[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gettheballandwinthegame

Park next to a forester. The WRX is decent, but I was referring more towards the legacy, and legacy outbacks.

No you weren't. You were referring to, quote, "most Subaru wagons". Well, most Subaru wagons are Imprezas.

Originally Posted by Gettheballandwinthegame

I've taken an outback offroading and it worked great.

You've never been properly off-roading then.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Only if you're the SUV driver. At the potential cost of the life of the car driver.

I don't care about the car driver. If he's stupid enough to hit me (and it would be him hitting me, not the other way around) then my first priority is my own and my passengers' safety. If he survives then all the better but I'm not putting my survival on the line for him.

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Not really. Bullbars are one of the major pedestrian killers. Now, I really don't want this to become a slanging match, but a car fitted with a bullbar has a 50% higher chance of killing a pedestrian in a colission than a car not fitted with a bullbar.

I seriously doubt that with my bull bar. Seriously. If I were to take it off you'd hit solid steel. With it on you hit a nice bouncy rubber mounted bit of steel.

And if we're talking major pedestrian killer, we're talking beer... ...since in the vast majority of pedestrian vs vehicle accidents the pedestrian is tanked.

[Gettheballandwinthegame]

Originally Posted by Athens

and of those how many didn't have seat belts on?

It doesn't matter Athens. Standards for roof crush strength haven't been increased since 1972. A vehcile is required to hold 1.5 times it's own weight on it's roof, but it's measured by supporting that weight EVENLY and slowly, exactly what you DONT find in a real rollover. The reason people die in SUV rollovers is generally because of roof intrusion, it collapses and kills the people inside. Throw that into the fact that SUVs have a much higher rollover rate than cars, and you arrive at the FACT that it is more dangerous to drive an SUV because more people die in them, PER MILLION, than in cars. In fact, the deathrate is 3x higher than regular cars.

[Gettheballandwinthegame]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Only if you're the SUV driver. At the potential cost of the life of the car driver.



Not really. Bullbars are one of the major pedestrian killers. Now, I really don't want this to become a slanging match, but a car fitted with a bullbar has a 50% higher chance of killing a pedestrian in a colission than a car not fitted with a bullbar.

I you want to be hit by car choose one of the new Audis. They fare rather well in tests.

Dude. He won't listen. It's pointless. Thus my reasoning for exiting this thread. It's like arguing with mentally retarded children.

None of them have the ability to counter these arguments, so I've already won:

http://www.zen10381.zen.co.uk/rob/suvcounterpoint.html

The end.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gettheballandwinthegame

It's like arguing with mentally retarded children.

But dude, it's fun. Which is why I hosted that page for you:

Originally Posted by Gettheballandwinthegame

http://www.zen10381.zen.co.uk/rob/suvcounterpoint.html

[Tomchu]

Stupid Useless Vehicle

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. You'd be more friendly towards the environment if you drove a Range Rover and didn't eat that happy animal raised on a small farm. That's before you factor in burning down rainforests and suchlike.

1. You're unable to back this up with any facts other than that you heard it from a "reliable verbal source." Last week, I heard from a "reliable verbal source" that e-mail attachments containing Windows viruses can affect a Mac, because they're .zip files, and OS X has built-in support for .zip files! OMG!

Show some actual evidence, or you lose this point.

2. I love how you pit driving an SUV against being a vegetarian. A better analogy would be: not eating meat = walking. Eating meat occasionally = driving a car. Driving an SUV would be more comparable to being on that Atkins diet, eating only meat and lots of it, and avoiding foods like fruits, vegetables, bread, etc. because they have carbs!! Oh no!! They're the devil!! Only eat food with tons of artery-clogging fat in it!!

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I seriously doubt that with my bull bar. Seriously. If I were to take it off you'd hit solid steel. With it on you hit a nice bouncy rubber mounted bit of steel.

Some quotes, grabbed from google results:

A 1998 study by Australia's University of Adelaide found that the damage to a child's head when struck by a vehicle equipped with a small-diameter steel bull bar was 10 to 15 times worse than damage inflicted by a vehicle without one. "In practical terms, a pedestrian hit by a vehicle equipped with a steel bull bar will be seriously hurt or killed at speeds much lower than those that are usually fatal," said Jack McLean, one of the study's authors.

"The bull bar concentrates and magnifies the force of the collision in a tiny area," British Member of Parliament Paul Flynn explained. "It's like a stiletto heel. They turn trivial accidents into serious ones, and serious accidents into fatal ones."

Since 1994, Flynn has helped lead a so-far unsuccessful campaign to ban bull bars in Britain and Europe, which was fuelled by several cases in which children were killed by SUVs equipped with bull bars travelling at speeds at which the collision wouldn't normally have been fatal.

"Research from Germany shows that 95 percent of children would be expected to survive the impact of a crash at about 20 miles per hour," Flynn told the British House of Commons in 1995, "but a vehicle fitted with bull bars would inflict life-threatening injuries on all children if it were travelling at 12 miles per hour, and that they could possibly die even at 10 miles per hour."

A study by the British government's own Transport Research Laboratory found that there were 40 additional serious injuries and at least two deaths attributable to bull bars in the UK in 1994, the year they were studying. A similar paper published in 1996 by Australia's Federal Office of Road Safety could not identify bull bars as the definitive cause of death, but found that they were probably involved in 20 percent of pedestrian deaths there.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Some quotes, grabbed from google results:

Yeah, they're all rubbish though, aren't they? Since they can't actually say definitively that the kids wouldn't have been killed if the vehicles didn't have bull bars (or indeed, weren't SUVs), it's complete speculation.

Did you know that one of the leading campaigners against bull bars in the UK is a woman who lost her daughter to a vehicle fitted with a bull bar? She'll come on TV and whine like there's no tomorrow. You kind feel sorry for her until you find out that she allowed her 4 year old to cross a 60 mph dual carriageway on her own (no adult supervision) on the way down to the sweet shop.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

1. You're unable to back this up with any facts other than that you heard it from a "reliable verbal source." Last week, I heard from a "reliable verbal source" that e-mail attachments containing Windows viruses can affect a Mac, because they're .zip files, and OS X has built-in support for .zip files! OMG!

Show some actual evidence, or you lose this point.

Go google it. I can't be bothered.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

2. I love how you pit driving an SUV against being a vegetarian. A better analogy

Nowt to do with analogies. A vegetarian Range Rover driver is better for global warming than a walking meat-eater. Simple as that.

You save the World your way, I'll save it my way.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Go google it. I can't be bothered.

Burden of proof is on your side. I smell BS.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Go google it. I can't be bothered.

Uh, no. I don't have to do your homework for you.

Going out and saying what you want to be true and then asking others to go and find your evidence for you is not the way to argue. As itistoday said, burden of proof.

Nowt to do with analogies. A vegetarian Range Rover driver is better for global warming than a walking meat-eater. Simple as that.

Link?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Burden of proof is on your side. I smell BS.

http://www.earthsave.org/environment/foodchoices.htm

(Your average car produces 3 kg/day of CO2. To clear rainforest to produce beef for one hamburger produces 75 kg of CO2. Eating one pound of hamburger does the same damage as driving your car for more than three weeks)

That's without even taking into account the CO2 expelled by the cow during breathing. And without taking into account all the methane produced.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by Athens

and of those how many didn't have seat belts on? Its all on how you drive it. In Canada the death rate in SUB roll overs is about the same as pickup truck accidents and car accidents. As its the law to buckle up and its enforced pretty good and most people do, the death rate is much much lower for SUVs then in the US.

As I understand it, all things being equal, SUV rollovers are more likely to occur than car rollovers, due to the higher center of gravity SUVs have, which essentially make them top-heavy, thus more likely to rollover.

Unrelated, I heartily disagree with such paternalistic laws like seatbelt laws for adults.

And to those those involved in the bickering: Please leave unrelated subjects, such as meat eating and vegetarianism out of the discussion. Kerrigan merely asked for others' opinions on the advantages of either choice he is considering, and you have somehow turned this thread into an argument about eating cows or walking.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy

That's without even taking into account the CO2 expelled by the cow during breathing. And without taking into account all the methane produced.

I happen to be against burning rain forests as well. I thought you were talking about a cow breathing *only*. Of course burning trees produces a ****load of CO2 (not to mention obviously reducing an important item that turns CO2 into breathable oxygen). Don't drive an SUV and don't burn rain forests!

Saying that the "real problem" is the fact that cows exist, however, is ridiculous. By that logic we should all kill ourselves because we produce CO2 as well!

You seem to be missing the point. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that's ****ing up our environment, therefore we need to reduce it, but that doesn't mean kill all living animals!

[CharlesS]

The thing is that animals producing CO2 is part of a natural cycle. Animals emit carbon in the form of CO2, and plants soak it back up. The total amount of carbon in the system is constant. Burning huge amounts of fossil fuels introduces additional carbon into the system, which had previously been locked away deep underground, thus screwing up the cycle.

Burning rainforests also screws up the cycle by removing the trees that soak up the carbon. That's a problem. Animals breathing, I'm not too concerned about.

And to say that rainforest is burned just to make one hamburger is ridiculous. Rainforests are burned to make many hamburgers, but if we ate meat in moderation (meaning, no Atkins diet type things), then we wouldn't have to expand farmland so much. You don't have to burn any rainforests to produce the same amount of meat you're already producing on the land you already have, do you? It's when we keep increasing that's the problem.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Gettheballandwinthegame

It doesn't matter Athens. Standards for roof crush strength haven't been increased since 1972. A vehcile is required to hold 1.5 times it's own weight on it's roof, but it's measured by supporting that weight EVENLY and slowly, exactly what you DONT find in a real rollover. The reason people die in SUV rollovers is generally because of roof intrusion, it collapses and kills the people inside. Throw that into the fact that SUVs have a much higher rollover rate than cars, and you arrive at the FACT that it is more dangerous to drive an SUV because more people die in them, PER MILLION, than in cars. In fact, the deathrate is 3x higher than regular cars.

then why is the percentage of deaths from roll overs smaller in states that require seat belts like Washington and in Canada?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Gettheballandwinthegame

Dude. He won't listen. It's pointless. Thus my reasoning for exiting this thread. It's like arguing with mentally retarded children.

None of them have the ability to counter these arguments, so I've already won:

http://www.zen10381.zen.co.uk/rob/suvcounterpoint.html

The end.

A quote from that site you must have missed

Can all vehicle occupants improve their odds even further? Absolutely, by wearing safety belts. Almost three-quarters of people killed in fatal rollover crashes, in various vehicle models, do not wear their safety belts. Similarly, the government estimates that 75% of those non-belt users would be alive today had they simply buckled up.

now it doesn't matter how ****ing strong a roof is on a vehicle, you bounce around inside and die. Majority of SUV drivers in the US don't ware seat belts hence the higher death rate.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

1. You're unable to back this up with any facts other than that you heard it from a "reliable verbal source." Last week, I heard from a "reliable verbal source" that e-mail attachments containing Windows viruses can affect a Mac, because they're .zip files, and OS X has built-in support for .zip files! OMG!

Show some actual evidence, or you lose this point.

2. I love how you pit driving an SUV against being a vegetarian. A better analogy would be: not eating meat = walking. Eating meat occasionally = driving a car. Driving an SUV would be more comparable to being on that Atkins diet, eating only meat and lots of it, and avoiding foods like fruits, vegetables, bread, etc. because they have carbs!! Oh no!! They're the devil!! Only eat food with tons of artery-clogging fat in it!!

Actually its true. The amount of energy used to create a full grown cow is enormous. That factors into account the energy to produce the feed, the energy to maintain the lands, to transport them, to chop them up... And the emissions from cows... That equates to more pollution from the production of cows then driving a cars.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

The thing is that animals producing CO2 is part of a natural cycle. Animals emit carbon in the form of CO2, and plants soak it back up. The total amount of carbon in the system is constant. Burning huge amounts of fossil fuels introduces additional carbon into the system, which had previously been locked away deep underground, thus screwing up the cycle.

Burning rainforests also screws up the cycle by removing the trees that soak up the carbon. That's a problem. Animals breathing, I'm not too concerned about.

And to say that rainforest is burned just to make one hamburger is ridiculous. Rainforests are burned to make many hamburgers, but if we ate meat in moderation (meaning, no Atkins diet type things), then we wouldn't have to expand farmland so much. You don't have to burn any rainforests to produce the same amount of meat you're already producing on the land you already have, do you? It's when we keep increasing that's the problem.

Just to add to your rant. Rainforests aren't only just cleared for cows. They are increasingly being cleared to plant palm oil. Infact as we speak Borneo in the south pacific is in process of transforming its ancient rainforest into a giant palm oil plantation that will be the size of FRANCE! And this project has the support of the World bank no less!!! So no more rain forests. Althrough out south east asia the rainforests are being illegally cut down and the wood smuggled into China and other countries.

Also in such countries as Congo, the rainforest there is being cut down as quick as possible as well. I lived in a house in Kenya that is lined floor to ceiling in solid Congo mahogony. Sure it was nice, but I wonder how many gorrilas and thousands upon thousands of other creatures died for it. But alas I digress.
Unfortunately deforestation in countries such as Brazil, or in south asia is run by mafia like organizations supported by corrupt officials. And the people actually doing the clearcutting are most likely illiterate, uneducated peasants who are just doing it to put food on their table and have no idea of what long term damage they are doing to their countries.

Nature has a way of sorting out imbalances though...eventually. Take for example the mud slides that have been happening in south asia, 200 killed? They happened because they chopped down the rainforest, so there was nothing to hold the top soil in place.

Then there is bird flu...hope I'm not near that breakout when it happens!

---

back on topic. I live in Kenya so I see the advantages of having a landrover. The roads here are **** and its harder to be carjacked if you are travelling in a mobile tank

But realistically if someone in the states, or the rest of the western world (with their pristine flat roads) buys an SUV then IMO that is as good as promoting terrorism.

[Jens Peter]

Just a quick question; When you talk about SUVs, what kind of cars belongs in that category ? My guess it's something like the Porche Chayenne, BMW X3/5, VW Tuerag and Mercedes M-class (and a lot american cars I don't know..) But does ex. Nissan Patrol, Toyota lancruiser or a Rangerover also come in that category?


Oh - I would choose the Smart!

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Jens Peter

Just a quick question; When you talk about SUVs, what kind of cars belongs in that category ? My guess it's something like the Porche Chayenne, BMW X3/5, VW Tuerag and Mercedes M-class (and a lot american cars I don't know..) But does ex. Nissan Patrol, Toyota lancruiser or a Rangerover also come in that category?


Oh - I would choose the Smart!

Yes they do.

[His Dudeness]

Originally Posted by Gettheballandwinthegame

Denied.

1,2 & 3 do not require four wheel drive or a vehicle designed for towing or offroad use. Your descriptions mean that you need CARGO ROOM and a flat bed that you can occasionally sleep in. None of your reasons seem to go anywhere near the need for owning a vehicle that was designed for traversing offroad and in horrible conditions, or towing heavy loads. Look into a large station wagon (magnum, forester, etc) or a minivan, and you'll get much better handling, braking, and mpg while being safer on the road for both yourself and everyone else. As a bonus station wagons are quite fun to drive, as they have a closer to 50/50 weigh distribution, the extra metal and glass helps balance out the weight of the engine in front.

Sorry. It seems the sole policeman for who can own whatever vehicle they want just denied you yours.

[urrl78]

I like the H3. H3's are cool. I may sell my Mustang GT and get one. Besides it weighs over two tons and only the bigger H2's and tractor trailor trucks, etc are a threat. That and an occasional cliff.

Check one out and make comparisons at:

http://www.carsdirect.com/new_cars/search

[His Dudeness]

Two tons? Wow, many big cars weigh about the same.

[angelmb]

I would get some art

[cjrivera]

Yay! Another SUV thread!

[His Dudeness]

They love 'em, don't they?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by cjrivera

Yay! Another SUV thread!

Seconded.

-t

[ReggieX]

*S*U*V*

So what are the missing letters?

[His Dudeness]

F R E E D O M O F C H O I C E

[olePigeon]

Ca$h, you can't argue with Doofy. He thinks he's infallible.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Ca$h, you can't argue with Doofy. He knows he's infallible.

Correctinated.

[turtle777]

-t

[Gettheballandwinthegame]

No posts about other members. Sorry, you just got reportinated.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gettheballandwinthegame

No posts about other members. Sorry, you just got reportinated.

That's a bit strong coming from someone who was banned yesterday Rob.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Gettheballandwinthegame

No posts about other members. Sorry, you just got reportinated.

-t

[Kevin]

Yeah Rob, I tried to tell you that once. When you are ban invading, you can report all you want. It goes on deaf ears. You aren't supposed to be here to begin with.

So basically, you are free game.

On, and BTW, the rule is "No Threads about other Members"

Which you also do a lot.

[RAILhead]

This question is painfully simple: buy whichever you want and everyone else can kiss your arse.

[ThinkInsane]

rob, there are also rules about name calling, flaming, and registering new accounts to circumvent a ban. You don't get to pick and choose what you want enforced. Th fact you find it necessary to report anything is kind of funny, and I myself was never able to read your reported posts with a straight face. I'm just sayin'...

[Kerrigan]

Since I have no personality to speak of, I need to make sure that everything I buy is a reflection of current political trends. Is it too late to jump on the anti-SUV bandwagon? Are tiny cars still trendy or are they becoming cliche? I want to make my voice heard by buying whatever bleeding edge hipsters are buying.

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by Athens

As being a owner of both a fuel efficient car (Honda Prelude) and a SUV (Jeep Cherokee) I can tell you I love driving the Jeep. But on the particle side for my driving habits...

particle man, particle man, doing the things that a particle can...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Gettheballandwinthegame

No posts about other members. Sorry, you just got reportinated.

Tooki gave us a waver and said the gloves are off, as far as you're concerned.

[Gettheballandwinthegame]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Since I have no personality to speak of, I need to make sure that everything I buy is a reflection of current political trends. Is it too late to jump on the anti-SUV bandwagon? Are tiny cars still trendy or are they becoming cliche? I want to make my voice heard by buying whatever bleeding edge hipsters are buying.

Get a camry. Beige. Then nobody will ever notice you.

[residentEvil]

seat belts: i think it is a national law now in the US; but some states are more strict on the enforcement.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Tooki gave us a waver and said the gloves are off, as far as you're concerned.

Seriously?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Seriously?

Im accepting that at face value. Until otherwise Rob is fair game!

Originally Posted by Athens

A quote from that site you must have missed

now it doesn't matter how ****ing strong a roof is on a vehicle, you bounce around inside and die. Majority of SUV drivers in the US don't ware seat belts hence the higher death rate.

Read the quote again athens. It says 'from various models'. That means it includes cars also. The reason they didn't say SUVs specificaly is that the number don't play there way. You can be buckled in an SUV and if you roll it, the roof will collapse and probably kill you or maim you. Hence why they try to spin everything possible their direction, so they mention 'all rollovers from all vehicles'.... does this include semis? Buses? Who knows.

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Tooki gave us a waver and said the gloves are off, as far as you're concerned.

Actually ZIMPHIRE said that, and he says a lot of stupid things. He believes what he wants to believe, not what actually has any valid truth.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Seriously?

Zimphire said that. Tooki hasn't.