[jebjeb]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

It really depends on the area you live in. However, the big problem is that SUVs here are classified as trucks, so they get away with a LOT of crap: No 5mph impact bumpers, bad safety ratings, horrid MPG, bad emissions, etc. They aren't anywhere NEAR what cars are at in all of those categories.

Ah, I see. That sounds a bit stupid doesn't it.

A half-way house solution seems to be what Europe is doing. Realise that SUV's are should be classified as "cars" and not commercial vehicles. They should be subject to the same regulations and such.

You will find that the SUV issue here in the UK and Europe is a whole lot different in my opinion. We don't have so many of the US's huge crew cabs, Hummers and Suburbans. Our SUV's are things like BMW X5's, VW Tourages, Porsche Cayennes, Mercedes ML's and Range Rovers in the higher end and then vehicles like Toyota RAV4's, Landrover Freelanders and other various eastern smaller SUV's.

I will try and find the actual stats but my feeling (this is based on what I see plus the 6 or so car mags I read a month) on the make up of SUV's here is this

- More than 70% are diesels
- Less than 20% of all SUV's have engines larger than 3 litres
- Most of them are running between 1.8 and 2.5l diesels

Just like all other vehicles, once they are three years old, they must be tested to ensure they are still road worthy and that their emissions are not exceeding set limits. If they fail, it is not legal to drive them until the issues are rectified.

Vehicles are taxed here based on their CO2 emissions. The big tax is if you use it as a company car and then the penalties for using a gaz guzzler are heavy.

Sounds like you guys in the US need to;

a) classify SUV's as cars and not trucks and therefore enforce car safety and emission limits on them.
b) introduce yearly safety and emissions testing nationwide for all vehicles over 3 years old (with exceptions for certain vehicles -that's the hard part to work out)
c) start using more efficient but still gutsy engines (if you like a bit of get up and go in your SUV, it would be hard to find many people that wouldn't be impressed with the 3.0L V6 diesel in the VW Tourag).

You could introduce a) now or in the near future so that new SUVs have to comply. Option b) could be introduced any time so that people have to take care of their vehicle. I understand that option c) would be difficult as you guys aren't big on diesel and have an affinity with your big ass pushrod V8's.

I just found this from the UK MOT site. Between 6 and 8% of vehicle made between 1990 and 2001 fail their MOT test based on emissions. That's a whole lot. I can't imagine that % being any lower in the US. That is a whole lot of vehicles rolling around pumping out more than "legal" emissions. Fix them first.

[sek929]

good post jeb.

But Americans are to afraid of diesel.

"Diesel? Those are stinky and slow like dump trucks! I refuse to buy it! Wheres my 5.7 Litre V-8?!?"

[suvsr4terrorists]

I'm not a huge fan of diesels either. I think a turbocharged regular gasoline engine can be quite potent, and still sip fuel. The WRX for example.

It can run 13s, still get about 25mpg, and haul a ton of stuff around, even tow jetskis and small boats.

[sek929]

Nuh uh Ca$h! You can only tow jet skis and small boats with a 5.7 Litre Hemi and 19,000lb tow-rated capacity!

[suvsr4terrorists]

It's funny too, because... for example, my wife's family. When they were growing up, they just had 80s hondas and accords... and they had FOUR kids. Somehow, they made do without a suburban. Odd eh?

[sek929]

Thats because they weren't rich enough to waste their money on a status symbol.

We had a Suburban. But in 88 there was no third row seat and it usually had about 1500 pounds of tools and wood in it at all times. The family hauler? A nice 4 banger Plymouth Voyager (Dodge Caravan for really poor people).

[jebjeb]

Originally Posted by sek929

good post jeb.

But Americans are to afraid of diesel.

"Diesel? Those are stinky and slow like dump trucks! I refuse to buy it! Wheres my 5.7 Litre V-8?!?"

Cheers.

I used to think diesels were crud as well but then I drove a few of the newer ones. Damn they are gutsy, refined and quiet these days. Partiuclarly when they are hooked up to a new style gearbox, they are very impressive.

Again sorry for the lack of cold hard facts but in the past 10 years, the number of diesels sold in the UK has quadtripled. Shows that it hasn't taken us too long to get over the old stinkin, rattely diesel image.

I just love the Honda diesel ad.

"Hate something, change something.
Hate something, change something, make something BETTER!!
Da da da dum. da da da dum."


Want to convince anyone that diesels can rock. Give them a drive of a VW Tourag V10 5.0L diesel. 308 BHP, 553 lb/ft torque. 23 MPG. Compare this to the 4.2L V8 Petrol with 305 BHP, 303 lb/ft torque and only 19 MPG.

That is one hell of a diesel! Maybe a bit to crazy though. So the 3.0l V6 diesel still has 221 BHP, 368 lb/ft torque and gets 25 MPG.

[sek929]

But minivan equals middle class yokel. Even if they drive well, handle well, brake well, up high for good visibility, and could even tow that 15 foot boat and/or two jetskis.

Even my mother's new-ish V6 Dodge Caravan gets a stately 28MPG, and its excellent in the snow.

Its simply a case of people not wanting to be seen driving a minivan, so they make up silly reasons they "need" a big SUV.

[sek929]

Right again jeb.

Diesels that most people have experienced use older technologies and inferior trannies. I drove a TDI Jetta (2k3 model) and I have to say I was reeeaaally friggin impressed. It was a little "rough" running, but thats just due to the super-high compression ratios.

Touraeg V6 Diesel with 368 lb/ft? Jesus, if the chassis was beefy as well that thing could tow a house off its foundation.

Tourque is teh man.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

If I had one, I'd challenge any SUV anywhere on the roads in any conditions with a Subaru WRX with snow tires. And golly, it seems that somehow people managed to own boats and campers for decades without the need for an SUV! I wonder how they did it?

PU trucks, mostly. Which are also more dangerous than cars (and usually less efficent too).

My `71 Bronco w/ modified 351 Cleveland, Edelbrock 800CFM carb, Muncie 4spd, 4WD, all posi, etc. gets far worse gas mileage than almost any new SUV on the road (about 8-12MPG). Better yet, it's built like a friggin tank. I love it, and I ain't giving it up. Especially not for some new POS SUV.

I drove it to Home Depot one day last summer to get some potting soil (it's my "farm" truck), and some girl there gave me down the road for owning an "SUV" "such poor mileage, damage environment, dangerous, blah, blah.." I just said, "it's not an SUV, it's a truck, and it's 10 years older than you, show some respect for your elders".

[budster101]

Fugly.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

And if they don't like or want the Subaru, what then? They still have to spend their money on a vehicle, because you think it's better? Get over yourself Rob. I'll buy what ever the hell I want, because it's my money I'm spending, not yours. As for the towing, as I said about snow, sure, you can do it, but if there is a vehicle you like better, that's better suited to it, why shouldn't you get it?

I don't understand why you think this is so problematic. You act like it's a travesty to prevent people from doing what they want with their own money. The government prevents you from driving all kinds of cars. You can't buy any car that hasn't been crash tested in the US for example. You can't buy a car with a nice sharp spike on the front. There are all kinds of things you can't spend YOUR money on. If SUVs are harmful then they could quite easily be legislated off the roads.

And as for the towing a boat example, give me a break. Having towed caravans and boats since before it was legal for me to drive, I can tell you that you do not need an SUV to tow anything. An E class Merc or a 5 series BMW will tow almost any boat or caravan you can throw it more efficiently and safer than an SUV will. Snow I don't know too much about so you may have a point there but I can tell you that these are not valid reasons to buy and SUV:

1) It's safer
2) I need it to tow my boat
3) I need it to go offroading.

About the only valid reason that cuts it for me is "I want to be trendy and I like the look and feel of an SUV." I don't know why so many SUV owners are too wussy to admit that's the reason they own one.

[sek929]

Trucks rock, especilly if you use them (you do obviously)

They are dangerous, they handle badly, the brake badly.

The one key difference is that they serve a purpose as work vehicles, which SUVs 99% of the time do not.

My main work vehicle is a 1996 Ford F-450 Super Duty (Widebody dualie). With a 12' long by 8' wide (widest allowed by law) hydraulic dump bed on the back. It gets about 13MPG on diesel unloaded and, 13 MPG when fully loaded. Thats why diesels rock.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll

1) It's safer
2) I need it to tow my boat
3) I need it to go offroading.

About the only valid reason that cuts it for me is "I want to be trendy and I like the look and feel of an SUV." I don't know why so many SUV owners are too wussy to admit that's the reason they own one.

4) I need it to annoy hippies.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy

4) I need it to annoy hippies.

No, actually I'd say that is a valid reason to own one.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Troll

About the only valid reason that cuts it for me is "I want to be trendy and I like the look and feel of an SUV." I don't know why so many SUV owners are too wussy to admit that's the reason they own one.

Thats why this page is missing the SUV-toting crowd. They really don't have any other reason than that for buying SUVs.

My old Intrepid still gets 24 MPG, burns zero oil, and has 157,000 miles on it.

To the future, does anyone think that a new SUV that gets 15MPG today is going to get anything near that with 120+ thousand miles on it? If you think so then please hang on to your Navigator's and Expeditions, get back to me when the odometer reads 160K, and tell me what you're getting for MPG then.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by budster101

Fugly.

is not. She's beautiful.

(if you're talking about my truck, that is.)

[sek929]

One question, does it have the removable back?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929

One question, does it have the removable back?

yup, has the removable back shell.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929

Thats why this page is missing the SUV-toting crowd.

Maybe we went for a bath?

Originally Posted by sek929

They really don't have any other reason than that for buying SUVs.

Towing dead cows off fields not reason enough?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Troll

I don't understand why you think this is so problematic. You act like it's a travesty to prevent people from doing what they want with their own money. The government prevents you from driving all kinds of cars. You can't buy any car that hasn't been crash tested in the US for example. You can't buy a car with a nice sharp spike on the front. There are all kinds of things you can't spend YOUR money on. If SUVs are harmful then they could quite easily be legislated off the roads.

And as for the towing a boat example, give me a break. Having towed caravans and boats since before it was legal for me to drive, I can tell you that you do not need an SUV to tow anything. An E class Merc or a 5 series BMW will tow almost any boat or caravan you can throw it more efficiently and safer than an SUV will. Snow I don't know too much about so you may have a point there but I can tell you that these are not valid reasons to buy and SUV:

1) It's safer
2) I need it to tow my boat
3) I need it to go offroading.

About the only valid reason that cuts it for me is "I want to be trendy and I like the look and feel of an SUV." I don't know why so many SUV owners are too wussy to admit that's the reason they own one.

But they aren't legislated off the road, they are available from just about every manufacturer, carried at about every dealership, and are 100% legal. If someone wants to spend their money on one, that's their business, and until the government says no more, that's their right. Whether Rob likes it or not. I will never buy a car I don't like (such as a Subaru) if there is something else that fits my needs and I do like. I'm not spending that amount of money just to make Robert happy, at the detriment to my own happiness.

Change the topic of the thread to "Economy cars modified to create speed and horse power they were never intended for", which I find more concerning than SUV's, given the tards I see driving them, and how they drive them, and you'll see the same people complaining about SUV's taking a far different tone. Give me one reason why anyone needs a supped up Honda Civic. So they can travel the high ways in excess of the posted speed limit? The speed limit in New York is 65 mph, which anything on the market can do just fine, even that same civic stock. Now juice that car up, throw a 22 year old jack ass that watches too much TV behind the wheel, and tell me where the danger is. I've been cut off on the highway by these cars going well in excess of the posted speed limit far more often than I have by people driving their SUVs like responsible adults.

And I will continue to spend my money on the vehicle that bests suits my needs, regardless of what those here think, until the government tells me that I can no longer drive that vehicle. And for the record, I don't own an SUV, I have a Nissan Frontier (four door pick-up), as that best suits my needs. My other three vehicles are two cars and a bike.

[stefls]

I think there is not much wrong with people driving an Indy Car or F1 car once every two weeks (as long as it is in dedicated areas), there's also not much wrong with an Opel GT club organising a yearly tour around the country for their members, there's also nothing wrong with someone buying a Ferrari F50, even if the reason for that would be that his dick is a little bit undersized. Please buy twenty SUVs to be used as dog sheds or garden fencing (although production of these machines has some side effects too . Freedom for everyone, yes.

But if people massively decide to purchase vehicles that disproportionately damage the (our common) environment and undeniably lead to more people dying and more people being seriously injured, then I think it would be at least justified to start a serious discussion about this.

Could anyone here who is opposing any measures to be introduced to battle (the harmful effects of) SUV use seriously react to the SUV phenomena and its impact on society? Please don't call people 'hippies' or 'marxist', don't just say "it's my money, I can do with it what I want", but give me serious arguments. Sure you can do with your money what you want, but please try to explain to others whose lives you affect with your purchasing decision why you made that decision in the first place. No name-calling, just arguments! Great.

[smacintush]

This is a lot of passion over…a vehicle…

BTW 3 times as many people die from FALLING each year than die because of SUV's. Not exactly an "epidemic". SUV's are a little more than 10% of ALL cars on the road in America and SUV deaths are a little over 10% of all vehicle accident deaths here.

Rob, the oil shortage of the 70's had NOTHING TO DO WITH automobiles whatsoever. Read some history there.

There are 2 main causes of the oil supply problems right now and NEITHER are America's fascination with SUV's.

It's OPEC withholding production and China's increasing demand.

Personally, I don't understand why people like these train car-like vehicles so much. I wouldn't drive one if it were FREE. But you guys need to choose your battles better. THis whole SUV thing has been blown WAY out of proportion.

Besides, once again the FREE MARKET is taking care of it. Gas prices are hurting SUV sales, the fad will fade away.

No, I'm not posting links to back up anything I said. I'm tired. If I got stuff wrong my apologies in advance…

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

But they aren't legislated off the road, they are available from just about every manufacturer, carried at about every dealership, and are 100% legal. If someone wants to spend their money on one, that's their business, and until the government says no more, that's their right. Whether Rob likes it or not. I will never buy a car I don't like (such as a Subaru) if there is something else that fits my needs and I do like. I'm not spending that amount of money just to make Robert happy, at the detriment to my own happiness.

But it isn't to make me happy. It's that it's better for the environment (less consumption, less emissions), it's safer (more crumple zones, better handling, braking, acceleration, less chance of rollovers), and it's more practical (cheaper to buy, cheaper to own, and you can use it everyday if you want to).

I'm not suggesting a WRX wagon because I want to be happy, I'm suggesting it because it MAKES ****ING SENSE.

Change the topic of the thread to "Economy cars modified to create speed and horse power they were never intended for", which I find more concerning than SUV's, given the tards I see driving them, and how they drive them, and you'll see the same people complaining about SUV's taking a far different tone.

This is a stupid comparison. Any compact car that's putting out tons of power is probably MODIFIED. Not many come from the factory with a lot of power. So how can you compare a SMALL minority of people who mod their civics and stuff to an industry that's pumping out HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of SUVs each freakin year?!?! There's just ZERO comparison from a numbers standpoint. Secondly, these modified vehicles are sometimes driven by idiots, but that's only the ones you notice. There's probably a bunch of 'tastefully' modified vehicles running around that you don't even notice. Like my car, for example. It looks basically like a regular SVX, yet it outbrakes one, out accelerates one and out handles one. Why? Because it's more enjoyable, AND IT IS SAFER. The flaming hunter orange eclipse with the huge aluminum wing and stupid bodykit you see flying around corners and not using his signals... CHANCES ARE... that care has an entirely STOCK drivetrain.

Give me one reason why anyone needs a supped up Honda Civic. So they can travel the high ways in excess of the posted speed limit? The speed limit in New York is 65 mph, which anything on the market can do just fine, even that same civic stock.

They don't. A regular civic would work just fine. Again, it isn't a bad thing though. If they modify the civic to have better braking and handling, why is that so bad? To me, that makes the car safer. However, let's apply similar logic to your towing argument: Who really needs to be able to tow 15,000 lbs? Almost NOBODY. Who really needs to have an offroad vehicle? ALMOST NOBODY. So why are there so many SUVs? BECAUSE THE AUTO MANUFACTURERS ARE MAKING A FREAKIN FORTUNE. They take a truck, throw leather and sound deadening at it, and POOF, they can sell it for over FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE than the truck version, instantly. Why? Because of loopholes in our regulation system.

Now juice that car up, throw a 22 year old jack ass that watches too much TV behind the wheel, and tell me where the danger is. I've been cut off on the highway by these cars going well in excess of the posted speed limit far more often than I have by people driving their SUVs like responsible adults.

I've seen very few ricers driving like idiots... they seem to attract 'attention' with their stupid stripes and graphics and whatnot, and Johnny Law either revokes their license or beats them down into obeying the law. SUV drivers, on the other hand, are practically invisible to the law. They don't signal, they cruise in hte left lane because they're 'oh so ****ing important', and they never check their blind spots (which are quite huge).

And I will continue to spend my money on the vehicle that bests suits my needs,

Continue? You haven't started yet. You own an SUV and you is WAAAYYYYYY more capable than the needs you've expressed. You'd be better off having an AWD wagon. It would suit your needs BETTER than said SUV.

regardless of what those here think, until the government tells me that I can no longer drive that vehicle.

The government is controlled by corporations and lobbyists. Auto unions are the very reason we have this SUV problem in the FIRST place. They should be classified as CARS and meet all the same mileage, emissions, safetey, and handling regulations as cars, ALONG with lower bumpers so they don't keep killing everyone else.

[besson3c]

I love the posts in this thread that come in the form of "my vehicle is better than your vehicle" or "my vehicle performs better than yours"... it's sort of an evolution of "my Dad can beat up your Dad", except in a more stereotypical male way...

The posts about mileage and safety have been very interesting and enlightening. Thank you!

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by smacintush

This is a lot of passion over…a vehicle…

BTW 3 times as many people die from FALLING each year than die because of SUV's. Not exactly an "epidemic". SUV's are a little more than 10% of ALL cars on the road in America and SUV deaths are a little over 10% of all vehicle accident deaths here.

Says who? I'm pretty sure that auto accidents are one of the top 5 killers in america.

Rob, the oil shortage of the 70's had NOTHING TO DO WITH automobiles whatsoever. Read some history there.

There are 2 main causes of the oil supply problems right now and NEITHER are America's fascination with SUV's.

EHHH. CONSUMPTION!??! I read somewhere that if we got rid of every SUV on the road, and replaced it with a ford taurus, we could CUT OFF IMPORTED OIL ALL TOGETHER. Lots of consumption= lots of reliance on foriegn countries for oil= more chances for an oil crisis. Being self sufficient drastically cuts the odds of that happening.

It's OPEC withholding production and China's increasing demand.

And it couldn't possibly be that if we needed less oil we'd be better off, now could it?

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I love the posts in this thread that come in the form of "my vehicle is better than your vehicle" or "my vehicle performs better than yours"... it's sort of an evolution of "my Dad can beat up your Dad", except in a more stereotypical male way...

The posts about mileage and safety have been very interesting and enlightening. Thank you!

I think that's stupid too. I am just merely defending against totally false claims by Kilbey. Too bad he hasn't been back yet, because he was totally freakin' owned.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by stefls

Could anyone here who is opposing any measures to be introduced to battle (the harmful effects of) SUV use seriously react to the SUV phenomena and its impact on society? Please don't call people 'hippies' or 'marxist', don't just say "it's my money, I can do with it what I want", but give me serious arguments. Sure you can do with your money what you want, but please try to explain to others whose lives you affect with your purchasing decision why you made that decision in the first place. No name-calling, just arguments! Great.

OK... Here's the serious argument. Here in the UK, the anti-SUV movement is being led by Marxist hippies (no, I'm not joking). The very same people who're most moaning about SUV ownership are those who're contemplating (deep down, at the back of their mind) outlawing all public vehicle ownership. If these people aren't told to off, they'll take over.

Don't believe me? Here's another opinion:
http://www.topgear.com/content/featu...ries/01/1.html

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Says who? I'm pretty sure that auto accidents are one of the top 5 killers in america.



EHHH. CONSUMPTION!??! I read somewhere that if we got rid of every SUV on the road, and replaced it with a ford taurus, we could CUT OFF IMPORTED OIL ALL TOGETHER. Lots of consumption= lots of reliance on foriegn countries for oil= more chances for an oil crisis. Being self sufficient drastically cuts the odds of that happening.



And it couldn't possibly be that if we needed less oil we'd be better off, now could it?

Auto accidents are #1 for sure, but I was talking SUV deaths.

No realistic expectation conservation would have put off the effects of the oil shortage around the world in 1973.

Even if I believed that Taurus nonsense, you are dreaming if you believe that would happen. We wouldn't stop importing, we would slow our own production to keep import levels up. Politics are a bitch…

Yes, less need for oil would be good, but you are singling out 10% of the problem for immediate eradication. Besides, no matter WHAT we do here, one third of the world lives in China and THEY DON'T GIVE A ****.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Maybe we went for a bath?



Towing dead cows off fields not reason enough?

Dead cows? I would think one who has cows would also have a tractor to do that sort of thing.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

I think that's stupid too. I am just merely defending against totally false claims by Kilbey. Too bad he hasn't been back yet, because he was totally freakin' owned.

No, it's because he, like others I've talked with via PM on these forums, just doesn't enjoy talking to you. I'm sure that comes as a complete surprise to you.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

yup, has the removable back shell.

Suhweet. I can't say I love Broncos... but the old ones with the removable back shell certainly are ultimate summer machines.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, it's because he, like others I've talked with via PM on these forums, just doesn't enjoy talking to you. I'm sure that comes as a complete surprise to you.

I wouldn't like talking to someone smarter than me who freaking proved me dead wrong either.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929

Suhweet. I can't say I love Broncos... but the old ones with the removable back shell certainly are ultimate summer machines.

Yeah, it's a like a really big CJ.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Besides, no matter WHAT we do here, one third of the world lives in China and THEY DON'T GIVE A ****.

So we shouldn't care. ****, let's burn down all our forests and put in more beige suburbs too!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929

Dead cows? I would think one who has cows would also have a tractor to do that sort of thing.

So you want me to waste money on a tractor which would have no use on the 363 days a year when there's no dead cows?

Or d'ya think an SUV could do the job then be used for trips to the beach, off-roading and other such fun for the rest of the year?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

So we shouldn't care. ****, let's burn down all our forests and put in more beige suburbs too!

That's not what I'm saying. I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.

Imposing a fascist solution here in America that will have a minimal effect globally is senseless in light of the up-and-coming economy of 2.2 billion people who will drive whatever they please.

Especially since AS I ALREADY STATED, the free market is taking care of the SUV fad as we speak…as it should be. No fascism necessary.

[sek929]

My father has a tractor and he uses it for quite a bit of things, If you have cows then I assume you have a farm.

A dedicated vehicle to do all the farm work is what tractors were invented for. Plus, you could get a 1970 John Deere that will out-last you for about 2500-3Gs.

Plus, most farmers I see have either a tractor or a pickup truck (old ford etc) because they can't afford a frivolous vehicle.

To be honest with you the whole towing dead cows scenario has little to do with what we are talking about here. Since you use your SUV for hard work, I have no qualms with you. But you are in the tiny minority my friend.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, it's because he, like others I've talked with via PM on these forums, just doesn't enjoy talking to you. I'm sure that comes as a complete surprise to you.

We'll that's just ridiculous. Kilby spends as much time baiting Rob as anyone. If he doesn't like it, he's got the oddest damn way of expressing it.

[sek929]

The amount of SUVs on Autotrader has tripled in the last year.

I think enough of the SUV retards are already coming to their senses. I also expect to see the output of new SUVs by major car manufacturers to start declining very soon.

Needless to say the SUV was a trend much like fashion.

People though it looked cool, and felt cool in it. Therefore it turned into a buying fad. Then everyone realised that they didn't need such a foolish vehicle and now they are selling them for a fraction of what they should be worth.

[stefls]

Originally Posted by Doofy

OK... Here's the serious argument. Here in the UK, the anti-SUV movement is being led by Marxist hippies (no, I'm not joking). The very same people who're most moaning about SUV ownership are those who're contemplating (deep down, at the back of their mind) outlawing all public vehicle ownership. If these people aren't told to off, they'll take over.

Don't believe me? Here's another opinion:
http://www.topgear.com/content/featu...ries/01/1.html

Thanks Doofy. I think this anti-SUV movement is by far not a coherent movement. I can only speak from a Dutch point of view, but I suspect in Britain it will be not very different. The SUV issue is being taken up by our national government; our Ministry of Transport has ordered some research to be done (see links in the OP). Of course, this would have happened a little bit later if a more left-wing movement had not managed to shed some light on the issue which motivated the media to pay attention to it (also triggered by discussions about SUVs in the French and British media.) At this moment, also mainstream political parties have taken up the glove and are studying the issue, because it is worthwhile considering. In other words: sane and wise people think that something is going on.
The reasons our government is reviewing the SUV trend are different from the "Marxist-hippie" movement. They have different agendas and as long as the more realistic agenda dominates, I'm not at all afraid private car possession will be questioned.

Would you think there are people actually buying SUVs for the sake of sending a signal to those hardcore opposing SUVs and private car possession in general? Or would you consider it a valid reason?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929

My father has a tractor and he uses it for quite a bit of things, If you have cows then I assume you have a farm.

Yep. It's a very tiny farm and it's not financially active - the cows are "rescued from cruelty/certain death" models.

Originally Posted by sek929

A dedicated vehicle to do all the farm work is what tractors were invented for. Plus, you could get a 1970 John Deere that will out-last you for about 2500-3Gs.

Yeah. Since it's not a working farm, there's not that much work to be done.

Originally Posted by sek929

Plus, most farmers I see have either a tractor or a pickup truck (old ford etc) because they can't afford a frivolous vehicle.

Yep. I'm not a farmer though, I'm a retired record producer with large pets.

Originally Posted by sek929

To be honest with you the whole towing dead cows scenario has little to do with what we are talking about here. Since you use your SUV for hard work, I have no qualms with you. But you are in the tiny minority my friend.

The problem is... ...Even though I use my vehicles for work occasionally, when I'm out and about in them I still get the same hassle as those with the same vehicles who never take them off-road. Thing is, the people doing the hassling usually have no idea what the vehicle gets used for (see Ca$h's guessing game thing above) and just mindlessly trot out the same old mantra (see MacNStein's encounter with female above). It's annoying.

[sek929]

I agree, if someone yelled at me while I was driving the big Ford I'd be pissed too.

But I know that most of the SUV owners I see on a daily basis bought them for status. (live in a rich area) The more middle-class of the rich all drive wagons around (of course Volvos, Mercs, and Bimmers) and THAT is a little more along the speed of what rich people need.

And then the SUVs with 24 inch rims are a whole new breed of "look at me!!" but I guess thats no different than anything bought to grab attention,

So, my main point is as such. I hate rich white women who drive Lincoln Navigators and can't stay the f*ck out of my lane. Especially when they are talking on cell phones, which is 100% of the time....

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by stefls

Would you think there are people actually buying SUVs for the sake of sending a signal to those hardcore opposing SUVs and private car possession in general? Or would you consider it a valid reason?

I'd say that there are people out there who do it to send a signal to the oppressors, yes. Of course, the people who do this are those with the most money and as such tend to be those most in danger from the marauding leftist mindset.
And yes, I think it's a valid reason - when governments start saying you can't do things which you've been doing for a while already it's a short, slippery slope to Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And yes, I think it's a valid reason - when governments start saying you can't do things which you've been doing for a while already it's a short, slippery slope to Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.

Right. So I should be able to legally drive a car without brakes, right? I should also be able to dump as much oil as I want into the ground right? Otherwise it's nazi germany.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Right. So I should be able to legally drive a car without brakes, right? I should also be able to dump as much oil as I want into the ground right? Otherwise it's nazi germany.

Poor argument Rob.
You'd be the first to start whining if you had to cope with our anti-car government.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'd say that there are people out there who do it to send a signal to the oppressors, yes. Of course, the people who do this are those with the most money and as such tend to be those most in danger from the marauding leftist mindset.
And yes, I think it's a valid reason - when governments start saying you can't do things which you've been doing for a while already it's a short, slippery slope to Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.

Isn't is an accepted truism that the first person to compare the other side to the Nazis automatically loses the argument?

[stefls]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'd say that there are people out there who do it to send a signal to the oppressors, yes. Of course, the people who do this are those with the most money and as such tend to be those most in danger from the marauding leftist mindset.
And yes, I think it's a valid reason - when governments start saying you can't do things which you've been doing for a while already it's a short, slippery slope to Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.

Hmm, interesting. But then, people and societies are learning. It is good that the effects of SUVs are under investigation. Serious research shows that the effects are not to be denied and governments are considering measures to be taken. SUVs are not being quesioned by governments because they wants to thwart people, but because they want to protect people from the perverse effects of a certain phenomenon. Maybe sometimes governments tend to behave a little bit too paternalistic, but I think the UK or the Netherlands are not heading in a fascist direction based on their policies towards SUVs. Eco-fascists are far from the centre of power in most democracies as far as I know.

Buying an SUV to send a signal to the government at this time isn't very helpful: no measures specifically aimed at SUVs exist as of yet. Buying a big car like that gives the state more tax incomes... I think they will be quite satisfied with your decision .

A better strategy would be to bring about more valid arguments!

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Poor argument Rob.
You'd be the first to start whining if you had to cope with our anti-car government.

No actually it's a pretty good argument. You claim that outlawing SUVs or having huge legislations against them would be nazish, and it would start a trend of control. I hate to break it to you but we already have a huge network of systems to control people. There's thousands of illegal things you can do. If the law just deemed SUVs as wasteful and unnecessary, and limited their sales to only 5,000 units a year, I really don't see how that'd be nazish. I'd call it intelligent.

Really teh whole question is what's acceptable and what isn't. I find a vehicle with similar MPG, emissions, safety, handling and braking to a car from the 60s to be UNACCEPTABLE as a new vehicle. You feel otherwise and people think less of you because of it.

[stefls]

double post