StarDestroyer.Net BBS

MKSheppard wrote: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.

Amen to that. Give me an impractical, huge SUV anyday over any cheap imported death machine.

The difference between an SUV and a rock hauler, garbage truck, minivan etc. is that in my experience, the majority of SUV drivers I run into do not need an SUV. They are commuting to work in the fucking things, with no passengers and no fucking cargo.

All of the aforementioned vehicles are a pain in the ass, but they have an excuse. A garbage truck driver cannot seriously be expected to do his job in a small vehicle. Similarly, nobody buys a minivan unless they need it, because a minivan is almost tragically uncool. But SUV's? I know a couple where both the husband and wife own SUV's, and each person drives their own SUV to work and back every day.

As for inconvenience not counting as "direct harm", that is bullshit. If someone is driving at 30 km/h in a 60km/h zone, he can be CHARGED AND FINED for obstructing traffic. Inconvenience is a perfectly legitimate form of harm. Is anyone seriously suggesting that unless they cause PHYSICAL INJURY, there's no harm? That's bullshit; you would have to throw out most of the driving laws in that case, since none of them would apply unless there's an actual accident. I can't go in these situations because the SUV has created an unsafe situation, and with no fucking good reason to do so.

Darth Wong wrote:The difference between an SUV and a rock hauler, garbage truck, minivan etc. is that in my experience, the majority of SUV drivers I run into do not need an SUV. They are commuting to work in the fucking things, with no passengers and no fucking cargo.

Since when was 'need' a factor? We all have a lot of things we don't need. Many of them may cause problems (like pollution, or safety hazards), but we can still choose to use them. SUVs are no where near as dangerous as someone who drinks and drives, or someone who is simply a poor driver.

All of the aforementioned vehicles are a pain in the ass, but they have an excuse. A garbage truck driver cannot seriously be expected to do his job in a small vehicle. Similarly, nobody buys a minivan unless they need it, because a minivan is almost tragically uncool. But SUV's? I know a couple where both the husband and wife own SUV's, and each person drives their own SUV to work and back every day.

I don't we should get into the business of restricting someone's property rights because we don't feel they 'need' something they own. If SUVs were such a huge traffic risk that might be a different story, but like I said before, they arn't dangerous as dangerous as an unsafe driver in any vehicle.

As for inconvenience not counting as "direct harm", that is bullshit. If someone is driving at 30 km/h in a 60km/h zone, he can be CHARGED AND FINED for obstructing traffic. Inconvenience is a perfectly legitimate form of harm. Is anyone seriously suggesting that unless they cause PHYSICAL INJURY, there's no harm? That's bullshit; you would have to throw out most of the driving laws in that case, since none of them would apply unless there's an actual accident. I can't go in these situations because the SUV has created an unsafe situation, and with no fucking good reason to do so.

So you want to do what exactly? Have regulators go around to SUV owners and check if they have 4 kids? I for one will gladly tolerate SUV drivers because I value the liberities of my fellow man to drive whatever they can afford or want to drive.

oh, I'd also like to draw your attention to public transportation, buses namely. I know in several cities almost no one uses these systems so we have huge buses roving around town, stopping up traffic, stopping at rail crossings, etc... Maybe those deserve a rant too?

Darth Wong wrote:The difference between an SUV and a rock hauler, garbage truck, minivan etc. is that in my experience, the majority of SUV drivers I run into do not need an SUV. They are commuting to work in the fucking things, with no passengers and no fucking cargo.

You're right, many people probably do not need them. But so what? They buy it because they want the prestige of owning an SUV or they just have money to burn. Why do people need a Corvette? a Viper? a Cobra Mustang? or any other high horse powered sports car? We have speed limits, so why make cars that are built for performance, power, and handling...earmarks of a racing car?

All of the aforementioned vehicles are a pain in the ass, but they have an excuse. A garbage truck driver cannot seriously be expected to do his job in a small vehicle.

You're right here too, BUT, they still share the same roadways as the rest of us. Statisically, work vehicles probably do not cause as many accidents as cars, trucks, and SUV's; however, the potential is there for any vehicle. Seems to me that people just want to whine about an SUV because they can afford one and the SUV is always singled out. There is no major difference in the size of your typical SUV and full sized truck or van.

Similarly, nobody buys a minivan unless they need it, because a minivan is almost tragically uncool.

Damn straight they are uncool.

As for inconvenience not counting as "direct harm", that is bullshit. If someone is driving at 30 km/h in a 60km/h zone, he can be CHARGED AND FINED for obstructing traffic. Inconvenience is a perfectly legitimate form of harm. Is anyone seriously suggesting that unless they cause PHYSICAL INJURY, there's no harm?

Any vehicle could do this.

That's bullshit; you would have to throw out most of the driving laws in that case, since none of them would apply unless there's an actual accident. I can't go in these situations because the SUV has created an unsafe situation, and with no fucking good reason to do so.

Oh pish posh. A freakin' Lincoln Blackwood, Chevrolet Silverado/Astro Van, Toyota Tundra or Tacoma, Ford F-150, or a Dodge Ram are big ass trucks/vans that can "create unsafe situations" for no damn reason. I certainly do not see people hauling anything in their trucks on a daily basis.


Mike, since you have a degree and probably a good paying job, 2 kids, and a wife...just buy one. Join us...ahhhhh ha ha ha!

I'm a cyclist so anything taller then me scares the shit out of me os they fly past

Yossarian wrote:I'm a cyclist so anything taller then me scares the shit out of me os they fly past

Then get off the road!

Pink Eye wrote: Then get off the road!

Damn fucking right. Get the living FUCK off the roads

There is something called a SIDEWALK, you stupid dumbasses.

Same road same rules, my ass. Cyclists on the road are stupid and dangerous to themselves more than anyone else.

MKSheppard wrote:There is something called a SIDEWALK, you stupid dumbasses.

Unfortunately, in most cities bicycles are classified as vehicles, and are hence prohibited from riding on the sidewalk. Doing so can earn a fine (if any police officer cares, that is...)

Pink Eye wrote:You're right, many people probably do not need them. But so what? They buy it because they want the prestige of owning an SUV or they just have money to burn. Why do people need a Corvette? a Viper? a Cobra Mustang? or any other high horse powered sports car? We have speed limits, so why make cars that are built for performance, power, and handling...earmarks of a racing car?

And it makes them assholes. What part of this don't you understand? This is the fucking problem with Americans; you can't say anything bad about any activity before they start whining about their rights. Yes, you have the constitutional right to be a prick; I also have the right to call you a prick if you do something which is grossly inconsiderate of others.

This goes double for Falcon and Shep, both of whom are trying to turn this into some kind of "anti-SUV people are fascists!" crusade. Shut the fuck up and shove that strawman up your ass. Yes, you have the right to own an SUV, but that does not make it OK to be one of the assholes who buys one just for the sake of dick compensation.

SUVs cost to much to gas up. Give me a SmartCar anyday

Would anyone like to say how many days of cargo or people hauling a month some should do before its okay to buy a SUV ?

Also, Id like to ask if all SUV's are bad or are people just upset with the really big ones. Rav4's and Sante Fe's are just small van sized cars with a different shape.

The giant ones are, of course, nothing but a grotesque status symbol for dick compensation. Any so-called "luxury SUV" is dick compensation. The old ones, like Cherokees, look like toys compared to the rolling monoliths that are being sold today.

Darth Wong wrote:The giant ones are, of course, nothing but a grotesque status symbol for dick compensation. Any so-called "luxury SUV" is dick compensation. The old ones, like Cherokees, look like toys compared to the rolling monoliths that are being sold today.

Uhm, what about the Chevy Suburban? been around since the 1940s, and
they are simply HUMONGOUS. The bigass Fords were made to compete with
the Chevy.

Although I loathe these anti-SUV whackos, I think that anyone who is single, lives in a city, and doesn'tr haul a lot of stuff around, but buys an SUV anyway is generally an asshole with a big ego. The only logical reason someone like them would buy one would probably be for the safety factor in crashes, since in a small car, all the other people in SUVs driving around could put you at risk.

http://www.chevrolet.com/suburban/index.html



Suburban Three-Quarter-Ton LT
2WD starting at $42,205 *
4x4 starting at $45,105 *

For heavy-duty towing, Suburban three-quarter-ton LT models feature a maximum trailering weight of 12,000 lbs.(2) when properly equipped with the available Big Block Vortec 8100 V8 engine. In addition, this engine is the most powerful gasoline engine in its class(3) — even more powerful than V10 engine from Ford.

*********

Show me something that can carry a 12,000 pound load
up a grade, and then back down without overheating,
and also carry eight people inside in comfort.

MKSheppard wrote:Show me something that can carry a 12,000 pound load up a grade, and then back down without overheating, and also carry eight people inside in comfort.

Show me a guy who genuinely needs that in order to commute to work every fucking day.

Darth Wong wrote: Show me a guy who genuinely needs that in order to commute to work every fucking day.

My dad. You wouldn't believe all kinds of crap he has thrown in the back
to carry around to jobsites.

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Show me a guy who genuinely needs that in order to commute to work every fucking day.

My dad. You wouldn't believe all kinds of crap he has thrown in the back
to carry around to jobsites.

Wow, a redneck who actually needs a truck or truck-like vehicle. What a shock

How about all of the fucking yuppie city-dwellers driving around in the fucking luxury SUV's with the leather seats and seating for 12 people?

Darth Wong wrote: How about all of the fucking yuppie city-dwellers driving around in the fucking luxury SUV's with the leather seats and seating for 12 people?

Isn't my damn problem what they want to drive. If they got the money
for it, wonderful!

One day, I will be one of those mofos driving around in a needlessly
wasteful vehicle, MWHAA HA HA HA and life will be good....

How about all of the fucking yuppie city-dwellers driving around in the fucking luxury SUV's with the leather seats and seating for 12 people?

Or the wealthy upper-middle class suburbanites. My friend, who's father owns a nice little business, drives a rather large SUV and though I've never said anything I find it slightly annoying because in general I find SUVs distasteful. My first car will be a Beetle.

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: How about all of the fucking yuppie city-dwellers driving around in the fucking luxury SUV's with the leather seats and seating for 12 people?

Isn't my damn problem what they want to drive. If they got the money
for it, wonderful!

One day, I will be one of those mofos driving around in a needlessly
wasteful vehicle, MWHAA HA HA HA and life will be good....

In other words, since you plan to do it yourself, it's OK. Typical Shep logic.

Darth Wong wrote: In other words, since you plan to do it yourself, it's OK. Typical Shep logic.

No, typical AMERICAN logic. See, unlike people in other countries, we don't
get mad when we see a rich guy go past us towing a cabin cruiser behind
his SUV. We promise ourselves that one day, WE will be the guy with the
cabin cruiser.

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: In other words, since you plan to do it yourself, it's OK. Typical Shep logic.

No, typical AMERICAN logic. See, unlike people in other countries, we don't
get mad when we see a rich guy go past us towing a cabin cruiser behind
his SUV. We promise ourselves that one day, WE will be the guy with the
cabin cruiser.

So you're basically saying that all Americans are inconsiderate pricks? OK, as long as you said it instead of me. Wouldn't want to get flamed for being a Yankee-basher.

Darth Wong wrote:The giant ones are, of course, nothing but a grotesque status symbol for dick compensation. Any so-called "luxury SUV" is dick compensation. The old ones, like Cherokees, look like toys compared to the rolling monoliths that are being sold today.

I drive an 89 Cherokee. I bought it primarily for the cargo space I make use of frequently. I think in my family only two don't own an SUV (normal size) and/or a minivan and I promise you that none of them bought it for the status (kids/work).

However, most of what has been said about the current trend in huge SUV's is true for the most part. I could never understand shelling out $40,000 for a vehicle that you're never going to use for it's intended purpose or fully utilize.

BTW, am I the only person here who actually owns an SUV?