Um, technically, the oncoming lane and the cars it contains are not directly in your line of vision. They’re off to one side.
I’d say its about 2/5ths of vehicles. That’s a very unscientific guess. In my former urban environs, the ratio was much less. Probably because parking an SUV in the city sucks ass.
Can we at least agree that SUV limousines are dumb?
Buy them a Volvo stationwagon. I swear, they are fucking indestructable!
Did I say something about the oncoming lane, racinchikki?
I’m not sure if anyone’s mentioned it yet, but I wanted to add how difficult SUV’s can make it to pull out of parking spaces.
There’s a fairly busy street near my house with “slant” parking; I go there in the morning to the bagel store sometimes.
About one in five mornings, I get back to my car to find a tremendous SUV parked to my right, about 5 millimeters away from my car. The combination of the SUV’s size; its proximity to my car; and it’s (invariably) tinted back windows make it IMPOSSIBLE to see traffic as I back up. I just have to back out slowly, hoping that if anyone’s there, they will stop for me.
And similar to what Cheesesteak said earlier, what’s really annoying is that people are inconveniencing me to satisfy their own vanity.
lucwarm -
I drive a truck and its still hard for me to see around other SUV’s and minvan when I’m backing out of a parking space. I don’t think anything can solve that problem short of having your very own traffic officer wave you out.
I will concede that the tints on these vehicles are mostly fashion though. Have you ever seen a full size van or Explorer without tinted windows? They look like plucked ducks, or a wet kitten.
I won’t. Considering the enormous amount of airspace in an SUV or a minivan, tinted windows help keep them the relative equivalent of an EZ-Bake rather than a steel smelter, especially here in the South.
I used to think the same thing. I have a Pathfinder without tinted windows. My wife has a new Grand Jeep Cherokee with tint. The tint keeps it much cooler.
Here’s a few facts:
http://www.salon.com/news/1997/12/08news.html
[quote]
Hazelbaker, senior vice president of the Highway Loss Data Institute. The insurance industry-funded institute.
http://www.suv.org/safety.html
Here’s a pro-Suv regression analysis. Heavy stuff, but it points out that total fatalities are still decreasing, despite increasing SUV usage.
That’s backed up by The National Highway Transportation Safety Statistics, 2000, which has the rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles as still (slightly decreasing) to 1.6.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/NCSA/Content/Assess2K.html
We’re getting safer, or you could say we’ve stagnated. Here’s another NHTSA doc that was quoted in the political debate. “Lighter trucks cause more injuries.”
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/1997/sizenote.pdf
And the general NHTSA crash info site:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/crash/Index.html
(Motorcyles 97%, yikes)
The key factor in all of this, if we’re looking at social fatality costs and benefits is the Vehicle Involvement Rate. The Involvement Rate ignores whether the fatalities are inside or outside the car. For passengers cars, the involvement rate for 100 million vehicle miles is 1.7. Light trucks? 2.2.
SUVs, a category of light trucks (.5 estimate) indisputably contribute to more fatalities nationwide, by my calculation (the difference in fatality involvement .5 * number of light trucks, 20,000 * SUV percentage of light trucks, .5)), the SUV mania costs 500 lives each year net to society.
Is an SUV safer than a passenger car? Dividng passenger car involvement by passenger car fatalities gives us 74% ‘driver-death’ ratio. Doing the same for light trucks gives us 55% driver-death ratio, for a safety factor of 19%, or 1,900 drivers lives saved. (Motorcyles have a 97% driver death ratio, FYI.)
Or, to take, the SUV driving, selling, and lobbying community as a whole this year, if you buy an SUV for safety reasons, and not for need, the societal trade-off you’ve signed up for is “willing to kill 2400 people to save 1900 SUV drivers.”
If you’re willing to do that, I think the least you could do is feel a little guilty towards the rest of us.
Scylla, I don’t condemn your choice of vehicles and think the Durango is a pretty sweet unit. It has a shitload of power, room for eight, and looks damn cool. But you seem to pulling facts from your ass and making unfair comparisons in order to make a point. Your Durango is large, burns quite a bit of fuel and this pisses people off.
It would seem that people are pissed off by the fact I drive a minivan, they must almost pop a fuse when they see me driving to work… by myself. Of course, they don’t know I have four children, a wife, and a sister in law living in our house. They also won’t realize that I work in a care facility where I am required to transport up to 6 clients at a time in a vehicle that has to meet all the existing safety requirements.
The “station wagon” of my youth was my dad’s '74 Chrysler Newport with a 400 ci V8 and room for 6. He was a master mechanic and tuned the engine in this car so that it could get a miraculous 20 mpg on the highway. But comparing a current SUV to a car that was built almost 30 years ago isn’t a fair comparison. Compare the Durango’s mileage to the mileage of other vehicles in it’s class and by that I mean vehicles made to move large numbers of people and lots of stuff. My Windstar gets 30 mpg hwy, has an excellent safety rating, and hauls everyone and their stuff around in relative comfort. We have a family of seven so this is the smallest vehicle we could use. All new vehicles are more environmentally friendly than vehicles made 30 years ago.
And you get this information from where? The stats I have on minivans are that the average yearly mileage for a minivan is 35,000 km where most other vehicles travel an average of 20,000 km. If the van hits the scrap heap 5 years sooner than other vehicles it’s because it will accumulate more miles in less time. If most of that driving is; commuting to and from work, hauling kids, getting groceries, etc. that constitutes severe usage. If your Durango gets the same workout as an average minivan it isn’t going to last that much longer.
I had a 4-Runner with the 22r engine. Four cylinders, 30mpg… with a V6 you’d be ecstatic to pull 25mpg. My old 4-Runner was sold when it had 350,000 km on it and last time I saw it it had 500,000 km on it. The guy who bought it said that aside from regular maintainence it has been problem free. On the other hand, the v6 4-Runner is not an economical vehicle when you compare it to most cars as most cars get much better mileage.
[quote]
These are good strong durable versatile vehicles. They compare favorably with most vehicles on the road, and they are certainly less the guzzler than a Lincoln Town Car, or a big ole Caddy.
[quote]
I agree. Eventually all of these old land yachts will be gone and the wealthy will be driving smaller, more efficient luxury vehicles that still retain all those lovely creature comforts.
[quote]
The difference is simple. I shave with a straight razor. I’ve had it for ten years. It is a large ostentatious instrument, representing a huge investment in resources compared to say, a bic razor. Chances are I’ll be shaving with that straight razor when I’m 85 years old. How many bic razors will you have thrown away in that same time?
[quote]
I also use a vintage razor and have a hatred for all things that are disposable. I write with fountain pens, aside from being lovely tools they are also environmentally friendly. I don’t own a pen that cannot be refilled.
Again, I don’t think you are realizing that it’s been almost 25 years since the last Bettle was sold (by VW) and most of those cars you see have been in service for better than thirty or fourty years. The Beetle is actually a testament to excellent engineering.
On engines… my van has a 3.8 litre V6 that cranks out 235 HP and a shitload of torque. After 60,000 + miles it’s still running at spec. With the overdrive, intelligent transmission and engine management systems it almost idles down the highway at 70mph. My car has a 2.3 litre turbo 4 and also runs at low rpm, runs cool and gets excellent mileage. I expect to get a lot more miles from both.
Scylla - You are defending your choice of vehicles when you really shouldn’t have to and doing a poor job of it. Telling people that their Toyotas and Hondas are cheaply built pieces of crap that won’t last will just piss them off as it’s pure unadalterated bullshit. If a person wants to buy a new car that is going to last many 100,000 's of miles, retain it’s value, and cost less to maintain they are going to buy a Toyota or a Honda. These companies didn’t get their reputation by building shitty cars. Dodge does not share the same reputation around here.
Personally, I would love to have a four wheel drive, turbo diesel powered Suburban… because I could really use it. Room for nine, all weather capabiliy, and a massive towing capacity is what a guy needs when he has a big family, carries people through his work, and plans on building a house in the spring. Plus, if we end up in the country this is Canada where four wheel drive comes in handy.
Mind you, a Volvo wagon will also carry seven, comes in a diesel version, and is really fucking indestructible. I just don’t know that it will carry building materials or compensate for a small penis like a Suburban could… 
Looking up…
Shit… that guy just can’t code worth shit can he?
So the tint is trading my safety for your comfort? I’m not going to apologize for being unhappy about that. And vocally so.
Especially after the discussion of safety issues. I can understand, sort of, that people get SUVs to be safer, even if it’s at my expense. I’m not happy about it by a long shot, but it’s understandable.
But if by getting a behemoth, once you’ve acquired that extra safety for yourself, at the expense of my own safety, you then tint your windows to improve your comfort at the further expense of my safety, then you’re just being a jerk.
Having already sacrificed my safety for your own, please have the decency to fry in your hot, untinted SUV or minivan so that I can see the road ahead, so that I can anticipate and drive safely as a result.
Hey RT -
The tint comes from the dealer like that. Standard from what I can tell. I sure didn’t tint them.
And I didn’t invent the world either, I just live in it.
Ummmm…yeah. And since I bought my SUV used and was assigned my company van, I don’t have to pucker up and kiss your unsafe ass? Because the tint came on both of them. And if you can be in your skateboard (because it feels like I’m sitting on one when I drive my wife’s Altima) and see through the windows of my Caravan, you must have a 4-foot neck and your sunroof open. In other words, even if there were no glass in the windows of either vehicle, you probably still wouldn’t be able to see to back out of the parking place, so, well, “I’ll miss you most of all, Scarecrow.”
And since the safety of others is so important compared to comfort (speaking of strawmen), I’m sure you’ll be converting all of your air conditioners–home and auto–to freon-free systems no matter what the expense.
And now that I’ve done the [/sarcasm] tag, I have an honest question. Why, and please try to be specific, do so many of you have a problem with SUVs? Leaving aside the pollution issues, because in many parts of the country there are pickups and older cars and buses that spew far more crap than SUVS; and leaving aside size issues, since if you’ve been on I-95 you know that tractor-trailers outnumber cars; and leaving aside strawmen like, “If you’re in an SUV and I hit your car it’ll kill me,” and, “I can’t see around them so I notice it and I don’t post about the assholes who drive regular sedans,” and, “I’m fatherjohn and SUV drivers suck,” really, why do you have such vitriol toward a mid-sized vehicle that keeps its passengers safe? Why do you pick on relatively fuel and pollution efficient vehicles instead of ranting about the guy in the 1977 Land-Yacht who’s blowing black smoke from his blown head-gasket like he’s the air-freshener attendant at the Texas State Chili Cookoff Port-a-Potty?
Since anecdotal evidence is the order of the day in SUV threads, I’ll add that I’ve never had to roll up my windows and turn my AC to recycle while behind and SUV, but I have had to behind any number of 4- and 2-door “regular cars.” And don’t even get me started on the kid in the Civic with the coffee-can exhaust pipe…
Well that makes zero sense, stofsky. What the heck do you mean, asking why SUVs are so hated “aside from” all the previously-stated reasons why we hate them?
Oh, and I hate the guy in the smoke-belching 1977 Land-Yacht, too. Fortunately, there aren’t too many of him. SUVs are all over the damn place.
Look, stof, I don’t think it’s fair for you to dismiss all arguments like that. Sure, I am not happy about the ancient cars on the road that are sized like land yachts and have horrible mileage and the like, BUT I assume that their owners drive those cars because a newer car is not affordable for them at this time. In contrast, an SUV represents a driver who has made a recent choice (for whatever reason) and who apparently has the resources that suggest numerous auto options.
I also don’t think the visibility issue is dead in the water. As I said before (and I swear to fucking god I must have driven half the board to put me on their ignore lists, judging by responses) my problem is more often with turning. Further more, even large crappy land yachts and pickup trucks aren’t as difficult in parking garages and lots, because towards the end of them (the bed or trunk) the view clears, even if the vehicle is still sticking out.
I think SUVS become a lightning rod for criticism because they are new (sorta) and trendy. A 1972 Delta 88 is not trendy–every year there are fewere and fewer old cars on the road–can’t say the same for SUVs.
Stofsky, :mad:
You tweaked me for hyperbolic arguments earlier, and now, now you dismiss my diligently researched arguments? Seriously poor form.
Honest answer: It’s not just the size. It’s the size COMBINED with the lack of justification.
I don’t particularly like sharing the road with 18-wheelers, but the reality is that they serve an important purpose - delivering goods to market.
By contrast, many or most SUV’s are driven for the sake of IMAGE.
And here’s a question for you, please answer honestly:
Borrowing from Cheesesteak’s earlier analogy, let’s suppose you’re walking down a narrow flight of stairs and somebody in front of you is walking very slowly, obstructing you from getting down the stairs.
Are you more annoyed if (1) the person in front of you is walking slowly because of a broken leg; or (2) the person in front of you is walking slowly because he or she is talking on a cell-phone?
Nope, won’t leave aside the size issue because I don’t often drive on I-95. I often drive on very narrow city streets lined with passenger vehicals down both sides and with children playing off to the side and poor sight lines at the corners in the best of conditions. The more SUVs line the street, the poorer my ability to see oncoming traffic when making turns and the poorer my ability to judge potential dangers half a block away. And there are a lot more SUVs/minivans in 2002 than there were in 1982.
I’m not going to fault anyone for buying a SUV for status, nor for its economy. Our next vehicle will probably be a small SUV or minivan for their carrying capacity. But I accept that if I do buy one, I’ll be becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution, and I’ll do what I can to reduce the problem.
Just put me in the back corner of the “liberal but not a nutcase” table. Somewhere between Nader and Bush is a happy medium between reality and idealism–tell ya what, let’s start a “pragmatist” table, where we all drink Budweiser because, although it’s not as good as a nice White Zin or a Microbrew, it’s also not as expensive as a shot of Glenfiddich.
Somewhere between Reality and Idealism (and let me state again, I lean toward the I rather than the R), there is a place where people make difficult choices re: their politics and their reality based upon economics and need. Somewhere closer to the I, there are people who see one person driving an SUV and decide that they’re merely vanity cars, without having looked at the driving habits of said one person. Perhaps the I person saw the R person on his/her way to work in the morning. Chances are, I person did not see R person with a soccer team/wooden fencing/3 dogs/etc. etc.
Honestly, there hasn’t been a better cite than fatherjohn’s SUV poser webpage.
But let’s just assume that the people (Cranky?) driving that land yacht are doing so out of need rather than vanity–go to a classic car show lately?–and SUV drivers are doing so out of vanity rather than need.