No SUV for you!

[tracer]

*Originally posted by Jayrot *
But what does a 16year old high school guy need to lug in this?

Who cares? That thing’s got a HEMI!

[tracer]

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
**The only thing that bugs me about large SUVs are when the asshole driving it parks in a compact car parking space. And then takes up two spaces to keep people from it being too much of a squeeze. That guy’s a jerk. **

In Palo Alto, California, they’ve started giving out parking tickets to any large vehicle parked in a space marked “compact”.

Then again, you’re also supposed to get a parking ticket if you take up 2 parking spaces, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of these 2-space parking jobs ever actually get a ticket.

[Blown_Injected]

A) I got my Explorer in 1991, before the SUV was even called a SUV and became the new yuppie mobile. It is a 4x4 because I like to go camping in remote areas and off-road in off-road areas.

I roll my eyes at possers in BMW’s and other rice like “sport cars,” and also in trucks with things like lights mounted under the bumper - can’t go off-road with lights mounted like that and have the lights survive. BUT it is not anybody’s business to tell them what to drive.

B) My Explorer uses about the same amount of fuel as my other cars.

C) More dangerous!?!? Give me a break! I can do parking brake 180’s, and double the suggested speed limit in off ramps, have had a blow out on the beltway, at hiway speed, and have not had any trouble controlling the truck.

As mentioned in some other replies, lets just ban the morons than do not possess the skill to handle the hand, eye, foot thing. Those that loose control of their SUV either suck at driving or are WAY out of control of their vehicle.

1. Harmful argument - not in many cases see my point A. And for those driving econoboxes: the difference in fuel consumption between SUV’s and little cars is not making that much difference in the overall environmental conditions (majority of pollution is from stationary emitters).

2. Will continue to buy - So what? just because you don’t like them? Besides it is probably more like a fad that will wear off. The support you gave just says they have been popular for a little while. People are intitled to try out different types of vehicles. Perhaps there is something positive that all those people have learned and like about the SUV’s.

3. Best interest - You have not established this.

4. Governments best interest to restraint and improve - Again, this has not been proven. The gov does cause vehicles to improve through regulation and the poeple will pick the better/more improved vehicle.

HTH you with your problem. About the best I can do at nearly 2am

[Mekhazzio]

*Originally posted by manhattan *

1. You must prove you need a passenger car. Specifically, you must prove that there is no public transit in your area and that you cannot bicycle to work for some reason.

2. You may not have a car that holds more people than your original family and a minimal amount of cargo (say, three day’s groceries). If it’s just you, get a motorcycle unless you live pretty far north. Larger cargos can be handled by delivery companies.

3. You may not drive somewhere you don’t have to go. From time to time, the police will pull you over and ask, just to make sure.

4. For safety’s sake, the new national speed limit is 30 MPH. If you like, you can convert it to KPH to make you feel like you’re going faster.

OK, I’ll bite. I’ll go for -all- of that. It would spur increased availability and quality of public transit, accessibility of public areas by foot and bicycle, including counteracting suburban sprawl. It would cut down on pollution, energy consumption and oil reliance. The national speed limit move would spur greatly increased availability of intra-national mass transit, which is something that is EXTREMELY lacking in most of the USA. Passenger rail is all but nonexistant, air transportation is quirky, limited and expensive, and Greyhound is, heh, not even worth mentioning (as anyone with the misfortune to actually use it will, I’m sure, agree).

IMO, such an alternative to the current national dependency on automobiles would be greatly preferable. It would make transportation for most people cheaper (collective cost) and thus more available, especially at lower incomes, and the transportation could potentially be more rapid as well due to less sprawl. The only cost is a debatable one of convenience – I say debatable because in any area with substantial traffic, the horde of autos is more hindrance than help, and certainly not any more efficient than an effective mass transit system; rather less, when you compare something like the SF Bay Area to, say, Atlanta, DC, and the like.

Those in very rural areas would see no benefit, but you’ve already exempted them, so they’d see no change either. Perhaps a negligible additional expense in the form of taxes to support the collective cost, but that’s a whole debate on taxes and ‘greater good’ in general. In any event, considering the scope of the issue, I doubt it would amount to much of anything in a per-person sense. We blow a lot more tax dollars on items with a lot less value.