can't own a sports car, I'm just saying that 99.9% of the time, you don't need a vehicle that can exceed 45 mph. I mean, you might, but most don't.

C. Besides, you'd probably be amazed at how little time you're saving traveling at 55 or 60 as opposed to 40-45 mph anyway. You can EASILY leave home 5 minutes earlier and use a smaller, more efficient vehicle capped at 45 mph. You CERTAINLY don't need a vehicle that can exceed 100 mph.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2013, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post

Im not riled up in minutia. SUVs were fresh on my mind as I headed out Friday so I took this pic while stopped on the 59 highway downtown.
I'm not buyin' it.
A. The cars on that highway are spaced awfully far apart for a "stopped" scenario and
B. If you're stopped in this picture, you're the only one.

*Hint: brake lights are a dead give-away for whether or not a vehicle is "stopped". Did the person behind you honk at you to put the phone down and stop obstructing normal, safe traffic flow? I dare say the roadways would be exponentially safer if people weren't snapping photos of traffic as they drove.

C. And wait a minute! Are those State recreational park stickers on the inside bottom-left of the windshield; the commercial vehicle you're allegedly "renting"?

Regardless of what stats say nationally, in my southern city this pic shows what some of us have to dodge from day to day. As you can see none of the vehicles on the left lane are cars. The pic doesn't do it justice; I was trying to get it right down the center of the 2 lanes to show that all the vehicles as far as one can see in front of me are SUVs/trucks, aside from the commercial vans/18wheelers etc. (there is only 1 car slightly visible in 1st lane).
This makes perfect sense to me. Since statistically, cars are exactly half as safe as SUVs in their rates of fatality, people in SUVs are much more comfortable taking the highway while everyone in their zippy little sports cars are doing 50 mph in 35 mph zones on the standard roadways.

Otherwise, it looks like you've got a couple of modest SUVs pictured here, certainly not the "URBAN ASSAULT VEHICLES" others are talking about. And wait, that van looks like it's being used commercially.

The people in their little sports cars zipping around at 50 mph in 35 mph school zones are killing children and little snow seal pups and it's just wrong. 99.9% of the time, they don't need a car that exceeds 45 mph. They don't need the engine capacity to exceed 45 mph, but if they do -- they can rent a zippy little sports car for those needs and use their much more efficient engines only capable up to 45 mph the other 99.9% of the time -- since they're obviously not using highways and interstates anyway.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Jul 14, 2013 at 09:30 AM. )
ebuddy
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2013, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm not buyin' it.
A. The cars on that highway are spaced awfully far apart for a "stopped" scenario and
B. If you're stopped in this picture, you're the only one.
I'm spaced back because the cars are rolling forward every couple seconds while Im sitting there taking a picture. You can clearly see the traffic situation... And by the way (subego), me taking a pic even if moving, is safer than even glancing down at a GPS, since I don't actually even have to look at the phone to do it. Drinking a coffee would also be more dangerous.
C. And wait a minute! Are those State recreational park stickers on the inside bottom-left of the windshield; the commercial vehicle you're allegedly "renting"?
Those are the standard stickers, one is a safety/emissions approval, where you just go into a shop and pay $40 to get a fake inspection stamped "clean" and "safe", if your gas cap isn't 100% sealed or the o2 sensor isn't working properly you fail, but if you have a truck that spews black smoke you pass, here in Texas... And that is in fact my car which you can see is much lower than the tank bullying me from the front. If I needed an suv, which is a few times a year at most, I'd rent it... or call ebuddy.
people in SUVs are much more comfortable taking the highway while everyone in their zippy little sports cars are doing 50 mph in 35 mph zones on the standard roadways.

The people in their little sports cars zipping around at 50 mph in 35 mph school zones are killing children and little snow seal pups and it's just wrong.
Common now, people in cars don't drive anywhere near as crazy as when people get into an suv. Us small car folk have to watch our backs, be defensive, like a seal pup dodging polar bears, or we'll get plowed right over by these UAVs.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2013, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Common now, people in cars don't drive anywhere near as crazy as when people get into an suv. Us small car folk have to watch our backs, be defensive, like a seal pup dodging polar bears, or we'll get plowed right over by these UAVs.
When I see a car doing something on the highway which make me go WTF, 90% of the time it's someone in a sports car weaving from lane to lane.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2013, 01:13 PM
 
Ebuddy, I don't think I'll bother responding to that unreasonable rant, particularly the bit you've repeated a number times now about saving the planet. I think you're just trolling, or being a little emotional at best.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2013, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
When I see a car doing something on the highway which make me go WTF, 90% of the time it's someone in a sports car weaving from lane to lane.
For me, most of the time it's an old person in a Buick, or some other big sedan. Like driving 10 miles with a turn signal on, or taking 10-20 seconds to sloooowly change lanes.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2013, 01:40 PM
 
That's country living. In the city we just eat people once they get that old.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:00 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2