SUVs

Great Debates
41

The arguments against SUVs, as presented…
1. They’re environmentally unsafe.
2. They are dangerous to other drivers (and to their owners, in the case of roll-overs).
As has been previously pointed out, neither of these are very valid arguments, as there are plenty of other vehicles on the road (other ‘light trucks’) that get just as poor mileage and mass just as much.

The argument then becomes…
3. SUVs are less likely to be used for their intended function then are other categories of ‘light truck.’
I’ll happily concede this point. I firmly believe the BMW et. al. SUVs are the most pointless vehicles on the road. However, there most definitely remains a portion of the population that does employ SUVs for their intended purpose(s). So what are you gonna do? Ban SUVs from metropolitan areas but allow them in Montana? You’ve got a right to bitch about SUVs, but to even pretend that you have a right to ban them from the roads is ridiculous.

So, in response to the OPs “Any questions?”
Yes. What do you expect a family of four to purchase that will…
a. haul equipment around the fields of a small farm
b. tow both on and off road
c. seat the entire family reasonably comfortably
d. transport those members of the family who happen to be doctors to the hospital in not-infrequent snow and ice storms
e. transport family to trail heads for hiking
I could continue, but I think you get the point. An AWD station wagon can handle ‘c’ well and ‘a’ and ‘d’ to some extent. A truck can’t handle ‘c’ unless it’s a quad-cab, in which case it would get worse mileage and be more dangerous in a collision than the chosen vehicle, a Jeep Cherokee Sport (the only Jeep aside from the Wrangler available in stick).

SUVs fulfill a niche. That's why they exist in the first place. So if you hit my Jeep (or even my '80 Volvo) with your Geo Metro, don't come whining to me when the piece of crap crumples.

-ellis

42

So, we have vehicles that ARE environmentaly damageing and dangerous to motorists and non-motoists. Can’t deny that.

These vehicles are being used as primary vehicles, not task-specific vehicles, as UPS trucks and the ilk are. Often, but not always, the serve puposes that can be as well or better filled by smaller less dangerous (to themselves, others and the envionment) vehicles.

It’s not something we ought to ban, but it is
something we can disappove of. We can discouage people we know from buying them. We can let the owners of said vehicles know what we think of the choice that they made. We can also legislate some things, such as demanding that they stop weasling around environmental requirements, lower bumper heights to a position that is not dangerous for others and be narrow enough to see around. These issues affct us all. I dont mind if pay 30,000 for your yupped up status symbol, but I should not have to pay for it with my life as well.

And you can have your objects of conspicuous consumption, as long as your nice house, diamond necklace and italian leather sofas dont decapitate me and spew toxic waste in the air. You do not have the right to buy things that kill others or present undue safty hazards. For example, you cannot built a house that is constantly threatening to fall on the houses around them and kill the occupants of said houses. Even if it is legal, doing so still makes you a jerk. And yes, owning an SUV shouts “I am a jerk!” very very loadly.

43

MC wrote:

[Hijack]

That’s the slogan for communism, not socialism. Socialism is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Or at least it was when I was going to school.

[/Hijack]

44
      • Okay, communism. I find it amusing that some people insist on connecting SUV ownership with some kind of their onw self-defined “need”, as if just wanting one and having the money aren’t enough of a reason to get one. Of all your material posessions, how many do you really “need”? How much could you possibly do without?
        -And it might seem so but I’m not really snapping at you for asking.
  • Yes, but building a bigger house than you would use more trees, and that might make the ozone hole bigger. If I get better medical care, I might have two doctors wating on me while you have none. If my kids go to a better school, they might take the good jobs and leave your kids to flip burgers. All that stuff might happen, but you can’t claim any proof that it is ensured, and so have little reason to object to anything but the inequality of fairness.
  • No, not really. Take your brand-new Ford Focus, ~2 tons. Now take your WWII era Sherman tank, ~ 45 tons. Fill both with occupants. Now drive Ford Focus into Sherman tank at 65 MPH. Watch crew of Sherman tank get out and ask “What was that noise?”
  • We have bigger cars, because we’re the richest country there is.
    [-Do a little superiority dance here-]
    And, on average, we like big and/or powerful vehicles. Most of the rest of the world is considerably poorer except for Europe, whose population allows itself to be saddled with legislation that typical Americans won’t stand for. Car buyers in the US have small car choices, and yet SUV’s (currently) sell much better. Car dealers can push one model or another but in the end the customers choose. - MC
45

Environmental requirements, yes, I’ll hand that to you. But lowering the bumper and narrowing the vehicle completely destroys its utility. If it’s low enough that it doesn’t pose a danger to the fool in the Mazda Miata, it’s too low to go off road. And if it’s narrow enough for the same fool to see around, it’s not big enough to carry jack.

Or it shouts, just as ‘loadly,’ “I live where there is snow on the ground from October through May!” You drive your little damn car in the city, and I’ll drive what I need to drive to get around my ‘rural area.’

-ellis

46

Wow, this is hard. For openers, I own a 1990 4Runner, and a Plymouth Mini Van. The 4Runner was a hand me down (that I bought cheap) from my father in law. Our family has a cabin in the mountains, and a 4 wheel drive is better for the trip up. The mini van was purchased so that my family of five could have a little leg and elbow room on long trips, and so that when one of my children’s friends spends the night, we can take him or her home. I have, on more than one occasion,had the advantages that my vehicles offer come in handy, and on a few occasions would have been greatly inconvenienced had I not had the 4 wheel drive or greater cargo space. I also spend a ton of money keeping gas in these vehicles, and I hate the fact that I am dumping tons of pollution into the atmosphere.

Ok, so here’s my delemma (sp?). I think that the single most important issue is the irreperable damage done to the environment. I agree with the other posters who point out that lots of vehicles get bad milage and many of them represent a similar risk to the passengers in a smaller vehicle, so the diatribes against SUVs only seems silly, so I think this thread should include any vehicle that is a gas guzzler.
I want to dump both vehicles and get cars that get better milage, but I’m unsure about giving up the safty that I enjoy in my big-ass trucks. I know that I pose a greater risk to other drivers, but does that mean I should endanger myself and my family so that others are safer?
The question is, which is worse, damage to the atmosphere, or the risk of death in an accident. I have not had an auto accident since 1983, I breath every day (usually more than once).

The solution for me is, as I write and think about this, easy.

Which do I need more, my gas guzzlers, or an ozone layer?
Is my desire for safty greater than the needs of the planet?

We are a society of excesses and extremes. We have more than we need because we can afford it personally, and then work like hell to justify our excesses as needs. People who need trucks, absolutly could not function without them, should go for it, the rest of us should get a grip.

:wanders off to look for keys and titles:

47

Until I can afford one, I’m going to hate them with a passion. The whole Firestone incident has also highlighted the fact that if your tires blow in an SUV, you probably die, which I think is a bit extreme…

The most irritating thing to me about them is that SUV owners just cast aside all the environmental / human damage in favor of a fashion statement. All that power in those trucks is used to haul groceries 99% of the time…

I’ll paraphrase Dennis Miller a little bit. A Durango being driven through rough terrain packed with cargo is a tool. A Durango going making a groceries run every week and driving down the highway once a month is being DRIVEN by a tool.

48
      • It also occurs to me that much of the time municipal busses operate at less than full capacity (MUCH less, in my town), and get worse milage and pollute far more than my 4x4 ever had. Any criticism of SUV’s hold true all the more so for busses, except that the guy driving the bus DOESN’T OWN IT.
  • Communism, I say. - MC
49

We’re screwed people… I just realized that reading this thread. I mean, if that’s the very real attitude that a majority of the people out there have (“I have an SUV and if you don’t like it screw you!”) I don’t see how we’re going to get out of the shit we’ve put ourselves in with the environment and everything.

Personnally, and I may be the only one here, I couldn’t care less for a car. I’m 24 (and married!) and I have never have owned a car and never (hopefully) will. I don’t even have my goddamn driver permit. And yes, there are alternatives…
The problem is that our whole society is so fucked up in it’s current organization (urban vs suburban).

But who cares, right? Dump the problem on the next generation…

hmmm… hey, that’s me!

Fuck.

50

I thought I addressed each arguement, but…

OK, lets start there. I do NOT think that, have never said that, and in fact, I have said quite the opposite.
So let me say it again. I think any vehicle driven irresponsibly is a danger. Any driver who gets on the road, in anything from a bicycle to a Semi can be a danger to himself and others. I have just stated this in this thread, so please don’t accuse me of ignoring arguements just as you are in the process of ignoring mine.

Now several posters have made the arguement that since SUVs are heavier, and therefore have more potential to cause damage, but there are many many vehicles like this on the road, so the arguement fails unless you include the many other ‘bigger’, heavier, vehicles as well. And what happens at this point, is people say ‘well, those vehicles have a purpose…’ and that’s a new arguemnt.

And what I said about this point was, that any car can be used in this way, and it is all about the driver. I have driven about 500,000 miles in the last seven years, and base on my experience, the number of people who have cut me off in Acuras is triple that of the SUVs. I have also seen these idiots cut off a Semi on a busy freeway, endangearing the lives of dozens of people. That had nothing to do with the type of can they were driving - if that semi would swerve to avaoid a motorcycle it could be disaster for everyone around, even thought the motocycle is lighter and smaller than any car.

Not in the example above.

Please see above.

What is unpleasant about you, is that you feel personal insults are the only way to have a discussion. Can you really find no other way?

51

Lest folks think Im ignoring my own thread. I apologize, my server crashed Friday and I just got reconnected a couple of hours ago. FWIW, good responses all mostly, though I haven’t seen anything to make me change my opinion of SUVs.

52

Lots of statistics on both sides, lots of, “I need my SUV”, lots of “No you don’t”, blah blah blah.

I have also seen a lot of people saying that SUVs are only dangerous when being driven irresponsibly.

Fine. How about this.

If you drive a heavier/taller vehicle (SUV, van, pickup, luxury car, semi, etc.) you have an obligation to be a more responsible driver, because your vehicle is more likely to kill other people if you get into an accident.

Here is what I call responsible driving.

  1. Do not drink and drive.

  2. Leave safe following distances. Use the three second rule when you are in perfect driving conditions. Leave more room if road conditions are poor.

  3. Drive at the speed limit. If traffic is moving above the speed limit, keep up with traffic or move to the right lane. If road conditions are poor, slow down.

  4. LSLAM before lane changes (Look, Signal, Look, And Move). Make sure you are a safe distance in front of any cars before you change lanes, usually if you can see both headlights in your rear-view mirror, it is safe.

  5. Come to a full and complete stop at stop signs and red lights.

  6. When you are driving, concentrate on your driving. Don’t eat, drink, smoke, talk on the phone, switch CDs, flip-off other drivers etc.

Do I do all these things all the time? No. Do I see SUV drivers not doing these things? Yes, often. Do I see people driving other cars not doing these things? Yes, often.

Fine, I sound like a driver’s ed instructor or some cranky old man. The point is that there are a lot of unsafe/inconsiderate drivers. It doesn’t matter if you are driving a Geo Metro, a Chevy Suburban, or a Mack Track, you still have to drive responsibly.

53

I think it comes down to ‘poor buying skills’.

There are plenty of large, comfortable sedans available on the market that get better mileage, handle better, and run ten grand or more less than an SUV. A small truck is even cheaper.

Yet I see Boston’s tiny streets filled with huge, pricey SUVs every morning. It’s hard not to laugh. The people that buy such vehicles are to be pitied as slaves to the social order.

Now it’s their right to go and buy a massive hunk of steel and leather to drive around in. I won’t disparage them that. But it’s sort of like buying a backhoe loader to get rid of some weeds in your garden - stupid.

54

rngadam wrote:

Unless, of course, the environment is not in as great a degree of shit as you assume.

55

as a very avid SUV enthusiast, I am shoked an appalled at all the people who actually buy them. What? You say, shouldn’t you want people to buy them? No! I’ll tell you why.
Yes, SUV’s are now officially a trend, that is bad! I hate trends. But wait, I said I liked SUV’s? What’s the deal? Well, I liked SUV’s long before they were a trend. I loved them (well, actually I lie, I only love Jeeps (the original and still the best SUV’s)) since the 1980’s, when they were box-like and ugly, and only backcountry types like me drove them (I’m from Vermont.) Tell truth though, I am only 17, never owned one (but have driven them.) Still, the fact remains, that I liked them before the trend, as did many people.
The problem (I agree with you people here) is that yuppies (yes, yuppies) buy them when they are not needed. I’m sorry, but a Ford Expedition is not needed in New York City! Neither is a Suburban, Explorer, Navigator, BMW M-CLass, or even a Wrangler (my favourite.) SUV’s should not be in the city. The gas mileage is even less due to stop and go, and city’s have more accidents then the backcountry dirt roads that SUV’s were meant for.
Another thing, I’m sorry, but I hate big, clunky SUV’s like the suburban and expedidtion. They are not skilled at what SUV’s were meant for (off-road use.) The smaller, more agile, Wrangler, Cherokee, and Explorer are better for their inteded use, so no more large SUV’s!
Well, enough of my ranting and raving, I’m done.

56

I realized this morning if a Vette and a Mercedes crashed, nobody would consider that particularly amusing, but a couple of SUVs tangling while vying to take over top spot in a merging lane (or one of their other rude tricks that they usually get away with when a smaller car is involved) makes everybody chuckle. (not bodily harm, I’m talking fender bender) It’s not a jealousy thing, it’s a comuppance thing, you know, somebody gets their just desserts. And most (if not all) of the anti-SUVers have been in agreeance that it’s the people who really don’t know what they’re doing and bought one because it was hip that are the problem, not people that actually use them for intended purpose. So get over it, pro-SUVers. :slight_smile: You did a dumb thing, but maybe next year you can get that nice convertible. Then we won’t laugh at you anymore. :slight_smile:

Sorry for the misspellings and bad grammar, but I’m late for work!

A girl

57

bouv wrote:

Oh yeah?! Well, then, why does Chevrolet call their biggest SUV the “Suburban”? Huh? Hmm? Huh?!

58

Tracer…
they call it a suburban because no one in the marketing dept. could come up with another “made up” word for another monster vehicle that will never see off road use!!!

59

“but a Ford Expedition is not needed in New York City! Neither is a Suburban, Explorer, Navigator, BMW M-CLass, or even a Wrangler (my favourite.) SUV’s should not be in the city.”

You ever see the size of potholes and ruts around here?

60
      • None of those sedans have as much interior room; most don’t have the same towing capacity and do any have 4wd? -Small trucks can be had with 4wd, but the interior space and towing capacity is even less than most large sedans.
      • And there’s lots of places to live that are cheaper, less crowded and less poluted than Boston. Who is the slave now? - MC