Anti-SUV

[Bodacious]

Bodacious, this isn't about anything but common sense versus stupidity. Just because people can drive fat, fuel guzzling, roadhogging monstrosities of cars in suburban communities doesn't make it right.

No one is taking away peoples' right to do ****ing stupid stuff. But people do have a right to make other people see that what they're doing is indeed ****ing stupid.

Understand? Now enough of the topic derailing, it's a pisstake.

Driving an SUV is stupidity? Telling someone they can't dirve an SUV because you don't think they should isn't stupidity?

 

[Bodacious]

what? you don't think that all humans have rights or (should have)?

i don't know what to call you than

Of course they should have rights, but not the same rights granted byt the constitution. That is the difference.

 

[gh0st]

Driving an SUV is stupidity? Telling someone they can't dirve an SUV because you don't think they should isn't stupidity?

Bodacious, even I cant back you up on this one. SUVs, and the fat, mongeral race that comprises its drivers, are totally unnecessary unless you are living in the pristine forest and need to get around. For city driving, unless you are hauling some serious payload, they are outmoded and absurd.

 

[Bodacious]

Bodacious, even I cant back you up on this one. SUVs, and the fat, mongeral race that comprises its drivers, are totally unnecessary unless you are living in the pristine forest and need to get around. For city driving, unless you are hauling some serious payload, they are outmoded and absurd.

Fair enough, but I should be able to do whatever I feel like doing as long as whatever it is is within the limitations of the law.

 

[jondy]

Driving an SUV is stupidity?

Yup. Justify the existance of an SUV in a suburban neighbourhood. You can't.

Telling someone they can't dirve an SUV because you don't think they should isn't stupidity?

If you read my post, I didn't say they couldn't. As you so high-horsedly say, that would be a breach of your constitutional rights. However, informing them that what they're doing is stupid is indeed an act protected by the constitution, so, really, I don't know what you're bitching about.

Like I said before. I'm saying it's a dumb thing to do. I'm not saying you can't.

 

[ALEXDJ]

Of course they should have rights, but not the same rights granted byt the constitution. That is the difference.

what rights you think should appliy only to a US citizen?

 

[CptStern]

"the right to trample on other's rights" ...I'm jk!!!

 

[Bodacious]

what rights you think should appliy only to a US citizen?

Constitutional rights.

 

[ALEXDJ]

Constitutional rights.

so, they shouldn't have a right of free speech?

 

[Bodacious]

Yup. Justify the existance of an SUV in a suburban neighbourhood. You can't.

What if it was a family's only means of transportation? What if they had 10 kids and all they could afford to fit that many people was a 72 - 88 Suburban? What if someone car pooled with their buddies to the consruction site and they needed lots of room for lage people and their tools? What if mom was the soccer coach and loaded up the whole team to go to the field? What if I had a boat, camper or trailer to pull and a truck that could fit a total of 3 people wouldn't cut it, and I needed and SUV to do it?

Need I go on? Justified.

 

[Bodacious]

so, they shouldn't have a right of free speech?

Who? Prisoners at Gitmo? It isn't a right afforded to them.

 

[ALEXDJ]

Who? Prisoners at Gitmo? It isn't a right afforded to them.

many of them there are without any reason (wasn't explainted to them) man sorry, if you think that your dollars buy you freedom, i feel bad for you, freedom can't be bought, or else it's not real freedom

 

[jondy]

Need I go on?

No, you needn't. You're pointing out specialized cases that don't apply to the vast majority of your population. 'What if a family had ten kids' - give me a break, Bodacious, you're arguing for the sake of arguing, and everyone else here can see it.

Some people have SUV's because they need them. The vast majority of SUV drivers, however, have them for road-penis points, which isn't justifiable by any means.

 

[Bodacious]

No, you needn't. You're pointing out specialized cases that don't apply to the vast majority of your population. 'What if a family had ten kids' - give me a break, Bodacious, you're arguing for the sake of arguing, and everyone else here can see it.[/quote[

Why else is anyone here but to argue?

Some people have SUV's because they need them. The vast majority of SUV drivers, however, have them for road-penis points, which isn't justifiable by any means.

And I suppose this is "fact" huh? Wrong, that statement is a generalization. I see no scientific survey of SUV drivers saying they only have them to look cool. What a load of crap.

 

[Bodacious]

many of them there are without any reason (wasn't explainted to them) man sorry, if you think that your dollars buy you freedom, i feel bad for you, freedom can't be bought, or else it's not real freedom

That sentence, if it can be even called that, is incomprehensible.

I never said freedom could be bought.

 

[staticprimer]

I say no more pollution, no more car exhaust, or ocean dumpage! From now on we'll travel in tubes!!


Personally I wouldn't have a problem with SUV's if there were much stricter emission standards on them. Better yet, make all cars hybrids!

 

[ALEXDJ]

I say no more pollution, no more car exhaust, or ocean dumpage! From now on we'll travel in tubes!!


Personally I wouldn't have a problem with SUV's if there were much stricter emission standards on them. Better yet, make all cars hybrids!

they might have too

 

[jondy]

Why else is anyone here but to argue?

You're taking the statement literally. Oh well. ( cue response - how else am I supposed to take it? Read between the lines, and I'm not talking about this size 1 text )

And I suppose this is "fact" huh? Wrong, that statement is a generalization. I see no scientific survey of SUV drivers saying they only have them to look cool. What a load of crap.

Your inherently contradictory implication about generalizations lacking factual basis aside - http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/nadahead/issues/2004-12-03.html

That's a lot of SUV's. A bigger percentage than anywhere else in the world, in fact. And it's an old source; if you have a look at the pattern here, it's safe to assume that the number has gone up since 2002. As for the survey saying people buy SUV's to look cool; it's by definition impossible. So there's a little breathing space for you there.

However, denying that the number of SUV's on the road far outstrips the people that need them is pointless.

 

[ALEXDJ]

SUVs block my view of the sunset when i'm driving home from work

 

[Tr0n]

SUVs suck ass anyways.

GG.

 

[ALEXDJ]

and they roll over easily

 

[Gray Fox]

What if it was a family's only means of transportation? What if they had 10 kids and all they could afford to fit that many people was a 72 - 88 Suburban? What if someone car pooled with their buddies to the consruction site and they needed lots of room for lage people and their tools? What if mom was the soccer coach and loaded up the whole team to go to the field? What if I had a boat, camper or trailer to pull and a truck that could fit a total of 3 people wouldn't cut it, and I needed and SUV to do it?

Need I go on? Justified.

You do not need a suv for that, you can buy a mini van, or a station wagon.

 

[CptStern]

or one of these babies

 

[The Mullinator]

If you need storage space for people or luggage then a mini-van is what you should get.

If you want a rugged vehicle with towing power then get a pick-up truck.

Those two vehicles easily beat an SUV in practicality so the only reason to even get an SUV is to make yourself feel big on the road at the expense of safety and and gas.

Heck in my opinion SUV's are usually very ugly as well. Give me a good pick-up truck over an SUV anyday when it comes to looks.

 

[Direwolf]

Um, what if you need to hold people and tow something?
I feel that the actual existence of the SUV is justified since its such an incredibly useful and versatile vehicle, even if everyone and their dog doesn't need one.

This is all pretty much a moot point anyway. Anyone else noticing that all the retooling of SUVs and introduction of new vehicles keep focusing on smaller and more driving friendly vehicles? All these crossovers (Ford Escape etc) are all starting to look rather a lot like the ol' station wagon. Which is what I figure that people really wanted all along. Something roomy without being a wussy and ugly van.

 

[el Chi]

1. Why should foreigners be given the same rights as a tax paying citizen? They shouldn't. Military tribunals are just fine for suspected terrorists. My point: Why advocate giving non citizen's constitutional rights and then turn around and wish to take away a legal citizen's constitutional rights? It is hypocrisy.


2. Where have I once claimed to be logically superior? I defy you to find a post of mine saying that.

Remember what I said to stern, assumption is the mother of all **** ups.

1. It's a really odd thing to be comparing the two, disparate as they are. Thus I shall NOT compare them.
My simple point, entirely unrelated from the war on terror, was that SUVs harm the environment and their distribution should be curbed. Lots of things are restricted, it doesn't mean it's an enfringement on your civil liberties.

2. I forget the thread, sadly. You, in your infinite wisdom, were snidely deriding people for disagreeing with you. I asked you why you bothered even reading these forums if you knew from the off-set you were going to actively disagree with them. You replied something along the lines of:
"I just like to see what the weirdos think."
If you ask me, that's a superiority claim right there.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

We can't have cars out here because they get torn up too fast, dirt roads :/. Sorry, I'll keep driving the Trailblazer so my back isn't completely jarred and I don't have to pay for repairs a lot.

SUVs block my view of the sunset when i'm driving home from work

I'd really hope you're looking at the road and not the sky when driving

 

[el Chi]

We can't have cars out here because they get torn up too fast, dirt roads :/. Sorry, I'll keep driving the Trailblazer so my back isn't completely jarred and I don't have to pay for repairs a lot.

well that's sort of my point. Some people DO need larger vehicles like SUVs.
Those people do not live in cities or suburbs.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

well that's sort of my point. Some people DO need larger vehicles like SUVs.
Those people do not live in cities or suburbs.

?

Suburbs are where they are needed. Not cities, but cars get messed up pretty fast out here.

 

[Kebean PFC]

My family and I own a 2000 Ford Expedition. It has the small V8 (4.7L) and we use it to hual our family of 4 around. We like to go on vacation, and to hual all our crap we need a vehicle with room. Also, my father and I are both over 6ft tall, we need some legroom. On our last trip with a 30-40mph headwind we got 19 miles per gallon. Is that "gas-guzzling?" I dont think so, when you calculate cargo mile per gallon you will be amazed that SUV MPG isn't really that bad.

But i don't think that Soccer moms need one. I really hate it when there is an Excursion on the road in front of us with one person in the vehicle.

If a Hybrid Expedition came out, my family would be one of the first to get one. But, apparently, they will only make small hybrids for now. I don't fit in a Prius, and i have a tough time in the Honda one (i forgot the name). Just for the record i dont fit in a Mini cooper, Miata, Porsche (911 it think) or a VW Bug. So your theory that everone should have a small car fails becuase i wouldn't be able to drive!

Think about others when you write some of these threads. Maybe you would be happy with your Prius, or Civic, but I wouldn't be able to fit in the Civic for long, and the Prius is already out.

 

[el Chi]

?

Suburbs are where they are needed. Not cities, but cars get messed up pretty fast out here.

I think we have different definitions of suburbs...

 

[Foxtrot]

My Dad lives in the suburbs and owns a jeep, should that be taken away because he lives in the suburbs? He also volunteers to do charity type work, where he often needs to haul supplies like shovels, wheel barrow etc, does this mean he should not own a jeep?

 

[satch919]

My Dad lives in the suburbs and owns a jeep, should that be taken away because he lives in the suburbs? He also volunteers to do charity type work, where he often needs to haul supplies like shovels, wheel barrow etc, does this mean he should not own a jeep?

I think Jeeps are fine. Like this one, or something close to it:

If he has a valid reason to have it, its cool. I still think that we need to develop a more efficient fuel or power source.

However, if these SUVs have huge tires that aren't stock, uses diesel for fuel and requires a ladder to get up into the cab, then its gotta go. Most people that I see with these huge trucks don't even use them for hauling heavy equipment. From what I've seen, they're all kids who are looking to impress someone or compensating for something.

Maybe as an incentive to get rid of over consuming vehicles, the manufacturer could offer people money for turning in their old ones. Or they could just put it towards the purchase of a new/fuel efficient car for the same price as they paid for their original one. I don't think we should really force people to get rid of their cars even though I think they need to be taken off the road. That seems like it would start violating peoples rights or freedom. But giving them an alternative could work.

 

[gh0st]

My Dad lives in the suburbs and owns a jeep, should that be taken away because he lives in the suburbs? He also volunteers to do charity type work, where he often needs to haul supplies like shovels, wheel barrow etc, does this mean he should not own a jeep?

The point is people who NEED SUV's should have them. Those who dont probably shouldnt.

 

[Foxtrot]

The point is people who NEED SUV's should have them. Those who dont probably shouldnt.

I know, but who would decide and how? It would be very hard to do this, ecspecialy with my example because that is not job related work.

 

[Direwolf]

I think this is really just more of a moral point than something that should be put into legislation. Theres nothing all that effective that you can really do about it.

/me lets the fad die

 

[Korgoth]

I think the fad is dying pretty quickly actually, you wouldn't believe how man SUVs i've seen for sale since gas went up lol I just think its justice served, same people who voted for the oil rich administration are more often than not the ones driving the SUVs with the support the president ribbons on them... I love irony.

 

[SenorDingDong]

Liquid Hydrogen will most likely be the next fuel source. It runs basically the same as gasoline now, accept emits no pollutant emissions, and there is an infinite amount of hydrogen. Only problem is getting liquid hydrogen is somewhat expensive process.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bmw-h2r.htm

 

[jondy]

Only problem is getting liquid hydrogen is somewhat expensive process.

The only realistic way to get hydrogen is to split up water. The oxidation of hydrogen, which is the reaction that provides the cars energy, is the opposite of this. Thus hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's an energy carrier; the same number of bonds are made and broken over the course of the fuels existence, meaning the overall energy produced in an ideal world will still be zero; and that's before the inevitable inefficiencies are accounted for.

You need energy to produce hydrogen - more than the hydrogen itself produces. It's simply a good medium for transfering energy, as it doesn't produce pollutants.

 

[OCybrManO]

Who are you, as an individual, to decide what is best for the people as a whole?

Actually, we have a bunch of individuals (about whom we know very little) that we pay to determine what is best for the people as a whole. They're called the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the government. You see, their whole lives revolve around making, interpreting, and carrying out decisions that change the lives of everyone in the country (and, to an extent, the world). Luckily, they have to get their decisions approved by the rest of the people... but if you throw enough money at them that isn't hard. :E

Fair enough, but I should be able to do whatever I feel like doing as long as whatever it is is within the limitations of the law.

You can't smoke in a restaurant. You can't buy or consume alcohol under the age of 21. You can't wear a strapless gown if you are a man or have sex with a porcupine in some parts of Florida. A recently passed anticrime law in Texas requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed...

... and most related to the subject, driving is not a right in the United States of America. It is a restricted priviledge. You can only drive certain vehicles that fall under the category of "street legal." Also, just having a regular passenger vehicle license does not give you the right to own and/or drive any wheeled vehicle. For example, here are the various licenses available in Florida:

Class A: Commercial motor vehicles - trucks or truck combinations weighing with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 26,001 lbs. or more, provided towed vehicle is more than 10,000 lbs.
Class B: Commercial motor vehicles - straight trucks weighing 26,001 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating or more.
Class C: Vehicles transporting placardable amounts of hazardous materials, or vehicles designed to transport more than 15 persons including the driver with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of less than 26,001 lbs.
Class D: A truck or truck-tractor with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 8,000 lbs. or more, but less than 26,001 lbs., or more than 80 inches wide, not transporting placardable amounts of hazardous materials. Farmers and drivers of authorized emergency vehicles who are exempt from obtaining a commercial driver license must obtain a Class D license with proper endorsements.
Class E: Passenger cars, 15 passenger vans including the driver, light trucks with Gross Vehicle Weight Rating less than 8,000 lbs., or recreational vehicles.
Learner's Restricted: Any of the vehicles listed under Class E being driven by a person 15 years of age, or persons learning to drive.
Motorcycles: Any class license which includes a motorcycle endorsement. All first-time customers for a motorcycle endorsement who are under 21 years of age must complete a department-approved Motorcycle Safety Education Course.
Moped: Any class license - motorcycle endorsement is not required. NOTE: Riders and passengers under 16 years of age must wear approved protective headgear. A Moped tag is required. Personal Injury Protection insurance is not required.

Personally, I think the weight limit of the Class E license and the ability to drive RVs without further training should be changed. Large vehicles like those handle a lot differently than the training involved in acquiring a Class E license... and when they aren't handled correctly they are very dangerous, especially to the drivers/passengers of other vehicles on the road.