Point of information: Currently in most areas the fine is $50 or even $100 for parking in a handicap space. This should not be confused with big vehicle/little vehicle arguements. People who park in handicap spaces can block in handicap vehicles causing massive inconvienence. They need that extra room for the ramp to come out of the van, so if anything the fines for stealing handicap spaces should be higher.
How do you figure?
Do what I did…buy a Matrix!
That’s a bizarre analogy. When was the last time a house was robbed accidentally?
Yeah that would be stupid if someone were saying that.
Fortunately my claim was different–that SUV’s increase deaths via SUV-car crashes. Of course, I was referring to deaths in the cars in the SUV-car crashes. IIRC the deaths in SUV vs. cars were significantly higher than in SUV vs. SUV and car vs. car. I’m looking for the data now.
Also, I’m not implying that SUV’s are looking to hit other cars. I’m stating that more and more of them are claiming that the vehicles are safer in an accident. They’re safer in a SUV vs. car accident because they transfer the risk to the car. The fact that they are intentionally making an effort to transfer risk to me is what gets me going. Especially when it appears that the net deaths increase.
Let me quote http://www.aps.org/units/fps/jan02/a2jan02.html
erislover, just a fer instance, the oncoming car that decided to make a left turn cutting off my motorcycle riding friend wouldn’t have been there. My friend also wouldn’t have crashed into the car, and she would not have gone through the windshield head first (she was not seriously hurt, thankfully). Those are the dangers of foolishly driving a motorcycle straight ahead on a road with cars around.
But, I didn’t come here to discuss motorcycles, SUV’s are the topic at hand. Just a little grist for the mill, check out the following short story. Yes, it’s fiction, and brought to the extreme, but the issue of gaining personal safety at the expense of other driver’s safety is the central point of the story.
-
-
- And walking would be lots safer if there were no motorcycles…
~
- And walking would be lots safer if there were no motorcycles…
-
- I think they tried this pretty much in Cuba: vehicles became “the people’s vehicles”, gasoline became “the people’s gasoline”… -Got any vacation plans yet? - DougC
You said it. You said:
There probably is a way to parse that sentence that doesn’t imply intent on the part of the SUV driver to cause injury or fatality to car drivers, but it’s buried pretty deeply.
As far as bizarre analogies go, you yourself state that your concern is with the purposeful transference of risk. Homeowners who buy security systems (or, heck, even large dogs) are transferring risk to those without. So, given the transference of risk, why are you not justified in “proactively defending yourself,” or equalizing risk, by demolishing your neighbor’s security system?
Okay, that’s it, time to give everyone a Segway and ban all other motor vehicles. 
(Summary of the debate, as I see it: anti-SUV owners cite the dangers and inefficiencies of SUVs and other large vehicles. SUV owners whine about the former taking away their choices. One group’s being whiny and selfish here…)
-
-
- You forgot the part about “and I don’t own a motorcycle, so I don’t give a shit what they think.” - DougC
-
I know I’m jumping in a little late. But, I want to try and move the focus of the discussion back to (one of) the OP’s points.
Binarydrone wrote:
“Socially, to address the choice argument, I will state that I have yet to have anyone give a convincing argument as to why it is ok for the choice of one person to eclipse that of the other. This makes me feel like a second-class citizen. I say this in the sense that if I do not wish to be creamed in a wreck and wish to be able to see the road, I will need to give up my safe and fuel efficient vehicle.”
The debate has moved on to the ethics of parking lots and whatnot, and I think we’ve somewhat skipped over a major point.
This SUV debate, at the core, is a much larger issue than just cars. Binarydrone just can’t seem to understand why people would actively choose to purchase and drive SUVs, knowing full well that these vehicles are miserable for the environment (gas-guzzling and emission-spewing) and therefore inconsiderate to other citizens and the earth itself. I agree, I cannot understand how some people just overlook the obvious, and do as they please, without any ethical ties to the earth.
Unfortunately, as we can see in this thread, there’s no real way for either side to make concessions to the other, and just say “well, you’re right.” As someone mentioned, it’s a gestalt argument. It’s apples and oranges. Someone who buys an SUV because it’s their “right” to do so, regardless of the environmental repercussions of their actions, will never really understand why some “tree-hugger” would go out and buy a hybrid car, which is both less safe though much more environmentally sound. Why would they do that when there’s bigger, badder vehicles to be had? The same is true of the reverse situation, with some environmental-minded person just completely not being able to understand (in a non-Freudian context, at least) why these “soccer moms” have to go out and buy the biggest, beefiest vehicles available.
Not too long ago on the Great Debates board, I started a thread about vegetarianism and veganism. It was not nearly as well-stated, well thought out, or objective as this board’s original post. But, it hit at the same point: “How can you actively choose to do something (eat meat/buy SUVs) when we know, when it’s clearly proven that it’s detrimental to both the environment and other people to do so?”
Many people, in that thread (as well as in this one), claimed no moral or ethical responsibility to the planet or the environment, which is just sad. If you can’t see the connection between not doing your best to be environmentally responsible, and just being selfish as hell, well, that’s your choice, but please know it’s not a good one.
One thing I find left out of the debate about SUVs is the fact that, for the moment, they are cool cars. Cool people (who care about cars) drive SUVs. Driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee is like wearing a nice suit or brand name shoes; the functional aspect is less important than other more intangible aspects. Sure I could buy knock-off shoes, and might even be more durable than the name brand shoes, but they’re so profoundly uncool that I choose to compromise on function in the name of style.
Just the same, I don’t disagree that minivans are probably the more functional choice, but they also have traditionally been known as really dorky vehicles. “Style” might not appear on the option list, but that’s exactly what you’re buying in an SUV, and I think that’s a perfectly rational choice. To make claims about SUVs being “illogical” is not going to change the fact that they’re cool; until a new style becomes popular people are going to continue to buy SUVs.
Okay, I went over the top. My apologies. My hyperbole was based on the idea that the tradeoff is the intent of SUV drivers to protect themselves with the necessary corresponding deaths in other cars they may have accidents in. I was also exaggerating about the destruction of private property (slashing tires and entering garages, etc.). I am dead serious however about the moral equivalency of buying SUV’s for personal protection and buying active armament for the same purpose.
No, they are not transferring risk. They are reducing their own risk. A potential thief may choose to burglarize another home, but it’s not the unavoidable consequence. Burglary may or may not be a zero sum game, whereas momentum is. In an auto accident, regardless of who is at fault, the big vehicle is likely going to squish the little vehicle. Hence, the people in the large vehicle are protected precisely because they are increasing the risk of death in the little vehicle.
“In an auto accident, regardless of who is at fault, the big vehicle is likely going to squish the little vehicle. Hence, the people in the large vehicle are protected precisely because they are increasing the risk of death in the little vehicle.”
So, the end point of this discussion is essentially that it’s just a simple matter of evolution. The people who make more money, and are so damn self-centered, will just bludgeon the hell out of the rest of us with their SUVs. They aren’t weighed down by moral baggage or sissy environmental concerns, so obviously they’re the fittest.
In the nineteenth century we used white wigs and fake moles to attract the opposite sex. Now? Now we’ve got big-ass recreational vehicles stinking up the air, and designer shoes made by economically-enslaved children, to make us feel desirable.
But hey, as long other people think it looks cool . . .
Yeah, so?
Oh wait, I get it, the enlightened people are able to drive a Pinto and wear bowling shoes, but less advanced people aren’t capable of such behavior. It’s too bad I’m such a shallow peacock.
Anyway, my point was that cars are more than simple transportation, so the people arguing that SUVs are less useful than other vehicles are misguided in their tact; there other factors that vehicle purchasers place more weight on. I think a lot of the anti-SUV movement is based not in any concern for public safety, or environmental concerns, but rather the general disdain for the fact that they are popular.
This is not to say that there aren’t some environmental and safety concerns with SUVs, but I think that such concerns have been exagerrated simply to justify the anti-SUV backlash.
Well, you have to take into account how people use their vehicles. I’m guilty of owning a giant SUV but I use it about 80% for work. And it does work – towing equpment, hauling, carrying multiple passengers, and often in off road situations. I don’t like driving it in the city because people so often cut in on you, change lanes without warning and generally zip around without paying attention. (Maybe it’s just my imagination but it seems to me that sometimes people in some of the smallest cars are the most aggressive and reckless).
If I were doing a daily commute in the city I wouldn’t use an SUV because it’s just more vehicle than you need. But when I’m in town I usually walk, bike or ride the train anyway.
SUV are luxury items.
When I worked in downtown Boston, which is traffic hell, guess what the more common vehicle I saw while going to lunch was.
No, not luxury sedans, they’re No. 2, behind delivery trucks at No. 3. It was SUVs - Grand Cherokees in particular. No one can convince me they need off-road capability there. I’d say they were 1 out of every 4 I saw on downtown streets.
Yet when I go around where I live in LA county, I see maybe 1 SUV for every 20 cars there. What’s your point?
“Sure I could buy knock-off shoes, and might even be more durable than the name brand shoes, but they’re so profoundly uncool that I choose to compromise on function in the name of style.”
So, do you think it’s okay for uninformed teenagers who smoke for the simple fact that it’s “profoundly cool” not to smoke, in many social circles? Is it okay for tobacco and advertising agencies to focus their efforts, in attempt to “reel in” these poor souls, “in the name of style?”
By the most basic, unintrusive moral code, by owning an SUV (or supporting Nike, or eating meat), you are pretty much saying to anyone else in the world that it’s “okay” for them to make the same decisions as you. By owning an SUV, you’re just one more bad example to all the kids you drive past every day. It’s indirectly teaching them that it’s okay to put your own desires above other people’s welfare, as well as the welfare of the environment.
Granted, almost everything we do has negative effects no the environment. This is exactly why we should go out of our way to leave as little of a mark as possible. Some people need the bigger car, the 4-wheel drive, sure. But if you take that car out by yourself, and go get a coffee, or to the corner store two blocks away on a nice spring day, you’re essentially declaring yourself a member of the Exxon-McDonalds-Nike team. (No, I’m not a communist. No, there’s nothing wrong with companies trying to make money. Yes, there are big problems with misinformation, and corporations using advertising to more or less control people’s lives by making them feel a need to own stuff.)
“I think a lot of the anti-SUV movement is based not in any concern for public safety, or environmental concerns, but rather the general disdain for the fact that they are popular.”
Yes, I’m very upset that those beasts are popular. If they weren’t popular, they wouldn’t be a problem. The Popularity implies that quite a few are being sold and operated, which is essentially the problems. If there were only a handful of SUVs on the street, there would still be a problem, but a much less detremental one.
So, again using the tobacco analogy, you think that the anti-smoking campaign is somehow weakened or invalidated because the anti-smoking activists are upset because smoking is popular? If the popularity wasn’t there, there wouldn’t be as big of a need for the anit-cause individuals to be so concerned.
“This is not to say that there aren’t some environmental and safety concerns with SUVs, but I think that such concerns have been exagerrated simply to justify the anti-SUV backlash.”
Is the fact that some concerms may or may not have been exagerrated your excuse for disregarding/overlooking the “environmental and safety concerns with SUVs?”
As a society, how should we respond to the fact that you own this vehicle, which is not necessary for your life or well-being, despite the fact that you know it is crap for the environment, and actively lends itself to the decreasing saftey of our public roads?
We respond by thinking that it’s a “free country,” and we deserve to be able to buy whatever the hell we want, regardless of how much pollution it spits out, regardless of how many obvious blatant human right violations necessary to bring us such an inexpensive item, regardless of how many acres of rain forest are being burnt down in order to bring us a 98-cent Big Man, regardless of the health concerns of other human beings.
People are so convinced that they can help the environment and other people by purchasing the right items. “I’ve got an SUV, but I recycle my newspaper every day, so I"m not really hurting the environment. I smoke, but it’s canceled out by the fact that I buy second-hand clothes. I take my kids to McDonalds three times a week, but I set a animal-friendly example because I tell them all the time how horrible fur coats are.”
But, they’ve got it wrong. It’s not what you buy. It’s what you don’t buy. That’s how to start making a real difference.
“Sure I could buy knock-off shoes, and might even be more durable than the name brand shoes, but they’re so profoundly uncool that I choose to compromise on function in the name of style.”
So, do you think it’s okay for uninformed teenagers who smoke for the simple fact that it’s “profoundly cool” not to smoke, in many social circles? Is it okay for tobacco and advertising agencies to focus their efforts, in attempt to “reel in” these poor souls, “in the name of style?”
By the most basic, unintrusive moral code, by owning an SUV (or supporting Nike, or eating meat), you are pretty much saying to anyone else in the world that it’s “okay” for them to make the same decisions as you. By owning an SUV, you’re just one more bad example to all the kids you drive past every day. It’s indirectly teaching them that it’s okay to put your own desires above other people’s welfare, as well as the welfare of the environment.
Granted, almost everything we do has negative effects no the environment. This is exactly why we should go out of our way to leave as little of a mark as possible. Some people need the bigger car, the 4-wheel drive, sure. But if you take that car out by yourself, and go get a coffee, or to the corner store two blocks away on a nice spring day, you’re essentially declaring yourself a member of the Exxon-McDonalds-Nike team. (No, I’m not a communist. No, there’s nothing wrong with companies trying to make money. Yes, there are big problems with misinformation, and corporations using advertising to more or less control people’s lives by making them feel a need to own stuff.)
“I think a lot of the anti-SUV movement is based not in any concern for public safety, or environmental concerns, but rather the general disdain for the fact that they are popular.”
Yes, I’m very upset that those beasts are popular. If they weren’t popular, they wouldn’t be a problem. The Popularity implies that quite a few are being sold and operated, which is essentially the problems. If there were only a handful of SUVs on the street, there would still be a problem, but a much less detremental one.
So, again using the tobacco analogy, you think that the anti-smoking campaign is somehow weakened or invalidated because the anti-smoking activists are upset because smoking is popular? If the popularity wasn’t there, there wouldn’t be as big of a need for the anit-cause individuals to be so concerned.
“This is not to say that there aren’t some environmental and safety concerns with SUVs, but I think that such concerns have been exagerrated simply to justify the anti-SUV backlash.”
Is the fact that some concerms may or may not have been exagerrated your excuse for disregarding/overlooking the “environmental and safety concerns with SUVs?”
As a society, how should we respond to the fact that you own this vehicle, which is not necessary for your life or well-being, despite the fact that you know it is crap for the environment, and actively lends itself to the decreasing saftey of our public roads?
We respond by thinking that it’s a “free country,” and we deserve to be able to buy whatever the hell we want, regardless of how much pollution it spits out, regardless of how many obvious blatant human right violations necessary to bring us such an inexpensive item, regardless of how many acres of rain forest are being burnt down in order to bring us a 98-cent Big Man, regardless of the health concerns of other human beings.
People are so convinced that they can help the environment and other people by purchasing the right items. “I’ve got an SUV, but I recycle my newspaper every day, so I"m not really hurting the environment. I smoke, but it’s canceled out by the fact that I buy second-hand clothes. I take my kids to McDonalds three times a week, but I set a animal-friendly example because I tell them all the time how horrible fur coats are.”
But, they’ve got it wrong. It’s not what you buy. It’s what you don’t buy. That’s how to start making a real difference.
Could a Moderator please delete one of the double posts? Thanks.