Life in 'bama must be nice, because on the side streets of NYC, even legally parked cars obstruct vision, especially when there are two or more back to back. And I can hit someone in the street at 20mph too. The speed is relevant only depending on distance to the darting object. Or should I come to a full stop at every parked oversize vehicle?
Your assumptions are asinine, your delivery obnoxious and your points invalid (I especially get a kick out of calling the police every time a car is a foot or two too close to the intersection - cops don’t have much to do around you, do they?). I defined my area - tight sidestreet in the boroughs of NYC. I know that the problems, while not unique, do not occur everywhere. But you have global solutions. We should all have just called coosa before the thread was even posted to set us all straight. Would you care to enlighten us about peace on earth, maybe cure cancer and give an economic plan to end poverty worldwide while you’re at it?
And I’m not one carping for a total ban of SUVs; I’m only pointing out an unintended consequence of their popularity in my area.
Why are y’all having such a hard time believing that some of us regularly drive among large numbers of tractor-trailers, dump trucks, cement trucks, panel trucks, mobile homes, etc.? Those things do have to get around, you know, and not everybody has nice neat beltways and parkways and loops and bypasses to shuffle them off on. Let me refresh your memory on just how big a tractor-trailer is: The current federal maximum limit is one tractor trailer with one 48’ trailer or two 28’ trailers, total gross weight, including cargo, not to exceed 80,000 lbs., although some states have ‘grandfather laws’ that allow larger vehicles to operate. (here)
You’re crying about sharing the road with SUVs? Give me a break!
Look, I live near I-20 between B’ham and Atlanta - 40% of the traffic on I-20 between Calhoun County and B’ham is commercial trucks. Most of them go right through downtown Birmingham - the infamous ‘Malfunction Junction’, where I-65, I-20, I-59, and I-20/59 meet right smack dab in the middle of Birmingham. Some of you may remember hearing about this, as it made the national news this past January. A small car cut across in front of a gasoline tanker; the tanker jack-knifed and overturned, sliding into the support piers for one of the overpass ramps. It exploded on impact, creating a fire so hot (over 2000[sup]o[/sup]) that it melted the steel beams supporting the bridge. Hell, incoming airplanes seeing the explosion, fireball, and smoke-and-flames thought it was another damned terrorist attack! The roadway of the fricking overpass sagged 10 feet.
And this wasn’t an isolated incident, it just got a lot of attention because it melted the overpass. Similar but less-spectacular shit happens in B’ham or along I-20’s ‘Death Valley’ every damned day.
The majority of accidents in and around B’ham, and along the I-20 corridor between there and Atlanta, involve at least one tractor-trailer. We have big trucks flipping upside down over the guard rails on overpasses, hanging off of overpasses, crossing the median and having head-ons with whatever is coming the other way, and overturning and spilling their cargo. This last problem is a little more serious than you might think; from the B’ham News, March 8, 2000, “1 IN 20 BIG RIGS IN CITY CARRYING HAZARDOUS CARGO”:
Take a look at a map some time - every damned thing that moves up or down the East Coast goes through Atlanta (which is another story - ye gods!). If it needs to go west, or to, say, Chicago, it goes from Atlanta to Birmingham. Everybody else has rush-hour traffic for a couple of hours every morning and evening - on I-20 it’s always ‘rush hour’, at least between Atlanta and B’ham.
Which brings us to ‘Death Valley’ - the stretch of I-20 between Anniston/Oxford and B’ham (not to be confused with the other ‘Death Valley’ west of B’ham, 9 miles of I-20 near the Jefferson Co./Tuscaloosa Co. line that previously held the title) that averages 21 accidents per mile annually. Here’s a mention from Roadstar:
The ‘round-the-clock’ patrols are the ‘blitzes’ they’re using as emergency measures to try get things back under control while they finally start construction - they’re adding two more lanes to 45 miles of interstate, from Anniston to Leeds (just outside B’ham). They saturate the area with spotter planes and borrowed state troopers for two or three months, take a break, then come back for another blitz; during the last one they wrote nearly 5,000 tickets for speeding, mostly in excess of 80 mph, tailgating, and improper lane changes, and another nearly 3,000 warning tickets. And that’s an improvement - last year they caught 27 people driving in excess of 100 mph, including one guy doing 130 mph on I-65!
All, I remind you, in traffic of which nearly half is tractor-trailers and other large trucks.
Even the small towns are full of big-rigs - Anniston/Oxford has a population of about 40,000, but a major secondary-road traffic artery runs right through the middle of it. This is where I do most of my shopping, visit the doctor and the dentist, etc.
From the Anniston Star, 2/12/2001, “Caught in Traffic”:
At the end of June we had a frigging tractor-trailer carrying a houseboat jack-knife on Quintard - how’s that for something that ‘obscures your vision’? And you honestly expect me to do anything but laugh at your complaints about those ‘humongous’ SUVs? A tractor-trailer smears an SUV into tinfoil just as easily as it does a Civic, in case you didn’t know.
Sorry, it’s really hard not to sneer when, according to your own statements, you’d have a hard time just driving to the grocery store around here.
Oh, I absolutely agree that it’s safer to be able to do so, and in a perfect world you’d always be able to. But it ain’t perfect - there’s a whole bunch of other people and stuff out there that just ain’t going to cooperate in creating your own private little Eden, and you’re going to have to cope with it. Preferably without whining, and preferably by learning to be a good and careful driver so you don’t endanger the rest of us.
But logically the two situations aren’t mirror images. Nobody is taking away your ‘ability to see ahead’ because you never had it - you, personally, happen to live in a location where this was the norm. But bigger vehicles have been around ever since motorized transport was invented and no one yet has passed a law limiting their size because other drivers can’t see around them! Maybe some day they will - but until then, Scylla has law and precedence on his side, and is much more within his rights than you are.
::snort!:: When did I ever make a ridiculous claim like that? They are, however, responsive to the wants and needs of the majority of the voters, and have even been known to anticipate them. We have laws limiting the size and weight of tractor-trailers, we have laws limiting the width of vehicles and imposing special requirements on wider vehicles - like mobile homes - when they are on the road, we have laws about the size of signs and how far they must be from road edges so they don’t interfere with visibility, etc.; yet, with all of this plethora of laws restricting possible driving hazards, apparently your ability to see over/around/through the vehicle in front of you has not made the cut. Which is why I appealed to commonsense - there is an easier, safer, and less restrictive way of dealing with limited visibility that’s been in place and working well for many, many years - it’s called “Don’t speed, don’t tailgate.” “Common sense” should tell you that this has been a simple and effective method of dealing with restricted visibility for all the years of motorized transport, or we would have passed laws preventing restricted visibility (at least by other vehicles) years ago after enough people died because of it.
sigh I’ve seen this and similar statements throughout this thread either stating or implying that ‘limited vision due to large vehicles’ has only existed very recently, without a single damn one of you checking the accuracy of your assumptions. I got a bit of news for you - your ‘little’ cars are what’s new on the scene; tractor-trailers have been around since the 1920s, and ‘SUVs’ since the 1930s. GMC introduced the ground-breaking all-steel bodied GMC Suburban Carryall about 1935/36 - it has been in continuous production, in some way or another, ever since. In 2000 Chevrolet decided to keep the name ‘Suburban’ for its vehicle and name the GMC version the ‘Yukon’, which is a little sad considering how long the two have been associated. A lot of municipal/state governments and businesses use fleets of Suburbans for their employees - if you spend some time on the Gulf Coast around oil-field folks you’ll find that the Suburbans are still called “carryalls”. GMC Truck History(Has a picture of a 1929 tractor-trailer at bottom of second page) Chevrolet/GMC Suburban History History of Suburban, P.1 History of Suburban, P.2
Check out this pic of a 1946 Suburban - looks an awful lot like the PTCruiser, doesn’t it?
Please read the Frontline report I linked previously - the voters voted with their pocketbooks a long time ago. As long as SUVs keep the auto makers afloat, and people keep buying SUVs, the government will be happy. Surely someone besides me remembers when Chrysler crashed, and the federal government stepped in and rescued them because the economic consequences would have been horrible? (At least, that was the excuse - I wouldn’t know.) I found an article comparing the Chrysler Bailout to the current airline crisis here - no particular reason for this one, it was just the first one I came across. And you might be interested in this item of information: Why They Roll
(As far as I know, this Ditlow guy is legitimate, as I also found where he had testified before Congress about auto safety.)
Basically, the federal government has a big interest in keeping the US automakers afloat, and the automakers are rolling in money from SUV sales, and the SUV owners are happy, so guess where that leaves you?
What is this weird hang-up so many city-only drivers seem to have about rush hour traffic? You all act like it requires the combined skill and nerve of Evel Knieval and Mario Andretti just to drive to work and back every day. Over the same frickin’ route - you even know when your exit is coming up. It’s nerve-wracking, I’ll grant you, because you have stay alert, but it’s not that bad as long as you don’t try to play the same game.
RT, your profile says you live in the D.C. area, so you’re talking about D.C./Baltimore traffic, right? I got a bit of news for you - been there, done that. Also, B’ham (of course), Atlanta, Richmond, Raleigh, Winston-Salem, Charlotte, Augusta, Knoxville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Memphis, Huntsville, Montgomery, Mobile, Jackson, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Houston, Shreveport, Little Rock, Kansas City, Omaha, St. Louis, Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, plus of course some smaller places in between those places. (I get around a little bit.)
Come on down and do a rush-hour or two with me, why don’t you? We’ll do a double - Atlanta in the morning and B’ham in the evening - and you can enjoy playing chicken with 18-wheelers for a change. Somehow I suspect SUVs won’t offer the same thrill anymore.
Works for me, although of course you’ve no reason to believe that. What do you think is going to happen if you keep backing off - you’re suddenly going to find yourself back home in your driveway? You might be interested in what this defensive driving instructor had to say: http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/living/travel/transportation/3708649.htm
Bullshit. What’s stopping you? Hell, the hardest part is getting on the highway, after that it’s just being careful and attentive, and not letting other drivers push you into making a mistake. Of course, if you’re trying to play the same game as the hurry-nuts you’re going to be in the same situation all of the time. Back off and let them have the road - you’ll live longer.
Oh, I came across something you might be interested in; I don’t know if it actually means anything or it’s just political hot air: Washington-Baltimore
From what I’ve been reading lately on the internet, a lot of cities are at least saying they are putting together special traffic units and stuff to try to stop some of the crazy driving because it’s getting out of hand. shrug Maybe it’ll do some good.
Maybe all of those SUVs blocking everyone’s vision will slow a lot of people down.
Wow. You are really stupid I guess. I don’t know how else to explain what I already have, ad nauseum. You can get into unexpected situations where you have to stop. Not all collisions are rear end collisions. I used to think this was obvious until I read some of the responses on this thread to my generally accepted (I thought) arguments. Ask coosa about what can happen when you can’t maneuver or stop with average efficacy. Or, read page one of this thread.
The problem with SUVs is that they require the same skills as a semi trailer driver to a lesser degree. But, there is no special license required. As I have said before, this effect is lessened by buying small SUVs, especially car based SUVs which are getting more and more common.
But for the shouting and insults, I’m done. I have nothing else to say.
I never claimed that all collisions are rear-end collisions. And you know what? I know how to drive my own truck. I drive my truck the way a truck is meant to be driven. I do my best to drive intelligently and always keep myself aware of road conditions and ways I could take evasive action if something were to happen. I really do. Yes, there can be unexpected situations that could require me to do something that might not be within the limits of my truck’s capabilities. The same can be said of every single car on the road. I can’t argue with you that my truck has worse handling than a Ferrari and worse stopping ability than a Honda. But unless you propose a federal mandate requiring all vehicles on the road to live up to the same exact standards for stopping, steering and other performance factors, I really don’t see the point in bitching at me about it.
And when my father gets back from work this weekend, I’ll ask him his opinion on SUV driving vs. tractor-trailer driving.
ALL driving requires some of the same skills as driving a tractor-trailer, although to a lesser extent. Therefore your argument seems stupid.
All driving also requires some of the same skills as driving a race car, but renewing a license does not require re-taking road skills tests and doing laps through orange cones on a slip-track.
Wow, because this was an SUV thread I actually decided to wade through all 12 pages of it. Good insights from SUV owners and anti-SUV people alike.
I own an Explorer, which I use for off-road access to my weekend fishing spots, so I don’t feel too lumped in with the hated SUV owners. Plus, I decided, after the last SUV debacle/debate (your choice), that, “Hey, you’re not the one purchasing my vehicle or paying for my gas!” so I won’t raise my blood pressure over what you anti-SUV people think (until you actually offer to pay for a vehicle for me. )
Unfortunately, I thought Ukelele Ike’s below-the-belt comments about Scylla’s parenting skills to be the meanest and most useless comments in an otherwise long, but insightful and fairly civil thread.
This is not for the faint hearted, nor is it strictly scientific. But, sometimes it is the best you can do. Note: I could use a Corvette or a Porsche 911 to absolutely humiliate the SUVs. Or, I could use a new car. Not necessary.
‘Comparo’ test between a 1999 Ford Mustang GT (average pony car) versus the average statistics of Ford Expedition XLT, Toyota Sequoia Limited 4WD, GMC Yukon XL SLT, Chevrolet Tahoe LT – all the SUVs are 2002 models, the latest in SUV technology. The cheapest SUV costs over $10,000 more than the Mustang (all prices as new). Obviously, a 1999 GT could be had for much less now. The statistics come from the Car and Driver Road Test Annual, 1999 and the August, 2002 Car and Driver.
Braking 70-0: Mustang, 170 feet. SUVs, 196 feet. A 26 foot difference. That is the difference between a near miss and a fatality.
Roadholding on 300 foot skidpad: Mustang, .85. SUVs, .69. An enormous .16 G difference. And you wonder why they roll over and can’t handle.
Emergency lane change maneuver: Mustang, 64.6 mph. SUVs, 54.3. Over 10 mph difference. This statistic alone would scare me out of a behemoV.
EPA fuel economy: (note, the Mustang has a 4.6 liter V8, not an economy car at all) Mustang, 17 / 24. SUVs, 14 / 17.
Big whoop. All cars are different, and have different handling characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages.
Please note that the Audi Allroad goes from 60-0 in 120 feet beating most cars on the road.
Should we suggest from this data that anybody who chooses to drive a car that stops slower than the Allroad is an inconsiderate danger, and a moron, Beagle?
Yes, all cars vary. Hell, the same model car has variations. But cars don’t vary in one thing - consistently outperforming all large SUVs in every dynamic measurement that matters safety wise.
Someone who commutes in a vehicle that cannot pull a paltry .70 on a 300 ft. diameter skidpad is a moron. And they are a menace to everyone if they don’t have a damn good reason for subjecting the rest of us to the semi trailer like dangers that entails.* Hauling around a single person is not a good reason. Hauling a boat up a logging road is. Hauling one person with little stuff in a large SUV is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer.
I would like to re-re-re-remind everyone my objection is to behemoutes - not small to midsize SUVs. Some of the smaller ones handle like regular cars. Again, some people need a 6000 pound SUV to haul big stuff. This not a religion to me or anything.
BUT, Do you have any idea how piss poor a .69 on a skidpad is? I seriously doubt it. I haven’t seen any car get that low a number in years. .79 is pretty average. Plenty of cars approach .90. I know you haven’t been reading about emergency lane change maneuver statistics since the early 1980s. I have. SUVs make a Grand Marquis look nimble.
Do you realize, SUV freaks, as much as you hope that 26 foot difference in stopping ends in a, say, Geo Metro, it is quite possible that it ends at a concrete bridge abutment. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Ah, yes, donorcycles. Anyone want to hit that strawman? No difference between a car and a motorcycle or anything. Oh, yes, a car body, that is a slight difference.
*Some examples: many people straighten turns. What this means is rather than making the correct square turn they turn too early and cut into the median or oncoming traffic slightly. In a giant SUV this goes from merely stupid to downright dangerous. You have a big ass end to account for.
I know nobody tailgates in SUVs, at least not when typing on a message board. But I think we all, those who drive anyway, know the truth.
Make a corner too fast… I could go on. The insurance industry is coming around. I am so glad behemoute rates are skyrocketing.
You seem to have a certain glee at the thought of an SUV driver slamming into a concrete abutment. I think that is the attitude that is most grating to SUV owners. How is it that I can disagree with your position without actually wanting you to die? How come I’m not overjoyed at any little nuisance I can give to you as you seem to be about insurance rates?
One thing some SUV bashers fail to understand - do any of you really think that someone smart enough to survive on the SDMB doesn’t know the risks of the vehicle they’re driving? Do you think these same hyper-intelligent people you all laugh, cry, and shout with day after day just have no common sense about this one thing?
Maybe the insurance industry will change things. Then the yuppies will give up SUV’s when they become cost-prohibitive and move on to something else. (hey!! this generalization thing is fun!!) Then we can all complain about energy-efficient one person scooters zipping up and down our sidewalks.
What a ridiculous argument. You’re comparing an SUV against a Ford Mustang GT, and we’re supposed to gain any sort of valuable insight out of this other than that sports cars handle better than trucks? Thanks for the newsflash.
How about we compare an SUV against, say, a 1972 Chevy Impala? The SUV will beat it in every category including gas mileage (and will be WAY better in terms of pollutants). Not only that, but it will be a far safer vehicle because of modern safety advances.
So let me get this straight… If I drive a 1972 Impala, and I decide to take my hard-earned money and buy a new vehicle because I want something safer and easier on the environment, then I’m a bad guy because I don’t buy up into the absolute safest and most efficient categories? Instead, my personal values say that I want to trade a bit of that for my own reasons (looks, cargo carrying, off-roading, whatever). That is somehow morally wrong?
If it became really chic (in 2002) to drive 1972 Chevy Impalas; and everyone and his brother were driving one; so they got really expensive to the point where it was the same price or cheaper to drive a modern car, I’d find them pretty offensive. (Not sure about immoral though).
Not nearly as offensive as SUV’s however, since they don’t block people’s views.
Of course you know finding road tests on a 1972 Impala is nearly impossible. My dad’s 1969 Impala knocked down about 15 mpg in combined driving, even when I got my hands on it (very used) in high school. That is 2 MPG better than the Car and Driver observed mileage on a 400 mile trip with the 4 utes. I cited before. I bet the Impala would out handle any behemoutes. When I got t-boned by a pickup running a redlight in a rainstorm I came out without a scratch. As did the drunk asshole who t-boned me.
Of course your argument is a moronic strawman. How about some legitimate comparisons?
Saturn Vue, V6, AWD 2002 model. From the January, 2002 Car and Driver.
Braking: 70-0, 188 feet. Still shitty, but in the car ballpark shitty. But better or equal to any large ute. The Ford Escape XLT will do it in about 170ish.
Handling 300 ft. skidpad: .75, at least it won’t fall over in the driveway.
EPA: 19/25. Sorry, no emergency lane change stats. available.
Jeep Liberty and Land Rover Freelander from the same issue.
Braking 70-0: Liberty, 209 ft. - Rover, 189. The Jeep Liberty may be a deathtrap. Or, the test vehicle was particularly bad. I take back some of the nice things I said about the smaller utes.
Handling 300 ft. skidpad: Liberty, .70 - Rover, .71. Ouch. Don’t turn and you will be fine.
Emergency lane change: Liberty, 53.0 - Rover, 55.1. Buy anything over a Jeep Liberty, for your family.
EPA: Liberty, 16 / 20 - Rover, 17 / 21.
If you want an SUV which can actually handle with somewhat carlike responses buy a BMW X5 or a Porsche Cayenne. They are FAR better than any other SUV choice and some cars. The Ford Escape XLT is pretty good also, especially at stopping - it does that very well.
Lets look at a basic sedan picked at random, because that is the page I am looking at right now. From the July, 2002 Car and Driver. VW Passat W-8 4Motion. Priced right in the behemoute range.
Braking 70-0: 178 ft. Hey, you missed. For a car this number is not exceptional, but it is not bad.
Handling on 300 ft. skidpad: .80. You can turn.
EPA: 18 / 25. No lane change available.
Same July, 2002 issue: Acura 3.2CL Type-S and BMW 330Ci. Both are priced in the behemoute range.
Braking 70-0: Acura, 178 ft. - BMW, 167 ft.
Skidpad (300 ft.): Acura, .86 - BMW, .85.
Emergency lane change: Acura, 60.5 - BMW, 63.9.
EPA: Acura, 19 / 28 - BMW, 21 / 30.
Ah, noodle noggin, you were saying about “sports cars.” Sedans kick SUV ass also. I told you this before.
If you want to keep making moronic strawmen, I will continue to come in and knock them down. But, my summation is this: you can find some cars with lousy numbers, but you can hardly find any SUVs with good numbers.
Oh, and fuck everyone who keeps mischaracterizing and misquoting me. Did I put a glee fucking smilie by hitting a bridge abutment? No, I did not. Did I say that following distance is the be all end all of safe driving? No. Did I ever criticize anyone who offroads? No. Do I begrudge people who tow large objects? Again, no. Did I criticize all SUV drivers? Again, again, no.
My point is, SUV commericals are a pack of lies. The vast majority of SUVs don’t handle well, stop well, accelerate well, crash well*, or haul any more than a minivan. If you tow a boat, fine. If you need 4WD and a high ground clearance, fine. If you are looking for a safe vehicle which hauls stuff to drive on public roads, buy a big car or a :shudder: minivan. They generally do better in every active safety category - and the passive ones (crash tests) - get better mileage, and will outperform any large SUV.
*Again, I will re-restate that this has improved somewhat. Minivans are as good or better. Some minivans get five stars virtually all the way accross. Finding an SUV which does that might take you some time (your lifetime).
You’re also picking the biggest, most extreme sport utes.
Try again with the Ford Escape. Gets better mileage than some sedans (what is it, 23/31?). As you said, it stops very well. It’s the price of a mid-level sedan. It has the same footprint. It’s build on a car chassis.
Oh, and the Escape and other new sport utes in its class (Toyota RAV-4, etc) are by far the fastest growing segment in the SUV world. Very soon they will be the most popular SUVs on the road. Are we still going to hate them?
Oh, and if I buy the Ford Escape Hybrid, which gets 48 mpg and has almost no emissions, am I still a bad guy? After all, it doesn’t handle any better than the non-hybrid version. Since purchasing a vehicle with worse handling than a sports sedan is apparently immoral in your book, the Escape Hybrid is a bad vehicle, right?
Oh, and next time try to work a little harder at stacking the comparison, okay? You took the worst of the SUVs and put them up against the best of the Sedans (Acura Type-S? BMW 330i? Sheesh).
How about we make this comparison a little more fair: Take the class of SUVs I talked about (Escape, Mazda Tribute, RAV4, etc), and compare them against more typical large sedans (say, a Ford Crown Vic, a Ford Taurus, a Chevy Impala, Chrysler Intrepid). How do those compare? I imagine the cars will win - hard to overcome the low profile tires and low Cg, but I’ll bet it would be a lot closer.
But I’m still trying to nail down your exact thesis here. Is it that people should not buy vehicles that handle worse than a sports car? What about that 1982 Woody Station Wagon? That’ll suck worse than any SUV. Or is it that poor braking performance is immoral (in which case, you’d better crack down on people who wait too long for brake jobs, and/or who buy really cheap tires for their cars). Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s make ABS mandatory. Because for all your comparisons of SUVs to cars, you left out the most important factor - vehicles with ABS kick ass all over vehicles that don’t. So I guess people who drive Chevy Citations are immoral, eh?
Please, I need for you to explain the morality of car purchasing on your terms. I didn’t realize just how easy it is to make immoral choices when buying a vehicle.
Operating a full-blown rig involves a number of skills that aren’t involved in driving a Ford Focus, not just “to a lesser extent.” There’s the obvious fact that driving two vehicles is not the same as driving one, plus you have air brakes to worry about and a much different gearshift system. Plus administrative and legal crap. It’s not just a larger vehicle.
Oh, and add in a comparison against a Dodge Caravan and Ford Windstar, the two vehicles most likely to be purchased in lieu of an SUV.
This whole thing is a BIG straw man anyway. Or maybe I missed all those message threads where you attacked people with bias-ply tires and who opted to buy the cheaper vehicles that don’t have ABS or airbags.
)