You know you’ve won the argument when they start correcting your spelling 
By the by, here’s another quote you might find interesting:
“The goal of this page is to expose the ridiculous SUV trend to help stop it, and have some laughs while we’re at it! This page is NOT aimed at owners of 4x4s who ACTUALLY take them off-roading and use them for what they are designed for. The page IS aimed at pretender SUVs and the 90% of SUV owners who never drive them off-road.”
Source: http://poseur.4x4.org/
Well then, the page doesn’t apply to me (judging by the amount of mud that covered my Cherokee this weekend – hell, I had it washed twice and mud is still coming out of the wheels).
Well, I see that fatherjohn still hasn’t learned how to acknowledge defeat, learn, or even think coherently yet.
No problem to that, I say. I didn’t expect such.
I would like to point out that this sunday, I kept up with my plans to watch the super bowl with Lexicon. You might wonder why I bring this up. I will tell you. For the benefit of fatherjohn, I’ll try to limit myself to small words, with no more than two or three syllables to aid comprehension.
Lexicon lives down the way from me. A pretty good bit down the way, even on a good driving day. Right about 60 miles. Here in Colorado, it started snowing Friday. Sunday night, it was still coming down at a fair rate. I had made my promise, and was intent upon keeping it.
So, off I go, in my oppressive 4x4. It has the big V-8, you know. 5.9 liter, gets 12-15 MPG. I smoke my tires anytime I want, just to do it. I have a full reservoir of washer fluid, my headlights are clean, and my tires are, of course, well-treaded.
When I hit the freeway, headed south and up, I took a while to find the best possible safe speed, and made it a point to maintain that speed smoothly. During points where the road looked dicey, I’d put it in 4 wheel. Better safe than sorry.
On the way up there, I was passed by a large number of small coupes traveling at an excessive rate of speed. I was able to count three of them spun out on the side of the road, usually leaning in a ditch with a coolguy yelling into a cellphone outside, walking in circles, freezing his ass off. I chuckled to myself. On the rest of the drive there, I counted 8 additional vehicles on the side, rapidly getting snowed over.
The way home was worse. It was late and snowing harder. I, being prudent, locked it in 4x, and drove that way the entire way home. On that side of the road, I saw 13 abandoned vehicles. One of them had recently lost traction, plowed off the road, and down a little valley. Not a one of the vehicles I saw stranded were SUVs or trucks. I was never passed by an SUV or truck that I recall, and if I had been, it certainly wasn’t at any rate worthy of note.
Moral of the story:
In this case, it seems that the operators of the SUV’s were the more road-conscious.
Universal fact:
fatherjohn is a jackass. It should be his sig. “Hi, I’m fatherjohn. I’m a jackass!”
Well, that was a very “interesting” little story.
It was fortunate that the people whose cars became disabled had cell-phones readily available, don’t you agree?
Anyway, I’m sure I speak for the “group” when I say that you’re much more entertaining when you’re talking about planarian worms, lobotomies, etc.
So bring it on, baby!
Posted by Mr. Cynical
com·pre·hen·sion
Looks like you might have lost him already…
fatherjohn - let’s start fresh. What exactly is your problem with SUVs? You feel that they are unsafe? You feel that the operators of said SUVs are assholes or have a sensitive ass?
Me personally, I don’t like SUVs that much either. They block my view on the road and kick up a lot more mist on rainy days. Plus, for the most part, they suck gas like Monica… nah, old joke. Let’s just say that they are not the most fuel-efficient modes of transportation.
But I am not going to make sweeping generalizations about these vehicles and their owners. SPOOFE et al have correctly pointed out that asshole drivers are the problem, and even you would have to agree that they are not limited to 4x4s.
You feel that they are more prone to roll-overs, and therefore less safe? Well then, that is their problem, not yours (assuming you don’t own an SUV). You have a problem with “low-rider” SUVs (I gathered that from your incessant posting of the same link)? Well, techincally they are lowering the truck’s centre of gravity and therefore decreasing the likelihood of a rollover. Heck, you should go out and start cutting the springs of every Dodge Dakota you see!
So please fatherjohn, summarize for us what your problem is with SUVs, and let’s talk about it. Please don’t post semi-cryptic one line comments about tires and roll overs that you spew out based on a brainwashed LIFO inventory scheme of your memory.
Otherwise, fuck off.
This is Colorado. Denver is pretty much the telecommunications capital of the west. It’s pretty reasonable that most have cell phones here. The cars were nice. It is reasonable to assume that the drivers had enough money to afford the cellular phones. Your assumptions are not only moot, but baseless in fact.
Have you any further nonsense to spew, meathead? You are clearly the product of a squicking gone horribly, horribly wrong.
**
By “the group” to which you claim to belong, do you mean the planarian worms, or the lobotomized? I wouldn’t hazard a guess, but the smart money’s on both at the same time.
Do you have anything useful to say? I’m becoming curious instead of merely appaled by your ignorance.
Are you really so insecure that you need to plug your ears, huddle in a corner, and pretend that all is well in
Ol’ 'John Land?
So you really think that’s ALL that’s being said to you? Are you that stupid?
A better sign of winning an argument is when your opponent refuses to address the issues that are brought up.
So, what authority does that page have to decide what dictates a SUV is “designed for”? Somewhere between “none” and “less-than-none”. And, obviously, you’ve missed the word “satire” on the page’s main section. In other words, you shouldn’t take it seriously, jackass. Your continued impulse TO take it seriously indicates your failing mental capacity.
You are an egocentric dick, aren’t you?
All right. Try this site. It, unlike the tripe that you treat as gospel, has grounds in reality. It points out how an SUV differs in relation to a regular car. Among it’s many gems of wisdom is this: “How you drive is important for your safety and others, no matter what type of vehicle you drive.” Further, the site address many aspects of an SUV, such as height, weight, and 4-wheel drive, and tells how a smart person (e.g.- not you, Ol’ 'John) should alter his driving to suit the SUV.
In other words, it’s an intelligent, rational discourse, as opposed to a ranting, raving, “Oh my God SUV’s are EVIL EVIL EVIL no matter what” hack o’ crap.
In the '70s, the hot vehicle was something called the “personal car”, or sometimes the “personal coupe”.
These gems weighed 4000lbs. and up, were 18 to 20 feet long, had enormous hoods, decent accomodations for two adults in the front seat, no legroom to speak of in the rear, miniscule trunks, and gas mileage similar to that of a Lincoln Navigator, Tahoe, Escalade, Excursion, et al.
The one I had, a Cutlass Supreme Brougham, Olds’ version
of the Monte Carlo/Grand Prix body shell, had horrible winter traction. ( It felt like 3500 of its 4200 lbs. rested on its non-driving front wheels.)
Most of these behemoths carried only one commuter or grocery-shopping suburban housewife, whatever, 95% of the time.
Do I think that monster SUVs represent irresponsible use of precious resources, “wretched excess”, etc.? I most certainly do; however, technology has rendered most of these vehicles eligible for Low Emission Vehicle status,so at least today’s wretched excess is more ecologically sound than last energy crisis’ wretched excess. Indeed, according to both the EPA and the State of California, an Excursion is a cleaner-running vehicle than most tree-huggers’ old GEO
Metros.
By the way,on the subject of hybrid technology, I think it’s a mistake for car companies to put energy conservation features in glorified golf carts that will only be used by their eco-freak owners on days when it’s too cold out to bicycle to work.
This technology belongs in the hands of commercial users,
long-distance commuters, and other heavy users of useful-sized vehicles where it will do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And yes, even in the hands of the paranoid “Don’t feel safe without 3 tons of SUV around
me” crowd this technology is more beneficial than in the hands of the eco-freaks.
I agree that many SUV drivers don’t know the dynamics of driving a tall vehicle. Perhaps there should be a separate tall-vehicles series of written and practical exams required for drivers’ license issuances/renewals.
I, personally, have experienced several tire blowouts while
driving tall vehicles and have never been anywhere close to rolling over. People with no truck experience, reassured by less-than-honest manufacturers’ reassurance that tall vehicles are “carlike” were probably the biggest negative safety factor in the Ford/Firestone fiasco.
The only thing you can be sure of is that the “group” thinks you’re a stone-headed idiot.
Jamming your drool-flavored fingers into your shit-flavored ears and screaming “LA-LA-LA-LA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU! I’M RIGHT! I’M RIGHT! I’M RIGHT! I’M RIGHT!” may have worked for you in 3rd grade, but it sure doesn’t cut any form of mustard here.
Too bad Running Head-long at Full Speed Into A Brick wall isn’t an Olympic event, because you’d be a shoe in for the gold.
The thing is, I’m trying to see where you’re coming from, I really am.
…I just can’t seem to get my head that far up my ass.
Actually, Ford prides itself on knowing that ALL of it’s SUV line qualifies for LEV status. And Honda (not exactly known for their SUV’s) always tries to make their cars as fuel-efficient as possible. I don’t know about Chevy/Toyota/etc.
This is true… an Exursion puts out less pollution per gallon of gas burned than a Metro (and many cars made before the early '90s). Of course, the Excursion does burn more gas.
I agree. If there are different standards for an SUV’s safety standards (among other things), there should be different standards for qualifying to drive an SUV. I mean, don’t you need a certain license classification to be able to drive a motorcycle?
The other day I was driving on Route 17, when I saw the aftermath of a little “chain-reaction” collision. It was 3 or 4 SUV’s in a straight row, end to end, crashed into eachother. Nobody was hurt, but there was little broken car parts everywhere.
I think the way these accidents happen is that a whole line of cars are traveling too close, and the guy in front stops short for whatever reason.
Are SUV’s the only cars that “tailgate”? No.
But, in my experience, there is a relationship between driving one of these cars and tailgating people. Why is that? Well, a certain percentage of people are macho assholes – those people are attracted to SUV’s because it lets them bully other drivers.
Anyway, I had to chuckle at that accident, because it shows, to paraphrase obi wan kenobi, “there’s always a bigger fish”
In my experience, everyone follows the car ahead of him too close. But the ones who tailgate and whip around into the smallest possible opening and then put on their brakes in front of the car they just passed are drivers of coupés and sedans. Where I drive these are mostly Hondas, Mercedes, Toyotas and Lexuses. Yes, I’ve seen SUV drivers do it too; but mostly it’s the smaller cars. Know what happens when someone passes another car and then brakes? The car passed has to brake. And the car behind him. Sometimes there is a crash. One thing about sitting (relatively) high up in an SUV: You can see that irresponsible maneuvering is futile.
Interesting comment, and a subject that is near and dear to me. I absolutely agree; getting an X% boost in fuel economy does a lot more good when applied to an SUV than when applied to, say, a Geo Metro. You might be interested to know that Ford agrees with both of us, as does General Motors and DaimlerChrysler. All three are quietly planning to take hybrid SUVs to production, probably using technology developed jointly as a part of USCAR.
(Bolding mine – Sauron.)
What?! You mean there was a multi-vehicle accident involving SUVs, resulting in damage to each vehicle, and NO ONE WAS HURT?
Gosh … maybe, just maybe, the folks who are talking about SUVs being safer than regular cars know whereof they speak. Or, heck, maybe they actually READ the stats on the IIHS site so thoughtfully provided earlier, which provide a statistical correlation for the safer-than-cars argument.
Thank you for providing an illustration that proves one of the points in the discussion.
Now, let’s see, what else are we debating, here:
Low-rider SUVs look silly. You seem to be the only person trying to argue this; why, I’m not sure. I haven’t seen anyone refute you on this. In my opinion, ALL low-rider vehicles look silly. What, exactly, are you trying to prove with that site, again?
SUV drivers are assholes. I haven’t seen statistical proof of this in any post. However, I will say this: if you, fatherjohn, personally drive an SUV, I will concede this point. Unfortunately, I will also concede this point for any make of car, as long as you’re the one driving it. I will cheerfully brand all drivers of the same car you use as assholes. I am in awe of your assholishness.
SUVs kill people. Yup. Sure do. So do all other makes of vehicles on the road today.
Remind me again what your position in this argument is.
On the previous page, SPOOFE said that Bantam, which designed the jeep, did not get the contract to build jeeps during WWII. I posted that it was Willys that lost out.
I was wrong. I didn’t dig out my reference, but I did pick up a new one. After reading the history, I realized that I remembered wrong. Bantam did indeed lose out on the army contract because the army thought that they would not have the capacity to build the 1/4-ton trucks. Willys (correct pronunciation, BTW, is “willis”) and Ford built the jeeps in WWII. Willys built the MB and Ford built the GPW (GP means “General car” and W means “Willys pattern”). Bantam’s consolation prize was a contract to build trailers.
I fully admit my ignorance of the history when I made that post. A tip of the hat to SPOOFE.
Aw, don’t worry, Johnny. My reference book has maybe half a dozen names being thrown about when telling the tale of the Jeep’s design, and it’s easy to get one crossed with the other.
You…
Just…
Don’t…
Get it, do you?
This is what is known as a “hasty generalization”. You’ve tried this once before, and it was pointed out to you to be baseless. I’ll say it again, just because you’ve been amusing…
“THERE ARE EQUAL NUMBERS OF ASSHOLES IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE.” There are just as many “macho assholes” driving around in Mustangs and 'Vettes because speedy muscle-cars let them “bully” other drivers. There are just as many “stubborn assholes” driving around in Civics who think that since they’re “saving the planet” in a SULEV, they can get away with the rules of the road. Then there are all the self-centered braindead teeny-bopper 16-year-olds who just got their first car from daddy who wouldn’t know a red light from a yellow if it bit them in the ass. And, oh, let’s not forget the dreaded Soccer Moms…!
Just because the assholes in SUV’s are more noticeable (as SUV’s are more noticeable), that has nothing to do with all SUV drivers being assholes!
Oy…
“[T]he most aggressive drivers by their own admission, are men who drive sports cars and SUVs.”
Source:
http://www.aloha.net/~dyc/surveys/survey2/interpretations.html
From the same site:
“Men who drive sports cars and light trucks (S-10, Pick-up, Ram, Ranger, F-150, Silverado, Dakota, etc.) have the most aggressive self-image.”
See, fatherjohn, it’s not that you’re wrong to complain about drivers; you’re just complaining about the drivers of the wrong vehicles.
You DID take a close look at the survey results on that page, right? You noted the standard error rate of .28 for male drivers of utility vehicles, and the .26 standard error rate for male drivers of trucks, and the .23 standard error rate for male drivers of sports cars. Given the way the scores fall for each of those categories, the standard error rate creates a statistical dead heat. In other words, it’s possible that any of the men in each of those categories could be considered the most aggressive drivers. Heck, it’s also possible that male van drivers, or female drivers of either sports cars or trucks, could also be statistically the most aggressive drivers.
I’m still at a loss to understand why you’re castigating the drivers of SUVs, when your own cites show that sports cars (or possibly trucks or vans) should be the object of your vitriol.
In addition, the site he linked to makes this as one of the conclusions…
Bolding mine.
And keep in mind that a lot of this, as far as I can tell, is based on how drivers describe themselves. In other words, they’re asked “How would you describe your driving style?” Hardly scientific.
Then again, it leads to the indication that people who are more aggressive drivers take pride in being aggressive, and buy a car that matches their disposition. SUV’s, being big, strong, and noticeable, would satisfy this aggressive disposition, once again, lending to the notion that it’s the DRIVER you should be raving against, not the car.
How hard is it to understand that cars aren’t sentient beings?
“But, in my experience, there is a relationship between driving one of these cars and tailgating people. Why is that? Well, a certain percentage of people are macho assholes – those people are attracted to SUV’s because it lets them bully other drivers.”
And here’s another quote:
“Those that drive family & economy cars tailgate less than those who drive sportscars and SUVs by a ratio of 2 to 1.”