Why are trucks excluded in the anti-SUV crowd?

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: LandRover
Some people actually use their "SUVs" for their intended purpose: Off-roading.
The original conception of the SUV was to have a very capable vehicle both off and on road. Many (not all) SUVs these days are no more than 4 wheel drive minivans that rarely go off-road, and couldn't handle much if they did venture off the pavement. Also, who would want to take something off-road that could sustain thousands of dollars worth of damage from just bumping into a sapling?

If these vehicles were still being made like they used to, you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many of them on the roads. Not many soccer moms would want to drive around in something that is fairly noisy, bumpy, and doesn't feel like a car.

the thing is... if they were minivans they'd get better mileage and have more cargo/passensger room. they're far more practical for the average user. people like to come on here and say "well i use my SUV for hauling stuff to the dorm twice a year" or whatever, but that ignores the fact that theres a better vehicle for that purpose.

You ever heard of something called personal choice?? A Honda Accord could be more practical for a family with two kids then a Honda Odyssey. A Kia Rio could be more practical to someone than a Honda Civic.

But who cares? It's their money and they buy what they want. Not everyone wants to drive an SUV, not everyone wants to drive a sedan, not everyone wants to drive a minivan, and not everyone wants to drive a pickup.

STOP TRYING TO PIN PEOPLE INTO BUYING WHAT **YOU** THINK IS THE IDEAL VEHICLE FOR THE OCCASION. Let them decide for themselves. Besides, you don't know what the lives are of every driver on the road. You don't know what they're doing 365 days out of the year so how the hell could you POSSIBLY try to fit them into a mold?

Where does the line between personal choice a civic responsibility meet? Sure a tank that spews out toxic chemicals, takes up all 4 lanes in a highway and gets 2 gallons a mile would be great for *me*.

The "sucks for the rest of the world" attitude is just immature and irresponsible.

There's a BIG difference Sherlock. SUV's are vehicles regulated for use on public roads...tanks aren't. Not a very intelligent comparison

Also the last time I checked, our Highlander has:

Anti-lock brakes
Electronic brake distribution
Traction control
Electronic Stability Program
Dual Front Airbags
Side Impact Airbags


I haven't see any TANK with those features.

As for the whole "civic responsibility" quip, stop humping Al Gore's leg. If we all lived by your rules, there'd be no SUVs, pickups, minivans, cargo vans, semis, or panel trucks. We'd all be driving Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas which get EXCELLENT gas mileage and exhaust perfume instead of "noxious fumes and emissions"

What the hell does Al Gore have to do with any of this?

The point of the tank comment is it's big, tough, and will walk over anything else. What do anti-lock breaks have to do with anything when you don't need to stop for anything?

Sure your jacked up Camry has those features. IMHO, Highlanders are not the problem that Suburbans, Excursions, H1/H2s and the like are.

Al Gore -- environmentalist
Tank -- my feature list run off (including anti-lock brakes) was to show that your Tank comparision was invalid
Suburban -- not sold in large numbers
Excursion -- dead
H1 -- niche vehicle, not many sold
H2 -- same as H1


NEXT

Next? Are you dense?

I never even mentioned Al Gore. I really couldn't care less what he thinks about this subject.

Your feature listing had absolutely nothing to do with the tank analogy.

As for the 4 vehicles mentioned, they're only the top end of the list. There are plenty others.

1) My gawd, you're the dense one. If you can't understand the Gore reference maybe you should spend some more time watching the news/politics
2) The feature list was to point out that you can't compare a modern SUV with a tank. It's retarded.
3) Where's the rest of your list?

I understand the reference. I also understand that it had nothing to do with my comments.

You've completely missed the point of the second one. Of course a modern SUV isn't a tank. But, it is a giant chunk of metal which many people think they can drive through anything. This goes to the attitude of owning an SUV.

You know the list just even better than I do. It includes Navigator, Durango, Escalade, Yukon, Range Rover, etc. I really thought you could have come up with this on your own.

Tom and Ray seem to share an SUV opinion with me. Link

 

[Ornery]

"...people should be allowed to drive whatever they purchase with their money..."

Gee, what a concept! I wonder if it will fly in this country?

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"...people should be allowed to drive whatever they purchase with their money..."

Gee, what a concept! I wonder if it will fly in this country?

It flies, but with people who whisper things under their breath... (or on message boards).

And if you think free speech has anything to do with SUV haters, don't kid yourself.

 

[NFS4]

I understand the reference. I also understand that it had nothing to do with my comments.

Gawd damn. You try to add a little humour to a post and people over analyze it. GEEZ, take a breather!!

You've completely missed the point of the second one. Of course a modern SUV isn't a tank. But, it is a giant chunk of metal which many people think they can drive through anything. This goes to the attitude of owning an SUV.

Again, you are making a bunch of generalizations and assumptions based on no evidence. That's just like saying that sports car drivers think that they are the baddest things on the road and they are immune to wrecking b/c they have a super performing car. Complete rubbish.

Tom and Ray seem to share an SUV opinion with me.

And why should I respect Tom and Ray's opinion any more than I respect yours or you respect mine? They're only human. I could easily point to a link with someone agreeing with me, but that's just petty chest pounding.

 

[ElFenix]

eh, i'm pretty sure a tank stops faster than a car, even without abs

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Tiger

1. Maybe SUV's wouldn't be so "hard to see arouind" if you were driving a full grown car and not a glorified go cart.

I don't. A Chrysler Sebring convertible (21/29) is hardly a glorified go cart

2. By anybody's measure SUV's are way safer in vehicle on vehicle collisions than the popular spam cans.

No, not safer. They inflict more damage on smaller cars. That makes them more dangerous 'by anybody's measure'. SUV on SUV would be safer but so would car on car.

3. The only time SUV's roll over is when the driver tries driving them like a sportscar.

Wrong.

If you get intimidated by the size of the vehicles you drive around or near park your vehicle and walk. A scared driver is a dangerous driver.
You suppose we should outlaw semi-tractor/trailers too?

I am not intimidated by them. I just loathe them. I do leave more space between me and an SUV when driving as I know they cannot stop as fast nor can they handle as well in emergency situations. That, and the fact they are harder to see around or through, I leave enough space in case I need to stop quickly. And the same goes for tractor-trailers.

The spurt in SUV sales has come about over the past 10-15 years after the Ford Explorer became so popular. Pretty soon, all the yuppies had to have one like their neighbor. I just moved from a subdivision where I was one of only 2-3 homes (out of 75-80) that did NOT have an SUV/minivan. It's become a 'me-too' vehicle and the fad will fade in time. I've already begun to see it (esp. after doing a month of car sales at Honda where I was fielding several calls a week from people wanting to trade in SUVs for a smaller vehicle with better gas mileage.)

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
IIRC, Toyota did a study on their trucks, and found that 70% of all owners will NEVER use the bed of their truck, nor will they haul things with it. I'd guess to say that of the remaining 30%, only about 25% of those people use their truck often in things that it was intended for

I'd say the same goes for other truck makers too

Toyota? See, there's the problem with the study -- most work vehicles are American-made, not Japanese. There is a good reason for it, too, because the Japanese simply don't have pick-ups like the ones popular in the U.S. The "trucks" here are usually very small 500kg max load boxy vehicles often with 3 cylinder engines. I have seen a small handful of Toyota 4DR trucks here with short beds, but they aren't used for work, just status symbols.

Take a survey with Dodge, Ford, or Chevy for real figures on the usage of trucks. I miss my Dodge, as that bed came in handy quite a few times. We wouldn't have been able to move from Texas without it.

 

[slikmunks]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: HOWITIS
why not sports cars? they get about 2 gallons per mile

Mustangs get 19/26. Corvettes get like 23/29. I'm sure the 4 banger import "sports cars" get good gas mileage too.

that's stock, once you start modding, like everyone should get a sports car and do otherwise they won't be able to go fast enough for other people on the forum and will be made fun of cuz they're car is slow :sarcasm:

... but seriously, once you start modding, mileage slowly gets worse and worse....

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Tiger

we're intimidated by the fact that the soccer mom driving it is on a cell phone with 3 screaming kids in back. Nice example

Then ban Cell phone use while driving. Wait a minute, we can't do that. That could actually solve a safety problem.
Rather than ban cell phone use in moving vehicles lets just ban the vehicle.
Moron.

Cell phone bans don't work. There's one here in Japan, and guess what? No one pays attention, and there are just as many people using phones while driving as there are in Atlanta, where there isn't a ban. You might as well ban listening to the radio while you're at it.

 

[ScottyB]

I drive an SUV, but then again I live in Michigan.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Syringer, I've been asking this same question many times in the SUV bashing threads for the better part of 2 years. The hypocritical idiots always bring it back to the SUV being for posers who never use their vehicles off-road. SO WHAT!!!??

1) Pickup trucks are just as long (most of the times longer than their SUV counterpart), wider, and as tall and get just as bad gas mileage.
2) Pickup trucks are driven by "posers" too. I could go all day long and spot out big Ram 1500s Quad cabs or F-150 crews my lover and span clean with clean bedliners on. 9/10 times the most I see loaded in a "consumer" pickup is a few boxes or a couple of dogs. And I do see the occasional diesel F-350 or Silverado/Sierra pulling a trailer. Truth be told, I see more SUVs (Tahoes and Grand Cherokees) pulling stuff than I do trucks.
3) Most of these compact crew cab pickups can't hold much of ANYTHING (Tacoma, Frontier, S10, etc) anyway.
4) Most of the times, the only pickups that I see doing anything "useful" are those used by businesses and contractors.

The fact of the matter is, when it's my money, I'll buy whatever the hell I want. Just as people who have SUV's will buy whatever the hell they want. Bad gas mileage? I can afford it. Not easy to handle? Go back to driving school.

Or how about complaining about minivans "blocking" your view or "cargo vans" like the Chevy Astro/Express, Ford Econoline, GMC Savanna, etc. The point is, if you have problem driving around suvs, then you need to go back to driving school...god forbid you get behind a semi on the highway...you might crawl down into the footwell of your Geo Metro and cry yourself to sleep like a little bitch. Go back to drivers ed. You don't DEPEND on looking through the glass car in front of you for making decisions. You can't DEPEND on that. Is it nice to have that security though, sure...but it's not a certainty by any means. What if you are behind a panel van, or a semi, or a pickup with a camper shell on it, or a mobile home. Are you gonna sit there and cry like a little bitch and say you can't see? If you are behind an Accord that has 3 people in the back seat blocking your view through the car, are you gonna bitch and moan and scream bloody murder? No, you use what you learned in driver's ed.

If you are driving so close that you can't make snap decisions on changing lanes or what's ahead of you, then it's your own damn fault. Stay a safe distance and keep tabs on the taillamps of the vehicle in front of you. Also pay close attention to the CHMSL on vehicles in front of you. If you need to change lanes, use your eyes and your mirrors and stop relying on "freebies"

I personally know how to drive vehicle from as small as my old '87 Pontiac Sunbird to vehicles as large as my dad's '97 Ford F-150 4x4 long bed with a camper shell. I know how to maneuver around vehicle larger than me and how to approach them. If YOU can't, that's your problem.

As for this bullsh!t about "intended purposes," you tell me what the intended purpose is for these vehicles (I'll give mine):

Dodge Caravan - the ABILITY to haul many people at once
Chevy Corvette - haul two people with the ABILITY to reach 170MPH
Ford Explorer - haul 5 people + cargo with the ABILITY to go off-road
Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab - haul 5 people + cargo with the ABILITY to tow and go off-road
Honda Accord - the ABILITY to haul 5 people + small amount of cargo


Every car has the "ability" to do something. Just b/c you don't USE that ability doesn't mean that you are a loser. If a person doesn't drive their Corvette at 170MPH, I don't hold that against them. If a Carvan is driven by a soccermom and is only filled to capacity once a week, I don't care. If a Honda Accord is only filled with one passenger for 95% of the time, more power to them.

Stop bitching people out about what they drive. NOBODY here uses their vehicle the fullest extent possible. If you did, we'd have a lot of dead people on our hands.



And one other thing, for the pansy who said that he couldn't see around SUV's, your ass is sitting in front of the computer right now, isn't? Must not have been THAT bad or you'd be in a ditch somewhere.

Agreed

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Tiger

we're intimidated by the fact that the soccer mom driving it is on a cell phone with 3 screaming kids in back. Nice example

Then ban Cell phone use while driving. Wait a minute, we can't do that. That could actually solve a safety problem.
Rather than ban cell phone use in moving vehicles lets just ban the vehicle.
Moron.

Cell phone bans don't work. There's one here in Japan, and guess what? No one pays attention, and there are just as many people using phones while driving as there are in Atlanta, where there isn't a ban. You might as well ban listening to the radio while you're at it.

Umm... laws were created with the expectation that they be obeyed, but I think anybody can tell you it's really used more for curbing. If there were no law, there would be no curbing. Of course there are still some cell phone users while the cars are in motion, but do you see people blatantly doing this as much anymore ? Enforcement is the next step, but are we really pushing them to do it ?

 

[isaacmacdonald]

The real problem is that 10 times in the last year my poor little altima has nearly been destroyed by men and women in suvs blindly changing lanes right into my car. While avoiding idiotic drivers is certainly a part of driving skill, it can't and shouldn't be relied on as a method of counter balancing the wealth of new SUV drivers.

I honestly don't give a crap about fuel economy. I don't care whether someone wants to waste their money buying all the off-road gear to go back and forth to kmart. I do care that they present a substantially greater hazard to my health. I'm not sure if the horrible driving is a result of increased bulk or perhaps a more removed driving experience. Regardless, they DO represent an increased risk on highways in my locale.

bizaa---

more stupid consumerism blindly following marketing. More time spent fullfilling non-existent needs rather than developing and refining technologies that actually matter.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
The real problem is that 10 times in the last year my poor little altima has nearly been destroyed by men and women in suvs blindly changing lanes right into my car. While avoiding idiotic drivers is certainly a part of driving skill, it can't and shouldn't be relied on as a method of counter balancing the wealth of new SUV drivers.

I honestly don't give a crap about fuel economy. I don't care whether someone wants to waste their money buying all the off-road gear to go back and forth to kmart. I do care that they present a substantially greater hazard to my health. I'm not sure if the horrible driving is a result of increased bulk or perhaps a more removed driving experience. Regardless, they DO represent an increased risk on highways in my locale.

bizaa---

more stupid consumerism blindly following marketing. More time spent fullfilling non-existent needs rather than developing and refining technologies that actually matter.

Generalizing also... I find that people who endanger me in my vehicle are other drivers, no matter what car they drive... hmm... strange.

But a little word of advice about driving safety. Don't drive in other people's blind spot areas (not that you're necessarily unseen)... that way they have no way of "blindly changing lanes" into your car. Driving is about anticipation more than courtesy. If I had even a penny for every time someone changed lanes without a turn signal... :|

Your locale is next to my locale... and you're lying about SUVers being the most prominent of those "idiots".

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Tom and Ray seem to share an SUV opinion with me. Link

Tom and Ray denounce sports cars as much as they do SUVs. Please try to move on to a valid point.

 

[cavemanmoron]

I own 3 vehicles
a 1/2 ton chevy pickup 4x4 with a v-6 and a 5 speed standard,it had a snow plow on the front,and i am Very Very glad i bought it this past fall. {we have had almost 100 inches total snowfall here,like the 4th highest total in over 120 years}
I Also own a Full size cargo van {Chevy} I can put 4x8 plywood,sheetrock lumber etc in the back,and if it is raining out when i get home,leave it in there till the weather is nice. Also i can and have used it to go camping,{i can sleep inside and the bears have a lot harder time to bother you/me,than in a tent }

I also have a "toy" car,an old Camaro,that i drive for pleasure,it is; to me,a Toy. I use it as an adult,about like i did a model railroad,or matchbox cars,when i was a child, .

I can and do also drive any of these to the grocery store,to work, to almost anyplace i care to.
This is America,and if you want to own a Hummer,Or a Toyota Prius,or a Model T you can, and go out and use them,and enjoy the choices,that we are Lucky enough to have in this Great country.


an old saying may apply, ;0
Viva la diference

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
The real problem is that 10 times in the last year my poor little altima has nearly been destroyed by men and women in suvs blindly changing lanes right into my car. While avoiding idiotic drivers is certainly a part of driving skill, it can't and shouldn't be relied on as a method of counter balancing the wealth of new SUV drivers.

I honestly don't give a crap about fuel economy. I don't care whether someone wants to waste their money buying all the off-road gear to go back and forth to kmart. I do care that they present a substantially greater hazard to my health. I'm not sure if the horrible driving is a result of increased bulk or perhaps a more removed driving experience. Regardless, they DO represent an increased risk on highways in my locale.

bizaa---

more stupid consumerism blindly following marketing. More time spent fullfilling non-existent needs rather than developing and refining technologies that actually matter.

Generalizing also... I find that people who endanger me in my vehicle are other drivers, no matter what car they drive... hmm... strange.

But a little word of advice about driving safety. Don't drive in other people's blind spot areas (not that you're necessarily unseen)... that way they have no way of "blindly changing lanes" into your car. Driving is about anticipation more than courtesy. If I had even a penny for every time someone changed lanes without a turn signal... :|

Your locale is next to my locale... and you're lying about SUVers being the most prominent of those "idiots".

thanks for the advice. obviously one doesn't drive for polonged periods in other people's "blind spots", but the point here is that anywhere that isn't directly in back or in front of the offenders car is a "blind spot". The only way for me to avoid at least passing through these blind spots is to always stay in front or in back of these cars, which sort of rules out the whole two lane concept.

As far as the specific places, I'm referring specifically to rush hour southern state and more frequently nichols road (97) between 495 and 25. I've literally been driven off the road while driving at 68 mph with a car a length ahead and behind. If you travel the same roads and don't experience the same issues, I'd hazard a guess that you don't drive them nearly as frequently-

 

[JYDog]

REAL trucks are fitted with flatbeds, everything else are POSERS!

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Tiger
Good job NFS4.
Nobody knows how to drive anymore.
Anti-lock brakes, speed sensitive steering, ride control. They've all contributed to a generation of piss poor drivers.
Used to be they taught people how to modulate brakes in drivers ed. Now people stomp on the pedal and depend on the computer to stop the car.
It's the great dumbing down of the american driver.

I agree with you in general, but not your ABS point. A set of 4 wheel anti-lock brakes will stop a car faster than you can by modulating the pedal, even assuming you are very good at it (and let's face it, nearly everybody is a poorer driver than they think they are).

The reason no one knows how to handle a car at the limit is because there is no where for them to do it safely anymore. I think drivers ed should incorporate some lessons on handling a car at the limit. Alas, that will never happen.

 

[Tom]

Who needs a pickup truck !?!?

 

[LandRover]

My vehicle is technically not an SUV. I drive an older Range Rover Classic. They had made this body style since 1970. I don't think they had "SUVs" back then. It's full time 4wd, and not really large when compared to many of todays SUVs. It has a heavy ladder-box frame and a mostly aluminum body which gives it a low center of gravity for a 4wd. It certainly doesn't get the best gas mileage in the world (17 MPG), but that's not as bad as some of todays SUVs and trucks. About 50% of my driving in it is done off road. It's very capable off-road, and that's what I bought it for and use it for. It also handles nicely on the highway. It certainly doesn't handle like a car, and I don't drive it as such.

I personally would rather get 17 MPG in something I feel safe in as opposed to 25 MPG in a compact car that I would not feel safe in due to the high volume of large trucks and SUVs on the roads. Also, there are tons of deer around here. It's not a pretty sight when someone in a small car hits a large deer. It can be bad enough in a truck. I certainly wouldn't want the deer to end up in the car with me. :Q

I don't have a car phone or use a cell phone while driving.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Because trucks are UV's or utility vehicles. People actually use pickup trucks for their intended purpose once in a while but most people with SUV's and cellphones are strictly a nuisance/hazard to other peoples health/comfort level.

It's really pretty simple to see the diff.

You're crazy talk, you fool.

 

[CPA]

I'm just glad no one complains about vans (talking utility vans, not soccer mom vans) that have been customized, therefore putting additional weight in them. Mine gets lower gas mileage than an SUV and sits higher than most. But man, do I feel safe in it.

 

[AndrewR]

Umm... laws were created with the expectation that they be obeyed, but I think anybody can tell you it's really used more for curbing. If there were no law, there would be no curbing. Of course there are still some cell phone users while the cars are in motion, but do you see people blatantly doing this as much anymore ? Enforcement is the next step, but are we really pushing them to do it ?

Umm, I've been to law school and therefore know why laws are created. However, laws that are unenforceable or unreasonable are doomed to failure through lack of effective enforcement or lack of respect from the public. The problem with the cell phone ban is that while it allegedly addresses a problem that causes accidents, it ignores the other possible causes of accidents which result from inattention to driving, which is the root cause of the problem. It's a panacea for people who blame cell phone operation for accidents or bad driving when it's far from the only cause of them.

We cannot legislate against bad judgment. I would be supportive of a measure making cell phone usage a per se cause of an accident. So if you were using your phone during an accident, the onus is on you to disprove that your phone usage was the result of the accident. In that manner, the incentive to put the phone down is that an accident will hit you squarely in the bank account, both from that accident's perspective and from your insurance company, rather than from a piddly fine from the police -- who have much better things to worry about than drivers on phones. Burdening law enforcement with ridiculous laws only results in those laws being ignored.

 

[LAUST]

Because Trucks are so dazm cool they get their own catagory