Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259

    Should SUV's be banned?

    The Mayor of London hates them. Paris may ban them. Why? SUV's pollute, hog space, and are a hazard to others. See article:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...uvs/index.html

    What is your view on SUV's where you live? If you believe they are a problem, what measures would you recommend to discourage their use?

  2. #2
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by okiemax
    The Mayor of London hates them. Paris may ban them. Why? SUV's pollute, hog space, and are a hazard to others.
    1) Every gasolne or diesel powered combustion engine powered automobile pollutes. Especially those not cared for properly.

    2) Hog space? How? What, because they are longer? They still take only a single parking space at the mall. Bad drivers "hog" more space than any vehicle. Sounds like someone is afraid they'll be late for work if they aren't three feet closer to their destination because of a vehicle length.....maybe they should just start out 3 seconds earlier......

    3) Hazard: really? Bad drivers are far more dangerous.

    These are truely bad examples, of the many that coule be cited.

    -Bruce

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    1) Every gasolne or diesel powered combustion engine powered automobile pollutes. Especially those not cared for properly.

    2) Hog space? How? What, because they are longer? They still take only a single parking space at the mall. Bad drivers "hog" more space than any vehicle. Sounds like someone is afraid they'll be late for work if they aren't three feet closer to their destination because of a vehicle length.....maybe they should just start out 3 seconds earlier......

    3) Hazard: really? Bad drivers are far more dangerous.

    These are truely bad examples, of the many that coule be cited.

    -Bruce
    If you don't think SUV's hog space, you have never tried parking a Hummer between two Land Cruisers in a shopping center parking lot.

  4. #4
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    I've owned Jeeps for nearly...

    ...25 yrs. now...not too many on the roads then, sorta' like an exclusive club...other CJ owners would wave and we would wave back...but now, you have these poseurs in their pig-mobiles casting a pall on the old guard...soccer moms and little puke-ball wannabees, cup-holders, carpeting, leather upholstery, CONVENIENCE OUTLETS!!! DVD players!!!...they ruined 'em in my book...turnin' them into gas-guzzlin' land yachts...gimmie my old four-banger and a canvas top...

    jimHJJ(...and then, of course, you have the tax-dodge...right Phil?...)

  5. #5
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    Wait - isn't this America? Why would we ban a vehicle because some think it's too big and pollutes too much? We Americans enjoy over-indulging, having more than we need, and being pampered. SUVs are great for larger families, but some people just want the extra capacity to haul stuff around and don't want a truck.

    Are we going to ban people from having big houses next? They require more electricity, use more water, and take up too much space - requiring more trees to be cut down...

    Come on people, think about what you're saying. If you think SUV's are bad, don't buy one. Don't try forcing your beliefs on everyone else though, because there are many other arguments and comparisons that can be brought up. If you want to cut down on pollution so bad, why not also talk to your congressman and have them do something to tighten the belt of the big factories that dump emissions into the air. Nobody seems to care as much about industry pollution which affects the air AND the water. That's what gets me. Let's go after the over-indulging Americans for being Americans.

  6. #6
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Should SUVs be banned?

    Hell no! I'm tired of all these eco-freaks saying SUVs will cause the end of the world. Stupidity will cause the end of the world, not my Tahoe. Let's not stop at SUVs, let's ban pickups, gas guzzling high end luxury cars, 18 wheelers, large ships, airliners, trains, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah blah, blah.

    On the way home today, I am going to drive my BIG A$$ TAHOE in 2nd gear all the way home thus making the engine turn at a higher RPM which will in turn burned more fuel and thus bring this world of ours to an end 1/100,000,000,000 of a mili-second quicker. I will then consume some Abita Amber Ale to wash away the guilt I will be feeling knowing that my distant relatives will have one less 1/100,000,000,000 of a mili-second to live before our world ends. Of course that's assuming I can afford the beer after putting $45 more worth of fuel the the SUV after driving in 2nd gear.

    JSE

  7. #7
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Where do I sign up...

    ...overindulgence is the culprit behind many problems in this country...think about it...if folks lived within their means we wouldn't need two income families...kids would have an adult supervising them at all times...people would be eating fresh healthy food rather than Macwendybell swill...I could go on...instead we have a fat, self-indulgent population who wants everything yesterday, is constantly told by the media they can have it all and are in debt up to their eyeballs...most of the time is spent keeping up with the Jonses...or sitting on their lard-@$$es rooting for some overpaid, overblown hype of an "athlete" whose lifestyle is hung out like a carrot in front of a pony and the circle goes unbroken!!!

    Why don't more people use public transportation? They're too busy "multitasking"...couldn't stand the inconveniece of it all...Industry? That's nearly a laff! Everything is made in China...the only thing we produce here is self-centered, pill-popping, spoiled brats and their gas-bag parents who think something is owed to them just for being Americans!

    jimHJJ(...you want fries with that?...)

  8. #8
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    As much as I loathe and laugh at SUVs, whether as a driving enthusiast or as someone who has to deal with driving around them on the road, I think it's ridiculous to suggest banning them outright.

    However, I will add that I think they should either be subject to the same safety, emission, and fuel economy regulations as passenger vehicles, or we should just dump those types of standards for all cars. The vast majority of SUVs now serve the same function as passenger vehicles, so they should be treated the same way. I mean, if a performance vehicle like a Mercedes AMG is subject to a gas guzzler tax, then why shouldn't an SUV be subject to that same tax if its gas mileage qualifies it as a gas guzzler. By extension, if a Honda Civic is required to have side impact protection in the doors and 5 MPH bumpers, then why shouldn't a Ford Escape be required to have those same features? And if we're going to have a ULEV emission mandate in California, then why would that standard not apply to SUVs? Aside from SUVs being very profitable for domestic auto producers, there's no justification to this double standard whatsoever. Either regulate or don't regulate, but don't tell me that it's logical to subject a Mazda 6 wagon to stricter safety, emission, and fuel economy standards than a Chevy Trailblazer, when both vehicles basically serve the same function.

    Personally, I believe that people should make their own choices about the type of car that they want to own. And if that entails overpaying for a bloated gas hog with inferior performance and outmoded technology, then so be it.

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    I have views similar to yours. My main concern is the social costs of motorists driving vehicles that are much larger than what they need, and the inadequate efforts by the Federal Government to discourage the practice. This would be a problem regardless of whether the large vehicles are SUV's, vans, or sedans. Hopefully, people who like SUV's( but don't need much passenger and cargo capacity) will find the smaller versions more appealing in the coming years.

  10. #10
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    As much as I loathe and laugh at SUVs, whether as a driving enthusiast or as someone who has to deal with driving around them on the road, I think it's ridiculous to suggest banning them outright.

    However, I will add that I think they should either be subject to the same safety, emission, and fuel economy regulations as passenger vehicles, .

    I agree with this fully That would be only fair. But, money talks.

    And now you hear that the oil reseves may not be accurate but inflated

    Stand by guys and gals.
    mtrycrafts

  11. #11
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    Again, we live in a country where our forefathers fought so that you have the freedom to own (or drive) whatever your heart desires, yet you criticize people for owning something they don't "need"? How about all those people who buy the 4-door trucks or the super high-end luxury cars? Why not just ban every car that isn't a hybrid? Nobody "needs" a car that can't get less than 40 mpg... they can get to point B using a small hybrid econobox. Since when did we start forcing people to buy only what they "need"? I personally have no desire to own an SUV myself, as I feel trucks are more useful. But being a homeowner, I can easily appreciate the versatility an SUV offers - especially when our family begins to grow.

    Why are SUV owners the target of all of this instead of the factories/industries who pollute? I'll tell you why - everyone knows how much gas mileage an SUV gets - its easy info to find. Nobody will put the time and effort into learning how much a local factory pollutes. Why do you think factories move out of the US? Cheap labor is only half of it - it's because the pollution laws are much less strict everywhere else... let's force all US-based corps who move out of the US to still abide by the same pollution laws no matter where they move to. Imagine how much longer we could make the world last then.

  12. #12
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    To Wooch and others who dislike SUVs due to poor performace and handling. Not everyone wants a race car. I have owned 2 Toyota Turbo Supras and 2 Corvettes and I now own a Tahoe. I could never go back unless it's for second vehicle. Sure the Tahoe does not perform like the Supra or Vette but it's extremely comfy and believe it or not rides very well and despite what others have said, is safe and can be used for just about anything. I like to camp, mountain bike, fish and I can throw a ton of photo equipement in the back. What better vehicle could I have? Plus, I live in Houston which has horrible traffic. I could not take advantage of a vehicles performance on Houston roadways 99% of the time. I don't care what people say, I would also like to take my chances in an accident with my Tahoe over an Accord any day. I bet I will win! That sounds harsh, but it's reality.

    JSE

  13. #13
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by JSE
    To Wooch and others who dislike SUVs due to poor performace and handling. Not everyone wants a race car. I have owned 2 Toyota Turbo Supras and 2 Corvettes and I now own a Tahoe. I could never go back unless it's for second vehicle. Sure the Tahoe does not perform like the Supra or Vette but it's extremely comfy and believe it or not rides very well and despite what others have said, is safe and can be used for just about anything. I like to camp, mountain bike, fish and I can throw a ton of photo equipement in the back. What better vehicle could I have? Plus, I live in Houston which has horrible traffic. I could not take advantage of a vehicles performance on Houston roadways 99% of the time. I don't care what people say, I would also like to take my chances in an accident with my Tahoe over an Accord any day. I bet I will win! That sounds harsh, but it's reality.

    JSE
    I'm not asking for a race car, I'm just looking for something that can perform ON PAR with an AVERAGE sedan, and most SUVs out there can't even meet that minimal criteria. Sure, a lot of them have big enough engines to match the 0-60 times, but in terms of roadholding, emergency avoidance, safety features, and braking, almost all SUVs on the road are inferior to even middle-of-the-pack sedans.

    Sure, your Tahoe has enough heft to mow over another vehicle if that's a goal (sorry, but in a collision EVERYBODY loses, so your gloating about winning in a collision is hardly worth cheering about), but the majority of collisions are not the bumper to bumper variety. In a rollover, a side impact, or solo accident, SUVs are more dangerous than a passenger car. And with their compromised handling and braking, it's more difficult to avoid an accident in the first place when driving one of those. THAT's reality.

    On one of those winding mountain roads, give me anything but an SUV and I'll feel a lot safer. Been there, done that, never again. Unless you're talking about traveling on dirt roads or needing lots of towing capacity, I don't see any benefit to an SUV for camping either. If I need an SUV for traveling on dirt roads, Avis will still take my money and at the end of the trip I don't have to lug that thing back home with me.

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Again, we live in a country where our forefathers fought so that you have the freedom to own (or drive) whatever your heart desires, yet you criticize people for owning something they don't "need"? How about all those people who buy the 4-door trucks or the super high-end luxury cars? Why not just ban every car that isn't a hybrid? Nobody "needs" a car that can't get less than 40 mpg... they can get to point B using a small hybrid econobox. Since when did we start forcing people to buy only what they "need"? I personally have no desire to own an SUV myself, as I feel trucks are more useful. But being a homeowner, I can easily appreciate the versatility an SUV offers - especially when our family begins to grow.

    Why are SUV owners the target of all of this instead of the factories/industries who pollute? I'll tell you why - everyone knows how much gas mileage an SUV gets - its easy info to find. Nobody will put the time and effort into learning how much a local factory pollutes. Why do you think factories move out of the US? Cheap labor is only half of it - it's because the pollution laws are much less strict everywhere else... let's force all US-based corps who move out of the US to still abide by the same pollution laws no matter where they move to. Imagine how much longer we could make the world last then.
    What a person does can have an adverse effect on other people. Many activities that may be pleasurable to some people are illegal because these activities harm other people. Smoking in public places is a good example. The harm that can be done by a motor vehicle is related to its size. Although large vehicles mean more fuel consumption, more pollution, and more danger for drivers of smaller vehicles, trucks and buses used in economic activities provide benefits to society that outweigh theses costs. Does the pleasure that people get from owning large SUV's outweigh the costs to people who don't own them?

    SUV's probably would not be an issue with me if their number was relatively small. RV's are much larger than SUV's, but I don't see enough of these homes-on-wheels to get upset about them. I shudder to think about a surge in the popularity of RV's. If this "bigger is better" thinking goes any further, I may in self-defense have to replace my economy car with an eighteen-wheeler(those big Kenworths are cool). Yep, it will be all about me and what I want, and to hell with everyone else! Chris, do you think our our forefathers would approve of this change in my philosphy about freedom of choice?

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    515
    SUVs are not a problem yet there is where the focus lies. That MPG sticker posted on most, if not every, new vehicles is prior to a/c. Turn it on to cool down and see what your MPG is afterwards.

    If I could afford one I would have a motorcycle in addition to my truck. I don't need both but the bike could get me around town much more economically. I even used to be able to carry around a bag of groceries when needed. My needs and wants have changed. The truck is more in line with what I need and want. Its purpose is to haul things, anything from furniture to a boat in a few years. It is a vehicle bought for the long haul whereas the bike could be for everyday use.

    People buy vehicles for different reasons. You may only see the family of four driving around in a SUV but you don't know they use it for towing, camping, hunting, etc. You can buy whatever vehicle you wish, be it a Lexus or monster truck (5 gallons per mile, BTW).

    You need transportation, be it public or private. You decide what transportation you can afford and what you want to drive. It could be a bicycle or Jeep. You know what you need it for and what you want it to be able to do. If you can afford it and are capable of driving it then buy whatever it is you would like to, even if it is that 18 wheel Kensworth.

  16. #16
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Again, we live in a country where our forefathers fought so that you have the freedom to own (or drive) whatever your heart desires, yet you criticize people for owning something they don't "need"? How about all those people who buy the 4-door trucks or the super high-end luxury cars? Why not just ban every car that isn't a hybrid?
    The benefits of hybrid technology have only scratched the surface so far. I can't remember if it was GM or Chrysler, but one of those companies has now licensed Toyota's hybrid design. And Honda's now working on a next generation hybrid sports car that will generate almost 400 horsepower AND get over 30 MPG on the highway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Why are SUV owners the target of all of this instead of the factories/industries who pollute? I'll tell you why - everyone knows how much gas mileage an SUV gets - its easy info to find. Nobody will put the time and effort into learning how much a local factory pollutes. Why do you think factories move out of the US? Cheap labor is only half of it - it's because the pollution laws are much less strict everywhere else... let's force all US-based corps who move out of the US to still abide by the same pollution laws no matter where they move to. Imagine how much longer we could make the world last then.
    Believe me, the air pollution control districts in California work the industry angle every bit as intensively as the various vehicle emission programs. They've put a LOT of time and effort into studying the impacts of fixed point-source pollution sources (and I've participated in a few of them), and the mandated emission reductions on industry have been every bit as punative as anything that's been done with auto emissions. In the studies I've done, these types of emission regulations are very low on the list of things that drive industry overseas.

    SUVs are singled out because they are used like passenger vehicles, yet regulated as trucks when it comes to mileage and emissions. The truck standards work on the premise that trucks are needed for commerce and having a lowered standard for trucks is a way of keeping business costs down. They were not drafted as a permit for one family to generate more pollution than another, nor as an avenue by which auto makers can pad their profits by withholding their best engine control technologies from SUVs.

    Passenger cars that meet California's strictest PZEV emission standards actually clean the air during unhealthful smog conditions (because the tail emissions are actually cleaner than the air that the engine pulls in during smoggy conditions) and are better for the environment than even electric vehicles if you account for point source pollution by power generating plants. Thus far, not a single SUV meets the PZEV standards, while a growing list of passenger cars meet them, including the BMW 3 series, VW Jetta, Ford Focus, Mazda 3, Toyota Camry, and Honda Accord. IMO, when it comes to SUVs, either regulate them as passenger vehicles or give passenger vehicles the same exemptions that SUVs get.

    http://www.latimes.com/classified/au...,1649115.story
    Last edited by Woochifer; 06-14-2004 at 04:40 PM.

  17. #17
    Forum Regular Swerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    185
    I agree, it’s wrong to try to ban SUVs outright. But, like Woochifer pointed out, the same safety, emmission and fuel economy regulations that apply to passenger vehicles should also apply to SUVs and other light trucks.

    In addition, I would add that the federal government should not subsidize the purchase of SUVs. In the past year or so, anyone
    owning their own business could deduct the purchase cost of an SUV, up to $100,000, from their income for tax purposes. Until the recent upswing in fuel prices, this change in the tax law has driven the high sales of high-priced SUVs. Prior to 2002, this tax deduction was limited to farm owners who purchased farm equiptment that cost up to $25,000. SUVs, as a light truck, were included as eligible vehicles.

    It is difficult to understand how the current admistration decided that this new tax policy was in the best interest of the nation. It has allowed thousands of lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, doctors, etc. (none of whom are farmers) to buy these light trucks with a glandular problem at taxpayers expense.

  18. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by okiemax
    What is your view on SUV's where you live? If you believe they are a problem, what measures would you recommend to discourage their use?
    I think raising gas prices is punishment enough.

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Justlisten2
    I think raising gas prices is punishment enough.
    That punishes everyone though
    mtrycrafts

  20. #20
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3

    why ban

    Just let the gas $ goes up to about $4.00 a gallon by adding more taxes, then there will be less SUV! Plus it will solve our deficit problem in no time

  21. #21
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by kenk
    Just let the gas $ goes up to about $4.00 a gallon by adding more taxes, then there will be less SUV! Plus it will solve our deficit problem in no time

    Maybe it's just the end of the day and my mind in fried but, Huh? Are you talking about the tax breaks being done away with? Please clarify how this will help the deficit if other than SUV tax reform.

    JSE

  22. #22
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by JSE
    Maybe it's just the end of the day and my mind in fried but, Huh? Are you talking about the tax breaks being done away with? Please clarify how this will help the deficit if other than SUV tax reform.

    JSE
    That poster might be Canadian. in Canada the gas is taxed by the federal and possibly the provincial governent which is basically 60% of the price of gas here. We pay 96.5-99.5cents CDN right now per litre. Though there is a bit of a difference with our metric system more or less litres fill a gallon or something can't recall off hand.

    So he is saying if we add $3.00 a litre in tax then SUV owners will help us pay for social programs or highway construction etc. I don't necessarily mind such a proposition because the owner of said vehicle STILL has the choice as to what he or she can buy. Butt after it costs more in gas than the lease payment they may decide to make another purchase. It's like a SIN tax. Smoking here is subject to government taxes - the government claims that the HIGH cost of medical care and cancer should be paid by smokers who know it's bad but do it anyway so that's fine you can if you want to but bloody hell you are going to pay through the nose for those smokes. Alcohol tax pay to to scoop up drunk drivers and victims from the highways and AA support.

    The car population and oil reserves are in an inverse near exponential rate which some suggest could be gone as early as 2050. I was taking an Environmental science course last semester which was interesting. Of course there is debate on these numbers but some arguemnts that we're ok speak of Canada's supply of oil in the tndra or some such nonsense which cannot be feasibly accessed so I don't buy those oil company we're ok nonsense.

    I'm not a big Green Peacer by any stretch but each person does leave a foot print on this planet - and where possible it would be nice if we could take care to at least TRY and do a bit to lessen that impact. It's not practical for everyone to become a tree hugging Vegan - it would probably destroy the economy. But if buyers were united the folks at GM and Ford and Honda etc could certainly build Hybrid SUV's that get 80Mpg - they don't because the demand isn't there - and the oil suppliers would not make as much profit.

    I don't think you can ban such things - people need cargo vehicles. My folks have a Kia Sedona which is horrible on gas but it was the cheapest vehichle that could also pull a tent trailer - they're retired and that's what they do. They used to have a V10 Dodge Ram and a big fifth wheel - people learn to downsize and it's not the end of the world.

    We've all got it to easy in cushy ol North America - and the mentality of screw everyone and everything it's my right because it's written in a constitution 200 years ago is a cop out. I don't rely on a 200 year oild Doctor for my surgery or to build me a stereo so why do people continually site the constitution - for heaven sake let's THINK in modern times. But then hay people rely on the Bible for everything as well - so what am I thinking,.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    538
    "While it's true that SUVs are often nothing more than pickup trucks with a fully fitted interior, that interior adds a lot of weight to an already heavy vehicle. "

    Not true. Full-size pickups have very strong frames (with the exception of the POS 2000-2003 Ford F150 that was screwed up by Nasser & his cronies. The screwed-up 2000-2003 Ford F150 is why Bill Ford kicked Nasser out of Ford and took direct control of Ford Motors.)

    SUV's are pieces of fashionable crap that lack any crashworthiness combined with poor handling. Have you noticed that as the SUV population increases more and more SUV drivers are winning Darwin Awards?

    I use my Ford F150 for tasks such as hauling trash and towing our boat. Moving our boat up and down a launch ramp is zero challenge because my F150 has limited slip front and rear axles and I use low-range on the ramp. But I do NOT commute in the F150. A Toyota Camry meets all of my car-driving tasks.

  24. #24
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    I'm not for banning SUVs, but the title of my base post may have suggested I favor banning. I am for government policies that discourage people from using motor vehicles that are larger than they need. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

    While I don't favor a ban, I detest large SUVs. But when I analyze my feelings, I realize it is the drivers of large SUVs that anger me. There were always drivers who were rude, inconsiderate, or incompetent, but driving a big high-profile vehicle seems to make their behavior even worse. A jerk tailgating me with a Lincoln Navigator is more of a menace than a jerk doing it with a Porsche. A driver who needs two attempts just to get a small car parked properly may need four or five with a large SUV, while others are waiting to get past. Cell phone use while driving(bad enough in a small car) adds to the problems.

    I'm sure many people are good at rationalizing their need for a large SUV. "I need it for those times I carry heavy cargo and large numbers of passengers over dirt roads and across fields and creeks." Yea sure, and how freqently is that? You sure it's not for image?

    Don't get me wrong. If I lived in rural Alaska, I would consider buying one of the things. But I think large SUVs for the most part are a case of social responsibilty and practicality taking a back seat to fashion.

  25. #25
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717

    Better late than never:

    Quote Originally Posted by okiemax
    I'm not for banning SUVs, but the title of my base post may have suggested I favor banning. I am for government policies that discourage people from using motor vehicles that are larger than they need. That seems like a no-brainer to me.
    Okie, let me tell you what I'm in favor of: The government keeping their damn hands off my freedom of choice. Define "unnecessarily large." While your at it, why don't you define "art" vs. "pornography" too, or would rather commence with the book burnings? "No brainer"...amazing, that's what I was thinking too!

    While I don't favor a ban, I detest large SUVs. But when I analyze my feelings, I realize it is the drivers of large SUVs that anger me. There were always drivers who were rude, inconsiderate, or incompetent, but driving a big high-profile vehicle seems to make their behavior even worse. A jerk tailgating me with a Lincoln Navigator is more of a menace than a jerk doing it with a Porsche.
    Are you sure it was the tailgating Navigator that got you flustered or the maniac in the Porsche that just cut in front of you going 30mph faster then traffic?

    A driver who needs two attempts just to get a small car parked properly may need four or five with a large SUV, while others are waiting to get past.
    Two attempts?! Learn how to drive. I feel sorry for the wife of anybody that can't get their car in on one try. Seriously, if you f*#k like you park, you'll never get it in.

    Cell phone use while driving(bad enough in a small car) adds to the problems.
    Driving an suv and talking while driving are completely unrelated. Personally, I detest people talking on cell phones while driving. Your phone came with a free ear bud, use it and keep both hands on the wheel. While they're at it, they can stop putting on their make-up, reading the paper, putting creme in their coffee, and unwrapping their taco. Until cars drive themselves (coming soon to a highway near you), the lugnut behind the wheel is in charge. Act like it.

    I'm sure many people are good at rationalizing their need for a large SUV. "I need it for those times I carry heavy cargo and large numbers of passengers over dirt roads and across fields and creeks." Yea sure, and how freqently is that? You sure it's not for image?
    I'm quite sure. In fact, I'm so damn good looking I could drive a Hyundai and still be better looking than Pierce Brosnan. Lemme ask you a question as you deem yourself the omniscient one, how exactly would you like me to tow my boat with my sports car? I know it carves thru mountain passes like Woochifer wants it to, but with a 20' boat and trailer, umm not so much. Ya know, another problem is squeezing the car seats and related kid gear into the convertible and still have room for luggage, strollers, portable cribs, beach chairs, etc.. But you're right, I can fit all that into a Prius and I'm sure the electric motor won't have a problem pulling it up Boyd Grade. What was I thinking!!! That's me, Topspeed the planet killer and most disrespectful human on the face of mother Earth.

    Don't get me wrong. If I lived in rural Alaska, I would consider buying one of the things. But I think large SUVs for the most part are a case of social responsibilty and practicality taking a back seat to fashion.
    That's called freedom of choice. If you don't like it, there are any number of countries that I'm sure would be more to your liking. I hear Turkey is nice...North Korea should be beautiful this time of year. In the mean time, you can keep your big government to your self.

    Now if y'all excuse me, I'm going to go run over an endangered plant species in my SUV (maybe twice so I can use more gas), go eat an 18oz Porterhouse, and maybe take up smoking just for the helluva it.
    Last edited by topspeed; 06-25-2004 at 03:40 PM.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •