[sek929]

Canyonaroooooooo!

Funniest thing is that a CTX came up in the image search for Canyonero, hahaha, far to perfect.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by sek929

Originally Posted by BRussell

We wouldn't need the government to stop people from buying SUVs if people would just act in their own rational self-interest. But I suppose that's asking too much.

We wouldn't need any laws if that was the case

Well sometimes it's in your best interests to do bad things. That's when you need laws. We need laws to stop people from stealing other people's things. But we shouldn't need laws to stop people from poking hot irons into their eyes, or, worse yet, to buy SUVs.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Originally Posted by BRussell

We wouldn't need the government to stop people from buying SUVs if people would just act in their own rational self-interest. But I suppose that's asking too much.

You mean in YOUR self interests don't you?

I believe these things can be more or less objectively determined. That's the whole foundation of economics. It simply isn't rational to purchase a relatively less safe, relatively more expensive vehicle. There may be situations where people need a larger vehicle for their business, or for other unique circumstances. But, as has been argued many times in this thread, it's not rational for probably the majority of SUV owners. Being trendy is not a component of rational economic self-interest.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You said that yesterday

Find me some free web hosting and I'll post the HTML that decimates it.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

My bull-bars are mounted on soft rubber bushes which allow some give on impact. You want your head to have a cushion-soft impact on those or would you prefer it to hit the solid steel behind it?

Your very limited view on the safety of them is wrong. I'd much rather be car be hit by a vehicle that was originally designed to crumple to dispell energy than a vehicle that has been modified by it's owner with a big strong reinforcement over the front.

[suvsr4terrorists]

K. I can't find someplace to host this, so this will only be up temporarily. If someone could point me towards something that would host a really tiny HTML file it'd be much better. Anyway, read this and weep SUV lovers. You lose. I backed up pretty much everything from government sites or sites that cite government information.

http://chicane.myftp.org/Random/suvcounterpoint.html

Victory dance, because I'm done with this topic. I've spent enough time proving people wrong, and I don't feel like repeating myself again and again and again.

VICTORY DANCE!!

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Victory dance, because I'm done with this topic.

Promise?

[suvsr4terrorists]

Clever.

[budster101]

I'm convinced. I'm never buying an SUV ever again... Thank You Rob.

I owe you my life.

[porieux]

SUVs are for dumb people.

[budster101]

You must own one.

[Kevin]

[smacintush]

Telling people what they can drive and banning a type of vehicle wouldn't mean that we live under fascist rule, but it would be fascist to be sure. Especially when it's done "for the greater good of all". That's the reasoning they always use when they take away your freedoms.

Rob, I thought you lived in the midwest? Well I do and I can tell you that most of the people I know or meet that drive giant full-size pick-ups DON"T NEED THEM. I know people that live IN TOWN or in a sub-divisions driving full-size Dodge Rams or Ford F250's AS THEIR MAIN VEHICLE. I work with people who drive 45 minutes to an hour each way to and from work in full-size V8 packin' pick-ups. Stupid? Hell yeah. But I would rather share the road with them than an arrogant punk kid that goes off on TIRADES about using turn signals and then can somehow justify driving 100+MPH "when no ones around".

You want to discuss "need" of SUV's? They don't "need" to drive them so they shouldn't? Well tell us all why YOU NEED to drive 100+MPH on any public street EVER? You are endangering yourself, others that may happen to NOT KNOW that it's your time to drive fast and might just surprise you with their presence, you are burning excess fuel and spewing excess pollution for something YOU DON"T HAVE A NEED TO DO AT ALL.

BTW, pretty immature and sad little page there Rob. You are living proof of how dangerous it can be for ignorant, immature people to read. You should require a prescription from a doctor to read non-fiction. You have completely swallowed the anti-SUV activism without even considering the opposing or even NEUTRAL views.

But then, you are done with this topic and you are a boy of your word so thanks and good luck.

(Warning: The above post contains sarcasm and seriousness mixed together. If you can't figure out which is which, go get a hammer and smack yourself with it in the forehead three times.)

[baw]

In other news, I'm picking up my new car tomorrow morning. Pontiac Vibe.

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by baw

In other news, I'm picking up my new car tomorrow morning. Pontiac Vibe.

Did you get a free subscription to Vibe too? They did that as a promo here in Detroit. I cried laffing. Course, it was at a dealer in the same city where the local paper keeps calling the city Hazel Dark (instead of Hazel Park). The keys are not even close on a keyboard, not a typo! It cracks me up every time I see it.

[smacintush]

I just bought one of these:



It's no SVX but I like it.

[Kevin]

My parents got a Chrysler pacifica. It's sort of a SUV.

But not as tall.

More like a tall station wagon.

I dig it. Gonna take it to the beach this summer.

[The Mick]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

No I don't. Re-read how this topic has unfolded thus far. I'm talking about SUVs, and people attack my car. I just defend it. I've not brought my SVX up, not because it gets awful mileage, but because this is a thread about SUVs, and why they are wasteful and unsafe.

Actually Doofy was the one who brought my car up. I merely responded to his stupid attacks (Oh there are probably plenty of pics of rolled svxs!). Then Kilbey brought it up saying that it emits more than an H2, which is just totally incorrect, as I have proven.

Fine, I won't mention the SVX anymore as long as you don't use it either.

So? It handles extremely well. It accelerates extremely well. It brakes extremely well. That to me, is a safer vehicle.

Wrapped around a telephone pole after you lose control at 130+? Doesn't sound safe to me.

So you're saying that performance doesn't matter, it's purely how well it does in a crash test that makes a vehicle safe, eh? I find that view warped. Also, again.... MY CAR IS OLD. I AM FAIRLY POOR. It gets better mpg than a ford taurus, and it's a good performer. Why is this so hard for you guys to comprehend? I didn't compare my SVX to the H2, KILBEY did. I proved him wrong. Again, no more talking about my car. Further baiting will be responded by "I didn't bring up my car, stick to the subject: SUVs"

Dude, I could care less why or how you came to your decision to buy the SVX. Why can't you show the same courtesy to others?

But you aren't following my logic. Hell, you aren't even following what I've written. I love old cars. They're great! California's crusher law pisses me off! The huge ****ing drastic difference between ANY older car and ANY new car is as follows:

1. SUVS are everywhere today. Older cars are not.
2. SUVs get driven as daily drivers. Generally, older cars are collector items and pampered, driven occasionally.
3. SUVS ARE BEING PRODUCED TODAY RIGHT NOW WITH TODAYS TECHNOLOGY AND STILL GET **** MPG. Older collecter cars were produced decades ago, and are no longer in production.

... I'm REALLY trying not to be an ass here, but are you ****ing RETARDED?! This is NOT that hard of a concept to understand! Old cars are generally stored! They aren't driven very often! They aren't in production! There aren't as many even on the road able to drive!

Sorry, but you are being an ass and resorting to ad hominem assaults gets you no bonus points.

... ?! No. I was saying that it's 'rich' that you claim you need an SUV to tow your other SUV. I find that pretty pathetic. Must be a real tough vehicle if it can't even drive to the place you take it offroading at.

Listen, would you rather drive a 70HP 1959 Land Rover into the Rockies up through the Eisenhower tunnel going 30 MPH, or tow it behind an SUV going 70? Which one is safer? If you knew anything about off-roading you'd know that it's all about gearing not HP. What kind of shape will many modern cars still be in after 46 years?

Yes, actually you could. It just wouldn't be NEW. If you got another accord wagon for 5 grand or so, you could spend anothe 3-5 grand on .... hell, even another SUV for dedicated camping/towing duties! Then you'd be getting good MPG the WHOLE YEAR while commuting, and only be using the SUV when you actually NEED an suv.

Gee, I never knew you moonlighted as a financial consultant as well. Get your smarmy hand out of my wallet and let me buy what I like. Insurance, maintenance and gas for a third car won't save me money in the long run. Didn't you read where my SUV only gets about 6000 miles per year driven in it? Let's see, 45% more emissions than a Honda, but driven 55% less than the national average equals a net reduction in pollution compared to the average working mom commuting every day.

Starting in 2003, SUVs have been required to have much better brakes than before. I found that out last night. But again, they still cannot do it AS WELL as a car. More mass= less performance. It's really that simple. And I like how you left out the handling comparison.

So now we are limited to only discussing pre-2003 model SUVs because after that they are much better? Can they do as well in every single category as a car? No, but to claim they are unsafe is flat wrong. And I did mention handling later in my post.

Try looking here: and you'll see that according to the feds, fatality rates per 100 million miles and per 10,000 registered vehicles are exactly the same for both passenger cars and light trucks. In fact, the fatality rates in most years is higher in passenger cars versus in light trucks. This is true as far back as 1980. Where were all the SUVs then? Car for car, mile for mile, SUVs and cars are equally safe. Your safety argument is looking like swiss cheese.

The good news is that the fatality rates for both sectors has steadily dropped over the past 25 years.

They aren't being used as minivans or station wagons.

You must be kidding, sales of 4 door supercab full-size trucks is up dramatically in the past several years.

That's your opinion. Personally, I think someone who's actually focusing on driving at high speeds in a deserted area is far safer than being surrounded by inattentive morons yapping on cell phone, not checking blindspots and forcing their way into lanes because they have a 'big' vehicle. I can't even count how many times I've been THIS close to being smushed by an SUV who's driver wasn't paying attention.

Oh please! Check here for some more stats from your own government. Speeding is involved in 1 out of 3 of every fatal accidents. If you read the whole thing you'll find that SUVs are not involved in any more speeding related fatalities than passenger cars. What you will find is that speeding in rural areas, at night by 16-23 year old males make up the majority of fatal accidents. So go out there and get yourself killed, but don't blame me and my SUV.

The average acceleration of most SUVs is not that quick, nor do they usually brake that well. The four runner seems to have an edge on the rest of the pack. Start looking at specs for Navigators, explorers, escalades, H2s, suburbans, etc etc etc.

If you want to talk averages of the largest SUVs out there then look here. 5 of the biggest and most expensive ones on the market.
Average 0-60 time? 9.2 Seconds, 2 of them were under 8.
60-0 distance? 132 feet. Better than a Honda Accord, 3 of them under 130 feet.
Granted, the H2 was worst in acceleration at 10.8 seconds, but only second worst in braking at 139 feet.

I was referring to the H2. But anyway, thanks for again proving my point. The accord is almost 50% BETTER than the 'ultra low emissions' 4Runner. I find that pathetic, considering the fact that MOST 4runner owners don't go offroading or tow things.

Funny, you never said H2, you said SUVs. Oh, and for the record I said the 4Runner is LEV rated, not SLEV, ULEV or PZEV.

I didn't bring up my car, stick to the subject: SUVs

I find it quite relevant to mention that your environmental consciousness was sacrificed on your own personal vehicle, hypocrite.

Wrong. Stiffer frames and less crumple zones= more energy transfered to passenger compartment. I mentioned this a few months back, but my old boss had a huge lexus SUV and was rear ended by a pontiac grand am on the highway. She was going about 15-20mph somewhere, I think. She was fine. Airbag went off. Car crumpled. My boss? He has neck and spine injuries. Paralyzed? No. Whiplash? Yes. Why? No crumple zones.

Since when did you become an engineer too?

Also, you're totally ignoring the fact that SUVs sit so much higher, their bumpers go OVER other cars bumpers, sometimes even into other cars windows. The new ones are getting better, but not much. They're very dangerous to people OUTSIDE your car.

How? I said that SUVs can't brake, accelerate or handle as well as a car. From your own information, I'm correct. Sure, you may have found ONE suv that performs somewhere NEAR that of a car in two of the three categories, but again, the car is still better. And again, most SUVs aren't that good. Hence, my 'blanket' statements' are exactly that: BLANKET STATEMENTS. They are a generalizations. GENERALLY, cars have far superior handling, braking, and acceleration performance. So I really don't see how you consider that 'inaccurate'.

Actually it's pretty easy to call your argument inaccurate when I've just given you numerous specific examples of how you are simply wrong, as I did so above in this post. A fraction of a second 0-60 and 3 feet do not make a vehicle death on wheels. You do know that some SUVs actually outperform the average passenger car, as I showed above...?

News for you: I can, and people already do. CAFE standards, crash tests, emissions, etc etc all dictate what you can drive right now. Your life is already controlled. I'm pushing for not more control, but higher standards. An SUV used primarily as a people carrier/minivan/station wagon should be classified as a CAR, since that's what it's being used for. It should meet all the standards CARS have to meet.

That's a bit facetious I hope, they don't dictate what I can buy, they require all cars to meet minimum safety standards, which they all do BTW.

I don't see why a 4Runner has to meet a Camry's standards when under the skin it is a Tundra full-size truck. That makes no sense, and it's mechanically impossible.

So you are advocating that in order to purchase a 4Runner I have to prove to the government that I need it? What's your litmus test for that? How do I appeal the decision? This sounds like a strange mix of fascism and socialism. That's not the USA I want to live in.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by baw

In other news, I'm picking up my new car tomorrow morning. Pontiac Vibe.

I've looked at those. It seems like a good alternative to a small SUV/wagon, like an Outback.

[sek929]

So now its degraded into a 'post pic of my lame car' thread.
Malibu Maxx? Pontiac Vibe?

Who cares?

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by The Mick

Fine, I won't mention the SVX anymore as long as you don't use it either.


Wrapped around a telephone pole after you lose control at 130+? Doesn't sound safe to me.


Dude, I could care less why or how you came to your decision to buy the SVX. Why can't you show the same courtesy to others?


Sorry, but you are being an ass and resorting to ad hominem assaults gets you no bonus points.


Listen, would you rather drive a 70HP 1959 Land Rover into the Rockies up through the Eisenhower tunnel going 30 MPH, or tow it behind an SUV going 70? Which one is safer? If you knew anything about off-roading you'd know that it's all about gearing not HP. What kind of shape will many modern cars still be in after 46 years?


Gee, I never knew you moonlighted as a financial consultant as well. Get your smarmy hand out of my wallet and let me buy what I like. Insurance, maintenance and gas for a third car won't save me money in the long run. Didn't you read where my SUV only gets about 6000 miles per year driven in it? Let's see, 45% more emissions than a Honda, but driven 55% less than the national average equals a net reduction in pollution compared to the average working mom commuting every day.


So now we are limited to only discussing pre-2003 model SUVs because after that they are much better? Can they do as well in every single category as a car? No, but to claim they are unsafe is flat wrong. And I did mention handling later in my post.

Try looking here: and you'll see that according to the feds, fatality rates per 100 million miles and per 10,000 registered vehicles are exactly the same for both passenger cars and light trucks. In fact, the fatality rates in most years is higher in passenger cars versus in light trucks. This is true as far back as 1980. Where were all the SUVs then? Car for car, mile for mile, SUVs and cars are equally safe. Your safety argument is looking like swiss cheese.

The good news is that the fatality rates for both sectors has steadily dropped over the past 25 years.


You must be kidding, sales of 4 door supercab full-size trucks is up dramatically in the past several years.


Oh please! Check here for some more stats from your own government. Speeding is involved in 1 out of 3 of every fatal accidents. If you read the whole thing you'll find that SUVs are not involved in any more speeding related fatalities than passenger cars. What you will find is that speeding in rural areas, at night by 16-23 year old males make up the majority of fatal accidents. So go out there and get yourself killed, but don't blame me and my SUV.


If you want to talk averages of the largest SUVs out there then look here. 5 of the biggest and most expensive ones on the market.
Average 0-60 time? 9.2 Seconds, 2 of them were under 8.
60-0 distance? 132 feet. Better than a Honda Accord, 3 of them under 130 feet.
Granted, the H2 was worst in acceleration at 10.8 seconds, but only second worst in braking at 139 feet.


Funny, you never said H2, you said SUVs. Oh, and for the record I said the 4Runner is LEV rated, not SLEV, ULEV or PZEV.


I find it quite relevant to mention that your environmental consciousness was sacrificed on your own personal vehicle, hypocrite.


Since when did you become an engineer too?


Actually it's pretty easy to call your argument inaccurate when I've just given you numerous specific examples of how you are simply wrong, as I did so above in this post. A fraction of a second 0-60 and 3 feet do not make a vehicle death on wheels. You do know that some SUVs actually outperform the average passenger car, as I showed above...?



That's a bit facetious I hope, they don't dictate what I can buy, they require all cars to meet minimum safety standards, which they all do BTW.

I don't see why a 4Runner has to meet a Camry's standards when under the skin it is a Tundra full-size truck. That makes no sense, and it's mechanically impossible.

So you are advocating that in order to purchase a 4Runner I have to prove to the government that I need it? What's your litmus test for that? How do I appeal the decision? This sounds like a strange mix of fascism and socialism. That's not the USA I want to live in.

Sorry. I'm not wasting my time arguing with you anymore. It's quite apparent that I have facts and logic on my side, and you have... not much. I also wasn't aware that I had to be a financial accountant to point out a used car and truck together cost less than a new SUV, or an engineer to talk about anything about safety. I do think it's hilarious that you basically ignore my points in most of your responses, and instead just chastise me. You don't address the issues I brought up most of the time, you just attack me. Like I said, a waste of time.

You? You can ****ing flip over in your retarded vehicle and burn to death for all I care. >shrug<

[residentEvil]

Open Letter to an Oblivion:

Dear Oblivion, I trust this letter finds you well, although since the world revolves around you, there's probably not much getting in your way.

Contrary to popular belief among your ranks, there are other people in the world.

Believe it or not, you are not any more special than the rest of us who are waiting on line for our tickets, our coffee or at the highway exit. Therefore, blasting by us in the through traffic lane and then cutting off the person at the front of the exit is generally rude behavior, not to mention bad driving etiquette.

But etiquette is a word not in the Oblivion vocabulary.

Etiquette would dictate that you don't yell into your cell phone so that the person on the other end of the call doesn't have to scramble to turn the volume down, and the people next to you at the restaurant don't have to hear your lame conversation.

Etiquette would also dictate that you don't smuggle a bag of potato chips into "The Dukes of Hazzard" and proceed to crinkle the bag and munch to your heart's content in the middle of the theater.

Speaking of the theater, they post the showtimes for a reason.

Arriving after a movie begins and then having the audacity to demand that people fill in the empty seats in the middle of a row so you and your Obliviot pal can sit together is beyond reason.

Then again, reason is another thing Oblivions can't quite comprehend.

Reason would require sensitivity to another person's point of view, or behaving in a manner reasonable to society. For instance, staring down a retail clerk who is busy helping another customer or interrupting that clerk while he or she is busy with said previous customer and demanding attention is beyond reason.

And hear this: even if all you have is a "quick question," it doesn't mean that it's OK for you to skip all the unwritten rules that make up a civilized experience.

Some of those unwritten rules include, but are not limited to:

* Waiting patiently for one's turn in a line.

* Treating service personnel with respect and even tipping when customary.

* Keeping to the right when traveling at slow speeds (both while driving and walking).

* Moving away from the bottom of an escalator after stepping off the mechanism.

* Waiting to board an elevator or a subway train until everybody who is deboarding does so.

* Chewing gum or other foods with your mouth closed — thus sparing people around you the grotesque sound of your saliva smacking around your food and mouth.

* Picking a ringtone only when in the privacy of your own home or office, as opposed to while you are on a bus or train when folks are relaxing on their commute or reading a book or magazine.

The paradox of Oblivionism is that Oblivions are unaware of their rude behavior, because they are hobbled with tunnel vision that allows them to see only what's directly in front of them and only what they want.

Therefore, Oblivions never know they fit into the category because they are oblivious. I know that fact will make it easy for you to nod your head in agreement with my letter. "Those" people will never learn, will they?

Sadly, no, you won't.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally Posted by residentEvil

Open Letter to an Oblivion:

That was sweet!

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by RAzaRazor

That was sweet!

I didn't write it, I cut and pasted

[RAzaRazor]

Originally Posted by sek929

So now its degraded into a 'post pic of my lame car' thread.
Malibu Maxx? Pontiac Vibe?

Who cares?

[sek929]

Sh!ts rollin' on 9's

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by sek929

So now its degraded into a 'post pic of my lame car' thread.
Malibu Maxx? Pontiac Vibe?

Who cares?

ME!

[Sky Captain]

Light aircraft are wastful and unsafe.
But the left hasn't gotten aroung to attacking them yet.
It's not about the vehicle but the lifestyle it represents and dictating social morality to those who live it. Namely those who can afford it. Higher fuel costs will only squeeze out those who are on the borderline of the exclusive club of success.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by sek929

So now its degraded into a 'post pic of my lame car' thread.
Malibu Maxx? Pontiac Vibe?

Who cares?

I think the SUV thing has jumped the shark in this thread. In fact, I think the phrase "jumped the shark" has jumped the shark.

[BigBadWolf]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Light aircraft are wastful and unsafe.
But the left hasn't gotten aroung to attacking them yet.
It's not about the vehicle but the lifestyle it represents and dictating social morality to those who live it. Namely those who can afford it. Higher fuel costs will only squeeze out those who are on the borderline of the exclusive club of success.

Precisely, it more a matter of jealousy than anything else.

[ghporter]

However, there are noticably fewer accidents per person-mile in general aviation aircraft than in any motor vehicle. And they are also relatively fuel efficient when compared on a person-mile basis with motor vehicles. It ALL perception.

Yes, it takes a fairly large investment in time and money to own and fly a Cesna, which puts it in the "jealousy" category for a lot of people. But think about this: NOBODY goes through anywhere near the evaluation the FAA gives ALL private pilots to get or renew a drivers license. I think THAT is a very important issue.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

It's not about the vehicle but the lifestyle it represents and dictating social morality to those who live it. Namely those who can afford it. Higher fuel costs will only squeeze out those who are on the borderline of the exclusive club of success.

Allow me to disagree. This is about people, lets call them side A, who by driving an SUV publicly state that they put their personal desires over concerns for the environment, rising oil prices and their own and other road user's safety.

The other side thinks that there should be legislation protecting the greater good.

Sounds logical to me.

[Sky Captain]

I drive an SUV.
I have a light aircraft.(actually 2)


SUV's are not every car on the road. In fact on my drive to work, I see 1 SUV(V8 powered) to at least 20 4 bangers.

Your "Side A" is not an empirical fact, just an opinionated acessment.
Driven by?

The will to control a minority?

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by ghporter

However, there are noticably fewer accidents per person-mile in general aviation aircraft than in any motor vehicle. And they are also relatively fuel efficient when compared on a person-mile basis with motor vehicles. It ALL perception.

Yes, it takes a fairly large investment in time and money to own and fly a Cesna, which puts it in the "jealousy" category for a lot of people. But think about this: NOBODY goes through anywhere near the evaluation the FAA gives ALL private pilots to get or renew a drivers license. I think THAT is a very important issue.

Actually my 172 gets 9 gallons per hour. I can make about 110 miles ain an hour(in the air)
They drink fuel.
And it's a license renewal(actually a performance review) every 2 years. For me it's every year.
And an instrument proficency every 6 months.
I agree that a driver's license is too easy to obtain. And too easy to keep.
DUI (auomobile) for a pilot = loss of flying certificate for X/months. And about $10K.
DUI in an aircraft = jail time. And never fly again.

Pilots are generally safer drivers. We have to be. Loseing your driver's license will make you uninsurable. Quite a few of my co workers drive SUVs. It's a real pain to load and unload all your junk into a sedan. The SUV you just toss it in the back.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Your "Side A" is not an empirical fact, just an opinionated acessment.
Driven by?

The will to control a minority?

Absolutely. Everything I post is my opinion, otherwise what's the point in posting?

But this has little to do with the will to control a minority. SUV drivers don't quite live on the reservation yet.
It has to do with the greater good. And for the greater good it would be better to take SUVs off the road, or treat them equally to cars, with similar safety legislation. I don't think anybody can seriously disagree with that statement.

[Sky Captain]

There's much more that can be done for the "greater good".
Like keep drunks off the street.
But the government dosen't.
That would save 50,000+ lives a year.
It was 41,000 in Canada? That can't be right.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by baw

In other news, I'm picking up my new car tomorrow morning. Pontiac Vibe.

Great choice!

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

There's much more that can be done for the "greater good".
Like keep drunks off the street.
But the government dosen't.
That would save 50,000+ lives a year.
It was 41,000 in Canada? That can't be right.

Oh agreed. Drunks and driving, don't get me started. Irresponsible in the extreme etc, Thing is, we are doing something about them.

But then, how responsible is it to drive a vehicle in the certain knowledge that should you, god forbid, ever hit a pedestrian he/she would have a 4 times higher chance of getting killed than had you driven a normal car? All for the convenience of being able to just ditch your gear in the back?

I know I am nitpicking here, but there's a grain of truth in that statement.

[The Mick]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Sorry. I'm not wasting my time arguing with you anymore. It's quite apparent that I have facts and logic on my side, and you have... not much. I also wasn't aware that I had to be a financial accountant to point out a used car and truck together cost less than a new SUV, or an engineer to talk about anything about safety. I do think it's hilarious that you basically ignore my points in most of your responses, and instead just chastise me. You don't address the issues I brought up most of the time, you just attack me. Like I said, a waste of time.

You? You can ****ing flip over in your retarded vehicle and burn to death for all I care. >shrug<

Facts and logic on your side? So when I put 3 direct links to the NHTSA and Edmunds in my post that directly refute your claims, I'm ignoring the truth and personally attacking you? How deluded can one man truly be?

By the way, all of my cars were purchased used you presumptive nincompoop. Again, all you can do is say that any other viewpoint than yours is stupid and/or retarded when empirical data goes against you. That's the calling card of a loser.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Allow me to disagree. This is about people, lets call them side A, who by driving an SUV publicly state that they put their personal desires over concerns for the environment, rising oil prices and their own and other road user's safety.

The other side thinks that there should be legislation protecting the greater good.

Sounds logical to me.

Well I'm anti-SUV but it seems like an over-reaction to ban them, if that's what you're talking about. After all, it is just a matter of degree: All vehicles use gas, all vehicles are dangerous to an extent. I'm all for reducing any existing incentives to buy SUVs over better vehicles, but if the safety and cost issues are well-publicized, I think the fad will go away. Didn't SUV sales slow down last quarter?

[The Mick]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Allow me to disagree. This is about people, lets call them side A, who by driving an SUV publicly state that they put their personal desires over concerns for the environment, rising oil prices and their own and other road user's safety.

The other side thinks that there should be legislation protecting the greater good.

Sounds logical to me.

I just cannot let this kind of misinformation get by. As I have shown in other posts, according to the Department of Transportation, the fatality rate per million miles driven and per 10,000 vehicles registered is exactly the same for passenger cars and light trucks, which most SUVs are classified as. Also, this bombastic proclamation of horror on our roadways is untrue. Overall fatality rates, injury rates and accident rates are down dramatically, close to 50% since 1980. Check the facts
here.

That reduces your talking points down to fuel economy. If person A can afford the price of the gas he is allowed to buy that vehicle. It has always been that way, even when gas was significantly more expensive in the late 70's than it is now, adjusted for inflation of course. If person A cannot afford it, then he buys something more efficient, as is already happening today. SUV sales are down, so you've kinda already got your way. The day the government tells me I'm not allowed to buy a car unless I fill out their forms to assess my needs is the day I emigrate. Socialism and fascism suck.

[macroy]

Man... the hypocrisy of this debate is pretty sad....

I particularly don't like SUVs. However, the anti-suv folks here have really given me the impression that they are simply using "stats" to help their opinionated agendas. They simply don't like SUVs, and would like to see less of them.

Thus, I'm told that SUV drivers are irrational, dumb, and arrogant because SUV's:

a - pollutes more
b - are being wasted because they are not being utilized to its full capacity
c - eats more gas
d - is more dangerous

Can someone tell me what % of total automobile pollution is coming from SUV's? What is the ratio of non-fully occupied SUV's vs non-fully occupied cars? What % of total consumption of gas are from SUV's? and are my chances of getting in an accident greater with an SUV?

My guess (and I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm wrong) is that cars still contribute to a higher % of pollution, that more cars are driven with less than full capacity, that cars still use more fuel as a whole, and that if I get into an accident - the chances are higher that it's another car. And this is all based on the fact that there are still more cars on the road than SUVs.

Does that mean we should do nothing? absolutely not.. but c'mon, all autos pollute..... if you want to do something about it - do it across the board. Don't point the finger at someone else when you as a whole probably contribute more to the issue.

[sek929]

We were originally arguing on personal experience with the bulk of SUV drivers in our areas. Which was that most were occupied by 2 or fewer passengers (including driver) and pampered like cars are never used for their "off-road" capability. Thus making a mockery of the "light truck: designation, because they were used as no more than commuter vehicles for the status-seeking.

Anyone can argue on behalf of their own experiences with SUVs, and as stated before those who use them for towing and people hauling primarily are not among the ignorant SUV buyers because they use the vehicle for what it was designed for.

In my area, the percentage of people who actually use the sport or utility aspect of the vehicle are in a vast minority of the people looking for something more impressive than just a luxo-sedan.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I think the SUV thing has jumped the shark in this thread. In fact, I think the phrase "jumped the shark" has jumped the shark.

I don't even know what that means, why am I smiling?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

CO2 emissions, which are basically a function of gas mileage, hurt the envorinment too. Scientists disagree about how serious global warming is, but most conclude there IS a significant effect there. Fuel consumption is also the cause of the current high gas prices.

The SVX has catalytic converters. It's old but not THAT old (90's?). Unless it's having horrible engine problems I would still expect it to perform as good or better than a 20,000 mile H2 in NOx, HC, and CO emissions tests.

CO2 is a factor, but it is easily the least harmful thing coming out of a tail pipe won't you agree? And as Rob has admitted, he cut off a catalytic converter off his car. What do you think that did for his hydrocarbon emission levels? Still think it runs cleaner than the H2? And earlier in the thread he said it burns no oil and then later in the thread he admits it burns 1/2 quart in 5,000 miles. Did he lie in his first statement? Still think it burns as clean as a newer H2? And age has very little to do with it. It's miles on the engine, O2 sensor, Ari Flow Sensors, and catalytic converters.

High gas prices will balance out. As people drive less due to the high costs less emissions will be reduced. I suggest a $.50 federal tax increase on the price of all auto fuels to pay for road construction and research into more efficient engines. And to appease the "OMG WE ARE 1 YEAR AWAY FROM USING ALL THE OIL ON THE PLANET"-crowd, I suggest a tax based upon CAFE standards. If your car is lower than CAFE standards you get a tax break, higher, you pay an increase in taxes.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by sek929

Noone but contractor's buy Diesels here.

The only universal statement that is ever correct is the one that states: Whenever you use universal statements you are always wrong.

My uncle owns a deisel pickup. He is not a contractor nor does he use it for work. He uses it to tow his camper.

[Link]

I'll just get one of these, drive it responsibly (wearing a seatbelt, not over the speed limit, not using a cellphone, carefully using my turn signals, and definitely not drunk....)...... and pay the $3/gallon for gas to drive it.

I don't like that car because it's an SUV or because it's "cool", to be honest I wouldn't care if it was as out of style as a 1989 corolla, I like the style (it doesn't remind me of a station wagon), and it aint too ridiculously big... It gets about the same gas mileage as a durango, or a crown vic. Whopee.

It doesn't matter if you're driving a scooter with an oversized engine at 80mph, if you're irresponsible you've got a damn high rate of killing yourself.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Link

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/360px-Hummer-H3-NAIAS-2005.jpg[img]

I'll just get one of these, drive it responsibly (wearing a seatbelt, not over the speed limit, not using a cellphone, carefully using my turn signals, and definitely not drunk....)...... and pay the $3/gallon for gas to drive it.

I don't like that car because it's an SUV or because it's "cool", to be honest I wouldn't care if it was as out of style as a 1989 corolla, I like the style (it doesn't remind me of a station wagon), and it aint too ridiculously big... It gets about the same gas mileage as a durango, or a crown vic. Whopee.

It doesn't matter if you're driving a scooter with an oversized engine at 80mph, if you're irresponsible you've got a damn high rate of killing yourself.

Well said. Some people just don't seem to get that what a lot of what people use to decide what they want to drive is based upon opinion and tastes. My decision was based upon financial, reliability, and country of origin. But if someone buys a car becuase they like the way it looks who am I to say my reasons are any better? It's their money!

Personally, I don't like the looks of the H3, I like the vehicles it is based off of better (Envoy/Trilblazer). But to each his own.

[budster101]

I am liking that H3.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Actually my 172 gets 9 gallons per hour. I can make about 110 miles ain an hour(in the air)
They drink fuel.

But your traffic issues in a 172 are not nearly as bad as they are on the ground; further, you NEVER sit in line at a Jack in the Box drive-through window running your Cesna...

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Pilots are generally safer drivers. We have to be. Loseing your driver's license will make you uninsurable. Quite a few of my co workers drive SUVs. It's a real pain to load and unload all your junk into a sedan. The SUV you just toss it in the back.

I've noticed that "good" motorcyclists are better drivers too. That of course discounts the idiots who weave in and out of traffic on bikes that are way too fast and powerful for their riders' skills. In your case, with all the stuff you'd have to have to fly (starting with a Jep case and moving on to some luggage, etc.) having a large vehicle to get back and forth to the airport makes sense. You are NOT commuting five miles from home to work, alone, in stop and go traffic. That sort of thing, plus the "drive-through window" crowd is what really burns me up; there seems to be no way to turn off some people's vehicles while they're waiting for their burger...and they stink up the air I breathe while they're waiting.