The anti-SUV campaign

[MKSheppard]

And how many SUVs are used for that purpose, as opposed to a vehicle one person uses to travel to and from work? And what makes you think that SUVs are somehow going to be better protection in a crash? Aren't SUVs nothing more than a car chassis with a big outer shell?

Well, my dad uses his Durango all the time to haul crap around, and it's great
being able to stuff 4 people into the truck, and then fill up the
HUMONGOUS cargo space in back with oversize objects or to use it
as a doggie corral.

The Japanese ones are shit. The Ford Exploder is built off a modified light
truck chassis (ford ranger if I recall correctly), and the japanese have
never been able to beat detroit in trucks, because
that's the last bastion of overengineering in the american
automotive industry.

Really, I have a fondness for bigger vehicles, from my mothers
since-departed 1986 Chevy Caprice Classic



The last great american full size sedan ever built...Cops all over
the country have been dying in fiery Ford Crown Vic accidents
since Chevy discontinued the Caprice in the early 90s

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well SUV's and Winnabegos are my pet Peeve up here.

I see more accidents up here involving idiots who don't know how to drive such a vehicle then any thing else. Mind you the people who live up here, actually DO need and use SUV's you can tell ours from the tourists, ours are moving much slower, know how to corner, and LOOK LIKE SHIT!

[Peregrin Toker]

Here in Europe, SUVs are called "off-roaders", and they're called so for a reason!!

Of course, for practicality's sake, most modern off-roaders are designed with lots of passenger space, so that they can be used as minivans as well as terrain vehicles. (although their handling abilities are very different from those of ordinary MPVs, so they have to be driven carefully)

MKSheppard,

Well, my dad uses his Durango all the time to haul crap around, and it's great
being able to stuff 4 people into the truck, and then fill up the
HUMONGOUS cargo space in back with oversize objects or to use it
as a doggie corral.

Aren't MPVs capable of doing those tasks??? (If a SUV excels as anything, it's driving around in a swamp)

Really, I have a fondness for bigger vehicles, from my mothers
since-departed 1986 Chevy Caprice Classic

And when talking about gigantic American cars, why not mention the colossal 1971 Mercury Marquis???



That car's simply huge. And, to be honest, it actually looks quite good for such a land-leviathan.

BTW, I find it odd that many people believe that off-roaders have to be big. Ever seen a Suzuki Vitara or a Toyota RAV4??

[phongn]

And what makes you think that SUVs are somehow going to be better protection in a crash? Aren't SUVs nothing more than a car chassis with a big outer shell?

SUVs, like ANY OTHER VEHICLE, require a functioning brain to drive. There is nothing I hate worse than some dumbass bitch trying to maneuver her Expedition or Escalade like it's a subcompact sports car.

We have a Ford Expedition (2WD). While we don't use it for going off-road (which should be obvious), we, at one point, had eight people in the house so it was useful to have. My dad and mom also have various projects around the house so the cargo room is quite useful. We were also considering some personal watercraft so the towing ability was a plus.

Previously we had a Plymouth Grand Voyager, used for much the same purposes, though it only seated seven as opposed to eight.

And yes, we are all careful driving the thing as it's so large.

[Joe]

The other day I saw a five foot two woman climbing out of a monster pickup truck. What the hell are these people, these soft suburbanites, doing with these huge trucks? JMFC, why must people always be trend-zombies?

Maybe they like driving around in something that won't crumple in a crash,
and like having the massive cargo space to haul shit around in?

How dare you make that suggestion! Obviously, we all need to be driving around in those tiny death machines that Europeans drive; at least then, we can all be equally unsafe...

[Pink Eye]

If the Anti SUV add is just whining and crying over gasoline, I fail to see the point. You can take a peep at Consumer Reports for 2002 and see that trucks and vans have a poor, equivalent gas mileage to an SUV.

I drive a honda civic, and I like my 30 mpg.

[Falcon]

Actually, accountants happened. Old cars were over-engineered, with huge safety factors. New cars are built with the absolute minimum thickness and strength of materials required to barely meet safety standards.

You can thank the stock market, corporate strategy which is based on short-term profits, and people with the letters "MBA" on their resumes.

Actually a lot of it is due to environmental regulations on fuel consumption.

[The Dark]

I drive a honda civic, and I like my 30 mpg.

Yeah, but my mother's CRV (small SUV) gets 28 mpg. Not much difference in mileage, and we did need the extra cargo space (hauling around percussion equipment, lawnmowers, etc.).

I say invest in a howitzer! There's nothing quite like the sound of a 120 mm shell ripping through a vehicle in your way like it were made of tinfoil (which most new vehicles do seem to be made of, oddly enough,)

If you're going to buy weapons for your car, get a Hellfire. The howitzer might cause recoil damage to the sheet metal. Hellfires shouldn't cause recoil problems, and if they can take out a tank, they can take out that pesky Excursion.

[Joe]

Actually, accountants happened. Old cars were over-engineered, with huge safety factors. New cars are built with the absolute minimum thickness and strength of materials required to barely meet safety standards.

You can thank the stock market, corporate strategy which is based on short-term profits, and people with the letters "MBA" on their resumes.

Actually a lot of it is due to environmental regulations on fuel consumption.

Yeah, we have "consumer advocate" Ralph Nader to thank for that one, partially. Small cars for small minds. These people have to be stopped. For the children!

[Pink Eye]

I drive a honda civic, and I like my 30 mpg.

Yeah, but my mother's CRV (small SUV) gets 28 mpg. Not much difference in mileage, and we did need the extra cargo space (hauling around percussion equipment, lawnmowers, etc.)

28 MPG seems to be a tad high. Considering that a CR-V is 22/26 on an empty load according to specs.

[The Dark]

I drive a honda civic, and I like my 30 mpg.

Yeah, but my mother's CRV (small SUV) gets 28 mpg. Not much difference in mileage, and we did need the extra cargo space (hauling around percussion equipment, lawnmowers, etc.).

28 MPG seems to be a tad high. Considering that a CR-V is 22/26 on an empty load according to specs.

I know the EPA says 22/26, but we've done mileage calculations (miles driven/gallons pumped in), and come out with a low of 25 mpg (when driving around Philadelphia for a week) and a high of 28 mpg (when driving through rural Florida for a few days). I'd guess either we got a CR-V with a really efficient engine (all the parts actually meet spec without being within the deviation allowed), or the EPA got a bad engine (at the edge of spec).

[Pink Eye]

Yeah, but my mother's CRV (small SUV) gets 28 mpg. Not much difference in mileage, and we did need the extra cargo space (hauling around percussion equipment, lawnmowers, etc.).

28 MPG seems to be a tad high. Considering that a CR-V is 22/26 on an empty load according to specs.

I know the EPA says 22/26, but we've done mileage calculations (miles driven/gallons pumped in), and come out with a low of 25 mpg (when driving around Philadelphia for a week) and a high of 28 mpg (when driving through rural Florida for a few days). I'd guess either we got a CR-V with a really efficient engine (all the parts actually meet spec without being within the deviation allowed), or the EPA got a bad engine (at the edge of spec).

Ehh, I doubt that you all calculate the mpg every time you need to fill up. Driving habits, recent maintenance [air filter, spark plugs] and sometimes the quality of the gas [depending where you get it can affect gas quality] all can help with MPG. I can gurantee that your mothers CRV does not get 25/28 on a regular basis.

I used to have a Saturn, and every once and a while, I got better than average MPG. But that does not mean it had a more effecient engine or the EPA got a bad one.

[AWACS]

In order to counter the anti-SUV donkeyrapists, we should use: http://www.ibistek.com/security_vehicle.html (check out the videos....heeeehehehehehe)

[Stuart Mackey]

Currently its legal to drive tanks on city streets in both the UK and USA, probably some other countries as well. Why don't the morons go attack people who drive vehicles that often get mileage measured in gallons per mile first?

I don't often deal with tanks in the city. I do, however, routinely have to peer around some jack-ass in a gigantic Ford Expedition (spotlessly clean, with no passengers of course, having never seen anything but city streets in its lifetime) turning left on the opposite side of the intersection while I'm waiting to turn left going the other way. Why can't I go? Because I can't see around the fucking giant asshole to tell whether there's any goddamned traffic coming!!!

Solution: Buy a Tank, then you never need to worry about SUV's again.

[Stuart Mackey]

Actually, accountants happened. Old cars were over-engineered, with huge safety factors. New cars are built with the absolute minimum thickness and strength of materials required to barely meet safety standards.

You can thank the stock market, corporate strategy which is based on short-term profits, and people with the letters "MBA" on their resumes.

One of the interesting things about newer cars is that, yes, in many regards they are seriously tinny but older cars are not nesserily safer, or are downright unsafe, compared to newer cars. Older cars will not have airbags or crumple zones, or a miriad of saftey fetures of a modern vehicle. Also bulk has a lot to do with it, a modern Ford Falcon will rape a Mini/ Beetle/ Morris Minor any accident.

[Stuart Mackey]

Actually, accountants happened. Old cars were over-engineered, with huge safety factors. New cars are built with the absolute minimum thickness and strength of materials required to barely meet safety standards.

You can thank the stock market, corporate strategy which is based on short-term profits, and people with the letters "MBA" on their resumes.

One of the interesting things about newer cars is that, yes, in many regards they are seriously tinny but older cars are not nesserily safer, or are downright unsafe, compared to newer cars. Older cars will not have airbags or crumple zones, or a miriad of saftey fetures of a modern vehicle. Also bulk has a lot to do with it, a modern Ford Falcon will rape a Mini/ Beetle/ Morris Minor any accident.

[Pink Eye]

In order to counter the anti-SUV donkeyrapists, we should use: http://www.ibistek.com/security_vehicle.html (check out the videos....heeeehehehehehe)

No, you need one of these:

http://newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=2137

[Joe]

Anti-SUVism is, in my opinion, sexual puritanism for greenies. People derive pleasure from SUVs, the greens do not like them, so they must be repressed.

[Next of Kin]

if you're considering a big car, why not go after a 78 Lincoln Continental Mar V. Wonderful cars! I used to have one that was poweder blue, 8 track cassette player, and velour interior. I felt very safe driving that car min you!

[Darth Wong]

Anti-SUVism is, in my opinion, sexual puritanism for greenies. People derive pleasure from SUVs, the greens do not like them, so they must be repressed.

Bullshit. Sexual puritanism is about shoving your values down someone else's throat even when their actions do not affect you in any way. SUV's on the other hand, DO affect people. They reduce traffic visibility, which is a huge pain in the ass when you're driving (especially if you're turning left and there's a house-sized vehicle waiting to turn left on the other side of the intersection). Similarly, if you're in a driveway turning right and there's a guy left of you turning left, you can't see past his behemoth vehicle to tell if it's safe to go. And finally, these fuckers routinely eat a space and a half in the parking lot, and spaces are often difficult to come by.

People who try to paint anti-SUVers as sanctimonious assholes a la sexual puritans are full of shit. The preponderance of SUV's on the road causes direct harm and inconvenience to others; it is not a victimless activity. Moreover, their safety record is overrated; SUV injury rates are not that much lower than cars, but their high bumpers tend to crash right through car windows, so they tend to be EXTREMELY dangerous to the drivers of cars when they get in crashes.

In other words, SUV's are not that safe (they are more prone to rollovers, and their huge mass makes them difficult to stop on slick road conditions), but they ARE extremely dangerous to car drivers. The safety distinction is somewhat deceptive; the car driver usually dies in a car/SUV collision, not because the SUV is so damned safe, but because its design seems almost as if it was deliberately engineered to cause maximum injury to the car's occupant, by plowing its waist-high bumper through his window instead of hitting the reinforcing beams in his door.

[Sea Skimmer]

Currently its legal to drive tanks on city streets in both the UK and USA, probably some other countries as well. Why don't the morons go attack people who drive vehicles that often get mileage measured in gallons per mile first?

I don't often deal with tanks in the city. I do, however, routinely have to peer around some jack-ass in a gigantic Ford Expedition (spotlessly clean, with no passengers of course, having never seen anything but city streets in its lifetime) turning left on the opposite side of the intersection while I'm waiting to turn left going the other way. Why can't I go? Because I can't see around the fucking giant asshole to tell whether there's any goddamned traffic coming!!!

Solution: Buy a Tank, then you never need to worry about SUV's again.

I should now point out that you can buy a working tank or tracked APC for only about 10-20,000 dollars in the US, depending on type and who you buy from.

[Stuart Mackey]

I don't often deal with tanks in the city. I do, however, routinely have to peer around some jack-ass in a gigantic Ford Expedition (spotlessly clean, with no passengers of course, having never seen anything but city streets in its lifetime) turning left on the opposite side of the intersection while I'm waiting to turn left going the other way. Why can't I go? Because I can't see around the fucking giant asshole to tell whether there's any goddamned traffic coming!!!

Solution: Buy a Tank, then you never need to worry about SUV's again.

I should now point out that you can buy a working tank or tracked APC for only about 10-20,000 dollars in the US, depending on type and who you buy from.

Hmm, same in NZ, except the cost is Higher as you have to import the thing.

[MKSheppard]

It might be worth noting that the results of a collision between my mom's
1986 Caprice and a newer Japanese Car resulted in the NEAR TOTALLING
of the Import, and a minor broken headlight on my mom's car.

Bigger and heavier = Safer, no matter how much you try to spin that
off as being more dangerous. It isn't my fault that the US population is
made up of morons who don't wear seatbelts.

[Pink Eye]

They reduce traffic visibility, which is a huge pain in the ass when you're driving (especially if you're turning left and there's a house-sized vehicle waiting to turn left on the other side of the intersection)

Heh. And this annoying phenomena does not happen with the plethora of other vehicles on the road? Semi's, Rock haulers, Dump trucks, Astro Vans, F-150's, Toyota Tundras, or sometimes even other cars?

Similarly, if you're in a driveway turning right and there's a guy left of you turning left, you can't see past his behemoth vehicle to tell if it's safe to go.

Heh. It is called waiting. See also above statement.

And finally, these fuckers routinely eat a space and a half in the parking lot, and spaces are often difficult to come by.

SUV's are not that big to eat up a "space and a half" unless this is a cute way of saying you don't want to park next to one because of door dings. A Ford Expedition or even a Chevy Suburban couldn't do this. A dually yes, not an SUV.

The preponderance of SUV's on the road causes direct harm and inconvenience to others; it is not a victimless activity.

Inconvenience yes... direct harm?

Moreover, their safety record is overrated; SUV injury rates are not that much lower than cars, but their high bumpers tend to crash right through car windows, so they tend to be EXTREMELY dangerous to the drivers of cars when they get in crashes.

So? A Ford-15-, Toyota Tacoma or any other truck or van can do the same thing. Let's complain about those too.

In other words, SUV's are not that safe (they are more prone to rollovers

Yep.

and their huge mass makes them difficult to stop on slick road conditions)

Along with other heavy vehicles that are not SUV's.

by plowing its waist-high bumper through his window instead of hitting the reinforcing beams in his door.

Same statement as above.

Basically, if you don't live to drive on the road with SUV's...learn to walk.

[Joe]

Anti-SUVism is, in my opinion, sexual puritanism for greenies. People derive pleasure from SUVs, the greens do not like them, so they must be repressed.

Bullshit. Sexual puritanism is about shoving your values down someone else's throat even when their actions do not affect you in any way. SUV's on the other hand, DO affect people. They reduce traffic visibility, which is a huge pain in the ass when you're driving (especially if you're turning left and there's a house-sized vehicle waiting to turn left on the other side of the intersection). Similarly, if you're in a driveway turning right and there's a guy left of you turning left, you can't see past his behemoth vehicle to tell if it's safe to go. And finally, these fuckers routinely eat a space and a half in the parking lot, and spaces are often difficult to come by.

People who try to paint anti-SUVers as sanctimonious assholes a la sexual puritans are full of shit. The preponderance of SUV's on the road causes direct harm and inconvenience to others; it is not a victimless activity. Moreover, their safety record is overrated; SUV injury rates are not that much lower than cars, but their high bumpers tend to crash right through car windows, so they tend to be EXTREMELY dangerous to the drivers of cars when they get in crashes.

In other words, SUV's are not that safe (they are more prone to rollovers, and their huge mass makes them difficult to stop on slick road conditions), but they ARE extremely dangerous to car drivers. The safety distinction is somewhat deceptive; the car driver usually dies in a car/SUV collision, not because the SUV is so damned safe, but because its design seems almost as if it was deliberately engineered to cause maximum injury to the car's occupant, by plowing its waist-high bumper through his window instead of hitting the reinforcing beams in his door.

I suggest you visit Crashtest.com. Many SUVs, including the much-hated Ford Explorer, come out better than you might think.

And I'm not denying that there are certain risks and dangers that come with SUVs, and maybe my sexual puritanism comparison was not the best analogy. But many of these problems can also be found in minivans, sometimes even worse. You can likely see around an SUV maybe a little better than a Ford Aerostar, for example, or one of those gigantic trucks you see once and a while. There are lots of non-SUV automobiles that are quite dangerous to the other driver in collisions. What I cannot understand is why SUVs alone are singled out. My guess is that most non-SUV large vehicles are owned for their utility and not for the sake of their owner's pleasure (no one owns a minivan because it is trendy, for example) while SUVs for both utility and the pleasure of the owner, making them an easier target.