SUV's get a bad rap!

[MaDHaVoK]

SUVs are pretty much bad...

1 They kill people
-They are way too much bigger than regualr cars.
-They handle like sh!t.
-People who drive them think they are invinsible, and drive like a$$holes.
-People who drive them are NOT in control
-SUVs role over and kill the passengers.

2 They kill the enviroment
-They are a huge waste of gas.
-Produce more polution than cars.

A mini van or even a van will provide you with more space than a SUV.
95% of people DO NOT drive them offroad.

SUV's should be banned from parkways, we should enforce fuel conservation laws, and put a huge tax on SUV's to pay for the additional enviroment polution and the additional damage they do to other drivers.

 

[BooneRebel]

<< SUVs are pretty much bad...

1 They kill people
-They are way too much bigger than regualr cars.
-They handle like sh!t.
-People who drive them think they are invinsible, and drive like a$$holes.
-People who drive them are NOT in control
-SUVs role over and kill the passengers.

2 They kill the enviroment
-They are a huge waste of gas.
-Produce more polution than cars.

A mini van or even a van will provide you with more space than a SUV.
95% of people DO NOT drive them offroad.

SUV's should be banned from parkways, we should enforce fuel conservation laws, and put a huge tax on SUV's to pay for the additional enviroment polution and the additional damage they do to other drivers. >>



1. You're an idiot. Any vehicle can kill a person. SUVs have greater mass. Generally in a collision the vehicle with the smaller mass will receive the greater impact. It's simple physics, not an evil SUV conspiracy against smaller cars. That greater mass also makes the SUV safer to be inside of in case of a collision.

2. SUVs do not produce more pollution than cars. Some SUVs have worse gas mileage than some cars, but you can just as easily find a compact SUV that is more efficient than a large car.

Yes, a van does have more space than an SUV. So does an 18-wheeler. But I don't drive an SUV -just- for it's cargo capacity.

While you're on a banning kick, let's consider motorcycles for a minute. The engines are smaller, more efficient, and produce less pollution than cars (in general), so why don't we ban all cars? Or all internal-combustion engines, for that matter? Then we'd have lots less pollution. Sounds silly, doesn't it?

Yes, because we don't have vehicles -just- for personal transportation. Each vehicle is designed for a specific purpose with regard to performance, seating capacity, cargo capacity, aerodynamics, price, etc. Obviously, the Matrix was designed for a different demographic than the Excursion. They also provide convenience, self-expression, and in most cases, declare a sense of 'status' or 'style'. I have the courtesy not to tell every riceboy I see how stupid I think the coffee-can exhaust is on his car. By the same token, I don't think anyone else should have a say in what I drive.

 

[andaval]

If you drive an SUV, you are funding terrorists. The additional money you spend on gas (over what you would spend on a reasonable car) goes to the middle east. How was Osama Bin Laden's family millionaires? Of, course, I don't think we'll so this ad from the Bush administration anytime soon...

 

[PullMyFinger]

Adaval,
Huh? You must be a lifer then (based on your sig, "Only the educated are free")

To all the environmentalist, granola crunching, Birkenstock wearing, tree huggers on this thread, you are hipocrites unless you all use purely pedal power. Here's a quick little environment lesson for the people crying about SUV's single handedly ruining the atmosphere. In the mid 90's, the Mt Pinotubo (sp?) volcano in the Phillipene (sp?) Islands began erupting. AND IN ONE DAY MANAGED TO SPEW OUT MORE CO2 THAN THE ANNUAL TOTAL CO2 PRODUCTION OF ALL VEHICLES ON EARTH COMBINED. And that's just the CO2 volume, not including CO, NOX, SO2, and other various gasses. Lets see, if the Earth can adapt to that level of environmental change in a matter of weeks or days even, what makes you think that the Earth will not be able to adapt to slowly increasing (or decreasing) CO2 levels caused by vehicles? Now, tell me again how SUV's are going to ruin the environment.

On another note, why should I be required to give up the safety and visibility of my SUV just because someone else thinks that they will fare worse in an accident? EVERY argument I've heard about how SUV's are dangerous revolves around the ASSUMPTION that the SUV causes the crash; "when an SUV hits a smaller car". If you follow the "they're dangerous to others" line of reasoning, we'd all be reduced to driving Subaru Justy's with 25 mph speed limiters, 3 ft thick foam bumpers, full roll cages, and 5 pt harness.

Open your eyes people. An SUV sitting in a driveway won't hurt anyone, unless they are uncoordinated enough to walk into it. If you see an SUV do a bonehead maneuver, guess what, there is a driver causing it to do that. Maybe the SUV haters should buy a clue and realize that they hate bad drivers (SUV's, car's, truck's, motorcycle's, whatever) and generalize about the type of vehicle they drive.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<< Adaval,
Huh? You must be a lifer then (based on your sig, "Only the educated are free")

To all the environmentalist, granolla crunching, Birkenstock wearing, tree huggers on this thread, you are hipocrates unless you all use purely pedal power. Here's a quick little environment lesson for the people crying about SUV's single handedly ruining the atmosphere. In the mid 90's, the Mt Pinotubo (sp?) volcano in the Phillipene Islands began erupting. AND IN ONE DAY MANAGED TO SPEW OUT MORE CO2 THAN THE ANNUAL TOTAL CO2 PRODUCTION OF ALL VEHICLES ON EARTH COMBINED. And that's just the CO2 volume, not including CO, NOX, SO2, and other various gasses. Lets see, if the Earth can adapt to that level of environmental change in a matter of weeks or days even, what makes you think that the Earth will not be able to addapt to slowly increasing (or decreasing) CO2 levels caused by vehicles? Now, tell me again how SUV's are going to ruin the environment.

On another note, why should I be required to give up the safety and visibility of my SUV just because someone else thinks that they will fare worse in an accident? EVERY argument I've heard about how SUV's are dangerous revolves around the ASSUMPTION that the SUV causes the crash; "when an SUV hits a smaller car". If you follow the "they're dangerous to others" line of reasoning, we'd all be reduced to driving Subaru Justy's with 25 mph speed limiters, 3 ft thick foam bumpers, full roll cages, and 5 pt harnesss.

Open your eyes people. An SUV sitting in a driveway won't hurt anyone, unless they are uncoordinated enough to walk into it. If you see an SUV do a bonehead manuever, guess what, there is a driver causing it to do that. Maybe the SUV haters should buy a clue and realize that they hate bad drivers (SUV's, car's, truck's, motorycycle's, whatever) and generalize about the type of vehicle they drive. >>

The ratio of stupid drivers in SUVs to stupid drivers in other vehicles is higher than 1.

 

[Rent]

Supertool hit the nail on the head.

My problem is, the majority of soccer moms drive them inconsiderately, not caring or paying attention to the traffic around them. I can't count the number of times I've been in the right turn lane looking into oncoming traffic when some bitch in a SUV pulls up and blocks my line of view. I find it interesting that when I give them a dirty look or flip them off they just throw their hands up in the air like they don't know what the problem is :|

Its the driver who can/will make the vehicle look bad. I'm all for SUV's if you actually use them for their intended purpose, but in my experience, 90% in my area are just used for getting around town with no more than maybe 2 or 3 people in them.

 

[andaval]

PullMFinger - What is a lifer?

Personally, I think SUVs symbolize everything bad about America. They are inconsiderate to other drivers (the headlights are at mirror level for cars, which is REALLY annoying). They are environmentally irresponsible. They protect you by putting other drivers at risk. They are almost entirely for show, in that most (88% per Harpers MAg) SUV owners don't take them off-road even once a year, even though all the commercials show them driving through deserts, mountains, etc. Have you seen the SUV commercial that actually exclaims "take that, mother nature!" I think they are disgusting and the loopholes in automobile law that allow them to be so gas inefficent should be closed.

 

[PullMyFinger]

"The ratio of stupid drivers in SUVs to stupid drivers in other vehicles is higher than 1"

Did you have to relax and dig deep for that opinion? You know what they say about opinions ......

If a person hates SUV's, guess what, they will find fault with them. Same thing goes if a person hates motorcycles or motor homes or ricers or town cars. I disagree that SUV's protect me by putting other drivers at risk. My SUV protects me from the actions of IDIOTS. If I could afford a HumVee, I would be driving that because NOTHING on God's green Earth is more important than protecting my family from the stupidity of others.

Why the hell doesn't anybody bitch about Subaru's? They're 4 wheel drive and I'll bet 99.99987% of their owners don't take them off road, what a useless waste of 4 wheel drive, they're not using their vehicle as it was intended, blah, blah, blah. <begin blatant sarcasm> I didn't know that all vehicles came with a rule book of intended uses. Gee, maybe we should interrogate EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN and determine if they are using their vehicle properly. And if they're not, we should fine them, charge them with violating the SOCIALIST code, and deport them back to Mother Russia. DEATH TO THE CAPITALIST PIG DOG AMERICANS! <end blatant sarcasm>

So what if they are a "status" symbol, as some people here would think. Ever hear of a luxury sedan, sportscoupe, convertible, etc. They are status symbols too, so shame on their owners for flaunting their exorbitant wealth and not buying a more affordable vehicle with similar capabilities.

If all SUV drivers are terrible threats to humanity, then maybe all of the "SUV drivers are suck" supporters should contact their local authorities because according to you, the worst drivers in the world are running rampant through your streets. "Yes officer, they'll be easy to spot, they're all driving SUV's, everyone else driving reasonable vehicles on the road is a-ok"

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<< "The ratio of stupid drivers in SUVs to stupid drivers in other vehicles is higher than 1"

Did you have to relax and dig deep for that opinion? You know what they say about opinions ...... >>

Yeah, the same thing they say about you.

 

[BooneRebel]

<<

<< "The ratio of stupid drivers in SUVs to stupid drivers in other vehicles is higher than 1"

Did you have to relax and dig deep for that opinion? You know what they say about opinions ...... >>

Yeah, the same thing they say about you. >>



Where does the idea

suv owner=bad driver

come from? I've seen bad drivers in every type of motor vehicle out there, and a few that shouldn't even be allowed to ride bicycles.

Just because you feel unsafe with an SUV in the next lane to you doesn't mean that we should get rid of SUVs. They're one of the most popular style vehicles out there today, if you feel like a minority then buy a taller vehicle. I don't know why you think I should park my truck & buy an econobox just because that's what you want me to drive.

 

[PullMyFinger]

Well they must be saying that I'm a responsible driver who bases his decisions and comments on FACTS not OPINIONS.

Matt = a device which people use to wipe the sh!t off the bottom of their shoes. Gee, that name fits.

 

[mithrandir2001]

The problem with SUVs is that people think they need them when safer/more comfortable/more accomodating/better handling/more efficient/less expensive alternatives exist. It's American consumerism gone awry. Generally, it doesn't matter what your neighbors buy. If they have a stainless steel fetish like I do and want to outfit their kitchen with pricey, commercial stainless steel appliances, well, WTF do I care? But the highways are public spaces and what people drive affects other individuals on the road. SUVs impair visibility, exhibit unsafe handling in avoidance situations, are much easier to flip, impose safety concerns on smaller vehicles because of their high bumper planes, require longer stopping distances, increase highway wear from their weight and usage profile, achieve poor fuel economy that increases our reliance on foreign oil, among other things.

I suppose the saddest thing about the whole SUV craze is the continual refrain that they are safe vehicles. They do have the advantage of having high mass, but many SUVs drivers don't know how to properly pilot them...and this makes them unsafe. Most of the larger variants drive nothing like cars and require a more judicious and alert attitude. 4WD means very little to some SUVs...I cannot tell you how many SUVs around here are found in ditches, on lawns/sidewalks during inclement weather because of driver invincibility problems.

My midsize Accord is parked behind an Expedition today. From my driver seat, my eyes fell below the plane of the Expedition's rear latch handle. I couldn't even see the roofline. Very large vehicle, of course, but WTF is it doing without a trailer hitch!? Please don't tell me you need a 5500 pound vehicle simply to tote around the occasional 5-6 passengers and their luggage and nothing in terms of towing. This monstrosity probably has less cargo room than a Grand Caravan! And you can get AWD on minivans, too. But that's right...SUVs are tough. If you don't have anything down below, show it in your 3 ton vehicle.

So what do I want? Stricter licensing requirements. Require additional training and testing for those who desire to drive these large vehicles (say for vehicles over 5000 pounds). Too much of an inconvenience? Tough. They say driving is a privilege and not a right and you should have to jump through a few more hoops if you choose to drive an abnormally sized vehicle...because you pose additional risk on the highway. That's only fair. This would help drivers realize that these large vehicles are NOT like cars or smaller trucks and DO require a completely different driving attitude. But, of course, these tanks are probably the only thing that is keeping the Big 3 profitable, so people think it's un-American to question the proliferation of SUVs.

 

[BooneRebel]

One of the most common refrains that I hear is that an SUV impairs your visibility. Well, guess what? If you're -in- the SUV, it gives you better visibility. I've lost count of the number of times I've been in bumper-to-bumper traffic and seen someone get rear-ended 8-10 cars ahead of me. With a higher seating position I can see this and have enough time to react (by either slowing down or changing lanes), unlike the half-dozen unfortunate cattle ahead of me that can't see past the car in front of them and run into each other like dominoes.

 

[docmanhattan]

<< One of the most common refrains that I hear is that an SUV impairs your visibility. >>

For smaller cars more so than the SUV drivers

<< Well, guess what? If you're -in- the SUV, it gives you better visibility. I've lost count of the number of times I've been in bumper-to-bumper traffic and seen someone get rear-ended 8-10 cars ahead of me. With a higher seating position I can see this and have enough time to react (by either slowing down or changing lanes), unlike the half-dozen unfortunate cattle ahead of me that can't see past the car in front of them and run into each other like dominoes. >>

But by saying that, you implying that everyone should have an SUV for better visibility, which would open up a really nasty thread I'm sure.

 

[BooneRebel]

<< SUVs are tough. If you don't have anything down below, show it in your 3 ton vehicle.

>>



This got me to wondering. I checked Edmunds and could only find two vehicles with entry level trim that hit 3 tons:

$31,326 - Ford Excursion 6650lbs
$97,806 - AM General Hummer 6814lbs

and just a handful that were over 5000lbs:

$29,075 - Toyota Sequoia 5100lbs
$45,338 - Cadillac Escalade 5333lbs
$68,090 - Mercedes Benz G Class 5423lbs
$42,995 - Lincoln Navigator 5822lbs
$54,388 - Lexus LX 470 5401lbs

Excluding these 7 'luxury' models, out of 61 makes & models available, that means that 54 are under 5000lbs. The RAV4 starts out at 2711lbs. Are they all "bad" as well? Or are the Hummer & Excursion the only evil vehicles? Or is it just vehicles you can't afford? Is the Porsche Carrera "bad" too? After all, it's a phallic symbol, too? Do you want to change your criteria for hating vehicles?

 

[BooneRebel]

<< But by saying that, you implying that everyone should have an SUV for better visibility, which would open up a really nasty thread I'm sure. >>



No, it's a free country. Drive whatever -you- feel comfortable with. Just because I have experience avoiding accidents with my better visibility, & enjoy greater traction when using 4 wheel drive, doesn't mean that you should take my word for it. If you feel comfortable in your car then more power to you. But most of the SUV-bashing comes from people that do not have that comfort level.

The way I see it, it's kind of like being the only house on the street that doesn't have a burglar alarm, and then trying to convince everyone else to give up their burglar alarms because your house is at an unfair disadvantage towards being robbed.

 

[docmanhattan]

<<

<< But by saying that, you implying that everyone should have an SUV for better visibility, which would open up a really nasty thread I'm sure. >>



No, it's a free country. Drive whatever -you- feel comfortable with. Just because I have experience avoiding accidents with my better visibility, & enjoy greater traction when using 4 wheel drive, doesn't mean that you should take my word for it. If you feel comfortable in your car then more power to you. But most of the SUV-bashing comes from people that do not have that comfort level.

The way I see it, it's kind of like being the only house on the street that doesn't have a burglar alarm, and then trying to convince everyone else to give up their burglar alarms because your house is at an unfair disadvantage towards being robbed. >>

I don't think burglar alarms and SUV's can be compared that way. I see the safety analogy you're trying to make, but that's only one facet that I think a lot of people cite as why they purchase them. This discomfort that people have is when bad drivers are piloting big cars. SUV, Truck, Semi, Bus, whatever. No one is terribly concerned about a bad driver in a Yugo because the POS would probably bounce off anyone's car, roll to the curb and burst into flames.

 

[BooneRebel]

<< This discomfort that people have is when bad drivers are piloting big cars. SUV, Truck, Semi, Bus, whatever. No one is terribly concerned about a bad driver in a Yugo because the POS would probably bounce off anyone's car, roll to the curb and burst into flames. >>



Right, but how many "BAD DRIVERS ARE PILOTING BIG CARS" rants do you see? Every 4th thread (yes, I counted ) in ATOT is an SUV-bashfest.

 

[andaval]

The burglar alarm analogy is not a good one. SUVs may make you safer, but this is at the direct expense of other drivers. This means you are negatively affecting other people, which I find morally repugnant. There was an interesting article in Harpers a while back that talked about SUVs in depth. SUVs give you better visibilty only if the other cars are smaller, if everyone had SUVs visibilty would be back to what is now, but the roads would be a lot more dangerous, based solely on the larger average mass of vehicles.

 

[docmanhattan]

<<

<< This discomfort that people have is when bad drivers are piloting big cars. SUV, Truck, Semi, Bus, whatever. No one is terribly concerned about a bad driver in a Yugo because the POS would probably bounce off anyone's car, roll to the curb and burst into flames. >>



Right, but how many "BAD DRIVERS ARE PILOTING BIG CARS" rants do you see? Every 4th thread (yes, I counted ) in ATOT is an SUV-bashfest. >>

As you stated earlier, it's a free country. If you choose to driver a big car, you're also choosing to be easily identifiable. It sucks, but people will tend to remember a bigger target. You know, it's like bus drivers. You never notice the good ones ( i'm sure some jag will now say "I do" ), but you always remember the REALLY bad ones that buzz past you giving a closer shave than the Mach 14 ( anyone remember the SNL skit for that?)

 

[BooneRebel]

<< The burglar alarm analogy is not a good one. SUVs may make you safer, but this is at the direct expense of other drivers. This means you are negatively affecting other people, which I find morally repugnant. There was an interesting article in Harpers a while back that talked about SUVs in depth. SUVs give you better visibilty only if the other cars are smaller, if everyone had SUVs visibilty would be back to what is now, but the roads would be a lot more dangerous, based solely on the larger average mass of vehicles. >>



Still strikes me as a pretty sound analogy.

Oh, well. How about this one: I have a concealed-carry permit and you don't. We're each confronted by a would-be mugger; you get robbed and I don't. Am I still morally repugnant because you are an easier mark?

Based solely on the larger average mass of vehicles, yes, increasing mass would make it more dangerous. But if you add a ton of lead into the trunk of your sedan you don't make it an SUV. It's not just about mass.

Better visibility isn't just useful in traffic (though that's where it really shines), it's good for avoiding all kinds of road hazards.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<< Well they must be saying that I'm a responsible driver who bases his decisions and comments on FACTS not OPINIONS.

Matt = a device which people use to wipe the sh!t off the bottom of their shoes. Gee, that name fits. >>

I see your spelling is as good as your comebacks.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<<

<<

<< "The ratio of stupid drivers in SUVs to stupid drivers in other vehicles is higher than 1"

Did you have to relax and dig deep for that opinion? You know what they say about opinions ...... >>

Yeah, the same thing they say about you. >>



Where does the idea

suv owner=bad driver

come from? I've seen bad drivers in every type of motor vehicle out there, and a few that shouldn't even be allowed to ride bicycles.

Just because you feel unsafe with an SUV in the next lane to you doesn't mean that we should get rid of SUVs. They're one of the most popular style vehicles out there today, if you feel like a minority then buy a taller vehicle. I don't know why you think I should park my truck & buy an econobox just because that's what you want me to drive. >>

Here's one for you: The majority of drivers suck at driving. Give them a big beastly vehicle and now look what you have...

My points still stand.

SUV's are a trend, at least in developed areas. If you don't believe that, then there's no hope for you.

The majority of people that buy SUV's don't buy them for taking them off road.

They do use more gas than necessary most of the time.

The do make the road less safe for other vehicles.

You get the shaft from the manufacturer when you buy one, look at that profit margin.

etc
etc
etc

Geez people, I never said I wanted to come take your SUV away, just realize how dumb they are in 90% of the cases.

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< Excluding these 7 'luxury' models, out of 61 makes & models available, that means that 54 are under 5000lbs. The RAV4 starts out at 2711lbs. Are they all "bad" as well? >>


You are probably irked that I am not being a deplorable moron who thinks all SUVs are bad. But see, I am reasonable and that's what makes my argument stronger. Smaller SUVs like Blazers and Grand Cherokees aren't my concern because these can be useful vehicles to a reasonably wide audience and they often feature car-like driving characteristics. It's the hulking land barges that are in my target scope...the ones driven around pavement-lined suburbia by drivers who feature a permanently-planted wireless phone in their ear.


<< Or is it just vehicles you can't afford? >>


@#&^@&! I am so sick of this LAME @SS argument. Please tell me where I've mentioned that all vehicles over a certain price point should be banned.

It's not about money. Why do the land barge lovers seem to think this is simply a jealousy issue? Why would I be jealous about not owning a wallowy boat with 4 wheels?

The whole point is to change consumer attitudes...to get people to realize these large vehicles should not be approached as "just another vehicle". They are in a separate class and consumers should only choose them if they have a usage need that is not served by other vehicles and they are prepared to deal with much different driving characteristics. Often the counter argument is "who the f are you to tell me what to drive?" I don't sympathize with that argument. We argue over Intel and AMD CPUs...I don't see this as any different. It's not being anti-capitalist or anti-free market. Maybe if people have a problem with it, perhaps they are feeling a little insecure in their choices. After all, nobody likes being called a sucker.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<< Why do the land barge lovers seem to think this is simply a jealousy issue? Why would I be jealous about not owning a wallowy boat with 4 wheels? >>

Because they're pompous badasses, haven't we been over this?