# Silly Useless Vehicles **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 18, 2001, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025 "2001-02-18T23:31:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![mouthbreather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a698b9/32.png) [@mouthbreather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mouthbreather)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2001, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/121 "2001-03-04T16:39:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > \*\* > [hijack] > On a totally unrelated matter, I think we were told that we should refrain from calling people “trolls”. The mods would prefer to be notified of trollish behaviour by e-mail so that they can deal with the person privately. Therefore, I am refraining from calling anyone a troll, and I want you all to know that. > [/hijack] > \*\* Very good point here. [sub]It would be against the wishes of the administrators for me to say that[/sub] **FATHERJOHN IS A TROLL** [sub]so I won’t do that.[/sub] His only cite is a piece of shit satire website (which I suspect he runs, see **Johnny LA’s** list point A, above.) He just repeats himself. Until warned by the mods, he went baiting people with his cretinesque quote “self rightous blather deleted” /quote nonsense. We went through all of this before. Then 16 days passes and he startes a thread EXACTLY LIKE THE LAST ONE. Since I didn’t call him a troll, I guess my point is this: Do Not Feed The Fatherjohn. This will be my last post in any of fatherjohn’s SUV threads ad I’m quite sure he’s going to come back with some horseshit such as “Yeah, you couldn’t defeat me in debate, now you’re going to ignore me”. So, I say in advance: " :rolleyes: " ---
**Author:** ![fatherjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b2d939/32.png) [@fatherjohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fatherjohn)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2001, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/122 "2001-03-04T19:16:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > \*\* > > In other words, a Suburban requires 30% more braking room than a Porsceh Boxster. A Suburban is also MORE than 30% larger than a Boxster. Seems like the Suburban has better braking systems. > > \*\* “With the exception of the Toyota 4Runner’s respectable showing, there is no overlap between the required stopping distances for the cars and those for the SUVs. Something besides weight is causing the SUVs to have consistently poorer braking capabilities. And although the difference might appear small, on average the SUV group required 10% more stopping distance than the car group. This is a significant amount . . . .” Source: [http://www.net-monster.com/blather\_suvs\_part1.html](http://www.net-monster.com/blather_suvs_part1.html) ---
**Author:** ![fatherjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b2d939/32.png) [@fatherjohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fatherjohn)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2001, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/123 "2001-03-04T19:57:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mouthbreather \* > \*\* > > His only cite is a piece of shit satire website \*\* Sources used in this thread by **fatherjohn** (besides [http://poseur.4x4.org](http://poseur.4x4.org)): [http://riceboypage.com/what\_is\_riceboy/](http://riceboypage.com/what_is_riceboy/) [http://shell.rmi.net/~mhartwig/falla.htm](http://shell.rmi.net/~mhartwig/falla.htm) [http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0362740.html](http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0362740.html) [http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0596526.html](http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0596526.html) [http://www.net-monster.com/blather\_suvs\_part1.html](http://www.net-monster.com/blather_suvs_part1.html) * * * Sorry to “spoil your parade.” ---
**Author:** ![fatherjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b2d939/32.png) [@fatherjohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fatherjohn)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2001, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/124 "2001-03-04T20:03:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mouthbreather \* > \*\* > > His only cite is a piece of shit satire website \*\* By the by, I assume you are referring to “[http://poseur.4x4.org](http://poseur.4x4.org)” If you study it carefully, you will find it most informative. ---
**Author:** ![fatherjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b2d939/32.png) [@fatherjohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fatherjohn)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2001, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/125 "2001-03-04T22:51:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > > > [@](#): > > > > “According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), ‘In **single vehicle crashes** , heavy vehicles with stiff frames (most SUVs) might actually do more to harm the vehicle’s occupants because there is little give, or energy absorption engineering, to dissipate the force of running into an **immovable object.** ’” > > First off, I’d like to point out that “little give” is desired when you’ve got 3000 pounds of metal coming at you. If there was a LOT of give, the impact wouldn’t jar the occupants so much… but the \*\*car that hit them \*\*would smash them to pieces. Sort of a deceptive quote, Ol’ John… bravo. (emphasis mine) :rolleyes: Hello McFly! :putz!: ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/126 "2001-03-05T02:04:25Z")
Uh… you can’t read, can you? Lots of “give”: Bad for the occupants, as they will be crushed. Little “give”: Good for the occupants, as they will NOT be crushed. What’s worse in an accident, Ol’ John… getting shaken up and maybe a little whiplash… or having your legs, hips, arms, and spine shattered? Your original point was that “SUV’s are bad since they don’t have a lot of ‘give’”. That’s been debunked. To quote someone who seems to know a lot about stupidity… > [@](#): > > Hello McFly! ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/127 "2001-03-05T10:11:43Z")
We have two things here, SPOOFE. There’s the side impact, where you _don’t_ want the car to give in. After all, you’re sitting right next to the door. You want thick door beams and lotsa side airbags. Then there’s the frontal impact, where you _do_ want the car to give in and “fold up”. If the car remains fully rigid (say, a Sherman tank), it’s **you** who’s the crunch zone. You want the bonnet or the boot to “fold up” a bit so as to absorb part of the impact. Maybe this is a thing that SUV’s don’t do that well. Then again, with a weight of over 2 metric tons, I wouldn’t worry too much about crunch zones either. 😉 **fatherjohn** : you’re still not making any sense. There is nothing to debate, no one to convince here. Liking or not liking SUVs is a matter of opinion. I dislike them too, for many reasons that are completely insubstantial to someone chosing to buy one. Why would I want to TRY to convince them otherwise? And Johnny LA is 100% correct: the so-called “cites” you come up with are beyond pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/128 "2001-03-05T11:45:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Then there’s the frontal impact, where you do want the car to give in and “fold up”… Then again, with a weight of over 2 metric tons, I wouldn’t worry too much about crunch zones either. I should have simply said “Too much give = bad”. Crumple zones exist not only to just dissipate impact energy, but to dissipate the energy in a controlled manner, usually away from or around the driver (get hit on the front, and the car smashes OUT, not IN). This is most necessary in smaller cars, where there is less mass 'tween the point of impact and the driver. In your average SUV, there’s a big fat heaping chunk o’ mass ‘tween the point of impact and the driver. If there was too much give in the frame, this big fat heaping chunk o’ mass would be what kills the driver (by smashing them to pieces, as I’ve said), rather than the “jarring” or whiplash. In addition, one would think a sturdier frame would be more helpful in a rollover… so I guess Ol’ John gets it either way. Either SUV’s are evil since they’re too sturdy and can hurt the driver with too much shaking, or they’re evil since they cave in if they flip over. In either case, Ol’ John still can’t address the points presented to him. Note that he ignores the cites I provided him, the quotes I provided, and the analysis, and chooses instead to pick a nit. ---
**Author:** ![fatherjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b2d939/32.png) [@fatherjohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fatherjohn)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/129 "2001-03-05T13:13:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > \*\* > Lots of “give”: Bad for the occupants, as they will be crushed. > > \*\* It boggles the mind how anyone could think it’s better to run into a tree (or barrier) in a stiff-framed SUV than in a modern car with “crumple-zones,” etc. But look, if you want to believe that, I’m sure Darwin won’t mind. ---
**Author:** ![fatherjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b2d939/32.png) [@fatherjohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fatherjohn)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/130 "2001-03-05T13:32:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Coldfire \* > \*\* the so-called “cites” you come up with are beyond pathetic. \*\* I’m sure the folks at [http://www.infoplease.com](http://www.infoplease.com) will be happy to hear that. Anyway, it’s funny how _after_ **fatherjohn** uses the “poseur” cite to demolish certain peoples’ arguments, all they can do is splutter that it’s a SATIRE cite. “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!” Source: [http://poseur.4x4.org/](http://poseur.4x4.org/) That pretty much says it all. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/131 "2001-03-05T13:58:18Z")
John, I’ve been reading the thread. So far I haven’t felt the need to respond, until now. 1. A Satire site is not adequate for providing factual data. for example, [http://www.mchawking.com](http://www.mchawking.com) is a satire site, and I’m pretty sure Steven H. never released “A brief History of Rhyme”. 2. I have yet to see you “destroy” anyones arguement. continue. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/132 "2001-03-05T14:13:19Z")
You used [http://www.infoplease.com](http://www.infoplease.com) as a source to define two terms: caricature and poseur. In the same vein, you used the [shell.rmi.net](http://shell.rmi.net) site to define debating terms. That doesn’t help your argument about SUVs; that just defines those terms. I could claim that I’ve produced a controlled nuclear reaction in my navel, and by way of proof provide the definition of “fission” from the Oxford English Dictionary, but that wouldn’t make my claim true. Look: You’ve got information from the IIHS, the NHTSA and at least one consumer buying guide on one side, and you’ve got two satire sites ([poseur.com](http://poseur.com) and [net-monster.com/blather\_suvs](http://net-monster.com/blather_suvs)) on the other side. Are you honestly saying these two opposing sets of data are even remotely comparable? When you’re purchasing a vehicle, and you want good, accurate information, do you do more research on the NHTSA site or the poseur site? ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/133 "2001-03-05T14:38:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sauron \* > **I could claim that I’ve produced a controlled nuclear reaction in my navel** Dude, you do that too? Feels good, doesn’t it? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/134 "2001-03-05T14:49:20Z")
FatherJohn claims SUV’s suck, but has not substantiated that point by referencing any valuable data on that front. First, I would expect him to define “suck”. ‘Sucks’ seems to have a several meanings to him and he has some weird arguements at work: :)1. They suck because people drive them to look Macho. Even if true, how does that make these vehicles suck? :)2. Additionally, he claims that SUVs “SCREAM” Suburban family vehicle, which contradicts his macho point, which is unrelated to proving they suck anyway. :)3. He claims SUVs’ can do more than minivans. :)4. He claims most people could do fine with a minivan. Again, how does this help his arguement that they suck? :)5. He uses a satirical site to prove they suck. He uses other sites, but not in support of his arguement. :)6. He claims SUVs are rigid, and I suppose rigid to a point that could lead passengers to be the energy absorbers in an accident. We’re still waiting to see this sweeping statement substantiated by some test data. Seatbelts and SRS help in this regard. I know of no data that can show SUVs are more dangerous to their occupants in general versus the rest of the passenger car groups. I must say, he just doesn’t “get it”. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/135 "2001-03-05T14:57:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Coldfire \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Sauron \* > > **I could claim that I’ve produced a controlled nuclear reaction in my navel** > > Dude, you do that too? Feels good, doesn’t it? 😉 \*\* Of course. ALL the cool people do it. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![fatherjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b2d939/32.png) [@fatherjohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fatherjohn)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/136 "2001-03-05T21:24:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Philster \* > \*\* > First, I would expect him to define “suck”. > > \*\* ok, I guess I’ll “take the bait.” Suck: Slang.to be repellent or disgusting: Poverty sucks. Source: [http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0678215.html](http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0678215.html) SUV’s are repellent or disgusting. Have a nice day! :wally ---
**Author:** ![fatherjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b2d939/32.png) [@fatherjohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fatherjohn)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/137 "2001-03-05T21:45:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > \*\*A Satire site is not adequate for providing factual data. > > \*\* Some sources for factual data on [http://poseur.4x4.org](http://poseur.4x4.org): Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (see [http://poseur.4x4.org/chart.html](http://poseur.4x4.org/chart.html)); Edmunds Car and Truck Guide (see [http://poseur.4x4.org/reasons2.html#Safe](http://poseur.4x4.org/reasons2.html#Safe)); National Highway Safety and Traffic Association (see [http://poseur.4x4.org/reasons2.html#Safe](http://poseur.4x4.org/reasons2.html#Safe)). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > \*\* > > I have yet to see you “destroy” anyones arguement. > > \*\* Umm, I think you just did 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2001, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/138 "2001-03-05T23:11:08Z")
I’m going to assume, fatherjohn, that you’re not intentionally being disingenuous. I’m probably being overly generous, here, but I’m going to operate under that assumption. You did notice, I assume, that the statistics quoted on that poseur site include sedans up to 1999, but the SUV info only goes up to 1998. Gosh, that wouldn’t skew the results any, would it? Go straight to the source rather than through somebody’s interpretation of the facts. On the IIHS site, there’s a wonderful graph of deaths per million passenger vehicles, 1-3 years old, as of 1999. It CLEARLY shows that SUVs are the safest class of vehicles for passengers. Look here: [http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle\_ratings/sfsc.htm](http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/sfsc.htm). Here’s the direct quote from the IIHS site, so you understand: “All else being equal, you’re safer traveling in a passenger vehicle that’s larger and heavier than in one that’s smaller and lighter.” Or here’s another quote for you, specific to the type of crash tests that the IIHS runs: “The kinetic energy a vehicle must absorb in a crash test increases with vehicle weight, so barrier tests are more demanding of heavier vehicles. But people in heavier vehicles in real-world, 2-vehicle crashes typically fare better than people in lighter vehicles.” Or better yet, here’s one last quote, again from the IIHS site: “…test results shouldn’t be compared among vehicles with large weight differences.” Since the sedans in question generally weigh 1,000 to 1,500 pounds less than the SUVs, the comparison put forth on the poseur site is operating under a faulty assumption to begin with – an assumption that is CLEARLY stressed on each and every IIHS page with crash-test results. As I said, I’m going under the assumption that you’re not trying to trick people by intentionally providing false data. I’d prefer thinking that you view the poseur site as the end-all, be-all place for SUV statistics. I hope this little exercise has shown you that they’re wrong, and that you’ll shift your viewpoint somewhat. ---
**Author:** ![fatherjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b2d939/32.png) [@fatherjohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fatherjohn)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/139 "2001-03-06T00:07:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sauron \* > \*\*I’m going to assume, fatherjohn, that you’re not intentionally being disingenuous. > > . . . > > But people in heavier vehicles in real-world, 2-vehicle crashes typically fare better than people in lighter vehicles." > > . . . > > \*\* “According to IIHS statistics, the only time an SUV will come out ahead in an accident is if it collides with a smaller vehicle. Even then, the only advantages you get with an SUV are at the expense of those driving smaller cars, which are designed to absorb impacts.” Source: [http://poseur.4x4.org/reasons2.html#Safe](http://poseur.4x4.org/reasons2.html#Safe) Disingenuous? Take a look in your mirror (assuming some SUV asshole isn’t blinding you with his ‘fog lamps’) ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025/140 "2001-03-06T00:38:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by fatherjohn \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Philster \* > > \*\* > > First, I would expect him to define “suck”. > > > > \*\* > > ok, I guess I’ll “take the bait.” > > Suck: Slang.to be repellent or disgusting: Poverty sucks. > > Source: [http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0678215.html](http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0678215.html) > > SUV’s are repellent or disgusting. > > Have a nice day! > > :wally > \*\* Holy crap, FatherJohn, we are not talking about defining SUCK as in the dictionary!!! We are talking about defining SUCKS in terms of what defines an SUV as sucking!!! Oh my God, you have to be kidding! I asked you to define suck and you went to the dictionary! DUH! When someone asks you to define your definition, the burden is on you to define the things that make the vehicle in question “suck”. So far, you have SOME crash data, but your whole premise was originally built on the people not the vehicle. You are all over the place! What is your arguement, what substantiates it? Now your arguement is coming around to something which is: SUVs suck because of longer braking distances than some other vehicles. Feel free to elaborate. If I say fatherjohn is an an idiot, and someone wants me to define my definition of what makes you an idiot, I would not go to the dicitionary!!! I would have to (easily) point out that I define an idiot as a person who can’t make a complete arguement, then I would point out numerous examples throughout this thread of your uncanny ability to never make a good arguement. I can’t believe I have to explain this! AHHHH! You are dangerous because you don’t know how much you don’t know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/silly-useless-vehicles/55025.md?page=8)