# SUV haters **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 20, 2002, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675 "2002-08-20T00:58:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/201 "2002-08-24T06:47:10Z")
**Cranky** , my point was I don’t understand why there has been four pages of blather. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/202 "2002-08-24T10:23:33Z")
I give an example of a typical car / SUV disparity from 60-0 as being “dozens of feet.” I note the difference between a near miss and passanger compartment intrusion. Then you come along and cite a stopping disparity of 11 feet (from 60, rising dramatically as speeds go up, if you know anything about cars) and say “so the problem is?” Your causing another person’s death is the problem. I forgot, other drivers are expendible, collateral damage if you will. Now for the panel of experts: > [@](#): > > I DON’T TAILGATE. OK, GREAT. NOW EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK ALL ACCIDENTS ARE REAR END COLLISIONS. **coosa** comes in here all high and mighty with her driving lectures. Hello, you put someone in _intensive fucking care_ on page one of this thread. Crap, if I had time to say “oh, fuck” there is no way I am hitting anybody. Of course, I can drive. I’ve never been involved in an accident with injuries after over 300,000 miles of city driving. “logging roads” If your SUV even touches a non paved surface that puts you outside the norm. I’m not against SUVs. I am against the moronic arguments (safety) people have raised to defend them. SUVs have mediocre occupant protection stats. by the way. Yes, when they plow into the sides of economy cars the results can be spectacular - what a wonderful selling point. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/203 "2002-08-24T11:23:14Z")
**Beeblebrox** : 1. visibility issues 2. safety issues Saving-the-planet issues have only come up in rebuttal of **Scylla** ’s claim that SUVs are as environmentally friendly as regular cars. But that doesn’t seem to figure in much in _this group_ of posters’ complaints about SUVs. For me, personally, the answer is visibility. If they weren’t blocking my view of the road ahead so frequently, I wouldn’t have a beef with them. End of story. **coosa** : > [@](#): > > However, I’m going to start with one of the things that is pissing me off the most - the “But I can’t see around them” whiners. > > I’ve got news for you - you don’t need to see around, over, or through them. “Watch the cars 3 or 4 places ahead of you” isn’t a fucking commandment, it’s a suggestion meant to make you a safer driver, and automatically carries the silent caveat of “when possible”. I think I saw someone one else make one of my points, that, depending on where you do most of your driving, you can’t do that all, or even most, of the time anyway - for reasons that have nothing to do with SUVs. Someone else did make that point about some unnamed stretch of I-95. Surprise: whatever stretch of I-95 s/he was referring to, the posters in this thread spend very little time on it, apparently. And I don’t really care that there’s no law requiring me to see what’s happening 3-4 cars ahead of me. _I want do it because it is safer to do so._ Flip this around for a second: **Scylla** drives an SUV, not out of any legal requirement, but because it’s safer. By the same logic that it’s OK for people to take my ability to see ahead without asking, is it OK for us folks who dislike SUVs to take away his freedom to buy an SUV without asking? > [@](#): > > If you’re having a hard time understanding this, try applying a little **common sense** - if seeing past the vehicle in front of you was vitally important to your road safety, we would have passed laws years ago making all vehicles a standard size, instead of the huge variety we have now. Excuse me, but there’s nothing commonsensical (My bolding, btw) about that, unless you make the bad assumption that lawmaking bodies are commonsensical, proactive, and efficient. Legislatures tend to be reactive rather than proactive: twenty years ago, there was no need for such a law, so nobody would have thought of passing one. As regards today, the one thing legislators can _always_ do well is count votes, and they know there’s a lot of SUV drivers out there. > [@](#): > > I get the impression from many of the posts here that driver’s licenses can now be mail-ordered, or maybe they’re available as little prizes in cereal boxes. How many of you are aware of something called a ‘safe following distance’? How about ‘safe speed for the circumstances/conditions’? Apparently not very many - I even saw one poster mention ‘safe distance’ - but has no idea what it is (“about the same distance as the other cars”) or it’s purpose - which is not to enable you to see past the vehicle in front of you! By the same token, I’m getting the impression that some posters are getting their **brains** out of cereal boxes, if you want to play that way. Feel free to ride along with me some rush hour, and you’ll find out what happens to ‘safe following distance’ as defined by the manuals. If you try to follow at that distance, the space quickly gets filled up by other cars, that’s what happens to ‘safe following distance’. Sheesh. > [@](#): > > Let me try to make this real simple - you are required by law to maintain sufficient distance between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you to allow you to safely stop your vehicle before a collision occurs in case the other vehicle comes to an abrupt stop. I’m aware of the law. But legislating pi to be equal to 3 will not make it so. In crowded driving conditions, one driver cannot choose to maintain a safe following distance, and that was true before the automakers started churning out SUVs. Adding sight-blocking vehicles to the equation didn’t magically make more room appear on the highways. > [@](#): > > I laugh every time I imagine one of you smacking into the rear of an SUV, then standing in traffic court trying to convince the judge that it was the SUV’s fault because you couldn’t see past it. Yeah, and I’m amused at your equally wild assumptions. I know the laws, and won’t try to pretend they don’t apply to me, here or in court. But that doesn’t define whether or not I have a valid reason to bitch. I’m pretty much sticking to the visibility issue, because that’s the one that matters to me. But I couldn’t help noticing: > [@](#): > > next up are the ones complaining because SUVs, minivans, etc. are obstructing their view because they are parked along the street, etc. First of all, most places have laws about parking close to intersections and similar locations because it obstructs visibility. In this case the obstructing vehicle is doing something illegal, whether it be an SUV or a Geo Metro, and you should be reporting it instead of whining about it. Yeah, that’s right - anytime I see a car parked illegally, I should try to find a _legal_ parking space (which the other driver probably tried to do, but failed, so it should be a cinch for me _:rolleyes:_), hunt down a pay phone (which is getting to be a challenge these days), call 411 for the _non_-emergency number for the local police, and finally report an illegally parked car. Then return to my car and resume what I was doing. Meanwhile, the cops (who have so little to do, they’re just hanging around the station house, waiting for someone to report a minor incident such as an illegally parked car) will jump right out and ticket it. And in this alternate universe, when the work day is over, I can click my heels together three times, say “there’s no place like home,” and ::_poof!_:: I’ll be home, with no need to bitch about SUVs. (Wonder what I say to get to work in the mornings? :)) ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/204 "2002-08-24T11:25:10Z")
As usual any blanket statement about statistics is wrong. My last comment about occupant protection is more true for frontal impacts than side impacts. If you look at the last few model years only, SUVs have improved somewhat in frontal impacts. Ironically, the Durango is one of [the worst](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/). For example, the [2000](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2000SUVs.html) model year. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/205 "2002-08-24T12:02:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by coosa \* > \*\* you can complain to whatever government has jurisdiction over that area and ask that some sort of parking restrictions be enacted. They will most likely do some sort of investigation, maybe simply asking the opinion of local law enforcement, and, if they agree with you, pass some sort of ordinance limiting the size of vehicles that can be parked in that area. \*\* Dude, what brand of crack are you smoking? \*\* > [@](#): > > But I fail to see where this is a safety issue, and certainly not a reason to ban all SUVs (and other large vehicles) from existence! \*\* Nothing like a big fat strawman to cap off a brilliant post. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/206 "2002-08-24T13:24:37Z")
Beagle: 11 is not “dozens.” It is not even a dozen. Do you have a cite to show where the disparity increases dramatically at higher speeds? I would imagine it would increase proportionately, and at any event if you are going faster than 70 you’re problem isn’t the SUV, it’s your speed, so in any event you’re argument is a sieve. When you equate my wife’s choice of vehicle with murder, I find it contemptible. RTF: Safety is just one reason. My life just plain likes the car, it can tow, and it has a large cargo capacity. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/207 "2002-08-24T13:42:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > Safety is just one reason. My life just plain likes the car… Isn’t that just another way of saying the same thing? 😉 [sub]Sorry, couldn’t resist. I _know_ you meant ‘ **w** ife’.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/208 "2002-08-24T14:13:45Z")
Not murder, that requires intent. Just a reckless disregard for everyone else. “contemptible” OK, I can live with that. If I can save just one life. :violin music: :cut to weeping compact car widow: I’m not Google man. Consult Car and Driver, Road and Track, Edmunds, Skip Barber’s Driving School, any driving school, your choice. The disparity in stopping distance goes up, what did I say?, “dramatically.” I’ll go with definition #4: “striking.” Cuz’ that’s what you’re gonna do if you don’t allow for your road whale’s requisite extra stopping distance. Of course, often one cannot allow for what one is unaware of. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/209 "2002-08-24T15:06:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\* > > I could have sworn I addressed this issue. > > I’ll do it again. Absolutely. > > As long as my wife and kid are in the 1,900, there’s no question about it. No guilt, no hesitation, no question. > > The car we choose to drive of course determines which group we may potentially fall in. Seeing as it’s an either/or proposition, I want them to have every advantage possible. > > I choose for my wife and kid to survive and the other guys to die. \*\* This gets back to my game theory objection. What do you do when everyone else on your street makes the same decision and buys a taller and heavier Ford Excessive in order to outmass your Durango? Do you go back to the car dealer? In general, people do best in game theoretic situations when they cooperate, compromise, and take one for the team. The “I’ll do what’s best for me” tone that has characterized this thread usually ends up with the two mopes in the Prisoner’s Dilemma rotting in their cells. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/210 "2002-08-24T16:03:55Z")
This Popular Mechanics article sums up everything I wanted to say quite neatly. [Wrapped in a bow for everyone.](http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/1998/8/comparison_test_9_suvs/) There is more to safety than winning the collision. Accident avoidance is ‘somewhat’ important also. > [@](#): > > Active safety is a vehicle’s ability to help its driver avoid accidents. Good brakes and balanced, agile handling can enable an alert driver with quick reflexes to get out of most dangerous situations without hitting anything. These trucks do have impressive passive safety, but their active safety is atrocious. > > For example, the best-handling truck in this test ran through our accident avoidance lane change maneuver at up to 47 mph without spinning out. That’s terrible, considering that your average Honda Accord can pull off the same maneuver at 52 mph. In the real world, one mph in an emergency situation can be the difference between life and death. Five mph is a huge difference. > > It’s the same story with braking. One fewer car length of stopping distance can save your life. The best truck in this test had a stopping distance from 60 mph of 134 ft., while a Toyota Camry stops from 60 in 126 ft. Finagle has summarized my other objection quite well. [superhero voice] My work is done here. Well, one concession. In the last four or so years the car industry has done one hell of a job turning an inferior product (the SUV) into a far less inferior product. They stop better and handle better than any truck based, high COG, body on frame design should. They are much safer than they were the last time I seriously shopped cars. (Hint: Scylla the preceding was directed at you.) And, they still suck. Sorry, this is a concession, don’t want to fuck it up. ---
**Author:** ![coosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@coosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coosa)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/211 "2002-08-24T16:23:11Z")
In case anyone is wondering, I’m trying to work through the whiny, bratty, self-centered, lazy, ignorant crap first, so we can hopefully get it out of the way and talk about the complicated issues that don’t have easy answers. Okay, safety. To listen to many of you talk, and according to the media’s hysterical shit-stirring machine, SUVs are nothing but rolling death traps, sure to begin tumbling all over the highway, smashing smaller cars left and right, just as soon as the driver swerves or hits his brakes. For shame. You are Dopers - you should know better than to a) swallow media hype whole, and b) accept statistics without placing them in the proper frame of reference. What’s closer to reality is this: SUVs are popular, a lot of people are buying them, so more of them are on the road. The more SUVs on the road, the more SUVs in accidents. As the proportional percentage of SUVs on the road increases, so does the percentage of accidents involving SUVs. Pickup trucks have _always_ been prone to rollovers, and when trucks suddenly became ‘hot’ a few years ago, the percentages of trucks involved in accidents, the percentage of accidents involving rollovers, and the percentage of those rollovers that involved trucks increased as the percentage of trucks in relation to passenger cars on the road increased. The difference now is that ‘enclosed pickup trucks’ - SUVs - are starting to make up a larger and larger percentage of the ‘trucks’ on the road. They _are_ more prone to certain kinds of accidents, just as ordinary trucks are, but to claim they should be banned because they are ‘inherently unsafe’ is ridiculous; motorcycles are also ‘inherently unsafe’ - heck, they won’t even stand up by themselves without a prop; forget to use the kickstand and they just fall over on the ground. And talk about prone to rollovers! The least little thing will make them fall down on their sides and slide along the pavement. The driver and passenger have _no_ protection, other than tough clothing (if they’re smart) and a helmet. Forget seat belts and air bags - driver/passenger and motorcycle are usually going to separate in any crash, and often that’s the safest result, since after a tumbling crash you can usually carry the 'cycle home in a bag. Of course, by now a bunch of you are just dying to scream “But a motorcycle isn’t going to smash my car to pieces if it hits me!” (As a matter of fact, someone already said that earlier and I nearly choked when I saw it.) Have you given a thought to just how selfish you sound (and are)? _ **You pose a greater threat to the motorcycle than my SUV does to your car.** _ And I haven’t forgotten the rest of you who are screaming “But there aren’t that many motorcycles on the road!” So what? Isn’t their safety just as important as yours? Oh, silly me, of course it isn’t - after all, _my_ safety isn’t as important as your’s either. The issue is not, after all, safety for _everyone_ on the highway, just for _you_. Oh, I know you’re going to claim that you deserve more consideration than me because your vehicle is more fuel efficient, less polluting, and takes up less space, but guess what? Motorcycles have your little car beat all over the place on all three counts. If you really, really, _really_ care so much about that stuff, why don’t you ride a motorcycle instead of driving a dangerous gas hog, air poisoning, space wasting _car_? Back to SUVs! Okay, SUVs are prone to rollovers just like trucks are prone to rollovers, but SUVs are starting to become popular with city folks and women with children, who don’t realize that they can’t be driven like a Honda Accord. (Hey, most rural and/or small town folks have driven, or at least been a passenger in, a truck on more than one occasion, and they certainly have a friend or relative that drives one.) This is certainly going to contribute to some accidents, at least until more people realize that they need to drive them differently. But I promised some links and some statistics, so I guess I better start going there. First of all, for those who want to scream and point fingers at someone, I’m going to invite you to visit this rather anti-SUV site - [Frontline: Hidden History of SUVs](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/unsafe/cron.html) - so you can at least start screaming at the right people. Hope you’re not a Reagan fan, because he bears a lot of responsibility for the current situation in regard to SUVs. And if you think that claiming that SUVs are dangerous is going to damage their popularity and discourage people from buying them, think again. From the linked page: (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > **The issue of rollover first made national news in 1980 when CBS’s 60 Minutes aired a report on the Jeep CJ, the model for many early SUVs.** The report showed footage of an Insurance Institute of Highway Safety test in which the vehicle rolled over while executing a “J” turn (a sweeping right turn followed by a straight-on path) and during sudden evasive maneuvers, such as a quick turn to avoid an object in its path. **Despite the rollover risk, Americans flocked to the Jeep.** Other automakers, their sales slumping, took notice. Obviously, either safety is not a huge concern of many buyers, or the risk of a rollover is felt to be acceptable. It didn’t discourage buyers in 1980, and, despite the ‘hype’, it doesn’t seem to be discouraging many people now. Maybe because rollover is felt to be a controllable risk? You do actually have to _do_ something to make them roll, unlike vehicles who catch on fire because the wiring harness is defective, or go kaboom! if rear-ended, or whose brakes fail suddenly and with no warning due to a manufacturer’s defect, or the seats break loose during a crash and fly through the windshield . . . I highly recommend visiting [this page](http://www.safetyforum.com/transportation/) - you might be suprised at how many “safety issues” there are that are much, much scarier and much, much more of a risk than possible SUV crashes, even rollovers. Take a good, long look at the entire page, because you just might find your, or a loved one’s, vehicle there. Do you think it’s possible that the auto makers aren’t displeased by all of the attention focused on the SUVs? 'Cause as long as everyone is looking in _that_ direction, they won’t bother to look in _this_ direction. And the ‘bad publicity’ doesn’t seem to be hurting SUV sales any. A few little teasers from reports linked on that site: > [@](#): > > Fifteen-passenger vans, commonly used to transport pre-school children, church and college groups, even the elderly and infirm, have a hazardous propensity to overturn. Between 1982 and 1999, one or more persons were killed in a rollover crash 376 times. The cumulative death toll: 581, according to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). **Sixty percent of van accidental deaths are from rollover accidents, about the same rate as when sports utility vehicles (SUVs) overturn in crashes.** SUVs with a 110-inch wheelbase are required to carry rollover warning labels; vans are not. [15-Passenger Vans](http://www.safetyforum.com/passengervans/) > [@](#): > > **Airbags** are supposed to be fully inflated before the passenger falls into it during a crash. Serious injuries occur when airbags, which can travel at speeds up to 200 mph, hit occupants prior to full inflation. An example is the **1994 Nissan Altima,** which has blinded or significantly visually impaired at least 30 passengers: [http://www.safetyforum.com/airbags/](http://www.safetyforum.com/airbags/) Heaven help you if you own a Ford:[Ford Crown Victoria Fires](http://www.safetyforum.com/cvpi/), [Ford Fuel Fires/Crash](http://www.safetyforum.com/fordfuelfires/),[Ford Ignition Switch Fires](http://www.safetyforum.com/fordfires/),[Ford Sudden Acceleration/Throttle Sticking](http://www.safetyforum.com/fordsua/) “. . . almost no Ford vehicle is exempt, and failures have been reported in such popular models as the Taurus, Explorer, Mercury Marquis, Crown Victoria, Lincoln Continental and F-Series pickup trucks”, and, last but not least, the hottest new car on the market, the [Ford Focus](http://www.safetyforum.com/fordfocus/), which has had to be recalled no less than **9 times** since it’s introduction in 2000, and is currently under investigation for **6 more safety defects**. (The rear wheels _fall off_?!) Let’s not let GM slide, now, because despite the “focus” (ha! I made a funny) on those bad old SUVs, they produce the [deadliest cars in the world.](http://www.safetyforum.com/fcars/) And, lest you feel more secure because you have an import, [Toyota Vans](http://www.safetyforum.com/toyotavans/) occupy a special niche: "In NHTSA’s technical assessment paper “Relationship Between Rollover and Vehicle Factors” the Toyota Van was tested in a tilt-table, the results of which NHTSA says **correlate to rollover accidents. The figure for the Toyota Van is worse than that of the Suzuki Samurai, a vehicle which Consumer Reports (July 1988) suggested should be removed from the road because of it’s stability problems."** Gee, worse than the “worst” SUV? Why don’t we hear more about _this_? \*\*\*BTW, you might notice there is a link there for a page about rollovers, and wonder why I don’t mention it. The reason is that the information quoted there is from 1991, and I can do better. I do want to point out the [roof crush page](http://www.safetyforum.com/roofcrush/) because it has some truly horrifying pictures of what can happen to a vehicle in a rollover - and none of the 5 vehicles pictured is an SUV. _Because SUVs aren’t the only vehicles that do rollovers._ _sigh_ Well, crapola - I’ve been trying to get into the Fatal Accident Reporting System website all morning, as they have these wonderful charts of statistics for fatal crashes, broken down my vehicle type, where, when, and how, cause, etc., and apparently the server is down. I can get the home page for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to come up, but that’s the only one - I can’t get anything from the rest of the website. And I have links to two very interesting NHTSA reports - one on possible SUV/passenger car incompatibility, one on whether stiffness/“aggressiveness” in SUVs, and one about SUVs and rollovers - and can’t get any of them either. Guess I’ll have to stop here until the governments websites start working again. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/212 "2002-08-24T16:33:27Z")
Active and passive safety tends to be a straight trade-off. A motorcycle for example has very high active safety, and basically zero passive safety. You are the fenders on a motorcycle. I have a problem with people me that the car my wife drives makes her unsafe, uncourteous, or a danger to everyone else on the road. An intelligent driver, drives his vehicle at its abilities. When I road a motorcycle, I drove it differently than when I’m hauling our horse trailer with my wife’s Durango. I drive differently when I’m not hauling. The Durango does not have the manuevering or braking ability of my Sebring, but it has more better visibility due to sitting up higher. I drive them both differently because of their different characteristics. Frankly, I think I’m a little safer in the Durango, as the biggest danger I fear in driving is getting slammed from out of the blue by an idiot. I’m not really impressed by the lagging performance of the SUV, because by that argument a motorcycle would be the safest vehicle. Finagle: What you say may be true, and game theory may suggest a better answer. But, and I don’t mean this sarcastically, I’m not playing a game. ---
**Author:** ![racinchikki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@racinchikki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racinchikki)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/213 "2002-08-24T17:22:52Z")
> [@](#): > > “striking.” Cuz’ that’s what you’re gonna do if you don’t allow for your road whale’s requisite extra stopping distance. And if you DO allow for the extra stopping distance, because you KNOW HOW TO DRIVE YOUR OWN FUCKING CAR and you’re not a complete and utter imbecile, then what the fuck is your problem? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/214 "2002-08-24T18:06:59Z")
with appologies to **Cranky** who opened a thread complaining about correction posts, > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*I have a problem with people me that the car my wife drives makes her unsafe, uncourteous, or a danger to everyone else on the road. \*\* I’ve tried diagramming, translating, bablefishing, closing one eye, and cryptography, and still am not sure what you’re trying to say here. A little clarification please? ---
**Author:** ![racinchikki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@racinchikki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racinchikki)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/215 "2002-08-24T18:27:24Z")
Insert the word “telling” between “people” and “me” and all will become clear. ---
**Author:** ![coosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@coosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coosa)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/216 "2002-08-24T22:10:41Z")
[QUOTE] _Originally posted by Beagle \* \*\* OK, GREAT. NOW EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK ALL ACCIDENTS ARE REAR END COLLISIONS._\* [quote] Well, certainly _all_ accidents are not rear-end collisions, but you might consider this: [Holden, Massachusetts PD](http://www.holdenpd.com/sgt.html) > [@](#): > > As a supervisor required to approve reports, I have had an opportunity to review many accident reports. A large percentage of those reports have been representative of rear end collisions. In fact, **most accidents reported nationwide have been the result of rear end collisions.** (bolding mine) Oh, and FWIW, although I can’t pull up the site right now, I believe that most accidents _involving fatalities_ are front-end collisions. > [@](#): > > **coosa** comes in here all high and mighty with her driving lectures. Hello, you put someone in _intensive fucking care_ on page one of this thread. Crap, if I had time to say “oh, fuck” there is no way I am hitting anybody. I hope you realize that obviously ridiculous statements like this seriously damage the credibility of any other statements you might make in regard to - well, to pretty much anything else, since this is so outrageously fantastic. It seems that 20+ witnesses and the investigating police officers disagree with you. I guess you must be psychic or something, since you seem to know how much stopping distance I had and what my maneuvering options/time span were without even being there, or even ever having seen that intersection in your life. Amazing! You really ought to call Art Bell or somebody with this incredible talent of yours. > [@](#): > > **Of course, I can drive. I’ve never been involved in an accident with injuries after over 300,000 miles of city driving.** Well, you’ve certainly created doubt in my mind - the only people I know who would claim what you did above are teenagers who are just learning _how_ to drive. Of course, those miraculous driving skills of yours must have kept you from having any serious accidents while simultaneously making you some kind of expert. You know, I’m sure there are many, many thousands of people in the US who have driven more miles than I have, but you ain’t one of them. :rolleyes: And I can’t imagine why you say ‘city miles’ as though it were something to _brag_ about. All your driving has been in cities? Kind of a limited experience, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2002, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/217 "2002-08-25T00:48:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > > The Durango does not have the manuevering or braking ability of my Sebring, but it has more better visibility due to sitting up higher. I drive them both differently because of their different characteristics. Frankly, I think I’m a little safer in the Durango, as the biggest danger I fear in driving is getting slammed from out of the blue by an idiot. > > I’m not really impressed by the lagging performance of the SUV, because by that argument a motorcycle would be the safest vehicle. > > Finagle: > > What you say may be true, and game theory may suggest a better answer. But, and I don’t mean this sarcastically, I’m not playing a game. Well, I don’t mean this sarcastically either, but you are playing the game. Ask yourself which you’d rather have slamming your Durango out of the blue, a Toyota Celica or a tricked out Ford Expedition with bull bars. Game theory does suggest remedies, one of which is enforcing cooperation when people refuse to act rationally (“rationally” in the game theoretic sense of people optimizing the benefits for all players in the game). This could take the form of adding additional penalties to “players” who don’t cooperate (e.g. sin taxes). Another approach is educating people so they can evaluate the payoffs more rationally (in some sense, the SUV backlash is a form of this). Hopefully this will cause buyers to evaluate their potential SUV choice in terms of how they affect others as well, e.g the height of their boot profile (height to the rear window), tendency of tinted windows to obscure the view, and height and will select vehicles that minimize the effect on others while satisfying their requirements. ---
**Author:** ![racinchikki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@racinchikki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racinchikki)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2002, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/218 "2002-08-25T01:49:32Z")
I don’t know how people drive with tinted rear windows. My Cavalier came with a full tint job, and I spent two full weekends scraping the tint off the rear window with a straight razor because it obstructed MY vision, besides others’. My Jeep has tint on the side windows, but not the rear window, and good thing. How do those of you with rear window tint see? Not all SUVs are tricked-out gargantuan laser-eyed full-tinted pieces of shit with bull bars. I hope the rabid haters realize this, because EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of negative behavior or results of an SUV in this thread seems to have the “gigantic” and “bull-bars” things tossed in. I don’t know about y’all, but the most prevalent SUV in my area is exactly what I have - Jeep Cherokees, and a few Grands. Following those in popularity are Isuzu Rodeos, Jimmies and Explorers, none of which are all that big - the Jimmies and Explorers are taller than the Cherokees and longer than the Rodeos, but also less prevalent, so… Well, the new Explorers are craptastically huge, but I’ve only seen one of them actually on the road. The huge lineup of them at Orange Ford in Albany doesn’t seem to be moving at all. Now that I think about it, I’ve only seen a couple of trucks with cowcatchers on the front end in the past week or so, and they were all driven by teenage boys. This makes them more dangerous, I suppose, but I have to admit that I’m more cautious when I’m driving around teenage boys in tricked-out, slammed-to-the-ground, rear-wing-spoilers-taller-than-my-truck imported shit than anything else. I almost got rear-ended yesterday by a guy in one of those, because he was apparently too stupid to realize that engaged brake-lights and a lack of motion in the vehicle in front of him meant that he ought to stop. If I’d been rear-ended because he was stupid, and he’d died - which he probably would have, as fast as he was going (I actually pulled off the road onto somebody’s lawn and he stopped with his engine compartment taking up the space previously inhabited by my rear end) - would it have been my fault for driving an Evil SUV? I don’t see how the height of a truck matters that much. Any vehicle taller than a Taurus is impossible to see over from any other vehicle shorter than a truck anyway, so why would you care whether my Jeep is 60 inches or six feet? The Cherokee is about six inches shorter than my mother’s Chrysler minivan. It’s also a little bit narrower and a large bit shorter - Chero’s rear end is over Van’s rear _wheel_. Mom’s minivan has a tinted rear window, the Jeep, as I’ve mentioned, does not. The van usually has a load of kids, my car usually has a load of trash on its way to the dump. Why is my car evil and Mom’s just fine? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2002, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/219 "2002-08-25T02:12:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by racinchikki \* > Not all SUVs are tricked-out gargantuan laser-eyed full-tinted pieces of shit with bull bars. I hope the rabid haters realize this, because EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of negative behavior or results of an SUV in this thread seems to have the “gigantic” and “bull-bars” things tossed in. I don’t know about y’all, but the most prevalent SUV in my area is exactly what I have - Jeep Cherokees, and a few Grands… I agree, about the size and the bull bars, at least. But they just about all have tint. (Except yours - thanks! :)) I’ve made the point on a couple of occasions in this thread that at least half of SUVs I see are low enough that I _could_ see through them, if only they didn’t have the heavy tint job that apparently is standard from the factory. I see bull bars on only the occasional SUV - around here I’d say well under 5% of them have the damned things. I would be for banning them except for off-road use, before they get too popular (and dangerous). ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2002, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/220 "2002-08-25T05:07:59Z")
Wring: Hadn’t had my coffee yet. The missing worrd is “telling’” as subsequent posters guesssed. Sorry to be posting anagrams. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675.md?page=12)