• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Another Reason to Hate SUVs

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
"Best post in the whole thread!! You spoiled brats need to READ that CAREFULLY"

Thank you my friend, I'm just trying to open people's minds (wow, didn't that sound "60's") to the fact that this country was established for the sole reason of freedom of choice. It makes me sick listening to the bleeding-heart, whiny, buttercups who think that it's ok for them to choose what to drive but not ok for others to choose something different.
 
As usual the SUV owners have come out to defend their vehicles in force and the I know Betters have as well. Unfortunately both came running when they saw SUV and didn't bother to look at the posted topic.

The whole idea of freedom to choose the vehicle of your own liking arguement in the context of the topic as presented is ludicrous. For those who bothered to read the initial post, it was about the damage done when another vehicle is struck by an SUV. Of course you have the right to choose any vehicle you like. Drive it through a river if you want. See if you can overclock the onboard computer. That wasn't questioned.

There's an old saying which goes "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". Similarly, the arguements about cargo space, towing ability, number of friends you can haul and the like are moot in the discussion of safety records in accidents involving SUVs.

Let's take a recent post and dissect it.

vi_edit wrote: "If you put a uniform bumper height then you have just cancelled out ANY advantage of the ground clearance that an SUV/Pickup truck provides. That ground clearance is crucial to off road handling, high incline manuevering, and various other environmental factors that demand a minimum of 8" of clearance. "

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Offroad is by definition not highway. At the point at which you take your vehicle off road you're welcome to have any bumper height you like, and in case anyone here isn't aware of it, bumpers are bolted to the vehicle. Similarly, they can be unbolted and removed for an offroad weekend if necessary for the owner of the SUV to go over boulders. Too much of an inconvenience you say? I expect the owner of the vehicle to take personal responsibility, which is absolutely necessary if you hope to preserve such freedoms as ranted about earlier. If this means to adapt their vehicle on the rare occasions they go off road is an extremely minor inconvenience indeed if it prevents the loss of the lives of other drivers.

Of course that'd interfere with the styling. While easily done with an old Jeep CJ5 and it's bumpers, it'd require a fair bit of redesign with something like a Lincoln Navigator. I don't care. I realize SUVs are more about image than they are about any other single point, but nobody has the right to choose styling over risk to the lives of others. If you want to risk your own, that's your decision. Risking my neighbor's life shouldn't be up to you.

Personally I have an S-10 with a lift kit on it. The bumper brackets were changed so the heights stayed the same as they were from the factory. Doesn't look quite right, but it looks ok to me. I'm glad I didn't raise them or instead of crushing the front end of the car that rear ended me in March my bumper may well have become part of the face of the young lady who slid on ice and hit me. And while low compared to newer models, the factory heights of my bumpers are already pushing it.

The post was about safety. Maybe I missed it, but was there one good reason given why SUVs shouldn't be redesigned to be less deadly to drivers of other cars? Clearance, I already addressed that. Don't like the solution? Stay on the road. Styling? That's pretty damn shallow if anyone wants to use that as defense. Fuel efficiency? No change there, other than perhaps better if you close off that air going under the front.

Sorry for trying to get back to the topic. Go ahead and keep flaming each other now.

--Mc

 
This is the best post of the thread.

Originally posted by: McCarthy
As usual the SUV owners have come out to defend their vehicles in force and the I know Betters have as well. Unfortunately both came running when they saw SUV and didn't bother to look at the posted topic.

The whole idea of freedom to choose the vehicle of your own liking arguement in the context of the topic as presented is ludicrous. For those who bothered to read the initial post, it was about the damage done when another vehicle is struck by an SUV. Of course you have the right to choose any vehicle you like. Drive it through a river if you want. See if you can overclock the onboard computer. That wasn't questioned.

There's an old saying which goes "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". Similarly, the arguements about cargo space, towing ability, number of friends you can haul and the like are moot in the discussion of safety records in accidents involving SUVs.

Let's take a recent post and dissect it.

vi_edit wrote: "If you put a uniform bumper height then you have just cancelled out ANY advantage of the ground clearance that an SUV/Pickup truck provides. That ground clearance is crucial to off road handling, high incline manuevering, and various other environmental factors that demand a minimum of 8" of clearance. "

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Offroad is by definition not highway. At the point at which you take your vehicle off road you're welcome to have any bumper height you like, and in case anyone here isn't aware of it, bumpers are bolted to the vehicle. Similarly, they can be unbolted and removed for an offroad weekend if necessary for the owner of the SUV to go over boulders. Too much of an inconvenience you say? I expect the owner of the vehicle to take personal responsibility, which is absolutely necessary if you hope to preserve such freedoms as ranted about earlier. If this means to adapt their vehicle on the rare occasions they go off road is an extremely minor inconvenience indeed if it prevents the loss of the lives of other drivers.

Of course that'd interfere with the styling. While easily done with an old Jeep CJ5 and it's bumpers, it'd require a fair bit of redesign with something like a Lincoln Navigator. I don't care. I realize SUVs are more about image than they are about any other single point, but nobody has the right to choose styling over risk to the lives of others. If you want to risk your own, that's your decision. Risking my neighbor's life shouldn't be up to you.

Personally I have an S-10 with a lift kit on it. The bumper brackets were changed so the heights stayed the same as they were from the factory. Doesn't look quite right, but it looks ok to me. I'm glad I didn't raise them or instead of crushing the front end of the car that rear ended me in March my bumper may well have become part of the face of the young lady who slid on ice and hit me. And while low compared to newer models, the factory heights of my bumpers are already pushing it.

The post was about safety. Maybe I missed it, but was there one good reason given why SUVs shouldn't be redesigned to be less deadly to drivers of other cars? Clearance, I already addressed that. Don't like the solution? Stay on the road. Styling? That's pretty damn shallow if anyone wants to use that as defense. Fuel efficiency? No change there, other than perhaps better if you close off that air going under the front.

Sorry for trying to get back to the topic. Go ahead and keep flaming each other now.

--Mc
Click to expand...

 
Thanks for pointing us back in the right directions. I was trying to push the discussion back that way but people get going on about how precious their freedom of choice is without any regard to safety.
 
McCarthy,

What you are saying is nearly impossible to implement unless car manufacturers start builing a "commercial" line of vehicles and a "consumer" line of vehicles. Bumper height isn't limited only to off road ground clearance.

All that one would need to justify the necessity of a high bumper height is an occupation or environment that requires it. I'll use myself as an example - I am a courier in a self employed business. I make deliveries to customers in rural, and urban environments. Some of the places that I have to deliver to require me to ascend, and descend inclines that would rip the bumpers off of anything with less than 8" of ground clearance. I know, I've tried doing it in a mid-size sedan. I can't make the approach.

Or, how about the contractor that has to drive up a hill to get to a site to build/repair something and can't traverse the path because his bumper doesn't allow proper clearance.

In both of these situations, we both may be doing on road, and off road traveling. I'm not about to climb out of my vehicle and readjust my bumper each time I need to approach a steep incline.

As for the "unfortunate soul" that rear ended you, well tough sh!t. If somebody doesn't understand the concept of providing ample following space and being cautious under inclement conditions, I don't care if I have a 6' spike hanging out of the back end of my truck. If somebody rear ends me and impales themselves on it, IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM! (assuming I have it adequately marked).

I have the same lack of remorse for an idiot behind the wheel of an SUV that doesn't understand the concept as well. When you have 4000+ pounds of vehicle to stop, the laws of physics are not on your side.

Stop attacking the vehicle and start placing some responsibility on the drivers.
 
All that one would need to justify the necessity of a high bumper height is an occupation or environment that requires it. I'll use myself as an example - I am a courier in a self employed business. I make deliveries to customers in rural, and urban environments. Some of the places that I have to deliver to require me to ascend, and descend inclines that would rip the bumpers off of anything with less than 8" of ground clearance. I know, I've tried doing it in a mid-size sedan. I can't make the approach.

Or, how about the contractor that has to drive up a hill to get to a site to build/repair something and can't traverse the path because his bumper doesn't allow proper clearance.
Click to expand...
Unless your particular vehicle is very unusual, I dont think the bumpers are what limit ground clearance.
Nearly all trucks/SUVs that I have looked at have mufflers, differentials or transfer cases that are closer to the ground than the bumpers.

Approach and departure angles may be affected by lower bumpers, but not by much.
 
Originally posted by: McCarthy
As usual the SUV owners have come out to defend their vehicles in force and the I know Betters have as well. Unfortunately both came running when they saw SUV and didn't bother to look at the posted topic.

The whole idea of freedom to choose the vehicle of your own liking arguement in the context of the topic as presented is ludicrous. For those who bothered to read the initial post, it was about the damage done when another vehicle is struck by an SUV. Of course you have the right to choose any vehicle you like. Drive it through a river if you want. See if you can overclock the onboard computer. That wasn't questioned.

There's an old saying which goes "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". Similarly, the arguements about cargo space, towing ability, number of friends you can haul and the like are moot in the discussion of safety records in accidents involving SUVs.

Let's take a recent post and dissect it.

vi_edit wrote: "If you put a uniform bumper height then you have just cancelled out ANY advantage of the ground clearance that an SUV/Pickup truck provides. That ground clearance is crucial to off road handling, high incline manuevering, and various other environmental factors that demand a minimum of 8" of clearance. "

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Offroad is by definition not highway. At the point at which you take your vehicle off road you're welcome to have any bumper height you like, and in case anyone here isn't aware of it, bumpers are bolted to the vehicle. Similarly, they can be unbolted and removed for an offroad weekend if necessary for the owner of the SUV to go over boulders. Too much of an inconvenience you say? I expect the owner of the vehicle to take personal responsibility, which is absolutely necessary if you hope to preserve such freedoms as ranted about earlier. If this means to adapt their vehicle on the rare occasions they go off road is an extremely minor inconvenience indeed if it prevents the loss of the lives of other drivers.

Of course that'd interfere with the styling. While easily done with an old Jeep CJ5 and it's bumpers, it'd require a fair bit of redesign with something like a Lincoln Navigator. I don't care. I realize SUVs are more about image than they are about any other single point, but nobody has the right to choose styling over risk to the lives of others. If you want to risk your own, that's your decision. Risking my neighbor's life shouldn't be up to you.

Personally I have an S-10 with a lift kit on it. The bumper brackets were changed so the heights stayed the same as they were from the factory. Doesn't look quite right, but it looks ok to me. I'm glad I didn't raise them or instead of crushing the front end of the car that rear ended me in March my bumper may well have become part of the face of the young lady who slid on ice and hit me. And while low compared to newer models, the factory heights of my bumpers are already pushing it.

The post was about safety. Maybe I missed it, but was there one good reason given why SUVs shouldn't be redesigned to be less deadly to drivers of other cars? Clearance, I already addressed that. Don't like the solution? Stay on the road. Styling? That's pretty damn shallow if anyone wants to use that as defense. Fuel efficiency? No change there, other than perhaps better if you close off that air going under the front.

Sorry for trying to get back to the topic. Go ahead and keep flaming each other now.

--Mc
Click to expand...



I have been driving full size trucks or SUVs for as long as I've had a license and the only times someone else has been
in danger of getting hit by me is when they've done something stupid. Such as a moron in a geo that thought stops signs
didn't apply to him. If someone decides to run a stop sign, they have decided to give thier life to fate and I will not
feel bad (at least not for long) if they get hit and die. The single biggest problem on American roads is lack of patience.

You people act as if there is no such thing as a death between two cars. Should we just go ahead and get rid of cars period?

They can redesign SUVs all they want, but it wont help a whole lot.

The road is a dangerous place. If you don't like it, take the bus.


DD
 
Unless your particular vehicle is very unusual, I dont think the bumpers are what limit ground clearance.
Nearly all trucks/SUVs that I have looked at have mufflers, differentials or transfer cases that are closer to the ground than the bumpers.

Approach and departure angles may be affected by lower bumpers, but not by much.
Click to expand...

Drive an SUV down a driveway with a 12% grade that meets the flat pavement. No problem. Now do the same with a toyota camry/nissan maxima/chevy impala/ect. You'll loose your nose.
 
I try not to post to things like this, but I'll make an exception this time....

1. SUVs use more gas than a smaller car. That's fairly obvious. Eliminating SUVs is *not* going to make a significant dent in the middle east oil dependancy. We don't need to lessen our dependancy, we need to stop it (EDIT: On oil entirely, thanks vi_edit).
2. The trucks that SUVs are based off of use the same amount of fuel, and are have just as much force. Even more so when loaded down with things one would put in a truck, like pig iron.
3. People who drive SUVs aren't bad drivers because of their SUVs. They're popular now, which means that the average person is buying them. The average person is *not* a good driver.
4. All vehicles should *constantly* have their safety levels improved.
5. It isn't anyone's business what they do with their vehicle (go off road, race, haul kids) as long as it isn't endangering everyone.
6. We need to make driving tests more difficult to keep the inept from driving

Now, I drive a Ford Festiva. It's a very small, slow car. I like it. I don't like SUVs, and wouldn't pay the initial, upkeep, or fuel costs for one, since I have absolutely zero use for the capabilities that they provide. I might get a small truck (S10, Tundra, something like that), but never an SUV. In fact, I haven't seen an SUV I consider attractive, but that's just personal opinion.

If you feel the need to take up a cause, take one up that is worthwhile. There are far more important things to do than to worry about what freaking vehicle someone is driving.

Thank you.
 
1. SUVs use more gas than a smaller car. That's fairly obvious. Eliminating SUVs is *not* going to make a significant dent in the middle east oil dependancy. We don't need to lessen our dependancy, we need to stop it.
Click to expand...

Not to start a whole 'nuther thread...but we get less than 15% of OUR oil from the middle east. Our allies (Japan, Southern Europe, ect) require a MUCH larger percentage.
 
"The road is a dangerous place. If you don't like it, take the bus."

Good one. Now where are buses driven? 🙂 That's funny.

Anyway....

Cyberian and vi_edit were talking about approach angles.

Just got my trusty dusty ruler out and went to measure my S-10. From the centerline of the front wheel (front pivot point) to the bumper is 2 feet. This will vary from vehicle to vehicle, but I think we could all agree the S-10 is a fairly traditional design, not being abnormal to either extreme.

Assuming a 12" bumper height, which would increase safety for drivers of most everything on the road except motorcycles, bicycles and Pontiac Fieros and the 24" front to wheel centerline one could do grades of over 20 degrees without hitting the bumper. True, can't have the fairing at the same distance. If you'll look at most cars the fairing is recessed back beyond the point the bumper extends to, partially for this purpose, partially to reduce drag.

This is assuming an instant 20 degree grade transition, if the grade curves you could reach even steeper levels of course.

After measuring and taking your arguement into consideration it appears that still the rather inconvenient task of removing the bumper (and hopefully replacing it with some sort of brush gaurd) for weekend offroad adventures still has merit. Keep in mind this would be a very rare need in the first place, not for the average family on vacation going to the state park by any means. This would be only for people who want to go out for some serious offroading. As for contractors and couriers who would be cutting it close or don't want to risk it, they could remove the fairing entirely or replace it with something flexible.

It then goes back to styling. And to a very small extent, fuel efficiency for those who remove the fairing. Part of the cost of the personal responsibility I alluded to.

Yes, any time you're talking about an issue involving a moving vehicle you're talking about the car and the driver. This is a given. It's also a given that there has been a breakdown in the process somewhere when we're at the point of talking about what happens in a collision. At that point it doesn't matter if the driver is skilled or not, if the driver is at fault or not, or even if the driver is still in control of their vehicle. After the point of collision the outcome is determined by vehicle design. What led up to it is a different conversation, please start your own topics and I'll comment in them.

The amazing part of this is how reactionary people get about the topic.

It's a simple and reasonable request to lower the bumper height on SUVs. If done it wouldn't change their functionality; they'd still haul, tow and seat as many people. They'd still go through the same weather conditions. They'd handle the same. In a very few cases it would be a problem which I've addressed for a second time now, most recently after having measured and found it to be even fewer than I personally suspected at first.

More amazing still since the actual collision bumper could be low and completely hidden by the body panels - leaving the vehicle more susceptible to cosmetic damage in parking lot incidents, but again, weigh paint and plastic against human life.
It's been many years since a bumper really fit it's naming anyway, modern bumpers aren't designed to protect the exterior body panels from damage in parking lot incidents....bumps you might say, so even here I'd be wary of an arguement about significant downside for SUV owners.

It astonishes me how people can show such callous disregard for the safety of others if it threatens their idea of fashion.

--Mc


 
Good one. Now where are buses driven? That's funny.


I didn't make myself clear, a bus is much larger than a SUV and should a collision occur; who do you
think is going to win?

So, if you're too scared to drive yourself because you might get into an accident with a larger vehicle; take the bus.



DD
 
Yep, once again the bleeding heart liberals want to idiot proof the world. How many times in the "SUV Lovers/Haters" threads have you seen someone post the phrase "when an SUV hits another vehicle"? Seems to come up quite often, however, have any of those posters ever paused to think that the accident may have been caused by <gasp> THE OTHER VEHICLE! (insert dramatic organ music here). Yep, it's true, there actually have been accidents with SUV's which were caused by smaller vehicles, and if you think that's unbelieveable, just wait till you hear this. There have been accidents where NO SUV's have been involved. Now, you're trying to tell me that I should blame the SUV driver for any and all injuries sustained by all parties involved just because he/she had the larger vehicle? That's laughable (in fact I'm laughing right now).

Now, lets put the shoe on the other foot. I want every driver of a small, low to the ground, personal coffin to go out to their driveway/garage and bolt on RAISED BUMPERS, because this would help protect them from all other vehicles (cars included) in their "intended" driving situation which is the road. See, sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it. Well it should, because asigning a uniform bumper height will have very little impact on most accidents for the following simple reason: what usually happens a split second before the impact of two vehicles? BRAKES! Now what does this cause every vehicle to do? Pitch. And this pitching lowers the front bumper and raises the rear bumper. So lets assume we have two vehicles with nice even-height bumpers and someone in front of us jams on the brakes. Their bumper raises as much as 3 - 4 inches. Likewise, in this situation, we hit the brakes and our front bumper dives by as much as 3 - 4 inches. What happens next? Hint: SWING AND A MISS! Neither bumper does any good.

And I'm willing to bet that the front bumper of almost any compact car will fit under the rear bumper of almost any mid-size and up car. And why is that? Styling, low front ends and high rear ends give the impression of speed, ie a more aggressive stance. So, McCarthy, or should we call you Mr Safety, maybe you should take your hollier than thou attitude regarding stylish concious SUV owners, make a bumper sticker out of it, and place it on your Civic friendly bumpers.

And here is a quote straight from you "Risking my neighbor's life shouldn't be up to you". Yep, but protecting me and my family from your neighbor IS up to me. Your flawed reasoning states that if your neighbor chooses to drive the smallest, most unsafe vehicle on the road (and also allows him/her to drive it as unsafely as possible), then I should be REQUIRED to drive an equally unsafe vehicle. Nice f@cking Communist attitude, comrade.

I agree, not all bumpers would completely miss each other, however, it's highly unlikely that they would remain closely aligned and provide significant crash protection. Hell, current vehicles sustain serious damage at 5 mph during bumper tests, what good are they anyway?

I've stated it already in this thread and Chaotic42 and PeeluckyDucky restated it also, it's the DRIVER that makes a vehicle unsafe. Train the drivers better and ALL accidents will be reduced.
 
I'm going to look into my crystal ball and make a few predictions...

More SUVs will have unibody construction and lower bumpers in the future.
More SUVs will have smaller engines and not be geared for towing or designed for off-roading.
More SUVs models will be availble for cheap, and thus affordable for less experienced drivers.

Passenger cars do not need to be made better, they have evolved quite well to be the best compromise of fuel efficency and safety. SUVs need to be made better. The role they once played in transportation has changed faster than the automobile industry can (or cares to) keep up with. Cars have simply evolved faster. Anyone who thinks their sport utility vehicle handles or stops well is a damn fool. "Well" is a relative term, they simply do not do anything better than a car engineered to the same price range, except haul lots of people and cargo, handle abnormal terrain in some instances.

I think it is fair to hate SUVs when they only pose additional dangers to others and increase pollution with no legitimate reason for doing so, not being used for any of their unique attributes... It's just as much a right to "hate", as it is to drive an SUV. However, we obviously can't just single out SUVs as a great menace to society, it'd be more likely to decrease traffic fatalites by simply moving back the legal driving age by a couple years, and doing some emotional fitness screening as part of the driver's licensing process. It would however seem appropriate to me for SUV owners to pay a lot more for insurance though.

On the other hand, there are very good reasons to own one, and I do. The thing I feel most guilty about is that future generations will have to live in the pollution that we could so easily decrease, but I digress, it's not just us selfish SUV owners that are to blame for that.

It is good that people voice problems with SUVs, as in all other areas of life... that's how PROGRESS is made. If you like 'em just the way they are, buy one, they're going to build whatever YOU want to buy.
 
why anyone would be jealous of someone owning an SUV is beyond me.

anyway, the only thing on the road i looked out for are ricers and SUVs. when i drive by an SUV i look in the window, and if it's either a blonde woman talking on her cell phone or an old asian woman, im staying as far away from it as i can. otherwise i dont care.
 
Just make the tests harder is all.... I still feel a separte class for large SUV and Full size truck (4000lb+) (no that doesn't include the $hitsubishi 3000 VR4's 😉 ) is almost in order with as many bad drivers have proven with Large SUV's and Full Size's.

Make them take the test in a large SUV and not borrow someone's Fiat, make em parallel park, change lanes on the highway.

And the last step is cell phones... make em $400 fines for talking on them and a 4 pointer... you know basically the Exact same penalties as CARELESS DRIVING

It's not the vehicle's size or anything, if that were the case Semi's would be killing people left and right... but there is this thing known as the CDL for those drivers now isn't there 🙂
 
I'm sorry but I'm still LMAO at whoever said the thing about Porsches being 4-bangers! Hahahaha... I know it was already taken care of, but it's just so damn funny. WTF? How can you think a Porsche a 4 banger? :disgust:

http://www.us.porsche.com/national/models/boxster/boxster/technicaldata/default.htm

You need to read that! And it does not accelerate "super fast". With Tiptronic S transmission it acccelerates from 0-62 miles per hour in 7.2 seconds. My friend's huge Pontiac Bonneville does the same in 8 seconds. The Porsche Boxster has 217hp at 6400rpm. Not very powerful. The Boxster S is more powerful, accelerates more quickly also. Still not impressive compared to a 911 Turbo. 🙂

Anyway... as for the whole SUV thing being argued about: Don't buy one if you don't need one. What's the point in having an SUV if you don't make use of it? None. If you make good use of it, then fine, no problem! It's like buying a CD player and then never listening to CDs. It's just gonna have costed you that extra $100 for nothing. I would buy a CD player, cause I listen to music all the time, it would be worth the purcahse. I wouldn't buy an SUV cause I would have no use for it. If I did buy one though, I would likely be glad of the extra room for hauling friends around.

The argument of SUVs being a hazard to others isn't the SUV's fault itself, but the driver's fault. It's only dangerous if you make it dangerous. If you crash into someone's house at 130mph in your 4banger econo-car, you're dead and there's lots of damage. Did it being a 4banger save anything? Of course not. Wreckless driving would have caused the accident. Unfortunately we have wreckless drivers in all kind of automobiles. It is not restricted to SUVs, although I have witnessed many dumb, dumb b!tches driving SUVs talking on a cell phone, doing other things to distract themselves, etc. I've witnessed the same in minivans though, so to single out SUVs with that argument is lame.

Finally, they do consume more gas than little gars (turbodiesel VW golf for 64mpg anyone?), but what do you expect? They are hauling much more weight. It is common sense. More weight requires more power requires more gas. 😉

Now for speed. Whether an SUV is fast or not is irrelevant. You don't need an SUV to be fast. What you need it for is to have lots of room, and maybe lots of low end torque if you'll be towing heavy things. As if all the little 4bangers had lots of power. Our 95 Civic has something like 108hp. OHHHHHHHH yay!! That 108hp revving at 6000rpm is really going to save me when you run me over with that Excursion, huh?

Cars would be safer if SUVs didn't exist. That's not the case. They do. That makes us less safe in small cars, thanks to wreckless/drunk/stoned drivers.

However, there is no reason to "hate" SUVs so to speak... Just don't buy one if you don't like it. It's more often the drivers behind the wheel (not only of SUVs) that are irritable.
 
You have to love the arrogance of all the posters in this thread that think they "know what everyone needs". I dread the thought of any of them actually gaining any potential to actually try and enforce their particular insight as it regards our needs.
 
This is just Aother Reason to Hate People Who Make Blanket Statements to me.

I have a Nissan Xterra SUV that I use to take up to Tahoe snowbaoarding and quite often it has saved me from serious accidents, being stuck, or just not being able to go at all. I also use it when I need the backseat leg room or when I'm hauling something big.

I have a Acura Integra for my daily work commute so I save money on gas and don't put too many miles on my Xterra.

If you don't like my vehicle choices you can just bite me.
 
A lot of people are missing the point here. Raising the bumper height on a compact car is not going to help it when an SUV T-bones it going through an intersection. The original post was about side-impact collisions. Lowering the bumper height on SUV's is the only reasonable solution here. When the Ford Excursion was first sold, it had to be redesigned to keep it from riding up on top of every small car in a front impact.

The other part, about the impracticality and selfishness of people driving enourmously heavy cars, has a simple and elegant solution, albeit one that most people would hate: raise the price of Fuel.

I like this one because it balances my environmentalist leanings (see my sig) with my libertarian leanings. Use the extra tax revenue to fund athsma clinics, oxygen bars, treeplanting programs, public transit, rehabilitation, etc. etc. etc. The fact is there are enormous externalities involved in the "individual" choice to drive. I don't want to be a fascist and tell you that you can't drive that thing. I do want you to pay the true cost of it.

Doubling the price of gas might not decrease the number of SUV's on the road very much, the price elasticity of driving seems to have gone down a great deal since the last big oil crisis. But it would at least better reflect the total cost to the rest of us.
 
Any car T-boned at high speed isn't going to fair very well. That's pretty much the worst possible scenario for an accident. The best way to improve safety here is to give drivers a little more patience. Quit pulling out in front of people or when you can't see. Left turns in traffic are notorious here. As has been said before, the average driver is a bad or ignorant driver.

As for the people who spout the safety of SUVs, I believe this is pretty much an even match. The average driver doesn't know how to drive an SUV. I've seen 4 deadly crashes locally in the last couple months that were an SUV versus an unmoving barrier. Usually rounding a corner too fast.

The bottom line is that drivers need to get a clue and start driving defensively. Whether you're T-boned by an Expidition or a Camry, it's still gonna hurt. Quit being in such a hurry and take the extra time to be practice safe driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top