So I ask, why get an SUV?

[YSSMAN]

@ STL: Thanks for the clarification, as your post seemed outstandingly negative against everything he had said. He and I had a scuffle earlier this week on the topic of the Civic versus the Rabbit, and it became quite heated, as he is very passonate in his belifs. And you know what? Thats a good thing, as we haven't had that kind of stuff happen in a while.

...He makes a lot of good points in his past postings, and although I don't agree with every single one of them (particularly the PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE thing, WTF?), I do respect his passionate views twards SUVs.

@ M5Power: I meant Freestyle, not Freelander. GD Ford and their GD "F" names on every GD model...

 

[the Interceptor]

And you know what? Thats a good thing, as we haven't had that kind of stuff happen in a while.

We haven't had a world war happening in a while, would it be a good thing to start a new one as well?

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. It's perfectly okay to have an opinion, and to state that opinion in a discussion. However, the term "state" should mean 'in an approppriate way'. Discussing about something with a person who calls you an idiot, incompetent and says that his opinion is the right opinion is kind of pointless.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[1X83Z]

Are you saying you'd have avoided that pole, let's say, with a 4x4 Explorer on summer/all season tires? You're kidding, right? You would have:

1. Hit the pole harder
2. Had a much higher probability of flipping over before hitting it.
3. Damaged your Explorer even more than what you did to your 850 (your car is a basically a tank on four wheel - but that one's irrelevant to the discussion)

Actually given these particular circumstances - which, admittedly were quite rare - I'm pretty sure the Explorer wouldn't have taken the slide the Volvo did. The added weight would've helped considerably, and based on what actually happened, the four-wheel drive would've counter-acted the slide immediately.

With that said, I again stipulate my circumstances were quite rare and furthermore, when the hell are you ever the first car along during a snowstorm?

Yep, I remember. I basically own the same car, with a few more horses and an updated interior. The only trouble I've ever had that was caused by the extra power on snow is wheelspin from a standstill, and that's about it (it's a 98 and the low speed "TCS" is horrible).

Yeah, wheelspin in the wet from a standstill eats me up. Actually when the tires are beginning to go, wheelspin during turns - even when it's dry - can be a factor too. I've never spun out or even come close, but you can hear the tires spinning like mad when you take a hard turn from a standstill (like when you get a green arrow and you hate everyone you're at the light with).

Um.... Right.
So, all three of the Mazda wagons are affordable.

Yeah. Too bad the Protege5 (which was cancelled years ago) and the 3i are essentially hatchbacks, not wagons, and they're both underpowered to no end. And they don't offer AWD, which is the biggest point I'm making here. Are we really considering them a viable alternative to ANY SUV? Please.

Volkswagen has the Jetta, Golf, and Passat, all of which are suitable for snowy weather.

Neither the Jetta nor the Golf come in wagon form.

The Ford Focus comes in Wagon form.

Same problem as with the Mazdas.

And NONE OF YOU seem to understand the fact that while YOU or I can drive perfectly well in the winter, the PEOPLE WHO BUY SUVS, WHICH ARE MIDDLE AGED WOMEN, CANNOT. Anyone still arguing that winter tires solve the problem is MISSING THE POINT. Middle-aged women don't want winter tires on a Taurus wagon, they want AWD on their Explorer BECAUSE IT HELPS. Give them AWD on their Taurus wagon, and they'd buy that **** too. Just look at the Outback - it sells in UNBELIEVABLE numbers throughout the country. It's the fifth-most popular car in the entire Denver metro area, which has more than 3 million people in it. WE WANT ALL WHEEL DRIVE!!!!!

(by the way, Winter tires aren't cheap. Assuming you bought a set every winter for just four winters, you'd already have paid more than the price of AWD on the average SUV)

Regarding SUVs. This was a few posts back, regarding the PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE rant that took place. Subaru Outback 2.5 XT Wagon (250hp/250lb-ft.) starts at around $28,600. Volvo V50 T5 AWD (218hp/236lb-ft), starts at $29,900. OH DEAR! $1300 difference!!

The V50 T5 AWD starts at $30800 when you toss in that automatic transmission that 94-97% of buyers are forced into. (although, to be fair, I have seen a manual - once)

V50 T5 AWD is another good suggestion, and the fourth and final decent wagon that can compete with SUVs. So we've got four wagons and seven vans. To make a grand total of eleven. Versus the 50 SUVs out there. And assuming you don't want a minivan because they're the size of God, you're left with those four wagons. Good luck...

Well that shock and awe was really unnecessary, but the fact is, is that with so many dealer rebates (regardless that it's almost always IMPOSSIBLE to get all of them), the price differences are ususally negated with various lease options.

Good point. After all, rebates ARE rampant on the Audi A6 Avant and BMW 530xiT. Oh wait...

Although, I can't believe that nobody has asked monsieur M5Power how old he is. Some of his rebuttles show the complexity and depth often used by a twelve year old.

I think they already know...

I'm not defending/attacking opinions. My intention was to comment on how these opinions are being raised. And that's really what the problem has become regarding this thread.

When you argue with me.

If you take me too seriously, you're gonna get mad. That's the way it is. I personally drive a car, I'm completely indifferent about SUVs and plan to never own one, and the minivan segment is my favorite segment of automobile. I just have a huge problem with the premise of this thread and the absolutely assinine ways in which its players have defended its gigantic flaws. I also have a huge problem with anyone who wants to limit a consumer's choices. It might seem like I'm getting emotional in my rebuttals, but really, I'm pretty calm. Cars, to me, are objects - they're my passion, but that passion only extends so far. A car is, at the end, just a car. I really believe that, and that helps keep me from getting into these arguments and actually meaning what I say. Being a car enthusiast forum with mostly teenagers, I'm getting little help, which I'm not surprised about, which is why I make these brilliant, logic-filled posts.

That was a joke, by the way. Lighten...

In the end, it all comes down to the fact that the Dodge Magnum is acceptable to these people because it's nine inches shorter than midsize SUVs. Nine inches has produced these eight pages. Why? I honestly have no idea why the Magnum is acceptable and a distance shorter than the length of a license plate is such a cause for concern. But to this bunch, it always has been.

 

[YSSMAN]

We haven't had a world war happening in a while, would it be a good thing to start a new one as well?

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. It's perfectly okay to have an opinion, and to state that opinion in a discussion. However, the term "state" should mean 'in an approppriate way'. Discussing about something with a person who calls you an idiot, incompetent and says that his opinion is the right opinion is kind of pointless.

Regards
the Interceptor

Yes and no, but I was refering to the fact that we haven't had a good passionate debate in a while. After the whole "tolerance" things went down, it was like every one of us was castrated of our automotive passion. The traffic on most threads seemed to die, and it left most of us diehards doing the simple point-and-shoot volley that would occour on and off during the day.

Granted, I don't miss the all-out flame explotions between BX, Poverty, L4S and myself. Those often got very ugly very quickly, and thus became pointless to no end.

...Debates are part of what make these threads fun, and when flame wars happen (say on a War of 1812 scale, not WWII) it becomes fun with the whole point-counterpoint heated discussions.

But I would agree with you that the namecalling is pointless. Granted, I do it, especially when I hear something so incredibly stupid I almost can't breathe... But, it does little to add to what is going on, as it often makes things worse.

This isn't the World War II, Defcon-1 level of flame war that has occoured in the past (although we are past-due for one), but things like this are good once in a while.

EDIT: @M5Power: Jetta wagon is on the way for 2007, but the production model has yet to debut. It is a market that VW has covered for some time, and I'm sure they won't give it up. Oh, BTW, 4MOTION should be an option just as it was on the outgoing MKIV models as well...

 

[the Interceptor]

This isn't the World War II, Defcon-1 level of flame war that has occoured in the past (although we are past-due for one), but things like this are good once in a while.

Well, then my question is: do we discuss to discuss, or do we discuss to reach a conclusion of any kind?

 

[1X83Z]

EDIT: @M5Power: Jetta wagon is on the way for 2007, but the production model has yet to debut. It is a market that VW has covered for some time, and I'm sure they won't give it up. Oh, BTW, 4MOTION should be an option just as it was on the outgoing MKIV models as well...

Really? I heard that they were saying no to a wagon this time around, which surprised me because it actually sold somewhat well. But do remember, they didn't have a wagon with the 91-98 model, so a wagon is no sure thing.

By the way, no US Jetta has ever offered all-wheel drive. Only in Europe, and only on sedans.

 

[neanderthal]

most people dont need the 6 things was M5Power posted. those needs are easily covered by a plethora of other vehicles.

they want them. wants and needs are different.


they may need any one of them at any given time, but not all the time
they may need most of them only once a year. but as famine pointed out, do you then buy four different cars for different purposes? or buy one that does them all.

ultimately it comes down to perception. the marketers have sucessfully sold the unwashed masses on the capability and ruggedness of the SUV, and the sheep have bought, and bought it big, literally and metaphorically. when the single mom buys tahoe or expedition, she isnt doing so to have any of the attributes that were posted. she "feels safe" in that behemoth, as the height advantage imparts a sense of forwarning to impending disaster up ahead. and all she cares about is little tiffanies safety and so on. it doesnt hurt that she can put all of little timmys crap in the car and not have to worry about it all fitting in.
and since other advertisers, ahem subaru, have advised us the best accident is the one you avoid, the minions have bought the "safety" aspect hook, line, and sinker. nevermind that SUVS handle much worse than cars and most minivans.

there are few people who need the full seating capability of a full size suv. or the towing capacity. or the other things. but seeing as buying four cars is more impractical, it just ends up being that way.

for me, renting works best. im single with no children. i drive a 300E. the few times i need to move people or stuff i rent a suitable vehicle. i save on gas (mid 20s based on how i drive) get lower insurance, better handling and manouverability, and a car whose safety reputation is second to none. additionally, my cars size is sufficient for 99% of the passenger and load carrying i need. in fact i have yet to rent a car for lack of space in mine. but seein as i need to move some stuff from pheonix to los angeles, and have a family coming out to vist from england, that day will be soon when i visit the rental car booth. that sort of logic and common sense isnt prevalent in the general public.

to sum up;
most people dont need the attributes of the mega SUVs
most people only have the need once in a while
most people want them
marketers are clever at telling you you need more than you do
and that SUVs inherent height advantage is a safety feauture (although no one has actually come out and said that.)
most people are sheep
im not a sheep


edit
dont bother refuting anything ive said. im tired, and probably incoherent, and i think i didnt carefully state some of what i needed to say. so theres gaps and leaps in logic.

but im still right

 

[STLbarcelona5]

I'm really too tired to respond to the whole thing by M5POWER. But I do want to add this in, how did I get the title the next one? The next extraordinary person who has survived multiple winters in a RWD car? The next person to try to bring reason and rationality to this thread? Or the next one to show you that SIZE SIX FONT IS UNNECESSARY?! when you are actually, and I quote "Pretty calm."

Hmmm. Oh but I do appreciate you adding in the Volvo onto the wagon list.

 

[1X83Z]

I'm really too tired to respond to the whole thing by M5POWER. But I do want to add this in, how did I get the title the next one? The next extraordinary person who has survived multiple winters in a RWD car? The next person to try to bring reason and rationality to this thread? Or the next one to show you that SIZE SIX FONT IS UNNECESSARY?! when you are actually, and I quote "Pretty calm."

If I didn't put it in six point, you guys wouldn't read it. You know I'm right about that.

By the way, you received the title by being "the next one" I had to reply to. I stopped caring about the usernames about a year and a half ago. It sucks though because people often bring stuff into other threads. And I will have absolutely no idea what they're referring to, because I don't remember their username. Location helps a lot, as does having stuff to say. I remember YSSMAN because he's from Grand Rapids and he tends to know his stuff. But for those of you who fill in bogus locations, I guarantee, I don't know who you are. Unless you're, like, Duke, who for the entire time I've been here has never indicated his actual location.

Hmmm. Oh but I do appreciate you adding in the Volvo onto the wagon list.

The only one which surprised me. Who knew the V50 had more cargo room than the Outback?

By the way, neanderthal, you're right to some measure but I'm not about to take on another person who's arguing another completely different point.

 

[STLbarcelona5]

By the way, you received the title by being "the next one" I had to reply to. I stopped caring about the usernames about a year and a half ago. It sucks though because people often bring stuff into other threads. And I will have absolutely no idea what they're referring to, because I don't remember their username. Location helps a lot, as does having stuff to say. I remember YSSMAN because he's from Grand Rapids and he tends to know his stuff. But for those of you who fill in bogus locations, I guarantee, I don't know who you are. Unless you're, like, Duke, who for the entire time I've been here has never indicated his actual location.

Ho-Ho-Kus, New Jersey. It exists, has for 300 years. Not exactly bogus. Forgive me for not putting in GOOGLE MY TOWN under where it says Location:

And my dad was actually in the market for something V50ish, finding a manual was absolutely no problem.

Ohh. Neanderthal, nice touch. Definitely accurately describes my 6' 140lb physique. Very mature too...

 

[1X83Z]

Ho-Ho-Kus, New Jersey. It exists, has for 300 years. Not exactly bogus. Forgive me for not putting in GOOGLE MY TOWN under where it says Location:

And my dad was actually in the market for something V50ish, finding a manual was absolutely no problem.

Ohh. Neanderthal, nice touch. Definitely accurately describes my 6' 140lb physique. Very mature too...

Straight up, the funniest post I've ever read.

Okay first off: neanderthal is the username of the poster who posted directly before you. That line of my post was addressing him, not name-calling you. Haha, come on, that's a classic. I'm still laughing.

Also - I wasn't actually referring to you when I was talking about the whole user location thing, it was a general comment. Though your location had no meaning to me, I didn't actually look at it before making that post - it was just something I've observed over time. I'll give you an example: the starter of this thread's location is "Downhill, Sideways". Since that's not a real place, I'll never - ever - remember his username, which has no meaning to me as well. In essence, I remember using association, and since avatars change and usernames are often idiotic (my own included), and because I'm good with geography, I can remember places best of all. Understand?? It makes sense, I think.

When the V50 was being discussed, a few months prior to debut, Volvo originally announced they didn't plan to make a manual all-wheel drive V50, jokingly mentioning that they'd concede those 100 sales a year to BMW. I have no idea what changed their minds, but when the vehicle came out it did indeed carry that option. As I mentioned, the automatic is fitted to 94-97% of models.

 

[Poverty]

Great arguments both sides, and a natural, healthy spread of diverse opinion. In my opinion, it's an impossible task to determine whether SUV's are pointless or not. They've obviously found a niche and have proven to be particularly popular. BUT, that's not to say that they're not flawed. As on-road, urban commuters, typical SUV's are about as practical as a tennis racquet at a lacrosse game.

Many of these SUV's (and seeing that the X5 is a worthy example) are engineered to be tall, heavy, capacious, large and so on without having other remarkable attributes such as performance, fuel economy, ruggedness, ground clearance and so on. So, suffice to say, most of them in my opinion are purely image cars that sell under the emotional promise of status. Own an SUV and the whole world thinks you've made it.

I like SUVs, make no mistake, but I know for a fact that they're intrinsically flawed.

 

[Onikaze]

How odd, Ford and Dodge removed AWD from their Van lineup, must have decided to focus on making the smaller minivans...oops, I mean CUV's with AWD.

Given that I've never focused my ire on such as the Freestyle or Escape and it's ilk, perhaps it would do to notice where I refer to them as Minivans/Wagons.

Why?

Based on a car platform, tall wagon body, missing out on sliding doors, but hey.

As for the Freestyle, Ford uses F names for cars, Escape=CUV, Freestyle=500 Wagon.

Barring the AWD slip up (I was honestly shocked to learn Dodge had stopped offering it on their Grand Caravan, btw) I know for a fact that the only Minivan currently offered which is larger than a full size SUV is the Freestar.

Minivans average 190 Inches or so, full size SUV's 200.

So, yeah, even if the length was the only issue, which it isn't (height/center of gravity is), it's in the minivans favor anyways.

Re: 525XiT, I've never been a big fan of BMW Wagons myself, but I recalled seeing it, and sure enough I found the mention where I saw it, either way the 530XiT exists and is virtually the same thing.

Don't be a condescending ass.


On to the snow driving, have you missed where it's been pointed out and shown by people with experience that AWD only helps you start moving on snow, doing absolutely nothing to help stop or turn you?

No?

I'll reiterate, AWD doesn't help you stop or slow down, the only things that can help you stop or slow down on snow/ice, are skill, winter tires, and less vehicle mass to deal with.

An SUV most definitely wouldn't be easier to stop on snow/ice, as it is significantly heavier...this is basic physics here man.

Know where Audi's Quattro is so impressive? When you're going up a hill covered in snow/ice.

Besides that, it's really not that amazing.

Oh, my very first RWD Car was a 1991 Mercury Grand Marquis, when I bought it I lived in Louisville, in January a few years back, we had an ice storm that year, and the exact night that I got the car and drove it home, there were inches of ice on the roads, EVERYWHERE.

Not just snow, ice.

Didn't have winter tires, just a 302 and my awareness of how to drive.

Imagine my surprise when it was a simple matter of being smooth with my inputs, and taking note of my surroundings.

Driving on snow in a V-8 powered RWD Sedan with a paltry 150 Hp, but 270 Lb ft of Torque wasn't difficult at all.

Nevermind that it was awesomely fun in big empty parking lots, or that the first thing I did when I got it was spin it around and around in a Wal-Mart parking lot at 2 am to get a feel for the car.

Ordinary people can drive RWD cars, torquey ones too, on snow and ice. Don't be stupid.

Did I even dig up the figures showing that in accidents between Car's and SUV's, 98% of fatalities occur in the Car?

 

[Famine]

Since when do we "need" to get to 60mph in less than 10 seconds, anyway?

Um. Since the highway speed limit jumped from the 35mph it was back when cars did 0-60 in ten seconds to the 65mph it is today. I further implore you to attempt a two-lane pass in a minivan, particularly one of GM's minivans that are running 0-60 in the low elevens. Especially pass an eighteen wheeler. I've done this about sixty times in the last month and trust me - it was damn difficult in my 0-60 8.5 SUV. In a minivan running an 11.2sec 0-60 time, I'd probably have killed myself. No joke.

Much though I hate to hark back to the UK, our national speed limit - which can apply to some two lane roads (two lanes each way) - is 70mph, and the average car sold has a 0-62mph time of 10.6s.

I used to execute completely safe (and one not particularly safe) overtakes on ONE lane roads in my 13.5s Ford Fiesta 1.3i, and my girlfriend's 10.5s Clio 1.6i is perfectly adequate for the task. My "8.0s" MX-3 is overkill - I can take whole rows of cars out without a fuss.

Besides which, 0-60mph times have almost exactly nothing to do with overtaking/passing - typically 30-50mph or 50-70mph manouevres.

Did I even dig up the figures showing that in accidents between Car's and SUV's, 98% of fatalities occur in the Car?

In accidents between cars and bicycles, 99.999% of fatalities occur on the bicycle.

 

[Poverty]

Exactly, americans are just used to torquey high powered cars, and therefore find cars with 130hp etc a joke for everyday driving.

The germans seem to manage, as the avaerae car there has about 120hp.

 

[Dave A]

I don't find overtaking in my 306 that hard at all, that hit's 60 in around 13 seconds and I find no problem, all you do is drop a gear (assuming your cruising at low-mid revs before the overtake) and sail past. 0-60 isn't that important, sure theres nothing wrong with wanting a faster 0-60 time you sure as hell don't need it.

 

[Onikaze]

I find the irony of wanting faster 0-60 and defending SUV's hilarious though.

I mean, come on, two and a half to three ton behemoths here.

As for bicycles, I'm one of those crazy people who doesn't believe bicycles belong on heavily trafficed roads anymore, sidewalks or sidestreets please.

I used to use a bike as my main mode of transport, and I rode it on sidestreets, sidewalks, or gutters/the very edge of the road.

going from a Car to a bike, you're putting yourself at more risk, going from a Car to an SUV, you're putting everyone but yourself at more risk.

 

[Famine]

I find the irony of wanting faster 0-60 and defending SUV's hilarious though.

I mean, come on, two and a half to three ton behemoths here.

Where? Oh yes, I know! Here:

Length: 4807 mm
Width: 1918 mm
Height: 1390 mm
Weight: 2410 kg
Top speed: 190
0-62mph: 4.7
CO2 Emissions: 410g/km

Longer, wider, heavier, faster and more "carbondioxidifying" than the 5.7 V8 Jeep Commander. In fact the only "SUV" I can find that's bigger OR heavier is the supercharged Range Rover Vogue - and that's STILL less "carbondioxidifying" than the Bentley - and the Rolls Royce Phantom makes them both look like Ariel Atoms.

As for bicycles, I'm one of those crazy people who doesn't believe bicycles belong on heavily trafficed roads anymore, sidewalks or sidestreets please.

Ah, where they can be used to mow down pedestrians at 40mph. Cracking!

I used to use a bike as my main mode of transport, and I rode it on sidestreets, sidewalks, or gutters/the very edge of the road.

going from a Car to a bike, you're putting yourself at more risk, going from a Car to an SUV, you're putting everyone but yourself at more risk.

Except articulated lorries and vans (no idea what you'd call them - minivans without windows, used for delivering stuff). Oh, and not to mention reducing your own chances at avoiding an accident in the first place.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Ah, where they can be used to mow down pedestrians at 40mph. Cracking!

Do you have any statistics on bicycle and pedestrian accidents?

 

[Famine]

I could dig some out if you'd like.

In the UK riding a bicycle on the pavement (sidewalk) is illegal.

Edit:

167 reported pedestrian/cycle collisions in 2002 resulted in 170 pedestrian injuries (3 fatal, 40 serious) and 38 cyclist injuries (1 fatal, 9 serious).

 

[niky]

I'm not in this argument or even interested, but the word "overtaking" caught my eye. In my personal and earnest opinion, anyone who needs a car faster than 14 seconds to 60 to overtake is just spoiled.

As Famine has noted, overtaking at legal speeds is a breeze in any 1.6. Heck, it was a breeze in my old 1.3 Sentra (0-60: 13.5-14 seconds).

But our work-truck takes the cake for sluggishness. It's an Isuzu Crosswind, a seven-seat AUV or Asian Utility Vehicle. Think of it as a dinosaur-like, rear-wheel drive, leaf-spring suspended CUV with an anemic 85 hp, two ton curb weight and a 0-60 time of about half-a-minute, and a 0-80 time of about five minutes. 0-100? Try two days. Downhill. It'll never get there under its own power.

I've never had trouble passing anyone driving below 55 mph. And for anyone concerned with actually saving money at the diesel pumps, you don't really want to overtake anyone going over 60 on a two-lane anyway.

And he's also right on another point. 0-60 is a pointless statistic for passing. 30-50 is what matters most, but I find the idea of measuring 30-50 in gear like some car mags do pointless. I don't remember if it was R&T or C&D... I just remember finding the idea pointless, as what matters is 30-50 at full chat. I've just driven a diesel that only gets an 11.6 0-60 time, but can get to over 100 mph in very little time once it's past first gear.

By the way, my current car is an 8.2 second car. Yes, I'm spoiled. But seriously? I never use full power to overtake. Heck, most overtakes use only about 1/8th throttle travel.

Okay, I'm out.

 

[Onikaze]

Ah, in the U.S. Bicycles aren't illegal on the sidewalks,and sidewalks generally aren't that crowded.

American's don't walk anymore, we drive...SUV's, everywhere.

As for mowing down people on the sidewalk, reminds me of a comedian skit on SUV's and Cellphones.

"Oh hey Margie, how are you doing? Oh me, I'm fine, doing 50 down a sidewalk..*WHUMP* oops, hit someone, so how are the kids?"

Btw, I've seen statistics that show an impact with an SUV is more damaging than one with a car of the same weight, so I'd rather be hit by a Bentley.

 

[Famine]

Post 'em. I've seen stats which say the exact opposite - because the SUV front is so big, the force of impact is spread over a much larger area of the impacted body and, unlike in other cars where the head will strike the bonnet (usually in an area where there's a honking great, solid engine underneath) causing severe head injuries, the SUV's tall front prevents this.


As you'll see from the stats above, there were 4 fatalities last year in l'il ol' UK from pedestrian/cyclist collisions. Not particularly funny.

 

[Duke]

Famine: I believe Onikaze was referring to collisions between vehicles and SUVs, not pedestrians and SUVs. And there, the SUV's taller height means that it is more like to impact well above the bumper of the other vehicle, causing more damage in general and more distortion to the passenger cabin.

On the subject of Doug, you need to remember that he lives at high altitude, in the mountains, and surrounded mostly by large highways. Therefore, acceleration is king in his estimation, because it's what he needs most. He also, as most of you have figured out, assumes that anything not meeting his personal criteria is cack.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

As you'll see from the stats above, there were 4 fatalities last year in l'il ol' UK from pedestrian/cyclist collisions. Not particularly funny.

You must have fast cyclists. I find it weird since when I used to ride a bike, my biggest problem was crossing the street, of course from sidewalk to sidewalk. But that's not really on-topic

 

[Onikaze]

Here ya go.

This study was very important because it examined how many car occupants killed in accidents with SUVs might have survived had the accidents involved passenger cars weighing the same as SUVs. This is in important finding, because auto manufacturers have maintained that the weight of SUVs make them dangerous to smaller cars, not the design.

That's from about 2/3rds down that page.

I wasn't talking about bicycles, though I've been hit by a car on a bike, and I think I'd rather be hit by a lower car and roll up the hood, than bounce my head off the hood.

 

[Famine]

Here ya go.

I thought you were talking vehicle/pedestrian collisions (where the stats say you're safer if you're hit by an SUV).

In SUV/car collisions it's obvious that the SUV occupants are less likely to be killed. But what about semi-truck/SUV collisions? How about minivan/SUV collisions? RV/car collisions?

Why is this even relevant anyway?

 

[Onikaze]

Because SUV's make up the largest growing segment of American Auto Sales.

At the same time, since the beginning of the SUV trend, America has dropped from 5th, to 9th in Automotive Fatalities, in the world.

They are dangerous, I believe in another thread I compared them to people waving guns at everyone around them, because they want to feel safe and need the room.

Someone else said, yeah, but cars are dangerous, it's like a normal car is a .38, an SUV is a .45 and a Semi is a Shotgun.

I pointed out that I rarely see Semi's on the road, and that may change depending on where you live, but in America anyways, SUV's are more and more widespread.

Then I said, sure, normal cars are .38's, but they are also bulletproof vests, and you will probably survive a car to car collision.

SUV's are M-16's and Ballistic armor, eliminating the safety of the vest, and Semi's are Miniguns, capable of killing more people faster than any other vehicle, but unwieldy and not as easy for anyone to just get a hold of.

It seems like a pretty good analogy to me.

 

[Wolfe]

I'm tired of trying to argue with M5Power -- though I'm worried that that's exactly what he wants us to do...to get tired of his horrible logic and reading skills and give up -- so I'll make this post relatively short.

You're right. I should buy a 1994 Dodge Caravan rather than a brand new SUV because it makes you feel better about yourself.

I never said anything about making you feel better about yourself -- I'm talking about recognizing what you need in a vehicle, and what you want in a vehicle.

That's why I find this post rather funny --

By the way, neanderthal, you're right to some measure but I'm not about to take on another person who's arguing another completely different point.

Completely different point? Neanderthal summed up pretty much everything that several of us have been saying from the beginning...that SUVs are far from necessary for most of their buyers, and that SUV purchases are often made on the basis of "wants" rather than "needs."

I think you're on a completely different point from nearly every single other person in this thread. We're talking about whether or not SUV's are necessary -- you seem to be trying desparately to push the idea that SUV's are popular and that people will buy them. Yeah? So? What's your point?

See, with that in mind, the friction and head-butting that is going on in this thread makes sense:

- You say, "people buy SUVs because of X."
- We say, "yeah, but they don't need X."
- You, for whatever insane reason, decide that we're saying "no, people don't want X," and come back with "you're a 🤬 . I'm right, you're wrong. God, you're so wrong it hurts. How could you possibly be so stupid? EVERYONE wants X on their vehicle. That's why they buy SUVs, morons."
- We offer several alternative vehicles that also have X.
- You A. deny that X exists on those vehicles B. label them "prohibitively expensive," or C. disqualify them because of something you don't like about them, while claiming that every "ordinary" person feels the same way as you do.



Get a clue, and join the discussion on the same page that we're on. Then, stop projecting your ideals, beliefs, and fears onto the public en masse, and make your points while keeping this little disclaimer in mind -- you might be wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, and that includes you, me, and every other poster in this thread (well, except for Famine. He's infallible. ).

Do those things, and maybe people will stop picking on you in here. Hell, maybe what we're saying will start making sense, and you won't have to agonize over the fact that you post in a forum with nothing but "morons."

Of course, if you're emotionally masochistic, you can continue what you've already been doing in here...it's your choice.

 

[Famine]

Because SUV's make up the largest growing segment of American Auto Sales.

And pick-ups make up the largest segment of all.

Who'd win, Dodge Ram or Honda CR-V?

At the same time, since the beginning of the SUV trend, America has dropped from 5th, to 9th in Automotive Fatalities, in the world.

Isn't that a good thing?

*stuff about guns*

And neither are dangerous until an idiot gets hold of them - of themselves they do absolutely no harm to anyone. My next-door neighbours Rangie has not, yet, tried to drive into my car and kill me, while parked.