Pilot141: Ok, a Cadillac. When can I expect my check? After all, if it’s an old car, I’ll have to pay for all the repairs, and I’m just a girl, and cars confuse me. 
And TaxGuy: Jonathan Swift! My life should not be worth less just because I can’t afford to drive a tank.
Color me cut to the quip. That was quite the devastating argument.
Let me put it another way: You love your wife, and want to shield her from harm. That is commendable. That is noble.
But why are you willing to make her safe at the cost of the safety of others? On what planet is that not selfish?
Can’t we all just get along? 
You know, I always wondered what the argument for SUVs would be… I’m still wondering.
Taximan, you bought your wife an Xterra?
Funny, all of this talk about safety for her too… Did you do your homework? It has one of the lowest rollover rates of all SUVs (meaning that it is even less safe than most SUVs):
(keep in mind that the turning of corners is not always responsible for a rollover - attempting to avoid a collision, tire blow-out at highway speed or a collision from the side will do just as well)
sorry to interrupt your debate…
dakravel: That article holds no sway with me because it talks about SUVs in “combined risk” terms. I’ve already said a million times that I don’t really give a shit about other people if my wife is safer in an SUV (which I’m not saying is the case; I’m going to attempt to satisfy myself on this point later, as I’ve said).
tdn: I’ve never said it’s not selfish. In fact, I’ve admitted that I am selfish. I am willing to make my wife safe at the cost of the safety of others because I love my wife more than I love complete strangers. The death of my wife would hurt me more than the death of a complete stranger. I find nothing wrong with this position, so you saying “you’re being selfish!!” is really no skin off my ass.
Hey dinoboy, where are the stats in your link? There’s a ton of links on that page, and I’m not sure which one takes me to the SUV rollover rates…
I hear ya. So here’s the next question – should the rest of the world accept more danger to themselves because you love your wife? Or is it more of an “Every man for himself” type situation, where everyone can rachet up the danger level in the name of self-preservation?
I have come to the realization that I am an evil, evil man. I own not 1, but 2 SUVs. Both are used as daily drivers. I drive the 1971 Ford Bronco, and my g/f drives the 2000 Mitsubishi Montero Sport. While she doesn’t really need the Montero, and is thinking about selling it and getting something smaller and much much faster, we do use it quite often. Why just yesterday we used it’s cavernous interior to haul a load of clubbed baby seals! Haha, look humor! Actually we used it to haul a trailer full of home renovation supplies. And we haul 2 motorcycles to the track at least once a month. And we take our 80lb Weim and at least one other large (80 lb+) dog to the park one or twice a week. But it could be replaced by something in the crossover/station wagon segment. But it isn’t the real evil. Oh no. At 16-18 mpg it is far too economical for that. No, the real evil comes from my daily driver. The 5000+ lb 1971 Ford Bronco. Lifted. With big evil tires. And a huge 351 Winsor. 10mpg if I drive conservativly. Seats 2. Aerodynamics of a sheet of 4x8 plywood tied to a brick. 4 wheel drum brakes. But I use it. I haul crap too big to fit in the Montero. I use it to haul the bikes around. I use it to haul people out of floods and mud. I use it to access climbing areas. The dog loves it. It’s just 1 big window to him. And the gas mileage stays the same wether it’s just me tooling around town or hauling a trailer with 3000 lbs of motorcycle equipment. Yes, I could get by about 1/2 the time with a smaller car. But then I’d need the Bronco and a Civic. Anyone want to give me $10k? But I know how to drive it. I know it doesn’t stop for shit. So I allow extra distance on the road. And I always keep a careful eye on the traffic around me. Comes from riding motorcycles in Houston. But I’m not going speeding weaving through traffic. With no power steering and a top speed of MAYBE 80 (if I push it) that’s kind of hard to do. But I actually have a smaller footprint that most passenger cars. It may be on par with a Civic, but I think it may be shorter. Show me a vehicle that will do everything I need and I’ll gladly trade it. Actually I’m looking into selling the Bronco and getting a Ford 250 4x4 4 door Diesel. The gas mileage will be better, and I’ll be able to tow the 8x15 enclosed trailer I have my eye on with greater ease.
So what is the point of all this typing? Well, some of use actually need our SUVs. So blanket “All SUVs are evil” statements aren’t true. And I can’t possably imagine how I could possably be inconveniencing you on the road or in the parking lot. Hell, if you are in a Miata you can just park under me :). I’m narrower than most cars you can see around me in traffic.
Yes, there are many people who drive SUVs who don’t really need them. So to the people who use that as a complaint I say:
Do us all a favor and throw out your TV, computer, and all your clothes except for 1 pair of nice shoes, 1 pair of casual shoes and 8 sets of clothes. Then come back and bitch.
Some SUV drivers are bad drivers. So are some sedan drivers. And convertable drivers. I just think that people who are anti-SUV will be inclined to see and remember the bad SUV drivers more than they will see and remember the bad sedan drivers.
You’re making the assumption that folks who choose SUVs do to vanity means that they are being “jerkish”.
Now I’m NOT defending SUVs, again, I think they’re ugly, fairly useless vehicles (yeah yeah you can carry stuff in 'em, like I said, to me? Pick up trucks or actual cargo type vehicles work better).
At any rate, to say that because someone has chosen a vehicle strictly due to the fact that they enjoy what owning that vehicle does for them regarding making them feel good about where they are in life, or just that they plain old (for some inexplicably imbued with bad taste reason :D), LIKE the looks of the hideous things, is to say that anyone, choosing ANYTHING for his/her pleasure or what it does for them, is being “jerkish”.
Joe flew to Las Vegas because he “could” afford it and thought it’d be cool? Oh, what a jerk, what a status slut!!
Janie and Bob put their unborn baby on the waiting list of the “in” preschool"?? Selfish attention seekers!!!
That a person decided at some point, “you know?? I’ve worked damn hard, and this new Frod Escalator” is the up and coming thing, it would be so cool to own one, I’ve always wanted something like this" suddenly means that person is “jerkish”???
Well then hell, every blasted person IN this country has been “jerkish” because ALL of us, at some point, and in some way do something for ourselves that isn’t “necessary” or strictly utilitarian and might even be a little bit so that we can say “all my hard work paid off”.
You ever bought the “good” imported beer, even if you didn’t know what it tasted like, just because??
Ever buy an article of clothing that was “trendy”?
If a person in this country has ever spent their entire life never ever giving in, even a single time at least some small form of “look at me, I’ve arrived” then they’re a saint, and well, we’re just not worthy.
For the rest of us mortals, wow, what a crime against humanity we’re committing. (fighting against using rollie).
TaxGuy, I’m interested in seeing what info you come up with on the relative safety of SUVs. I don’t think you’ll find anything substantially different than the “safer in an accident with a car, but rolls over more” information we’ve got, but I’ll always look at another set of data.
I, being a scientist at heart, rely on data. If the data says safer, I’ll believe it, as long as the method is statistally sound.
Interesting rant with good points.
But, this is really a “chicken/egg” scenario here. I’d wager that those SUV drivers who behave in this fashion were already morons as drivers.
So, basically (imho) what you’ve got are drivers who were ALREADY going to be irresponsible, cell phone yakkin’, tailgatin’ morons, but now they’re much more visible thanks to the much maligned SUV that they’re driving.
So, all the rabid SUV haters can point to those folks as examples and scream “seEEEE??? They’re evil, SUVs are bad”.
Did the SUV itself create a “bad” driver? In other words, are there scores of perfectly nice, responsible, polite drivers out there, and then one day they buy an SUV and the first day they drive it to work, they turn over the key and hear:
“Dave…what are you doing??..Dave?..you have to drive fast …Dave…forget who you were before…Dave”
Is THAT how it happens?
Come on!! If the driver is acting this way in an SUV, he was acting this way in his rice rocket, or his 30 year old Camero classic, or his/her rusting pick up.
In my experience, idiots who smash into small cars, tend to total those small cars regardless of what other type of vehicle they’re driving.
Two small cars smashing into each other can total each car and kill folks just as easily as a big car hitting a small car.
I saw a horrible head-on accident this summer. One vehicle was southbound to Anchorage, one NB to Fairbanks on the “Parks”.
The SB vehicle was a medium sized sedan, newer, so not that big. The engine compartment had been pushed back at least halfway into the interior of the vehicle. We suspected that, based on the condition of the car, that any front seat occupants probably didn’t make it.
The impact vehicle? A Harley. He hit directly in the center of the front grill. (no sign of him anywhere on the roadway, and we passed by probably only a few minutes after the accident). So, being the bigger vehicle doesn’t necessarily mean you’re safer.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2003MidS.html
And compare the mid-sized car data to the SUV data given by dino. You’ll find Hondas and Fords perform superbly.
And a few other links I picked up…
http://info.insure.com/auto/safecars/2002models.html
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/auto/20010925c.asp
http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releases/2003/pr092103.htm
Canvas, the thing is, the choice of buying an SUV isn’t one that only affects the buyer. It affects others in that it puts them in danger when otherwise they would not.
Ah, also, this link.
http://info.insure.com/auto/carcrash/carcrash.cfm
More useful than the other ones I posted.
And Canvas, technically, having an SUV could make you a worse driver. I’m sure most people who drive SUVs are used to driving smaller cars, and so their gut reactions with an SUV would be the same as with smaller cars, that is to say their gut reactions would mostly be wrong. SUVs have a smaller turning radius, are more top-heavy, have a way longer braking distance, and in general are harder to control. So quite possibly, many accidents that involve SUVs could have been prevented had the SUV been a smaller car instead, and been able to swerve out of the way without tipping over, or been able to brake in time, or whatever.
For the record, I never made that statement. And IIRC, neither did anyone else in this thread (I could be wrong).
What I really want is not a ban on SUVs or arrests of everyone caught driving them, but a bit of legislation to discourage their use and make them safer. Here’s what I propose:
-SUVs are to become a distinct class of vehicle, neither car nor truck.
-A special operators license is needed to drive one. This would require some special driver’s ed.
-They must meet emission control standards.
-They must be made “crash compatible” with sedans.
-All vehicles must have headlights that meet a certain standard of brightness (i.e. no halogen “Dagger of the Mind” lamps).
-There will be a limit on width of all vehicles.
Or something like that. Really, couldn’t we all live with that?
The alternative is that we force everyone to buy the same type of car. So, yes, some people have more privileges than others. Welcome to reality. It’s kind of a harsh place, so I suggest you get used to it.
Excellent example of black and white thinking. No, that is not the only alternative. How about the alternative that we create and enforce some safety standards?
If SUVs were held to the all the same standards (MPG, Emissions, Crash Tests, et al.) as other vehicles that are used primarily as commuters, most of their environmentalist enemies would go away (or be idiots). And since that would make them more expensive and force them to downsize their weight at the very least, would likely decrease the number of people interested in purchasing them. Most of the problems, besides that of assholes in bigger or flashier vehicles being more noticible than assholes in discreet ones, would go away.
And as someone who can read a book by starlight and requires sunglasses to walk outside on a cloudy day, I wish hallogen lights and the like were banned period. But I don’t count on that happening.
And they all lived happily ever after.
They fit in a class with other light trucks. There is nothing sufficiently distinct about them based on design.**
Then you must be in favor of special courses for pickup and minivan drivers, as well as sports cars and certain other high-powered or unusual vehicles that are different from standard passenger sedans. Rather unwieldy and unnecessary in my opinion.**
They already do. Do you mean revising existing standards?**
Already taking place, i.e. with regard to bumper height. **
I’m unaware that the problem of excessively bright headlamps is confined to SUVs - I notice it on all kinds of vehicles. This is a separate issue.**
Maybe a roominess tax? If the vehicle conforms to road/lane size that should be good enough. Besides, mandating improved mileage standards for all sorts of vehicles will help take care of the size issue.**
We love you, Rodney. 
Abso-fucking-lutely not. Around here most people drive like assholes. Little car assholes, luxuxry car assholes, SUV assholes, Ricer assholes…Etc, Etc, Ad infinitum.
-SUVs are to become a distinct class of vehicle, neither car nor truck.
As long as there aren’t any bogus taxes or fees attached to it, fine. Since I’m sure that’s your intent with this idea-blow. If I am incorrect(what other purpose would it serve?), My apologies for telling you to blow.
-A special operators license is needed to drive one. This would require some special driver’s ed.
As long as people in econocrap cars, luxury cars, sportscars, and ricer cars all have to go through respective "training classes, sure. There aren’t any “special” details or knowledge required to drive a SUV that there wouldn’t be to drive every one of those cars I mentioned above. Otherwise blow.
-They must meet emission control standards.
We all want that. Well, most of us do. However I refuse to try and tow or haul with something with an “ultra-efficient” 1.2L 4 cylinder engine. It doesn’t make sense.
-They must be made “crash compatible” with sedans.
Yet again, not something we all don’t want anyways, but if you insist on making the SUVs conform, you must also make every other single class of cars conform. Pickups, vans, other passenger vehicles which don’t conform.
-All vehicles must have headlights that meet a certain standard of brightness (i.e. no halogen “Dagger of the Mind” lamps).
I see more passenger vehicles and luxury vehicles on the road with ultra-bright lights. Also, unless the SUV has been lifted or had an aftermarket light system installed, the lights are all aimed where they belong from the factory. If some jerk has lifted his vehicle and not repositioned the lights, he deserves the fix-it ticket.
AFAIK, every single state has laws regarding the brightness of lights. It is not enforced and most car manufacturers who are making vehicles with HID(High-intensity discharge) light options are the biggest offenders.
-There will be a limit on width of all vehicles.
Yes there should be.
See, the problem with your post, your ideas, and your complaints are that they are the most unfair generalizations I’ve seen yet. See the above for my reasoning.
Sam