Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
the bigger the SUV, the more of a jerk its driver is likely to be.
Have you ever wondered why sport utility vehicle drivers seem like such assholes? Surely it's no coincidence that Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, tours Washington in one of the biggest SUVs on the market, the Cadillac Escalade, or that Jesse Ventura loves the Lincoln Navigator.
Have you ever wondered why sport utility vehicle drivers seem like such assholes? Surely it's no coincidence that Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, tours Washington in one of the biggest SUVs on the market, the Cadillac Escalade, or that Jesse Ventura loves the Lincoln Navigator.
Well, according to New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher's new book, "High and Mighty," the connection between the two isn't a coincidence. Unlike any other vehicle before it, the SUV is the car of choice for the nation's most self-centered people; and the bigger the SUV, the more of a jerk its driver is likely to be.
According to market research conducted by the country's leading automakers, Bradsher reports, SUV buyers tend to be "insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors and communities. They are more restless, more sybaritic, and less social than most Americans are. They tend to like fine restaurants a lot more than off-road driving, seldom go to church and have limited interest in doing volunteer work to help others."
He says, too, that SUV drivers generally don't care about anyone else's kids but their own, are very concerned with how other people see them rather than with what's practical, and they tend to want to control or have control over the people around them. David Bostwick, Chrysler's market research director, tells Bradsher, "If you have a sport utility, you can have the smoked windows, put the children in the back and pretend you're still single."
Armed with such research, automakers have, over the past decade, ramped up their SUV designs to appeal even more to the "reptilian" instincts of the many Americans who are attracted to SUVs not because of their perceived safety, but for their obvious aggressiveness. Automakers have intentionally designed the latest models to resemble ferocious animals. The Dodge Durango, for instance, was built to resemble a savage jungle cat, with vertical bars across the grille to represent teeth and big jaw-like fenders. Bradsher quotes a former Ford market researcher who says the SUV craze is "about not letting anything get in your way, and at the extreme, about intimidating others to get out of your way."
Not surprisingly, most SUV customers over the past decade hail from a group that is the embodiment of American narcissism: baby boomers. Affluent and often socially liberal, baby boomers have embraced the four-wheel-drive SUV as a symbol of their ability to defy the conventions of old age, of their independence and "outdoorsiness," making the off-road vehicle a force to be reckoned with on the American blacktop.
But as Bradsher declares in his title, this baby boomer fetish is considerably more harmful than the mere annoyance of yet another Rolling Stones tour or the endless commercials for Propecia. In their attempt to appear youthful and hip, SUV owners have filled the American highways with vehicles that exact a distinctly human cost, frequently killing innocent drivers who would have survived a collision with a lesser vehicle. Bradsher quotes auto execs who concede that the self-centered lifestyle of SUV buyers is apparent in "their willingness to endanger other motorists so as to achieve small improvements in their personal safety."
After covering the auto industry for six years, Bradsher is an unabashed critic of sport-utility vehicles and the automakers that continue to churn them out knowing full well the dangers they pose. He doesn't equivocate in his feeling that driving an SUV is a deeply immoral act that places the driver's own ego above the health and safety of those around him, not to mention the health of the environment. Ironically, and though most supposedly safety-conscious owners don't realize it, SUVs even imperil those who drive them.
Road Rodeo
Ask a typical SUV driver why he drives such a formidable vehicle, and he'll invariably insist that it's for safety reasons – the kids, you know – not because he's too vain to get behind the wheel of a sissy Ford Windstar. Automakers themselves know otherwise – their own market research tells them so.
But Bradsher makes painfully clear that the belief in SUV safety is a delusion. For decades, automakers seeking to avoid tougher fuel economy standards have invoked the fiction that the bigger the car, the safer the passenger. As a result, most Americans take it on faith that the only way to be safe on the highway is to be driving a tank (or the next best thing, a Hummer). Bradsher shatters this myth and highlights the strange disconnect between the perception and the reality of SUVs.
The occupant death rate in SUVs is 6 percent higher than it is for cars – 8 percent higher in the largest SUVs. The main reason is that SUVs carry a high risk of rollover; 62 percent of SUV deaths in 2000 occurred in rollover accidents. SUVs don't handle well, so drivers can't respond quickly when the car hits a stretch of uneven pavement or "trips" by scraping a guardrail. Even a small bump in the road is enough to flip an SUV traveling at high speed. On top of that, SUV roofs are not reinforced to protect the occupants against rollover; nor does the government require them to be.
Because of their vehicles' size and four-wheel drive, SUV drivers tend to overestimate their own security, which prompts many to drive like maniacs, particularly in inclement weather. And SUV drivers – ever image-conscious and overconfident – seem to hate seat belts as much as they love talking on their cell phones while driving. Bradsher reports that four-fifths of those killed in roll-overs were not belted in, even though 75 percent of the general driving population now buckles up regularly.
While failing to protect their occupants, SUVs have also made the roads more dangerous for others. The "kill rate," as Bradsher calls it, for SUVs is simply jaw-dropping. For every one life saved by driving an SUV, five others will be taken. Government researchers have found that a behemoth like the four-ton Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people for every 1 million models on the road; by comparison, the Honda Accord only kills 21. Injuries in SUV-related accidents are likewise more severe.
Part of the reason for the high kill rate is that cars offer very little protection against an SUV hitting them from the side – not because of the weight, but because of the design. When a car is hit from the side by another car, the victim is 6.6 times as likely to die as the aggressor. But if the aggressor is an SUV, the car driver's relative chance of dying rises to 30 to 1, because the hood of an SUV is so high off the ground. Rather than hitting the reinforced doors of a car with its bumper, an SUV will slam into more vulnerable areas and strike a car driver in the head or chest, where injuries are more life-threatening.
But before you get an SUV just for defensive purposes, think again. Any safety gains that might accrue are cancelled out by the high risk of rollover deaths, which usually don't involve other cars.
Ironically, SUVs are particularly dangerous for children, whose safety is often the rationale for buying them in the first place. Because these beasts are so big and hard to see around (and often equipped with dark-tinted glass that's illegal in cars), SUV drivers have a troubling tendency to run over their own kids. Just recently, in October, a wealthy Long Island doctor made headlines after he ran over and killed his 2-year-old in the driveway with his BMW X5. He told police he thought he'd hit the curb.
To illustrate the kind of selfishness that marks some SUV drivers, Bradsher finds people who rave about how they've survived accidents with barely a scratch, yet neglected to mention that the people in the other car were all killed. (One such woman confesses rather chillingly to Bradsher that her first response after killing another driver was to go out and get an even bigger SUV.)
The tragedy of SUVs is that highway fatalities were actually in decline before SUVs came into vogue, even though Americans were driving farther. This is true largely for one simple reason: the seatbelt. Seatbelt usage rose from 14 percent in 1984 to 73 percent in 2001. But seatbelts aren't much help if you're sideswiped by an Escalade, a prospect that looms yet more ominously as SUVs enter the used-car market. Not surprisingly, last year, for the first time in a decade, the number of highway deaths actually rose.
No Roads Scholars Here
Bradsher blames government for failing to adequately regulate SUVs, but doesn't fully acknowledge the degree to which it has encouraged SUV production by becoming a major consumer of them. Law enforcement and public safety agencies in particular seem enamored of the menacing vehicles, a fact on proud display when officers finally apprehended the alleged snipers in the Washington, D.C., area and transported them to the federal courthouse in a parade of black Ford Explorers and Expeditions.
Judging from the number of official SUVs on the road today, law enforcement officials – those most likely to know firsthand the grisly effects of a rollover – are enthusiastic customers. Like the rest of America, police departments seem to believe that replacing safe, sturdy cars with SUVs is a good idea, though it's hard to imagine a more dangerous vehicle for an officer conducting a high-speed chase.
Government's taste for SUVs isn't limited to cops and firemen. There's hardly a city in America where the mayor's chauffeured Lincoln Town Car hasn't been replaced by an SUV. In Virginia, where state officials recently discovered that SUVs were wrecking their efforts to meet clean-air regulations, a few noted sheepishly that perhaps local governments should sell their own fleets, which had ballooned to 250 in Fairfax County alone. (A Fairfax County official told The Washington Post that public safety officials needed four-wheel drive and large cargo spaces to transport extra people and emergency equipment through snow or heavy rain – proof that even law enforcement officials misunderstand SUV safety records.)
As Bradsher details, because of their weight, shoddy brakes, and off-road tires, SUVs handle poorly in bad weather and have trouble stopping on slick roads. What's more, they're generally so poorly designed as not to be capable of carrying much cargo, despite the space. A contributing factor in the Ford Explorer-Firestone tire debacle was that drivers weren't told that their Explorers shouldn't carry any more weight than a Ford Taurus. The extra weight routinely piled in these big cars stressed the tires in a way that made them fall apart faster and contributed to the spate of rollover deaths.
I have a hunch that government officials' justification for buying SUVs is mostly a ruse for their real motivation, which is the same as any other SUV owner's: image. Officials can safely load up their fleets with leather-seated SUVs, whereas using taxpayer dollars to buy themselves, say, a fleet of BMW coupes would get them crucified (even though Detroit considers SUVs luxury vehicles and designs them accordingly). Police departments may claim that they need an SUV to accommodate SWAT teams or canine units, but there is no reason that Sparky the drug dog wouldn't be just as comfortable in the back of a nice safe Chevy Astrovan.
The same is true for nearly everyone who drives an SUV today. Of course, not every SUV owner is gripped by insecurity and a death wish – plenty of otherwise reasonable people seem to get seduced by power and size (see sidebar).
But if soccer moms and office-park dads really need to ferry a lot of people around, they could simply get a large car or a minivan, which Bradsher hails as a great innovation for its fuel efficiency, safety, and lower pollution. (And minivans don't have a disproportionately high kill rate for motorists or pedestrians when they get into accidents.) According to industry market research, minivan drivers also tend to be very nice people. Minivans are favored by senior citizens and others (male and female, equally) who volunteer for their churches and carpool with other people's kids. But that's the problem. SUV owners buy them precisely because they don't want the "soccer mom" stigma associated with minivans.
While Bradsher does a magnificent job of shattering the myths about SUVs, he has a difficult time proposing a solution. Sport utility vehicles have become like guns: Everyone knows they're dangerous, but you can't exactly force millions of Americans to give them up overnight. And because the SUV is single-handedly responsible for revitalizing the once-depressed American auto industry, the economy is now so dependent on their production that it would be nearly impossible to get them off the road.
Bradsher suggests regulating SUVs like cars rather than as light trucks, so that they would be forced to comply with fuel-efficiency standards and safety regulations. He also proposes that the insurance industry stop shifting the high costs of the SUV dangers onto car owners by raising premium prices for SUVs to reflect the amount of damage they cause. But these ideas, commendable though they are, fall short of a perfect answer.
Clearly, the best solution would be for Americans to realize the danger of SUVs and simply stop buying them. Social pressure can be a powerful determinant on car choices, as seen in Japan, the one country where SUVs have not caught on because of cultural checks that emphasize the good of the community over that of the individual. There are signs that perhaps public sentiment is beginning to shift against SUV drivers here, too, as activists have begun to leave nasty flyers on SUV windshields berating drivers for fouling the environment and other offenses.
But for a true reckoning to take place, image-obsessed Americans will need to fully understand the SUV's true dangers – including to themselves – before they will willingly abandon it to the junkyard. Spreading that message against the nation's biggest advertiser – the auto industry – will be tough work. Drivers can only hope that Bradsher's book will cut through the chatter.
Stephanie Mencimer is a contributing editor of The Washington Monthly.
Well, according to New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher's new book, "High and Mighty," the connection between the two isn't a coincidence. Unlike any other vehicle before it, the SUV is the car of choice for the nation's most self-centered people; and the bigger the SUV, the more of a jerk its driver is likely to be.
According to market research conducted by the country's leading automakers, Bradsher reports, SUV buyers tend to be "insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors and communities. They are more restless, more sybaritic, and less social than most Americans are. They tend to like fine restaurants a lot more than off-road driving, seldom go to church and have limited interest in doing volunteer work to help others."
He says, too, that SUV drivers generally don't care about anyone else's kids but their own, are very concerned with how other people see them rather than with what's practical, and they tend to want to control or have control over the people around them. David Bostwick, Chrysler's market research director, tells Bradsher, "If you have a sport utility, you can have the smoked windows, put the children in the back and pretend you're still single."
Armed with such research, automakers have, over the past decade, ramped up their SUV designs to appeal even more to the "reptilian" instincts of the many Americans who are attracted to SUVs not because of their perceived safety, but for their obvious aggressiveness. Automakers have intentionally designed the latest models to resemble ferocious animals. The Dodge Durango, for instance, was built to resemble a savage jungle cat, with vertical bars across the grille to represent teeth and big jaw-like fenders. Bradsher quotes a former Ford market researcher who says the SUV craze is "about not letting anything get in your way, and at the extreme, about intimidating others to get out of your way."
Not surprisingly, most SUV customers over the past decade hail from a group that is the embodiment of American narcissism: baby boomers. Affluent and often socially liberal, baby boomers have embraced the four-wheel-drive SUV as a symbol of their ability to defy the conventions of old age, of their independence and "outdoorsiness," making the off-road vehicle a force to be reckoned with on the American blacktop.
But as Bradsher declares in his title, this baby boomer fetish is considerably more harmful than the mere annoyance of yet another Rolling Stones tour or the endless commercials for Propecia. In their attempt to appear youthful and hip, SUV owners have filled the American highways with vehicles that exact a distinctly human cost, frequently killing innocent drivers who would have survived a collision with a lesser vehicle. Bradsher quotes auto execs who concede that the self-centered lifestyle of SUV buyers is apparent in "their willingness to endanger other motorists so as to achieve small improvements in their personal safety."
After covering the auto industry for six years, Bradsher is an unabashed critic of sport-utility vehicles and the automakers that continue to churn them out knowing full well the dangers they pose. He doesn't equivocate in his feeling that driving an SUV is a deeply immoral act that places the driver's own ego above the health and safety of those around him, not to mention the health of the environment. Ironically, and though most supposedly safety-conscious owners don't realize it, SUVs even imperil those who drive them.
Road Rodeo
Ask a typical SUV driver why he drives such a formidable vehicle, and he'll invariably insist that it's for safety reasons – the kids, you know – not because he's too vain to get behind the wheel of a sissy Ford Windstar. Automakers themselves know otherwise – their own market research tells them so.
But Bradsher makes painfully clear that the belief in SUV safety is a delusion. For decades, automakers seeking to avoid tougher fuel economy standards have invoked the fiction that the bigger the car, the safer the passenger. As a result, most Americans take it on faith that the only way to be safe on the highway is to be driving a tank (or the next best thing, a Hummer). Bradsher shatters this myth and highlights the strange disconnect between the perception and the reality of SUVs.
The occupant death rate in SUVs is 6 percent higher than it is for cars – 8 percent higher in the largest SUVs. The main reason is that SUVs carry a high risk of rollover; 62 percent of SUV deaths in 2000 occurred in rollover accidents. SUVs don't handle well, so drivers can't respond quickly when the car hits a stretch of uneven pavement or "trips" by scraping a guardrail. Even a small bump in the road is enough to flip an SUV traveling at high speed. On top of that, SUV roofs are not reinforced to protect the occupants against rollover; nor does the government require them to be.
Because of their vehicles' size and four-wheel drive, SUV drivers tend to overestimate their own security, which prompts many to drive like maniacs, particularly in inclement weather. And SUV drivers – ever image-conscious and overconfident – seem to hate seat belts as much as they love talking on their cell phones while driving. Bradsher reports that four-fifths of those killed in roll-overs were not belted in, even though 75 percent of the general driving population now buckles up regularly.
While failing to protect their occupants, SUVs have also made the roads more dangerous for others. The "kill rate," as Bradsher calls it, for SUVs is simply jaw-dropping. For every one life saved by driving an SUV, five others will be taken. Government researchers have found that a behemoth like the four-ton Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people for every 1 million models on the road; by comparison, the Honda Accord only kills 21. Injuries in SUV-related accidents are likewise more severe.
Part of the reason for the high kill rate is that cars offer very little protection against an SUV hitting them from the side – not because of the weight, but because of the design. When a car is hit from the side by another car, the victim is 6.6 times as likely to die as the aggressor. But if the aggressor is an SUV, the car driver's relative chance of dying rises to 30 to 1, because the hood of an SUV is so high off the ground. Rather than hitting the reinforced doors of a car with its bumper, an SUV will slam into more vulnerable areas and strike a car driver in the head or chest, where injuries are more life-threatening.
But before you get an SUV just for defensive purposes, think again. Any safety gains that might accrue are cancelled out by the high risk of rollover deaths, which usually don't involve other cars.
Ironically, SUVs are particularly dangerous for children, whose safety is often the rationale for buying them in the first place. Because these beasts are so big and hard to see around (and often equipped with dark-tinted glass that's illegal in cars), SUV drivers have a troubling tendency to run over their own kids. Just recently, in October, a wealthy Long Island doctor made headlines after he ran over and killed his 2-year-old in the driveway with his BMW X5. He told police he thought he'd hit the curb.
To illustrate the kind of selfishness that marks some SUV drivers, Bradsher finds people who rave about how they've survived accidents with barely a scratch, yet neglected to mention that the people in the other car were all killed. (One such woman confesses rather chillingly to Bradsher that her first response after killing another driver was to go out and get an even bigger SUV.)
The tragedy of SUVs is that highway fatalities were actually in decline before SUVs came into vogue, even though Americans were driving farther. This is true largely for one simple reason: the seatbelt. Seatbelt usage rose from 14 percent in 1984 to 73 percent in 2001. But seatbelts aren't much help if you're sideswiped by an Escalade, a prospect that looms yet more ominously as SUVs enter the used-car market. Not surprisingly, last year, for the first time in a decade, the number of highway deaths actually rose.
No Roads Scholars Here
Bradsher blames government for failing to adequately regulate SUVs, but doesn't fully acknowledge the degree to which it has encouraged SUV production by becoming a major consumer of them. Law enforcement and public safety agencies in particular seem enamored of the menacing vehicles, a fact on proud display when officers finally apprehended the alleged snipers in the Washington, D.C., area and transported them to the federal courthouse in a parade of black Ford Explorers and Expeditions.
Judging from the number of official SUVs on the road today, law enforcement officials – those most likely to know firsthand the grisly effects of a rollover – are enthusiastic customers. Like the rest of America, police departments seem to believe that replacing safe, sturdy cars with SUVs is a good idea, though it's hard to imagine a more dangerous vehicle for an officer conducting a high-speed chase.
Government's taste for SUVs isn't limited to cops and firemen. There's hardly a city in America where the mayor's chauffeured Lincoln Town Car hasn't been replaced by an SUV. In Virginia, where state officials recently discovered that SUVs were wrecking their efforts to meet clean-air regulations, a few noted sheepishly that perhaps local governments should sell their own fleets, which had ballooned to 250 in Fairfax County alone. (A Fairfax County official told The Washington Post that public safety officials needed four-wheel drive and large cargo spaces to transport extra people and emergency equipment through snow or heavy rain – proof that even law enforcement officials misunderstand SUV safety records.)
As Bradsher details, because of their weight, shoddy brakes, and off-road tires, SUVs handle poorly in bad weather and have trouble stopping on slick roads. What's more, they're generally so poorly designed as not to be capable of carrying much cargo, despite the space. A contributing factor in the Ford Explorer-Firestone tire debacle was that drivers weren't told that their Explorers shouldn't carry any more weight than a Ford Taurus. The extra weight routinely piled in these big cars stressed the tires in a way that made them fall apart faster and contributed to the spate of rollover deaths.
I have a hunch that government officials' justification for buying SUVs is mostly a ruse for their real motivation, which is the same as any other SUV owner's: image. Officials can safely load up their fleets with leather-seated SUVs, whereas using taxpayer dollars to buy themselves, say, a fleet of BMW coupes would get them crucified (even though Detroit considers SUVs luxury vehicles and designs them accordingly). Police departments may claim that they need an SUV to accommodate SWAT teams or canine units, but there is no reason that Sparky the drug dog wouldn't be just as comfortable in the back of a nice safe Chevy Astrovan.
The same is true for nearly everyone who drives an SUV today. Of course, not every SUV owner is gripped by insecurity and a death wish – plenty of otherwise reasonable people seem to get seduced by power and size (see sidebar).
But if soccer moms and office-park dads really need to ferry a lot of people around, they could simply get a large car or a minivan, which Bradsher hails as a great innovation for its fuel efficiency, safety, and lower pollution. (And minivans don't have a disproportionately high kill rate for motorists or pedestrians when they get into accidents.) According to industry market research, minivan drivers also tend to be very nice people. Minivans are favored by senior citizens and others (male and female, equally) who volunteer for their churches and carpool with other people's kids. But that's the problem. SUV owners buy them precisely because they don't want the "soccer mom" stigma associated with minivans.
While Bradsher does a magnificent job of shattering the myths about SUVs, he has a difficult time proposing a solution. Sport utility vehicles have become like guns: Everyone knows they're dangerous, but you can't exactly force millions of Americans to give them up overnight. And because the SUV is single-handedly responsible for revitalizing the once-depressed American auto industry, the economy is now so dependent on their production that it would be nearly impossible to get them off the road.
Bradsher suggests regulating SUVs like cars rather than as light trucks, so that they would be forced to comply with fuel-efficiency standards and safety regulations. He also proposes that the insurance industry stop shifting the high costs of the SUV dangers onto car owners by raising premium prices for SUVs to reflect the amount of damage they cause. But these ideas, commendable though they are, fall short of a perfect answer.
Clearly, the best solution would be for Americans to realize the danger of SUVs and simply stop buying them. Social pressure can be a powerful determinant on car choices, as seen in Japan, the one country where SUVs have not caught on because of cultural checks that emphasize the good of the community over that of the individual. There are signs that perhaps public sentiment is beginning to shift against SUV drivers here, too, as activists have begun to leave nasty flyers on SUV windshields berating drivers for fouling the environment and other offenses.
But for a true reckoning to take place, image-obsessed Americans will need to fully understand the SUV's true dangers – including to themselves – before they will willingly abandon it to the junkyard. Spreading that message against the nation's biggest advertiser – the auto industry – will be tough work. Drivers can only hope that Bradsher's book will cut through the chatter.
Stephanie Mencimer is a contributing editor of The Washington Monthly.
For more information:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
SUV drivers are insecure and vain.
So we're now able to judge a person's quailites by the vehicle they drive? Isn't that a little superficial? Hey, if we can do that, why can't we say this?:
Black people: Are all unemployed criminals
Mexicans: Are all illegal immigrants who become gardners
Asians: Are all horrible drivers
Jews: Will screw you out of every last dime
Whites: Can't dance/jump/etc...
Why? Because stereotypes are wrong and do more to divide people then bring them together. If you want to be divisive in stereotyping one group of people (even if they AREN'T a race) you tacitly approve of the stereotyping of others....
Black people: Are all unemployed criminals
Mexicans: Are all illegal immigrants who become gardners
Asians: Are all horrible drivers
Jews: Will screw you out of every last dime
Whites: Can't dance/jump/etc...
Why? Because stereotypes are wrong and do more to divide people then bring them together. If you want to be divisive in stereotyping one group of people (even if they AREN'T a race) you tacitly approve of the stereotyping of others....
For the spelling of "qualities" - realized it was wrong after I posted. Please keep the flaming re: "My lack of intelligence" to a minimum please...
an . . . .
3 years ago some woman locked her brakes on the interstate beltline causing a chain accident. She still killed the dog she was trying to miss. I drove a f150 into the back of a honda accord at 30 miles an hour. THe accord collapsed to the passenger door. Any person who was in that seat would have been fucked. By the way I had to take the bumper off and pound out a big dent and sand off the paint from her car. There was no other damage to the truck. You can't argue with physics..
YOu choose, You are driving a civic or an expedition and about to be hit by a van, who is going to be in better shape.
Oh you can't pull a boat with a subaru. Great car but some people actually use those things for something.
YOu choose, You are driving a civic or an expedition and about to be hit by a van, who is going to be in better shape.
Oh you can't pull a boat with a subaru. Great car but some people actually use those things for something.
cry, cry, be sad
but nobody's really that bad
cause we're all goin to hell
in our styling S U Vs
the world it is to you and me
what no one else will ever see
cause they don't get their MTV
yeah! thats what they need
what used to be plentiful
was never really possible
but that's why they sent us all to school
to be good little tools
follow that latest fad
no matter how pathetic or sad
cause we're all goin to hell
in our styling S U Vs
shop all weekend long
work all the week strong
and there'll be nothing wrong
when we hit the bong
cause we're all goin to hell
and we're doing it all quite well
we keep sleeping through the church bell
baby, can't you tell?
so cry, cry, be sad
but nobody's really that bad
cause we're all goin to hell
in our styling S U Vs
we just want to do the right thing
so long as we can drive our big mustang
your nation doesn't mean a god damned thing
next to my damn big mustang
sure we agree it's time
but we're too busy making a dime
to solve the problems we create
so don't get mad
just cry, cry, be sad
but nobody's really that bad
cause we're all goin to hell
in our styling S U Vs
but nobody's really that bad
cause we're all goin to hell
in our styling S U Vs
the world it is to you and me
what no one else will ever see
cause they don't get their MTV
yeah! thats what they need
what used to be plentiful
was never really possible
but that's why they sent us all to school
to be good little tools
follow that latest fad
no matter how pathetic or sad
cause we're all goin to hell
in our styling S U Vs
shop all weekend long
work all the week strong
and there'll be nothing wrong
when we hit the bong
cause we're all goin to hell
and we're doing it all quite well
we keep sleeping through the church bell
baby, can't you tell?
so cry, cry, be sad
but nobody's really that bad
cause we're all goin to hell
in our styling S U Vs
we just want to do the right thing
so long as we can drive our big mustang
your nation doesn't mean a god damned thing
next to my damn big mustang
sure we agree it's time
but we're too busy making a dime
to solve the problems we create
so don't get mad
just cry, cry, be sad
but nobody's really that bad
cause we're all goin to hell
in our styling S U Vs
For more information:
http://www.schmee.biz
Those very large sized SUVs are being subsidized at a high level - $24,000. Wealthy people who can afford the rest of the price tag of a $47,000 expedition can write off $24,000 from their taxes. This means that other people have to pay more taxes to compensate for it.: http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/epaper/editions/thursday/features_e3d1e00b739f42bb004e.html
If you own your own business and buy it as part of the business, the article says.
If you're trying to smear people, you could at least do it honestly.
chris
If you're trying to smear people, you could at least do it honestly.
chris
... it IS perfectly legitimate to own and operate a large vehicle such as an SUV or a pickup if your livelihood depends on it. and if you do own and operate one as part of your business, then maybe a tax break is in order.
but unfortunately, for every SUV and pickup out on the streets that gets used for absolutely legitimate reasons, there's probably at least 10 that are used for bullshit reasons. like guys showing off. like insecure people needing to feel powerful. a person does not need a 350 horsepower triton V-8 to fucking drive around to the mall with. that's a ridiculous waste of power and technolgy. if you're hauling lawn mowers, or sheet rock, or boats even, or horse trailers, fine. but how many times do i see these huge fucking vehicles absolutely spotless, no dirt, no evidence of ever going off road even once, without even a trailer hitch, hauling one person around to the fucking grocery store. that's bullshit.
but then to top that all off, apperently YOU STILL GET A TAX BREAK for owning one EVEN IF YOU DON'T USE IT FOR YOUR LIVELIHOOD. THAT's EVEN MORE BULLSHIT.
hell, why not buy a sixteen wheeler to drive around town in while you're doing errands? put your cute little package of cereal and beer and frozen food that weighs like 20 pounds in the huge trailer. climb up into in the cab, and fire up the 800 horsepower diesel engine to haul your 20 fucking pounds with. i mean, gimme a f*ckin' break...
but unfortunately, for every SUV and pickup out on the streets that gets used for absolutely legitimate reasons, there's probably at least 10 that are used for bullshit reasons. like guys showing off. like insecure people needing to feel powerful. a person does not need a 350 horsepower triton V-8 to fucking drive around to the mall with. that's a ridiculous waste of power and technolgy. if you're hauling lawn mowers, or sheet rock, or boats even, or horse trailers, fine. but how many times do i see these huge fucking vehicles absolutely spotless, no dirt, no evidence of ever going off road even once, without even a trailer hitch, hauling one person around to the fucking grocery store. that's bullshit.
but then to top that all off, apperently YOU STILL GET A TAX BREAK for owning one EVEN IF YOU DON'T USE IT FOR YOUR LIVELIHOOD. THAT's EVEN MORE BULLSHIT.
hell, why not buy a sixteen wheeler to drive around town in while you're doing errands? put your cute little package of cereal and beer and frozen food that weighs like 20 pounds in the huge trailer. climb up into in the cab, and fire up the 800 horsepower diesel engine to haul your 20 fucking pounds with. i mean, gimme a f*ckin' break...
we got taxis now that are 4cyl. and Small toyotas, etc..
we got pickups with 30-35mpg.&can Haul!!
we got hybrids and 4wd that get 40mpg
we got turbodiesel trucks&cars with great torque&mileage, and hondas, small others that are SO economical, that it pauses one to wonder...How the fuk does the SUV fit in??
it don't...and ya those assholes that use em to "gofrgroceries" are Fucked and neurotic...but we are in a world of extremeexcess or nearzilch...try figurin
we got pickups with 30-35mpg.&can Haul!!
we got hybrids and 4wd that get 40mpg
we got turbodiesel trucks&cars with great torque&mileage, and hondas, small others that are SO economical, that it pauses one to wonder...How the fuk does the SUV fit in??
it don't...and ya those assholes that use em to "gofrgroceries" are Fucked and neurotic...but we are in a world of extremeexcess or nearzilch...try figurin
Um, the way businesses are taxed is that only profit - the difference between income and expenditures, are taxed. Costs like wages paid to employees and equipment count as business expenses, and if the company made a negative or zero profit, the company wouldn't have to pay taxes. Thus, if a company had to buy cars (not suvs over 6000 lbs) as equipment, it would count as business expense. Plus, if you were to briefly google this issue, there are tons of sites on the net advising people to buy these things to take advantage of the deduction. You never see Yukons out in farm country - you see trucks.
I'm all for buying what you need but. We live in an open society. YOu don't need sports cars, Harley's or speed boats but we've got em. And rightly so. If you want to spend 40 grand on an excursion with a v-10 there should be no law stopping you. If you want to drive a hybrid more power to you. That should have no impact on what is parked in my driveway.
I have an accord and a f250 diesel. If i'm going to crash one of them I prefer to be in the one that weighs 4 tons. I do drive the truck to the store because I can, it gets the same milage as a sports car so who cares.
By the way if you try to tow a 5500 pound boat with a 4 banger truck its going to make noises like a cat colliding with a baby and then the transmission is going to fall off.
I have an accord and a f250 diesel. If i'm going to crash one of them I prefer to be in the one that weighs 4 tons. I do drive the truck to the store because I can, it gets the same milage as a sports car so who cares.
By the way if you try to tow a 5500 pound boat with a 4 banger truck its going to make noises like a cat colliding with a baby and then the transmission is going to fall off.
Sort of funny - NPR had hosted the author of the anti-SUV book some months back, but recently, on the day after these ads broke, Terry Gross had on some car bigwig who was going on and on about how wonderful it is that the horsepower is so high in a lot of cars now. TG asked him "But doesn't that lower the milage?" and he spoke proudly about how some of them get as high as 20 mph! TG laughed incredulously and - also incredible - asked "But we were getting better milage than that in the 1980s . . . aren't we going backwards then??" The guy changed the subject at that point, to how wonderful it is that the new technologies allow for such high mph with these types of horsepowers. And she asked what the benefits were - "Oh, you can get on to the highway a couple of seconds faster, accelerate past someone a few seconds faster . . . " What an idiot!
Sure, let's murder hundreds of thousands of people to accelerate faster by a few seconds!
But it was funny that they had that on right after the ads came out, which made him look even more idiotic.
Sure, let's murder hundreds of thousands of people to accelerate faster by a few seconds!
But it was funny that they had that on right after the ads came out, which made him look even more idiotic.
Why should anyone be forced to drive an econobox?
I've got an lev but I chose to buy it. The socialist goverment did not mandate that I drive a type of car.
If I want a car with 400 horsepower I should, and can, be able to buy it..
Choices are good.
I've got an lev but I chose to buy it. The socialist goverment did not mandate that I drive a type of car.
If I want a car with 400 horsepower I should, and can, be able to buy it..
Choices are good.
nobody should be forced to buy anything. people who got money to waste on vehicles that have 50 times the power they need should waste it. they'll see what it gets them when gas prices start going up.
but if i'm NOT a building contractor, and i do not use my Z-71 to haul plywood sheathing and tool buckets around as part of my livelihood, WHY SHOULD I GET A TAX BREAK FOR BUYING ONE?
if i'm not willing to do service as a soldier, why should the military pay for my college education?
but if i'm NOT a building contractor, and i do not use my Z-71 to haul plywood sheathing and tool buckets around as part of my livelihood, WHY SHOULD I GET A TAX BREAK FOR BUYING ONE?
if i'm not willing to do service as a soldier, why should the military pay for my college education?
exactly. I think the military should start selling used tanks to Americans. Maybe even new ones, modified for highway use. They should be able to buy one and drive it to work if they want to. You never know when you might need to defend yourself. I think they get pretty low milage, but so what, right?
I do not wan't to subsidize any one's vehicle.
But being able to run a small business or farm and use vehicles for that business is legit. YOu still have to pay for it though. A tax break isn;t given at purchase.
You can buy a tracked vehicle, you just can't drive it on the roads.
We are not socialists no ones should have to drive what the central committe thinks they need. Choice is good.
But being able to run a small business or farm and use vehicles for that business is legit. YOu still have to pay for it though. A tax break isn;t given at purchase.
You can buy a tracked vehicle, you just can't drive it on the roads.
We are not socialists no ones should have to drive what the central committe thinks they need. Choice is good.
It's funny how the same people who constantly gripe about the US government for being repressive and infringing on individual rights and would overthrow it are the same ones who would tell me what I can buy and drive. I enjoy the freedom to lock the hubs whenever I want to. You want buy some foreign thing with the structural integrity of a beer can - have at it. God forbid we collide, but if we do, you've had it in that cardboard car.
in cooperation with North Korea, all hyndais are now equipped with a device to destroy an SUV upon impact: a nuclear warhead! watch those SUVs swerve out of the way as we barrell--well, putter--down the highway. Mutual Assured Collision: It's the new Hyandai guarantee: see your local hyndai dealer today!
You Stephanie, are a retard. I cannot believe you wasted your day writing an article about such nonsense. You are obviously a liberal, that supports overly intrusive gun control laws, baby killing, and anti-war protests. Maybe you should move to France where people like you can grow hair under your arms and live in peace and tranquility. You freakin' Communist.
Hmm. Are you saying she's a jerk for calling someone else a jerk?
An article to point out that people that drive certain types of vehicles are jerks. What a pointless, bigoted article. I suppose one could write a similar article about Volvo drivers being pretentious, and driving so slow as to be a safetly hazard. Or how drivers that use cell phones are self-absorbed, distracted and a safety hazard. How easy it is to pick a category of people you dislike or despise and write an article to slander them. How about an article describing Harley riders; their characteristics, how loud their bikes are, and how unsafe. Does a motorcycle really need that much power when scooters can get you to the same places?
I could go on finding easy targets for contempt and public ridicule but what is the point? If any of you were really concerned with safety you would realize that motorized vehicles are inherently dangerous and not make it so easy for everyone to drive. Nor to encourage people to drive at early ages. It is easier to get a drivers license than to establish lines of credit. And yet, which kills and maims?
Don't get me wrong..I live in an area where SUV's are very predominate, and I also see their behavior on the road. And while I may agree with some of the observations in the article I cannot see a reason to make it a centerpiece for any legitimate article for making roads safer.
"SUV drivers are assholes"..so what else is new. So are those self-centered bigots that feel it necessary to throw rocks at others they do not care for without addressing real issues directly affecting the root cause. We encourage and make it easy for everyone to drive when everyone is clearly not capable. Mass insanity is often ignored when it is considered popular thought.
I could go on finding easy targets for contempt and public ridicule but what is the point? If any of you were really concerned with safety you would realize that motorized vehicles are inherently dangerous and not make it so easy for everyone to drive. Nor to encourage people to drive at early ages. It is easier to get a drivers license than to establish lines of credit. And yet, which kills and maims?
Don't get me wrong..I live in an area where SUV's are very predominate, and I also see their behavior on the road. And while I may agree with some of the observations in the article I cannot see a reason to make it a centerpiece for any legitimate article for making roads safer.
"SUV drivers are assholes"..so what else is new. So are those self-centered bigots that feel it necessary to throw rocks at others they do not care for without addressing real issues directly affecting the root cause. We encourage and make it easy for everyone to drive when everyone is clearly not capable. Mass insanity is often ignored when it is considered popular thought.
The real issue is that SUV owners get a tax break on their vehicles, so the rest of us end up subsidizing their gluttony, which incidently, is a major cause of war. Since we taxpayers have to also subsidize the military, which makes cheap gasoline possible, we pay for SUVs twice, even if we dont even own one.
Oh yeah, and they are by far the rudest vehicles on the road. Hells Angels have better manners.
Oh yeah, and they are by far the rudest vehicles on the road. Hells Angels have better manners.
the two reasons I hear most often for getting SUVs, all of which get lower gas mileage, (even the smaller ones like Rav4s that are closer to the size of a car), is that people need to haul all sorts of stuff around, and carrying more than 4 children around.
today, at the Berkeley Bowl parking lot, which is a scene of lots of SUVs and traffic frustrations as people often get into screaming matches over the parking spots, I tried comparing the space attributes of these SUVs.
I came to the conclusion that lots of medium large hatchbacks (not a Geo but a regular hatchback), or station wagons (there are still a lot of station wagon models around), have equal or more space than SUVs that are in the size category smaller than the huge Yukons that weigh 6000 pounds.
Try this yourself. Take a look at a Volkswagen Golf hatchback, and the next boxy Volvo station wagon that you see. There are 3-4 feet of space in the luggage compartment where you can stuff all sorts of groceries and st bernards or whatever. Fold down the back seat and you can carry a livingroom full of ikea furniture.
Then look at an SUV such as a Rav4 or a jeep cherokee. These seem to only have space for 4 passengers - only two in the back - so the soccer team argument goes out the window. A mini van could probably take up to six, yet a regular car with a trunk often can take 5 comfortably. But the square feet of the trunk ground space it will be equal or even smaller than a volvo. There was one kind of new breed of Chevrolet SUV that has a front grille like a pickup truck, but had just 1-2 feet in the trunk area, and there was an isuzu like this too. I've seen a ford explorer flip over, and these isuzus, and Monteros are much more likely to roll over than that.
So what does the SUV give you - they just have more vertical height. The space inside is one foot taller, and has a square rather than sloping back end like a hatchback might have. And they're 6" to 1' higher off the ground. That extra 1.5-2" will probably give you 5mpg less when driving on the freeway. They also tend to have stronger engines, that you don't really need unless you feel the urge to go over the mountain passes at 75mph instead of 50, which really shouldn't be done anyway because you're going to be mixed up with slower semis and normal cars on the mountain road.
Just try looking at this some time - cars really can fit nearly as many groceries or lumber as subaru frontiers.
today, at the Berkeley Bowl parking lot, which is a scene of lots of SUVs and traffic frustrations as people often get into screaming matches over the parking spots, I tried comparing the space attributes of these SUVs.
I came to the conclusion that lots of medium large hatchbacks (not a Geo but a regular hatchback), or station wagons (there are still a lot of station wagon models around), have equal or more space than SUVs that are in the size category smaller than the huge Yukons that weigh 6000 pounds.
Try this yourself. Take a look at a Volkswagen Golf hatchback, and the next boxy Volvo station wagon that you see. There are 3-4 feet of space in the luggage compartment where you can stuff all sorts of groceries and st bernards or whatever. Fold down the back seat and you can carry a livingroom full of ikea furniture.
Then look at an SUV such as a Rav4 or a jeep cherokee. These seem to only have space for 4 passengers - only two in the back - so the soccer team argument goes out the window. A mini van could probably take up to six, yet a regular car with a trunk often can take 5 comfortably. But the square feet of the trunk ground space it will be equal or even smaller than a volvo. There was one kind of new breed of Chevrolet SUV that has a front grille like a pickup truck, but had just 1-2 feet in the trunk area, and there was an isuzu like this too. I've seen a ford explorer flip over, and these isuzus, and Monteros are much more likely to roll over than that.
So what does the SUV give you - they just have more vertical height. The space inside is one foot taller, and has a square rather than sloping back end like a hatchback might have. And they're 6" to 1' higher off the ground. That extra 1.5-2" will probably give you 5mpg less when driving on the freeway. They also tend to have stronger engines, that you don't really need unless you feel the urge to go over the mountain passes at 75mph instead of 50, which really shouldn't be done anyway because you're going to be mixed up with slower semis and normal cars on the mountain road.
Just try looking at this some time - cars really can fit nearly as many groceries or lumber as subaru frontiers.
SUV's are around because there's a demand for them. Period. Trying to analyze why people want them or what they can do is besides the point. If someone wants one and they can afford it, why shouldn't they get one? And who am I or who are you to tell them what they can or can't buy with their money? If they want to spend $60 to fill up their tank, that's their business. I don't care. I don't stick my nose into what they drive and I don't want them telling me what I should drive or if I should drive. And what market research tells me about those who drive SUV's is the least of my concerns. I don't care if the majority of SUV owners wash their underwear by having the dog lick it clean. It has no effect on me whatsoever. I agree, choice is good.
If someone wants a dead baby for lunch and they can afford it, why shouldn't they get one?
Owning SUV's are legal. Eating dead babies aren't.
You didn't know that?
You didn't know that?
there is a bill in state assembly right now to permit someone in an apartment to sue a neighbor in an apartment under theirs or next to their whose secondhand tobacco smoke gets into their apartment. If someone affecting you at that level is worth a law, people filling up the air via other means, or raising the sea level, would be equivalent.
Just wondering...I was wondering "what the fuck is wrong with you".
What's next? Telling us what clothes we can wear because some people are allergic to certain materials? What foods we can eat because some people can't tolerate certain smells? What we can and can't think?
Thanx cp. We need more procurers for freedom demanding that people have freedom as long as it's their "brand" of freedom.
Thanx cp. We need more procurers for freedom demanding that people have freedom as long as it's their "brand" of freedom.
>I kept the 750 her insurance paid...
Smart move. You probably wouldn't have gotten the difference back in sale or trade in.
Smart move. You probably wouldn't have gotten the difference back in sale or trade in.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s legal or not. It only matters whether it’s moral or not. It is not. Why? Because SUVs waste fuel. Control of the world’s fuel supply is at least part of the reason that Anglo-American imperialists have been at war with Iraq for the last twelve years. So far, that war has killed at least half a million, some say two millions, innocent Iraqi civilians. Almost all of them have been women and children.
If you drive a car, any car, you are at least partially responsible for their deaths. You drive. They die. How many innocent deaths you are responsible for depends on how good your mileage is. SUVs get very poor mileage. Therefore, SUV drivers kill more innocent babies than do any other drivers.
Driving an SUV is *worse* than eating babies. If you eat babies, at least their flesh does not go to waste. But SUV drivers, monsters that they are, just kill babies, and leave their corpses to rot. This is nothing less than heinous. In all nature, nothing else compares in depravity. Even hyenas don’t waste the flesh of their victims. SUV drivers resemble nothing more than they do some fiends from hell, slathering ghouls with the precious blood of innocents dripping from their hideous fangs. Eichmann was a nicer guy. At least he believed in something, evil though it was. What do SUV drivers believe in? Nothing but their own selfish, gluttonous greed.
And “cartalk,” moral cripple that (s)he is, thinks these baby killers should be allowed continue with their Holocaust, simply because they “want” to. There is a name for people like that. They are called “enablers.”
For shame, “cartalk,” for shame, for shame, for shame. Please have the common decency to die, and soon. You’re giving our species a bad name.
If you drive a car, any car, you are at least partially responsible for their deaths. You drive. They die. How many innocent deaths you are responsible for depends on how good your mileage is. SUVs get very poor mileage. Therefore, SUV drivers kill more innocent babies than do any other drivers.
Driving an SUV is *worse* than eating babies. If you eat babies, at least their flesh does not go to waste. But SUV drivers, monsters that they are, just kill babies, and leave their corpses to rot. This is nothing less than heinous. In all nature, nothing else compares in depravity. Even hyenas don’t waste the flesh of their victims. SUV drivers resemble nothing more than they do some fiends from hell, slathering ghouls with the precious blood of innocents dripping from their hideous fangs. Eichmann was a nicer guy. At least he believed in something, evil though it was. What do SUV drivers believe in? Nothing but their own selfish, gluttonous greed.
And “cartalk,” moral cripple that (s)he is, thinks these baby killers should be allowed continue with their Holocaust, simply because they “want” to. There is a name for people like that. They are called “enablers.”
For shame, “cartalk,” for shame, for shame, for shame. Please have the common decency to die, and soon. You’re giving our species a bad name.
It's not the tax break, but the efficiency exemption that SUVs get. That extra gasoline they are allowed to burn gives them a horsepower advantage over me as we both try and cut each other off at the lane merge.
Before the emission exemption, family people drove station wagons. I bet if you held SUVs to the same standards as cars, people would go back to station wagons with more cargo/passenger room, no roll-over, and a performance boost from better aerodynamics.
But give SUVs an unfair advantage and of course people will choose them.
I'm a free market advocate. I don't want to outlaw SUVs. I just want them held to the same standards as all other passenger vehicles, then let the buying public decide.
Before the emission exemption, family people drove station wagons. I bet if you held SUVs to the same standards as cars, people would go back to station wagons with more cargo/passenger room, no roll-over, and a performance boost from better aerodynamics.
But give SUVs an unfair advantage and of course people will choose them.
I'm a free market advocate. I don't want to outlaw SUVs. I just want them held to the same standards as all other passenger vehicles, then let the buying public decide.
Ok, that's all fine and good, but seriously. I need your opinions. My girlfriend NEEDS an SUV for work and we're getting a new one. What should it be. A Yukon, Range-Rover or LandCruiser? What'dya think?
An "enabler". That's funny in a psychotic kinda way. Pay no attention to the "baby eating" writer. It's nessie. He got hit in the head with a brick. There wasn't a lot there to begin with, but what was there got shook loose. Funny to laugh at and ridicule from time to time. Otherwise, ignore.
Besides, SUV's don't waste fuel. For those who use them, they actually save fuel by allowing fewer trips to move the same amount of cargo. By that logic (?) buses waste fuel. They get fewer mpg's than SUV's and quite often they run around the city much more than half empty, sometimes with only 2 or 3 people on board. Bus riders kill Iraqis. So do motorcycle riders. That is if your not so stupid as to not obtain power of attorney and have an actual lawyer get up off his lazy butt and get your bike outta impound. Idiot.
"still here", I know a few people with a Yukon and they like them a lot. Know some with the Expedition and they like them too. Haven't heard much comment from owners of Range Rovers or Land Cruisers.
Besides, SUV's don't waste fuel. For those who use them, they actually save fuel by allowing fewer trips to move the same amount of cargo. By that logic (?) buses waste fuel. They get fewer mpg's than SUV's and quite often they run around the city much more than half empty, sometimes with only 2 or 3 people on board. Bus riders kill Iraqis. So do motorcycle riders. That is if your not so stupid as to not obtain power of attorney and have an actual lawyer get up off his lazy butt and get your bike outta impound. Idiot.
"still here", I know a few people with a Yukon and they like them a lot. Know some with the Expedition and they like them too. Haven't heard much comment from owners of Range Rovers or Land Cruisers.
>>If you drive a car, any car, you are at least partially responsible for their deaths. Etc, etc. etc..........
I learned early in life that the greater a person's sense of guilt, the greater his or her need to cast blame on others.
I learned early in life that the greater a person's sense of guilt, the greater his or her need to cast blame on others.
Thanks for the comments. The RR and LC may be a bit pricy. It may be the Yukon.
By the way, the percentage of petroleum that goes to the production of electricity is WAY higher than for automobiles.
By the way, the percentage of petroleum that goes to the production of electricity is WAY higher than for automobiles.
So it was MS HUFFington who lives in a 22,000 square foot mansion owns a yacht that gets 1 knot per thousand gallons and flys around on corporate jets burning fuel by the ton who started all this SUV shit. How f----ng stupid are you jerks. Many people drive big vehicles for one reason alone. Can't figure it out? Try 30 days in the ICU and see how much that costs. HELLO!!! Since when are we conned by such high level users of natural resources as the Huffingtons!!!!!
PS Try living where you work jerks.... A economy car driven 50 miles one way to work daily is hardly conservation.
PS Try living where you work jerks.... A economy car driven 50 miles one way to work daily is hardly conservation.
Pay no attention, it's just rptr/not a Kennedy/free/coming to terms/crash/klay/cracky/the walrus/etc.
He thinks we don't know who he is.
He thinks we don't know who he is.
I’m cartalk; I’m SmashTheLeft; I’m Jo Jo Gunn; I’m Ffutal; I’m Alex; I’m Eric; I’m Bush Admirer; I’m Loki; I’m Sam B.; I’m Titus; I'm Bledge; I’m fresca; I’m brigg: I’m Racer X; I’m MC; I’m james; I’m Kay; I’m sadlkjf; I’m 6 billion different voices; I’m one voice; I’m 3000 miles away; I’m your next door neighbor; I’m red; I’m yellow; I’m black; I’m white; I’m the CEO of a large corporation; I’m a member of the ILWA; I’m the homeless using the computer in the library; I’m a street punk; I’m working class America; I volunteer in a soup kitchen; I’m Pacific Lumber; I’m Earth First!; I’m in Pacific Heights; I’m in East Bay; I’m in Boston; I’m in Iowa; I’m in Chicago; I’m in Vermont; I’m in Denver; I’m in Miami; I’m in Montana; I’m in Seattle; I’m in Houston; I’m in LA; I’m in NYC; I’m in Dallas; I’m in southwestern Colorado; I’m in South Carolina; I’m in the Mission District; I’m in Laguna Honda; I’m in London; I’m in Paris; I’m in Berlin; I’m in Jerusalem; I voted for Prop N; I voted against Prop N; I’m female; I’m male; I’m a leftist; I’m right-wing; I’m anarchist; I’m pro-Palestinian; I’m pro-Israeli; I’m pro-war; I’m anti-war; I’m a creationist; I’m an atheist; I’m the one who confronts you head on; I’m the one who makes fun of you at your expense; I’m black bloc; I’m COINTELPRO; I’m the best thing that’s ever happened to you; I’m your worst nightmare; I’m everybody you know; I’m nobody you know………….
I’m whoever and whatever I want to be at any given time. And I’ll do what I damn well please.
I’m whoever and whatever I want to be at any given time. And I’ll do what I damn well please.
The bigger the SUV the more they suppirt terrorism each time they drive
thats jest ur pinion 'n weuns twernt lisnin ta u.
test test test .
Wow. I know that everyone is entitled to their opion - however!! Likening SUV drivers to Bloodsucking fiends and baby killers is a tad bit "around the bend". I suggest a Prozac or shock therapy. I am just wondering - what do you drive?!
Do you suggest that I take a horse and buggy to and from work daily? Get a grip and come back to reality. Neither you nor I are killing anyone with our vehicles and their use of gas.
I am sad to say that as a veteran I defended the rights of people like yourself. You are a fanatic with a loose grip on sanity. Since you are so adament about world issues/hunger/death/war/injustice - I would really like to know what YOU are doing to help?!
I and many other service members protect and defend you and your family. I and many others defend your right to speak your mind - What have you done for anyone lately?????
Do you suggest that I take a horse and buggy to and from work daily? Get a grip and come back to reality. Neither you nor I are killing anyone with our vehicles and their use of gas.
I am sad to say that as a veteran I defended the rights of people like yourself. You are a fanatic with a loose grip on sanity. Since you are so adament about world issues/hunger/death/war/injustice - I would really like to know what YOU are doing to help?!
I and many other service members protect and defend you and your family. I and many others defend your right to speak your mind - What have you done for anyone lately?????
If you ride a motorcycle, like me, you notice that the assholes who drive accords, tauruses and other tin foil cars, tailgate and generally intimidate the hell out of you. Then they cry when an escalade is on their ass. Their two ton piece of shit can kill a biker just as well as an suv can kill them. Do they care? Nope. I drive my Jeep to offset the great mileage I get with my Kawasaki. Plus I get to piss off all those hypocrite assholes.
I recently purchased one of these huge vehice after driving a Ford Contour for five years. Why? Easy, I got sick of being cut off by other people in BMW, Honda's , Mercerdes, and other "look at my status in life" vehicles.
So what is the answer, should government regulate which vehicles we can drive now? What about the consumption of livestaock, isn't that destroying the environment also? How about plastic bottles for our soft drinks, most of which can not be recycled in most areas. Shouldn't the govenrment regulate that also, I mean after all it is bad for humans, and the Earth. Oh and don't forget fatty food's, tobacco, alchohol (oh that's right they already tried that in the ealry part of the 21st century).
Guys this is beginning to remind of something, wasn't there another government that decided that they knew what was best for the populace and decided to micro-manage every thing in each citizens life?
How much food they were allowed to consume, how many clothes they would recieve each year, there is one out there now that has been known to kill your second child if you decide to have it without the governments consent. Great for the environmnet, and the Earth. Of course while you are saving said environment and Earth, all technological innovation slows to a stand still, why should I, living in an environment like that strive to create any thing that might revolutionze humanities existence, so that I can get a extra ration of potatoes?
If you guys are so against SUV's there is at least one country that I guarentee will not allow you or any other citizen to have one, China. And guess what, there are flights (in big nasty airplanes that consume up to a gallon of fuel per engine per second!, maybe we should make those illegal also!) leaving every hour from many major cities in the US. Why don't you move to your socialist utopia for a couple of years and see if you really do want the government to assume the role of saviior for every minute thing in life. I guarentee that most of you who sanction the idea that the government should be responsible for everything would move back to our evil, self centered (which always gets me considering how much money US citizens give to charities world wide) capitalist society and yes, BUY AN SUV!!!!
.
So what is the answer, should government regulate which vehicles we can drive now? What about the consumption of livestaock, isn't that destroying the environment also? How about plastic bottles for our soft drinks, most of which can not be recycled in most areas. Shouldn't the govenrment regulate that also, I mean after all it is bad for humans, and the Earth. Oh and don't forget fatty food's, tobacco, alchohol (oh that's right they already tried that in the ealry part of the 21st century).
Guys this is beginning to remind of something, wasn't there another government that decided that they knew what was best for the populace and decided to micro-manage every thing in each citizens life?
How much food they were allowed to consume, how many clothes they would recieve each year, there is one out there now that has been known to kill your second child if you decide to have it without the governments consent. Great for the environmnet, and the Earth. Of course while you are saving said environment and Earth, all technological innovation slows to a stand still, why should I, living in an environment like that strive to create any thing that might revolutionze humanities existence, so that I can get a extra ration of potatoes?
If you guys are so against SUV's there is at least one country that I guarentee will not allow you or any other citizen to have one, China. And guess what, there are flights (in big nasty airplanes that consume up to a gallon of fuel per engine per second!, maybe we should make those illegal also!) leaving every hour from many major cities in the US. Why don't you move to your socialist utopia for a couple of years and see if you really do want the government to assume the role of saviior for every minute thing in life. I guarentee that most of you who sanction the idea that the government should be responsible for everything would move back to our evil, self centered (which always gets me considering how much money US citizens give to charities world wide) capitalist society and yes, BUY AN SUV!!!!
.
Bradsher's own assertions contradict each other.
1. That accidents involving SUV's almost always end up killing the driver of the other vehicle and SUV drivers disproportionately survive.
AND
2. SUV's are somehow more dangerous to their owners than a little tin-can of a car.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, SO WHICH IS IT?
1. That accidents involving SUV's almost always end up killing the driver of the other vehicle and SUV drivers disproportionately survive.
AND
2. SUV's are somehow more dangerous to their owners than a little tin-can of a car.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, SO WHICH IS IT?
in accidents in which an SUV strikes a car, the SUV driver is safer.
in accidents in which an SUV rolls over, in which a car in the same situation is not likely to roll over, the SUV driver is not safer.
these are assumptions, obviously. but i can certainly say that these are two different cases.
don't compare apples to oranges.
so, in all accidents involving an SUV, are fatalities the result of SUV's rolling over, or are they the results of accident's involving smaller cars? i don't have access to that kind of crash data. but it will tell you what kills more drivers of SUV's.
keep in mind that if SUV's are safe for their drivers, they may not be safe for others on the road. so how do you measure safety? merely the safety of the driver? or the safety of ALL on the road, INCLUDING the driver AND others.
in accidents in which an SUV rolls over, in which a car in the same situation is not likely to roll over, the SUV driver is not safer.
these are assumptions, obviously. but i can certainly say that these are two different cases.
don't compare apples to oranges.
so, in all accidents involving an SUV, are fatalities the result of SUV's rolling over, or are they the results of accident's involving smaller cars? i don't have access to that kind of crash data. but it will tell you what kills more drivers of SUV's.
keep in mind that if SUV's are safe for their drivers, they may not be safe for others on the road. so how do you measure safety? merely the safety of the driver? or the safety of ALL on the road, INCLUDING the driver AND others.
Just curious, will the owners of the soon-to-be-released Ford Escape hybrid and Jeep Liberty hybrid be considered assholes too?
I never really gave much thought to suv's until I saw the results of a drag race mishap in Miami a few years ago . . . A mother and her children, sitting at a redlight in an Expedition, were hit head-on by a BMW 3-series (I think) traveling at almost, what witnesses guestimated, 100 mph. The young man driving the bmw, unfortunately, was killed on impact along with his two passengers. The lady in the expedition suffered a broken her foot severe injuries to her face from the airbag. Her children emerged unscathed. I believe they probably would not have survived the crash had they been in an average car. And over the years, I've seen my share of accidents involving suv's & trucks with vehicle's larger than themselves. In most cases people and/or families survived because of that suv, where a car probably would have submarined and been crushed. There are alot of vehicles on the road larger than SUV's, and some of the driver's of those larger vehicle's suffer from sleep deprivation. But that crash involving the woman with her kids, sitting at a redlight . . . that was my wake-up call. My Chrysler feels safe, but I don't believe it would've saved my life in that wreck. Don't be so bitter Stephanie, alot of parent's believe in defensive driving and a defensive vehicle for their families. Bitching about suv's is fine, and people that drive them are more likely the type to fight for your right to do so, but calling people them a__holes? A bit drastic, don't you think? Sounds awfully personal to me. Someone you hate own's one? Or are you from France ?
I want a nuclear weapon that can be driven.
It will be powered nuclear and instantly manufacture needle sized weapons with parts of the waste.
Cherry red with hot pink racing stripes, sunroof model.
It must have video game consoles and televisions installed.
In fact, the windshield needs to be a tv. I want to be looking at the road in real time with cameras. They will broadcast my course, and plot it. I won't even be driving. I'll be watching infomercials and reversed motion bass fishing.
The screen will also be capable of projecting video on the otherside, facing on-coming traffic. I'll program continuous loops of B-movie horror action sequences for others to see. Periodically, I'll do a drive-by on someone(nonlethal; soft rubber golfball sized rounds filled with chicken feces). This will be meant to provoke others into a suicidal confrontation. When they back down, I'll console them with a bag of radioactive toenail clippings.
Occasionally, I'll blast pornographic audio from my system. Random snippets, uhhs and ohhhs, brief vulgarity and spoken degradations. Most people won't know what to think.
Also, whatever exhaust manages to escape will be extra toxic in the environment, killing all carbon based lifeforms in .0000009 seconds. Not just the usual old 100,000 year halflife, this will be around until the sun consumes Mars.
Verily, it needs those nudie girl mudflaps.
Trailer hitch, manual transmission, and tinted windows(mirror tint).
But the most important, defining feature will be the custom license plate..... 2BADD4U
Yes, that'll be my little deuce coupe.
It will be powered nuclear and instantly manufacture needle sized weapons with parts of the waste.
Cherry red with hot pink racing stripes, sunroof model.
It must have video game consoles and televisions installed.
In fact, the windshield needs to be a tv. I want to be looking at the road in real time with cameras. They will broadcast my course, and plot it. I won't even be driving. I'll be watching infomercials and reversed motion bass fishing.
The screen will also be capable of projecting video on the otherside, facing on-coming traffic. I'll program continuous loops of B-movie horror action sequences for others to see. Periodically, I'll do a drive-by on someone(nonlethal; soft rubber golfball sized rounds filled with chicken feces). This will be meant to provoke others into a suicidal confrontation. When they back down, I'll console them with a bag of radioactive toenail clippings.
Occasionally, I'll blast pornographic audio from my system. Random snippets, uhhs and ohhhs, brief vulgarity and spoken degradations. Most people won't know what to think.
Also, whatever exhaust manages to escape will be extra toxic in the environment, killing all carbon based lifeforms in .0000009 seconds. Not just the usual old 100,000 year halflife, this will be around until the sun consumes Mars.
Verily, it needs those nudie girl mudflaps.
Trailer hitch, manual transmission, and tinted windows(mirror tint).
But the most important, defining feature will be the custom license plate..... 2BADD4U
Yes, that'll be my little deuce coupe.
yes folks the analogy works the other way around
those old vw busses clunking down the road spewing smoke and oil , with a conspicuously placed ecology now bumper sticker next to the tail pipe. can in deed be connected to an owner who is a burned out relic from the sixties, who's only thought in the last ten years was to get the band back together!
and for the newer vw's the little convertibles and wanna be sports cars and the re-invented "BuG"
are owned by empty headed twits, barby look alikes
with the iq of a soap dish.
YES FOLKS WE ALL CAN BE PSYCHO-ANALYZED BY THE CARS WE SELECT.
those old vw busses clunking down the road spewing smoke and oil , with a conspicuously placed ecology now bumper sticker next to the tail pipe. can in deed be connected to an owner who is a burned out relic from the sixties, who's only thought in the last ten years was to get the band back together!
and for the newer vw's the little convertibles and wanna be sports cars and the re-invented "BuG"
are owned by empty headed twits, barby look alikes
with the iq of a soap dish.
YES FOLKS WE ALL CAN BE PSYCHO-ANALYZED BY THE CARS WE SELECT.
Want it, have it!
Want it, have it!!
WANT IT, HAVE IT!!!!!
Gimme! Gimme!! GIMME!!!!!
Gimme big car!
Gimme bigger car!!
GIMME biggest car!!!!
Gimme lower gas prices! GIMME!!!
Gimme lower interest rates!!!!
Gimme credit card! GIMME MORE CREDIT!!!!!!!
Gimme pollution!!! GIMME CANCER!!!!!
Gimme feeling of security!!!!!!!
GIMME SELF ESTEEM!!!!!
GIMME MORE!!! MORE!!!! MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Want it, have it!!
WANT IT, HAVE IT!!!!!
Gimme! Gimme!! GIMME!!!!!
Gimme big car!
Gimme bigger car!!
GIMME biggest car!!!!
Gimme lower gas prices! GIMME!!!
Gimme lower interest rates!!!!
Gimme credit card! GIMME MORE CREDIT!!!!!!!
Gimme pollution!!! GIMME CANCER!!!!!
Gimme feeling of security!!!!!!!
GIMME SELF ESTEEM!!!!!
GIMME MORE!!! MORE!!!! MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I heard they're coming out with a new Sim city video game; The SimSUV; Biggest on The Road.
You program the lemming SUV drivers around in congested traffic. You must succesfully haul the national debt through different checkpoints. Map level increases in difficulty, you encounter more road construction, drunk drivers, and bottle throwing pedestrians. Apparently, there is also a level where you buy and sell different SUV's. The objective is to obtain the largest model without trading in. You must beware, sometimes the vehicle will just flip over on top of you while you're haggling with the dealer. I also heard there is a message board level.
You must stop whistle blowers and SUV critics from spreading their discontent. Seems like a technical problem or two was mentioned concerning this stage.
Something about the SUV sims becoming frustrated and incoherent, repeating, "we SUV want car, we SUV want freedom!" over and over.
You program the lemming SUV drivers around in congested traffic. You must succesfully haul the national debt through different checkpoints. Map level increases in difficulty, you encounter more road construction, drunk drivers, and bottle throwing pedestrians. Apparently, there is also a level where you buy and sell different SUV's. The objective is to obtain the largest model without trading in. You must beware, sometimes the vehicle will just flip over on top of you while you're haggling with the dealer. I also heard there is a message board level.
You must stop whistle blowers and SUV critics from spreading their discontent. Seems like a technical problem or two was mentioned concerning this stage.
Something about the SUV sims becoming frustrated and incoherent, repeating, "we SUV want car, we SUV want freedom!" over and over.
I'm going to buy a Jeep Grand Cherokee (used not new)
Reason? Simple, our roads are among the worst in the developed world despite paying the highest fuel prices and the many other taxes we have thrust upon us, plus we now build humps, chicanes and other anti car measures into our roads. My Ford Probe suspension is almost wrecked at 41,000 miles.
Reason? Simple, our roads are among the worst in the developed world despite paying the highest fuel prices and the many other taxes we have thrust upon us, plus we now build humps, chicanes and other anti car measures into our roads. My Ford Probe suspension is almost wrecked at 41,000 miles.
Everyone has their own opinion on the suv issue. My experience shows me that most people simply regurgitate information that they hear from others. If that is what they choose to do with their life, thats their business and they have to live with the results.
My opinion on the suv issue is based on personal experience. That which I have seen with my own eyes.
FACT: I have been a firefighter for over 21 years.
FACT: I have been a rescue technician for 15 years. (ie; cutting people out of cars after a crash)
FACT: I have been a medic for 11 years
FACT: I have extricated DEAD bodies out of most vehicle body types driven on the american roadways. I have NEVER had to cut someone out of a Chevy Suburban, Ford Bronco ( full size ) or Dodge Ramcharger in 21 years. The only small car that I have never had to cut on is the Saturn.
I put no stock in the so called safety ratings of vehicles. I use my own eyes, ears, and vivid gory memories to form my own conclusions. My wife dirve a Chevy suburban, because of my life experiences, and hers ( her first accident scene as a volunteer medic was all it took). But now that I think about it most of the wives of the guys that I work with drive suv's. Coincidence ?????
Draw your own conclusions. Don't take my word for it, join a volunteer rescue squad or fire department, get your hand dirty..... maybe even bloody, then you will understand why I am so opinionated on this subject and all the safety ratings, rantings, or politically correct arguments will fall on my deaf ears.
For those of you who still believe you are safe in the half-sized tin cans that are so common, I hope you will not be a vivid gory memory for a member of the american fire rescue service.
As a footnote a football teammate of my teenage son was involved in a fatality accident last month. He was the wrong place when someone else crashed into him. He is alive today BECAUSE he was driving a full size pickup truck.
My opinion on the suv issue is based on personal experience. That which I have seen with my own eyes.
FACT: I have been a firefighter for over 21 years.
FACT: I have been a rescue technician for 15 years. (ie; cutting people out of cars after a crash)
FACT: I have been a medic for 11 years
FACT: I have extricated DEAD bodies out of most vehicle body types driven on the american roadways. I have NEVER had to cut someone out of a Chevy Suburban, Ford Bronco ( full size ) or Dodge Ramcharger in 21 years. The only small car that I have never had to cut on is the Saturn.
I put no stock in the so called safety ratings of vehicles. I use my own eyes, ears, and vivid gory memories to form my own conclusions. My wife dirve a Chevy suburban, because of my life experiences, and hers ( her first accident scene as a volunteer medic was all it took). But now that I think about it most of the wives of the guys that I work with drive suv's. Coincidence ?????
Draw your own conclusions. Don't take my word for it, join a volunteer rescue squad or fire department, get your hand dirty..... maybe even bloody, then you will understand why I am so opinionated on this subject and all the safety ratings, rantings, or politically correct arguments will fall on my deaf ears.
For those of you who still believe you are safe in the half-sized tin cans that are so common, I hope you will not be a vivid gory memory for a member of the american fire rescue service.
As a footnote a football teammate of my teenage son was involved in a fatality accident last month. He was the wrong place when someone else crashed into him. He is alive today BECAUSE he was driving a full size pickup truck.
Everyone has their own opinion on the suv issue. My experience shows me that most people simply regurgitate information that they hear from others. If that is what they choose to do with their life, thats their business and they have to live with the results.
My opinion on the suv issue is based on personal experience. That which I have seen with my own eyes.
FACT: I have been a firefighter for over 21 years.
FACT: I have been a rescue technician for 15 years. (ie; cutting people out of cars after a crash)
FACT: I have been a medic for 11 years
FACT: I have extricated DEAD bodies out of most vehicle body types driven on the american roadways. I have NEVER had to cut someone out of a Chevy Suburban, Ford Bronco ( full size ) or Dodge Ramcharger in 21 years. The only small car that I have never had to cut on is the Saturn.
I put no stock in the so called safety ratings of vehicles. I use my own eyes, ears, and vivid gory memories to form my own conclusions. My wife dirve a Chevy suburban, because of my life experiences, and hers ( her first accident scene as a volunteer medic was all it took). But now that I think about it most of the wives of the guys that I work with drive suv's. Coincidence ?????
Draw your own conclusions. Don't take my word for it, join a volunteer rescue squad or fire department, get your hand dirty..... maybe even bloody, then you will understand why I am so opinionated on this subject and all the safety ratings, rantings, or politically correct arguments will fall on my deaf ears.
For those of you who still believe you are safe in the half-sized tin cans that are so common, I hope you will not be a vivid gory memory for a member of the american fire rescue service.
As a footnote a football teammate of my teenage son was involved in a fatality accident last month. He was the wrong place when someone else crashed into him. He is alive today BECAUSE he was driving a full size pickup truck.
My opinion on the suv issue is based on personal experience. That which I have seen with my own eyes.
FACT: I have been a firefighter for over 21 years.
FACT: I have been a rescue technician for 15 years. (ie; cutting people out of cars after a crash)
FACT: I have been a medic for 11 years
FACT: I have extricated DEAD bodies out of most vehicle body types driven on the american roadways. I have NEVER had to cut someone out of a Chevy Suburban, Ford Bronco ( full size ) or Dodge Ramcharger in 21 years. The only small car that I have never had to cut on is the Saturn.
I put no stock in the so called safety ratings of vehicles. I use my own eyes, ears, and vivid gory memories to form my own conclusions. My wife dirve a Chevy suburban, because of my life experiences, and hers ( her first accident scene as a volunteer medic was all it took). But now that I think about it most of the wives of the guys that I work with drive suv's. Coincidence ?????
Draw your own conclusions. Don't take my word for it, join a volunteer rescue squad or fire department, get your hand dirty..... maybe even bloody, then you will understand why I am so opinionated on this subject and all the safety ratings, rantings, or politically correct arguments will fall on my deaf ears.
For those of you who still believe you are safe in the half-sized tin cans that are so common, I hope you will not be a vivid gory memory for a member of the american fire rescue service.
As a footnote a football teammate of my teenage son was involved in a fatality accident last month. He was the wrong place when someone else crashed into him. He is alive today BECAUSE he was driving a full size pickup truck.
This sort of logic is like saying that since a horse is a four-legged animal, all four-legged animals are horses.
I intensely despise the belief that inanimate objects are the source of all our ills, rather than the people who make the choice to be jerks, idiots, and low-lifes.
Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.
I intensely despise the belief that inanimate objects are the source of all our ills, rather than the people who make the choice to be jerks, idiots, and low-lifes.
Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.
In regards to Fire Fighter who wrote 'in my opinion'. Did you know that your argument is actually defense for the article against suvs?? I know you probably unintentially did that but your what your saying is exactly what the article is saying. Need me to spell it?
You're saying 'you get suvs for your own safety.'
Article's saying 'people buy suvs for selfish reasons, FOR their own safety, With NO regard to the 5 other lives that you will probably kill.' Just like that lady in the article who walked out of her suv after killing someone in an accident and saying 'i'm going to buy a bigger SUV'.
Conclusion=your selfish.(PERIOD)
FACT- I'm a road cyclist. I get honked at by SUV drivers at least once every ride. These drivers have no regard for a cyclist's life, no regard to STATE LAW that requires drivers to S-H-A-R-E with cyclists on the road.
Sorry but it happens and it's still happening.
FACT- you never have to cut dead people out of SUV's. DUH!! You just PULL DEAD people out of SUV's because their so big compared to the human body.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION OH SELFISH ONE-
IF YOU WERE DRIVING OR WALKING, WOULD YOU RATHER BE HIT BY A CAR OR AN SUV?
Point made. Thank you.
You're saying 'you get suvs for your own safety.'
Article's saying 'people buy suvs for selfish reasons, FOR their own safety, With NO regard to the 5 other lives that you will probably kill.' Just like that lady in the article who walked out of her suv after killing someone in an accident and saying 'i'm going to buy a bigger SUV'.
Conclusion=your selfish.(PERIOD)
FACT- I'm a road cyclist. I get honked at by SUV drivers at least once every ride. These drivers have no regard for a cyclist's life, no regard to STATE LAW that requires drivers to S-H-A-R-E with cyclists on the road.
Sorry but it happens and it's still happening.
FACT- you never have to cut dead people out of SUV's. DUH!! You just PULL DEAD people out of SUV's because their so big compared to the human body.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION OH SELFISH ONE-
IF YOU WERE DRIVING OR WALKING, WOULD YOU RATHER BE HIT BY A CAR OR AN SUV?
Point made. Thank you.
DUH. SUV drivers care only about themselves and not the 5 other peopel the will probably kill.
If you were walking or driving, which would you rather hit you? car or suv.
Point made. Thank you.
If you were walking or driving, which would you rather hit you? car or suv.
Point made. Thank you.
Just got my wife GMC Envoy 3 Months ago! WHAT A MISTAKE!! 3 accidents so far!! Can't see behind her, She can't see on the sides!! Can't Park, Can't Pass and Can't get out of the lease!! What a pile of shit!! WE WANT OUR CAR BACK! Sorry we got cought up in the market crap!! These things ride and drive like TANKS!! and drink just as much GAS! I don't know what we were thinking but now we are stuck with this STATION WAGON TRUCK!!
Let me ask you one question D.E.
IF YOU WERE INVOLVED IN A MAJOR ACCIDENT (NOT YOUR FAULT AND YOUR FAMILY IS WITH YOU), WOULD YOU RATHER BE IN A LARGE SUV OR A SMALL ELECTRIC CAR?
Point made. Thank you.
IF YOU WERE INVOLVED IN A MAJOR ACCIDENT (NOT YOUR FAULT AND YOUR FAMILY IS WITH YOU), WOULD YOU RATHER BE IN A LARGE SUV OR A SMALL ELECTRIC CAR?
Point made. Thank you.
DE, not sure where you got- "STATE LAW that requires drivers to S-H-A-R-E with cyclists on the road." but that is simply not true. Did you just make that up? Actually, if you on a bike are not able to keep up with the flow of traffic, you must pull over. Do you really think the majority of bicyclist are riding at 25-30 mph on City streets? Of course you get honked at, you are "impeding" the flow of traffic.
I STUMBLED ONTO THIS SILLY ARTICLE WHILE LOOKING FOR A PLACE IN UPSTATE NY TO GO FISHING........So let me get this straight................you think that someone who is confident,successful, controls their environment, looks out for the best interest of their loved ones and themselves, and chooses to indulge their own desires is a selfish asshole? First of all let's define our terms, just because it has four wheel drive and a cargo area it is not an SUV. I have been driving Suburbans for the last twenty-five years because they are rugged, reliable, safe(for me!)have huge payloads and are made by Americans. Now all you golf cart driving, bike riding, tofu eating socialists in training need to listen to yourselves carefully and drag out your history books. Informed self interest is what drives civilization. Your militant attitudes simply proves that even you don't really believe what you're saying. I suspect that the vast majority of your anger is spawned by envy and the realization that a beer can on a skate board is all you will ever be able to afford. So when your kid is squashed like a bug by a cement truck........you stop and think about who made the decesion to put them in the back seat of a death trap, cause it wasn't me. Lastly, keep in mind that what drives your political agenda is the right of all people to choose, and you are trying to limit my choices.............when I see the results of your poor choices, I just feel sorry for you. SO happy trails and I will be looking down on you and waving as I drive safely in rain, sleet, snow, up and down mountains, on the road and off the road, whereever and whenever my heart desires.
I drive my 5.9 V8 Pickup truck all over... i use it sometimes to pick things up... but its my daily driver... Why? Because its fast.. and i like fast things... and so what if i get 8mpg?
...to watch some idiot in a wide-ass Lincoln Navigator try to "navigate" his fat butt into a parking space in the city. Bottom line (pardon the pun), there's no more room for you.
You want to buy one for Junior for graduation too? Fine, get your consuming asses out into the 'burbs where you can enjoy all the strip malls. That's what you want and that's where you belong.
"how much land could a land rover rove if a land rover didn't have land?"
oh and by the way, did you know some SUVs are so effing fat they are ILLEGAL? see link below.
You want to buy one for Junior for graduation too? Fine, get your consuming asses out into the 'burbs where you can enjoy all the strip malls. That's what you want and that's where you belong.
"how much land could a land rover rove if a land rover didn't have land?"
oh and by the way, did you know some SUVs are so effing fat they are ILLEGAL? see link below.
For more information:
http://www.slate.msn.com/id/2104755
to JQ, the dumb fuck who thinks bicycles impede traffic-
first off I carry a u-lock and i know how to use it, don't make me buy a gun. Actually, a key will do equally well on your nice paint job. JQ Public had better watch out when he gets his license renewed, cause this is the vehicle code. Comes down to "bicycles have use of full lane" Read it and weep (Um- if you can read I mean):
CVC 21202.
(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
first off I carry a u-lock and i know how to use it, don't make me buy a gun. Actually, a key will do equally well on your nice paint job. JQ Public had better watch out when he gets his license renewed, cause this is the vehicle code. Comes down to "bicycles have use of full lane" Read it and weep (Um- if you can read I mean):
CVC 21202.
(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
For more information:
http://tinyurl.com/4wxff
Wow. what happened to the first one there?
I saw a Ford Explorer flip over on city streets on Bay street in the Marina. Some guy from Walnut Creek didn't see a red light, but he had applied the brakes before he hit the shorter car - yet at this speed (however fast you can go on city streets minus the amount he braked before he hit it.. maybe 30mph?) was enough for it to not just roll over or fall on its side, but it did a complete roll then ended up on its side - so one and a half spin. 30mph doesn't feel that fast to drivers, yet it is highly dangerous.
If you walk around looking at trunk space of cars, the smaller SUVs definitely have no more space than a regular car with trunk, or hatchback, and medium sized ones have equal or less space than those Volvo station wagons. The SUV is just higher and has more head space and this is what makes it so unaerodynamic and top heavy. The station wagon probably gets 10mpg more.
I saw a Ford Explorer flip over on city streets on Bay street in the Marina. Some guy from Walnut Creek didn't see a red light, but he had applied the brakes before he hit the shorter car - yet at this speed (however fast you can go on city streets minus the amount he braked before he hit it.. maybe 30mph?) was enough for it to not just roll over or fall on its side, but it did a complete roll then ended up on its side - so one and a half spin. 30mph doesn't feel that fast to drivers, yet it is highly dangerous.
If you walk around looking at trunk space of cars, the smaller SUVs definitely have no more space than a regular car with trunk, or hatchback, and medium sized ones have equal or less space than those Volvo station wagons. The SUV is just higher and has more head space and this is what makes it so unaerodynamic and top heavy. The station wagon probably gets 10mpg more.
Why spend $40,000+ on an SUV when you can buy an old, (circa 1970), International Harvester Scout for $500~$4,500, (the one I saw at $4,500 had a rebuilt 350 v8, a rebuilt tranny,rebuilt front-end, new shocks,... and was basically a new car).
The old Scouts are tough, reliable, and will go just about anywhere. They're available with 4wD, an automatic transmission, and a romovable top, (with the top off it's really cool. It looks like giant radio-flyer wagon cruising down the road) The downside is they're noisy, uncomfortable, jounce around a lot, look like shit, and get horrible gas milage. So fucking what? The scout was designed as farm vehicle, and once it's off the asphalt, it'll probably outperform a Hummer, One thing I'm sure of, you'd take a Scout places yoou wouldn't dare go with a Hummer for fear off fucking up your expensive paint job, (with a Scout all you'll need is a spray can of rustoleum and mabye a little bit of bondo).
Why show everyone that you're a rich-fuck, pseudo-macho poseur when you're out devestating the enviorment? When trashing the desert in a Scout, the local community might be fooled into thinking you've got at least a little class. And if you,are stupid enough to drive it in in the SF bay area you won't have to worry about Irate pedestrians and/or cyclists keying your paint job, , And no, I do not sell IH Scouts, nor am I a mechanic.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network