[maxintosh]

Originally Posted by macroy

Huh?

http://www.roadandtravel.com/crashra...shratings.html

I only see one GM there.

Even if the Suburban by some stretch of the imagination could be called a midsize....

Here are the Insurance Institute crashes, which are much more like "real world" situations than the government tests and similar to the European NCAP tests. Note that they have not tested a Suburban.

Jimmy/Envoy/Blazer: POOR
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/96002.htm

Trailblazer/Envoy/Rainier/Ascender/Bravada: MARGINAL
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0119.htm

Aztek: MARGINAL
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0114.htm

Rendezvous: ACCEPTABLE
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0120.htm

Silverado: MARGINAL
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm

Tracker: ACCEPTABLE
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/98020.htm

Vue: GOOD/Best Pick front, POOR side impact
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/...side/s0301.htm

However the latest GM models are doing better. (The Uplander/Montana/Relay/Terraza got "GOOD" but not a Best Pick.)

[Cody Dawg]

Worried about the Chevy Suburban?

Here are the crash test results.

Safey features listed here.

It did pretty darn well.

[maxintosh]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Worried about the Chevy Suburban?

Here are the crash test results.

Safey features listed here.

It did pretty darn well.

Most well-built cars now adays can and regularly do acheive 5 stars for both front driver and passenger. In fact, it is ridiculously easy to get a 5-star rating from the government test. The Suburban acheived neither, despite being a "fortress" of safety. It also lacks common safety features like 3-point belts for middle passengers and side curtain/rollover protection airbags, and side airbags are optional. It got 3 stars for likelyhood to rollover. (I've seen an upside-down Suburban, and it was not pretty--the entire roof had collapsed.)

That's a big fat "marginal" for safety IMO.

[Cody Dawg]

I feel as if my car is extremely safe, still. It sits up high and I can see all around and it is very heavy. We have the 3/4 ton version with the bigger motor, not that that makes any difference.

I love it. I guess that's all that matters when it comes down to it, right? You may love your Dodge Neon and claim that it's got 5-star crash ratings all day long but you wouldn't catch me in one of those things if I had a choice about the matter.



Everyone is always an armchair expert when it comes to Google and their computer. It's actually pretty hilarious.

[maxintosh]

Glad you are comfortable with your illusion. FWIW I hate Neons as well. Heinous little crapboxes. (I hope this doesn't summon ca$h back!)

I'm actually quite interested in cars, especially safety engineering & design and transportation in general, so I know a decent bit. And it makes me uncomfortable when I have to drive (99% of the time I take the subway) to be surrounded by what essentially amounts to tanks driving way too fast. Despite what you assert, I've found the vast majority of SUV drivers (at least in MA where I drive principally) to be either rude and dangerous or flaky and dangerous. SUVs should not be driven like cars but most people behave as if they are driving Ferarris in them. Not that there aren't asshole car drivers too, but SUVs pose a much greater risk to cars around them. They take longer to stop, they are more likely to skid, they are more likely to rollover, and they are more likely to lose control. And if they do hit you -- whether you are in another SUV or a compact -- ouch.

[Mastrap]

As I've said above: Driving a SUV is a selfish act. Selfish because it puts pressure on the environment, selfish because it endangers other road users.

I agree with your assertion that SUV drivers tend to be risk taking drivers. Volvo did some interesting research on this (sorry, not available online). The illusion of safety that is created by 4WD and size actually means that drivers take more risks than they would with a smaller car.

[Scotttheking]

Originally Posted by maxintosh

Glad you are comfortable with your illusion. FWIW I hate Neons as well. Heinous little crapboxes. (I hope this doesn't summon ca$h back!)

I'm actually quite interested in cars, especially safety engineering & design and transportation in general, so I know a decent bit. And it makes me uncomfortable when I have to drive (99% of the time I take the subway) to be surrounded by what essentially amounts to tanks driving way too fast. Despite what you assert, I've found the vast majority of SUV drivers (at least in MA where I drive principally) to be either rude and dangerous or flaky and dangerous. SUVs should not be driven like cars but most people behave as if they are driving Ferarris in them. Not that there aren't asshole car drivers too, but SUVs pose a much greater risk to cars around them. They take longer to stop, they are more likely to skid, they are more likely to rollover, and they are more likely to lose control. And if they do hit you -- whether you are in another SUV or a compact -- ouch.

Quoted for emphasis.

I just came back from the store, and there was some idiot in a F-350 (lifted) gunning their engine, tearing ahead, weaving thru traffic, etc. They cut me off because I was only going 5 above the speedlimit and such. I was surprised they didn't hit someone. Not that lots of drivers don't do that, but I'd rather take a hit from a neon than that big truck.
I've noticed that far more SUVs and large trucks have poor drivers than do cars. It's disturbing. All of my close calls have been with SUVs because the woman driving is too busy not paying attention to the road.
*sigh*

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Scotttheking

All of my close calls have been with SUVs because the woman driving is too busy not paying attention to the road.
*sigh*

Obviously the problem isn't that people shouldn't be driving SUVs, but that women shouldn't be driving at all!

[Scotttheking]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Obviously the problem isn't that people shouldn't be driving SUVs, but that women shouldn't be driving at all!

I wasn't going to be the one to say it.

[Cody Dawg]

Yeah?

I haven't had a ticket in 20 years.

Additionally, I drive a Saab Turbo and a Suburban and my insurance, for comprehensive with a $100 deductible and collision, is $1296 for both cars - per year.

I don't drive badly. I always use my turn signals, I drive defensively, and I don't speed.

Don't blame it on women and SUVs. That is so antedulivian.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

antediluvian.

Fixed.™

And I think I have an Auntie Diluvian on my Dad's side of the family...

[budster101]

Get this:

My wife drives like a maniac, and she has gotten recognized for "safe driving" by the state of Illinois.
I on the other hand have been safe and considerate of others, and I have gotten nothing...

Sexism!

[bubblewrap]

Originally Posted by goMac

Ugh... Other countries pay twice as much for gas... America is the country of collective whiners.

We don't have $2/gallon socialist taxes on our fuel.

[budster101]

Yet....


When everyone starts to get hybrids to save gas, they will tax how far you drive. It's been proposed.
So, you save money on the gas, they just want to hook up a meter they can read when you gas up to charge you the appropriate tax! Edit: It was Oregon.

http://economics.about.com/od/taxesa...ileage_tax.htm

http://www.buzzbrockway.com/?p=228

[Cody Dawg]

We don't have $2/gallon socialist taxes on our fuel.

Yeah, and we don't have a satellite in the sky going to tax us for every single mile that we drive.

Thank goodness we dumped their tea overboard and took over control of our own country...this is a big place and the taxes for driving per mile would be outrageous!

[budster101]

Cody Dawg:It has been thought about though.

Oregon's Mileage Tax: A Truly Bad Idea
From Mike Moffatt,
Your Guide to Economics.
FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now!
About the Mileage Tax
I try not to editorialize when I comment on public policy proposals. I try to give my readers the pros and cons of any potential new law and leave it up to the reader to form their own opinion with the new information they have. But some policy proposals are so outrageously ill-conceived they defy all description. Oregon's "mileage tax" is one such proposal.
The idea, as described in Eric Pryne's article "Oregon to test mileage tax as replacement for gas tax" can be summarized in a few key points:

As consumers buy more fuel efficient cars, they'll use less gasoline.
States collect taxes from gasoline, so if less gasoline is sold, the state will collect less tax revenue, all else being equal.
States can ill afford a drop in revenue as those funds pay for road repairs.
Thus we must find a new way to tax drivers to make up for this lost revenue.
Thus the Oregon government is considering a system where Oregon drivers get taxed for every mile they drive within the state. In the interest of fairness, the Oregon government does not want to tax drivers for miles they put on their cars outside of the state. Thus the tax collector cannot simply look at the odometer of a car and collect revenue accordingly. Instead the Oregon government would like to add a GPS (Global Positioning System) to every car that would track what percentage of a cars miles were driven in Oregon. Such a system could add up to $225 to the cost of a new car.
When examining any tax, there are two criteria you can use to determine the impact that tax will have:


The Net Amount of Revenue Collected

This impact is straight forward. Once you pay for all the expenses related to collecting the tax revenue, how much money will you have left over? Under this criteria, this new tax looks like a loser. Expensive new technology will have to every new car in the State as well as every new gas pump. If 100,000 new cars are sold each year in Oregon, $23 million dollars will be spent in specialized GPS devices. While the government may require that the individual consumer pick up the tab, this is still lost revenue for the government. Instead of requiring the consumer to buy a $225 device, the state could add a $225 tax to every new car sold, thus having the money flow to the State and not to the GPS manufacturer.

The Distortions Caused by Taxation

Taxes are distortionary in the sense that they alter behavior. High income taxes are known to cause employees to work less and high capital gains taxes are a deterrent to investing in the stock market. These distortions are not always negative; often governments will introduce new taxes because of the distortions they cause. High taxes on cigarettes are often promoted as a way to discourage youth from picking up the habit.
The distortions caused by gasoline taxes are threefold.

High gasoline taxes reduce the amount people drive
High gasoline taxes increase the marginal cost of goods shipped by truck
High gasoline taxes cause people to buy more fuel efficient cars
The first effect is ambiguous. If I'm stuck in rush hour traffic, I'd like to see less cars around me, but at the same time, high gasoline taxes may discourage me from taking trips I'd otherwise embark on. The second effect is most certainly negative. As a Canadian who loves orange juice, I certainly don't want to see a rise in the shipping cost of Florida oranges. As for the third effect, a good argument can be made that this is a positive distortion. Fuel efficient cars give off less pollution than non-fuel efficient cars. Since the air is a public good, we will see far more air pollution than is socially optimal unless governments find a way for individuals to pay for the costs of their pollution. The gas tax is one way of doing so.
When we consider these distortions, we see that the mileage tax is a poor substitute for the gas tax. It has all the negative features of the gas tax, such as decreasing the number of trips taken and increasing the marginal costs of products shipped via truck. It, however, does not have the positive impact of causing consumers to buy less polluting cars. Any proposal that has less benefits but just as many drawbacks as existing methods can hardly be seen as a positive change.


Conclusion

In the summary of the mileage tax, we saw that "if less gasoline is sold, the state will collect less tax revenue, all else being equal." However, this is absolutely no reason for "all else to be equal". If revenues are falling, why not simply raise the gas tax? The ability of consumers to buy gas from other jurisdictions, as well as the price elasticity of demand for gasoline will limit the amount the Oregon government can raise the tax, but it appears to be a far better option than this ill-advised scheme. Raising the rate of taxation in order to combat declining revenues is the obvious answer to Oregon's problem. Quite often the obvious answer is the correct one.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000913045781/

[analogika]

Originally Posted by thesearcher

Any gas powered car, regardless of mileage, is still affecting the health of everybody who breaths in its emissions. Are you saying you've never driven a car? Otherwise, pot-kettle-black.

I'm sorry, but please don't bud in until you've actually followed the conversation.

Specifically, read the exchanges between badidea, Railhead, and myself.

Thank you.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

We don't have $2/gallon socialist taxes on our fuel.

You mean you pump huge amounts of socialist subsidies into the oil industry.

Except you don't have the capitalist sense to recoup that investment.

[budster101]

What is wrong with what bubblewrap stated? It's true, we don't have to pay a huge "socialistic tax" on our gasoline. The statement was both true and accurate. Where do you think that cigarette tax goes to?

The USA is quickly becoming the Coffee Pot that called the Tea Kettle Black. We have taxes upon taxes, here, and we don't need another "Socialist Tax" on our gasoline. The price will go up, but not because of a tax, but because of the stranglehold OPEC seems to have on us?

[analogika]

Read my post again:

The fact that your government doesn't have the balls to tie the tax to gasoline directly (because the morons that voted for them will undoubtedly decry it as "socialism") doesn't mean that your government is spending any less on blowing the oil industry and subsidizing it and related industries.

Tying it to gasoline by way of tax is just a way of making the people that waste the most of it actually pay for those subsidies.

Subsidies, by the way, are a hallmark of "socialist" government.

Enough said.

-s*

[budster101]

I read your post. Now you are challenging my government by saying it "Doesn't have the balls to tie the tax to gasoline directly." I think you have a deep misunderstanding of my government then. They have the "balls" but those people have been deballed so-to-speak. We call them Democrats. They [Democrats] would love to tax gasoline, but cannot.

Your next statement: "Because those [morons] that voted for them, [You mean republicans here?], doesn't mean that your government is spending any less on [blowing] kissing up to the oil industry and subsidizing it and related industries."

Can you be more specific? This generalization cannot go unchallenged.

I also realise that "Subsidies" are the hallmark of a Socialist Government. I can see it everytime I view the slums of Russia, et all other places where Socialism is commonplace. We in America do not live in a Socialist Government. We live in a Democratic Repbulic, whic does tax it's citizens more and more it would seem.

Not. "Enough said". You are not in charge of what is enough said or not, and I find it quite insulting that you would egotistically state such a thing!

[analogika]

Russia is Socialist?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by budster101

We in America do not live in a Socialist Government. We live in a Democratic Repbulic, whic does tax it's citizens more and more it would seem.

Same here in Germany!

Originally Posted by budster101

...and I find it quite insulting that...

...some people here always call Germany (and other european countries) socialist!
May I remind you (all of you) that East-Germany used to be socialist but they united with West-Germany (democratic republic) and not vice versa!
It's social and NOT socialist!!!

[Mastrap]

I am just constantly amazed by how few people actually know the meaning of the word 'socialist'.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I am just constantly amazed by how few people actually know the meaning of the word 'socialist'.

I am just constantly amazed by how few people actually know anything relevant AT ALL.
Happens to me more here in the US than in Germany though

-t

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I feel as if my car is extremely safe, still.

Therein lies your problem. You choose to rely upon your vague personal gut feelings, instead of actual crash test ratings and statistics. Thus, I will point out that at least until recently, SUV drivers were more likely to die on the road than drivers of mid-size cars. (I don't know the 2004 statistics, however. Maybe someone can Google that up. )

Everyone is always an armchair expert when it comes to Google and their computer. It's actually pretty hilarious.

See above.

P.S. I've driven Suburbans. The handling on those things really does suck, especially at highway speeds.

EDIT:

SUV deaths rose in 2004 even though deaths for cars and pickups in the US dropped, but much of that has to do with increasing rates of alcohol related deaths in SUV drivers.

[thesearcher]

Originally Posted by analogika

I'm sorry, but please don't bud in until you've actually followed the conversation.

Specifically, read the exchanges between badidea, Railhead, and myself.

Thank you.

I have been reading the conversation, eg.

Originally Posted by RAILhead
How is my Titan affecting your health, exactly?
Maury

Originally Posted by badidea
Hmmm, sorry if your Titan is not a car that's burning fuel (that's what I thought it was)!

Getting hit by, or in a small car, is going to be bad.
Breathing in the fumes from a small car is going to be bad.
A small car is going to use up oil, and produce fumes that are harmful to the environment.

[Cody Dawg]

SUV deaths rose in 2004 even though deaths for cars and pickups in the US dropped, but much of that has to do with increasing rates of alcohol related deaths in SUV drivers.

Uh, that's ridiculously open-ended. Give the parameters of that statistic, will you? Who? What? Where? Who conducted the "test?" Etc., Etc., Etc.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Uh, that's ridiculously open-ended. Give the parameters of that statistic, will you? Who? What? Where? Who conducted the "test?" Etc., Etc., Etc.

SUV deaths: 2003: 4,446 2004: 4,666

Safety officials pointed to a few factors to explain the increase in fatalities. While fewer people were killed in cars and pickups, the number of SUV deaths rose from 4,446 to 4,666. SUV rollover deaths shot up 6.9 percent, and SUV driver deaths related to alcohol use increased 8.5 percent.

What needs to be kept in mind is that the rate of SUV deaths is broadly in line with the increased number of SUVs on the roads.


Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[analogika]

Originally Posted by thesearcher

I have been reading the conversation, eg.

Good, now read the posts in the conversation PRECEDING the ones you quoted.

Since you apparently had trouble identifying the points badidea and I were making, allow me to condense and regurgitate for your personal benefit:


You will note that the SUV subtopic is about the harmfulness of SUVs RELATIVE to other, sensible cars.

Now:

Originally Posted by thesearcher

Getting hit by, or in a small car, is going to be bad.
Breathing in the fumes from a small car is going to be bad.
A small car is going to use up oil, and produce fumes that are harmful to the environment.

Getting hit by a small car is going to be a lot LESS bad than getting hit by a suburban, or an SUV.

Breathing in the fumes from a fuel-efficient car is going to be a lot LESS bad than breathing in the fumes from a gas-guzzler.

A small car is going to use up a lot LESS oil, and produce a lot LESS fumes that are harmful to the environment, than a suburban or an SUV.

Driving one of these cars without a real NEED to do so (as established in the course of this thread) demonstrates complete disregard for any of those points and is bluntly MORE HARMFUL to others than justifiable or necessary.

That is the specific attitude that Maury (RAILhead) has been known to accuse smokers of in other threads.

Of course, there are plenty of other reasons why those cars are stupid - Cody's delusional sense of security in light of actual accident statistics and crash tests is only one, but it should hit home in the self-serving mentality - eventually.


<btw> - this is irrelevant, but since you asked:
I do drive - a van. It uses about 8.5L diesel per 100km (slightly more at the moment, cuz my clutch is in dire need of replacement). If my conversions are correct, that equates to a little over 27mpg.
As for need: I play keyboards. I was in a car-sharing pool for eight years, which supplied me with a (rather oversized for my needs) van on the occasions I had a gig or needed to transport equipment, until my gear collection and rehearsal and gig timetable made this impossible to manage. I got my own van last year.
I just got a backpack-gigbag for my main rehearsal board that will finally enable me to bicycle to most rehearsals.
</btw>

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Uh, that's ridiculously open-ended. Give the parameters of that statistic, will you? Who? What? Where? Who conducted the "test?" Etc., Etc., Etc.

Who? People in vehicles on your highways.
What? Deaths.
Where? In the US.
Who conducted the "test"? It's not a test. It's the actual statistics, from the NHTSA.

It might have helped if you had read the linked article.

[budster101]

So if I am in a room with a bunch of smokers that are using filtered cigarettes, their second hand smoke is safer than those who smoke non-filtered cigarettes?

Getting hit by anything that weighs anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 lbs going 15 to 50 mph is going to lay a world of hurting on you no matter what the car is. Are SUV drivers less safe than those who drive small cars?

Personally attacking Cody doesn't make your arguments stronger, only weaker. She feels safer, and that is important. If you don't feel safe driving something there is a psychological disadvantage to driving that vehicle. On the other hand, while driving a vehicle you feel safe in will not cause you to take risks, but it will enhance your driving experience and confidence.

What is sensible? Who is going to define that? If you have a Van for instance, and you need that van to, I don't know hall around expensive equipment, then it makes sense. Would you be a safer driver, driving that Van filled in the back with equipment, or driving a car stuffed to the ceiling with equipment, and past it's ability to safely handle with all the extra weight?

I was driving behind another SUV today, and the bumper stickers were all quite liberal in nature... Kerry/Edwards... Recycle, etc... I am seeing more and more of this hypocracy.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by budster101

Getting hit by anything that weighs anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 lbs going 15 to 50 mph is going to lay a world of hurting on you no matter what the car is. Are SUV drivers less safe than those who drive small cars?

If you would care to read up slightly - just this once - you'd find that getting hit - whether as a pedestrian or a driver of another vehicle - by an SUV is MUCH more likely to kill you than getting hit by just about ANYTHING else short of a truck.

Also - this is changing, though, due to the bad press - SUV hoods are perfect skull crackers for kids, because their leading edge is so high. More recent designs have begun to soften that and slope the grille back slightly, because it greatly improves chances of a pedestrian surviving when the atrocious handling causes an SUV driver to lose control.

And yes, those crash tests linked to all over this thread show that SUV drivers ARE indeed LESS SAFE than those who drive small cars. Especially since SUVs tend to roll over much more easily than cars.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by budster101

So if I am in a room with a bunch of smokers that are using filtered cigarettes, their second hand smoke is safer than those who smoke non-filtered cigarettes?

Strangest. Analogy. Ever.

That's even worse than car analogies.

Getting hit by anything that weighs anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 lbs going 15 to 50 mph is going to lay a world of hurting on you no matter what the car is.

Statistically, there are indeed much higher death rates from getting hit by SUVs than from getting hit by small cars.

Are SUV drivers less safe than those who drive small cars?

Hard to define, but SUV death rates are climbing, in a time when overall deaths for all road vehicles per miled drived are decreasing.

Personally attacking Cody doesn't make your arguments stronger, only weaker. She feels safer, and that is important. If you don't feel safe driving something there is a psychological disadvantage to driving that vehicle. On the other hand, while driving a vehicle you feel safe in will not cause you to take risks, but it will enhance your driving experience and confidence.

That's of course, supposition, and I feel the exact opposite is more likely true. I think too many people are overconfident in their driving, especially with large hard-to-handle vehicles like SUVs. Around where I work, the cars off in the ditch first after a snowfall are SUVs. Nobody has said that all SUV drivers are bad, but many unfortunately, too many people drive SUVs as if they were sports cars.

All drivers should drive with caution, and be aware of the risks with their vehicles. Perhaps Cody is a safe and cautious driver. If so, I applaud her. However, it's clear she did not understand the statistics and bought into fallacies about large vehicles.

All I can say is that I hope that this thread will make her an even more safe and cautious driver.

What is sensible? Who is going to define that? If you have a Van for instance, and you need that van to, I don't know hall around expensive equipment, then it makes sense. Would you be a safer driver, driving that Van filled in the back with equipment, or driving a car stuffed to the ceiling with equipment, and past it's ability to safely handle with all the extra weight?

Actually, all things being equal, vans are considered safer because of their lower centre of gravity. However, sensibility in cars is a different argument from safety in cars. You can have a sensible small car which is completely unsafe. You can also have an insensible large car which is very safe.

I was driving behind another SUV today, and the bumper stickers were all quite liberal in nature... Kerry/Edwards... Recycle, etc... I am seeing more and more of this hypocracy.

Huh? It's only hypocrisy if those particular SUV drivers are the also the anti-SUV posters in this forum.

[budster101]

Wait. Getting hit by a 2,000 car rather than an SUV is more likely to kill you.... so?

A shotgun is more likely to take your head off at close range than a handgun... what's your point?
Outlaw SUVs... isn't that sort of fascist? Even a little?

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by budster101

If you don't feel safe driving something there is a psychological disadvantage to driving that vehicle. On the other hand, while driving a vehicle you feel safe in will not cause you to take risks, but it will enhance your driving experience and confidence.

I can't find this online, but I read some research a while back that was, to the best of my knowledge, sponsored by Volvo. It came to the exact opposite conclusions than you. In a nutshell, the safer a driver feels, the more he/she is prepared to take risks. SUV drivers tend to feel safe, due to the amount of car around them. However, with SUVs being build without a proper crumple zone, without proper rollover protection, with less agility and manoeuvrability than a smaller car they are actually more vulnerable to accidents caused by driver overconfidence.

I'm going to do some more searching and hopefully will find a link.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by budster101

Wait. Getting hit by a 2,000 car rather than an SUV is more likely to kill you.... so?

An SUV is more likely to kill than a small car. You got that backwards.

A shotgun is more likely to take your head off at close range than a handgun... what's your point?

Another meaningless analogy.

Outlaw SUVs... isn't that sort of fascist? Even a little?

I never said we should outlaw SUVs. In fact, I think that would be a bad idea. I just think it's unfortunate that so many people buy SUVs thinking that they'll automagically be safer in them, when oftentimes the opposite is in fact true.

[budster101]

Maybe because I'm just that well trained as a driver that I don't see that. I am constantly dodging people on the road who are reckless, and they don't seem to be loyal to any make or type. I see the Honda Civics with their coffee can exhaust being quite insane on the road as anyone...

So , I'm not going to contradict the experts at Volvo per se, but you cannot condemn the SUV because of the Driver's lack of driving ability. It just doesn't make sense.

It's the driver not the car.
It's the person pulling the trigger, not the gun.

I'm not a fanboy for SUVs either. I used to own one, and it was nice, but I did recognize it's handling limitations and respected that. It was great for hauling things and I did enjoy how I could do things in it that I could not in what I drive now. A four door chevy. Gas mileage isn't much different either.

So, I'll end this with the statment or rather restatement of how it is the driver, not the vehicle that is key.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by budster101

Maybe because I'm just that well trained as a driver that I don't see that. I am constantly dodging people on the road who are reckless, and they don't seem to be loyal to any make or type. I see the Honda Civics with their coffee can exhaust being quite insane on the road as anyone...

So , I'm not going to contradict the experts at Volvo per se, but you cannot condemn the SUV because of the Driver's lack of driving ability. It just doesn't make sense.

It's the driver not the car.
It's the person pulling the trigger, not the gun.

I'm not a fanboy for SUVs either. I used to own one, and it was nice, but I did recognize it's handling limitations and respected that. It was great for hauling things and I did enjoy how I could do things in it that I could not in what I drive now. A four door chevy. Gas mileage isn't much different either.

So, I'll end this with the statment or rather restatement of how it is the driver, not the vehicle that is key.

Yes, it's definitely ultimately the driver which makes the biggest difference. However, you do admit that SUVs handle more poorly than most sedans. That would be my experience as well. (I've driven Suburbans, Jeep Grand Cherokees, etc.)

So why do people feel safer in them? That is something I will never understand. If anything one should be more careful in them because they in general handle more poorly than most cars, although one should be very careful when driving any car.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by budster101

So, I'll end this with the statment or rather restatement of how it is the driver, not the vehicle that is key.

Well, yeah - that was the point of MY posts.

Drivers' bad judgement and reckless disregard for the well-being of others.

Even if they drive well, simply choosing to buy an SUV if they don't actually NEED one is more harmful to others.

[budster101]

Who is going to judge who needs one? Who cares?
Does Tom Cruise, et all of hollywood's elite need those private jets? Maybe yes, but don't tell me I don't need an SUV when I think I do. My other points are, the hypocracy of the left is amazing when it comes to this topic. Maybe not you, because you seem quite level headed in this regard. It has been my personal experience to view many HUMMERS with Kerry/Edwards stickers, and other 'causes' that fly in the face of driving an SUV.

I don't care if they do. That's fine with me, but don't complain about our dependency on OPEC for our oil.

Back to safety. It is indeed the driver, and it is the driver's responsibility to know this. If it takes penalties for hurting someone more severly with an SUV then that may be an option but to force them to change the design is just absurd. How about educate drivers as to the limitations while promoting their positive aspects of storage, and people capacity natures?

The whole idea of limiting someone based on their choice of vehicle is just silliness to me.
We all have to get there sooner it seems. Maybe if we all slow down and give way to the other guy once in a while, this discussion would not be necessary. My life or the life of another is not worth me getting somewhere on time because I selpt late, or am just in a hurry.

I've whitnessed too many crashes and had to stop and help, so I know what can happen when a vehicle hits a person, or another vehicle. Severed limbs, legs twisted 180, gaping neck wounds, foaming at the mouth, seizures, vomitting, gagging,and that's just me!...

Seriously though. I had a great driving teacher, and I'll never forget what I was taught. I sometimes wonder about other people's training...

[analogika]

You'd do well not to equate the "left" with a choice in cars.

I'm sure there are a good many right-wingers who a level-headed enough to choose a car less likely to inadvertently kill those around them than an SUV.

Some of those might even be anti-smoking.

Throwing Kerry bumper stickers into this just gives your point the wrong kind of political touch. It's kind of like assuming that throwing the word "socialist" at any subject, however vaguely related, will make you seem edumacated and politically mature, if you get my drift.

[budster101]

You don't see the right-wingers attacking somone based on their choice of cars. Well, some do (Yugo)..
Talk about not safe.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by budster101

You don't see the right-wingers attacking somone based on their choice of cars. Well, some do (Yugo)..
Talk about not safe.

Actually, I see right wingers complaining all the time about foreign cars. However, that's of course completely irrelevant to this current argument, just like how your equation of left with anti-SUV is irrelevant too.

BTW, SUVs seem to be very popular amongst some of the left coast granola crowd. But what does that have to do with this thread? Not a whole lot.

[budster101]

No. This is a Large Auto vs. Smaller Auto argument. I say it is the driver, not the car.

I'm rather conservative but more libertarian, so I think the best auto should win. Best Quality and Value for the money.

Who are the those attacking the SUV and it's design? Not conservatives.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by budster101

Who are the those attacking the SUV and it's design? Not conservatives.

What's with the irrelevant red herrings? It certainly doesn't help your argument at all.

You're the one who is suggesting we should not paint all SUV drivers with the same broad stroke. So why are you painting all anti-SUV types with the same broad stroke then?

Talk about hypocrisy.

[budster101]

The driver is the key factor here, and the SUV is being attacked that is why. Your logic is severely flawed. Stating that I am tossing red herrings doesn't make it true.

Where did I paint ALL anti-SUV types with a broad stroke? I specifically stated even, that those who are against other cars are conservatives, (i.e., yugo).

Please show me.

Edit:

And I will promptly apologize for doing so. I'm not in here to slander one group of people, but to discuss this issue, which I think is flawed. Like Spheric Harlot, -S*, I believe that the driver is the factor, not what they drive.

[jamil5454]

I've got an '83 Volvo manual sedan. Like a tank - weighed in at 3400 lbs. And this is for a relatively small car. They sure don't build 'em like that anymore.

Here in Texas gas can easily be found for $1.99/gal. I still try to walk everywhere I can though, and I'm thinking about getting a nice bike for this urban lifestyle. There's simply no place to park.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Personally I think the price of fuel should be linked to the fuel efficiency of your engine. When you purchase your car you get a smart card that's linked to your car by a proximity sensor. You'll hand that card to the guy at the filling station and the correct level of pollution tax is automatically deducted.

That'll teach these SUV driving idiots.

Ah, so the old punitive taxation idea, again; fine people because I don't like the car they drive!

They pay for their gas, just like everyone else. In fact, because their fuel tanks are so large, they pay more anywway, even with equal treatment. There is no need to use abominations like punitive taxation to force them to pay more for the sake of your own sense of aesthetics, because they already do pay more. Is this not fair?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Ah, so the old punitive taxation idea, again; fine people because I don't like the car they drive!

They pay for their gas, just like everyone else. In fact, because their fuel tanks are so large, they pay more anywway, even with equal treatment. There is no need to use abominations like punitive taxation to force them to pay more for the sake of your own sense of aesthetics, because they already do pay more. Is this not fair?

I already addressed this point up above, where budster or PacHead made a slightly less eloquent attempt at it (involving what he believed to be "socialism", no less).

They do NOT pay for their gas - everybody does.

Automobile use is heavily subsidized by your government, as is the oil industry and related industries.

Recouping that investment from those who benefit most by wasting what amounts to taxpayers' money makes perfect sense.